When GD made it 2-1 it should have been game on. Kitch Man City are the only team weve not beaten since the Pozzos got us to the top table. I saw enough to think if we got to the cup final and played them we could have a shot at it. But like Saturday it's unlikely, maybe a 1 in 6 chance of not losing.
Just my opinion, with my Watford hat off & based on likely probability. They were the better/more attacking team in the first half, although we gave a very good account. You can never measure the impact of conceding first, regardless of whether it was a clean or a disputed goal, but I would suggest the stats do indicate something & that something is not in our favour. Depends which way you look at it. Sometimes it galvanises teams on when they go behind, as per the Spurs v S'ton game yesterday.
Man City will be the better more attacking team every time we play them when they have unlimited funding. Best get used to it. Every single season. Of course the first goal has a significant negative impact when we are set up to contain. To argue it might be a positive to concede an offside goal in a game where we are 20-1 underdogs and it would galvanise us to go on to better things is bizarre. The whole gameplan was to frustrate and the referee directly put that out of the window with his idiotic ruling.
I 'm pretty certain they are the only team we are yet to take a even point of off. Beaten all the other top six sides. Huddersfield were the only side we hadn't got a point off until we stuffed them earlier this season.
Wasn't implying going behind would help us, but if you're going to use a theory that a team scoring first has a distinct advantage in the sense that will assist them scoring further goals because of the psychology, it's only fair to balance that out with it can work the other way around too. Money/cost of squad has nothing to do with it. This won't win any admirers (& feel free to snipe) but even if we scored first yesterday I would still say we would have lost the game based on the final stats. We had 1 shot on target which was the goal we scored.
Hmmm, good point well made. However, I must assure you that I’m not a neutral and will defend such slurs to my utmost. I’ve done my time across the decades home and away bla bla bla. Even today I revisited my town of birth and reluctantly attended the global buffet in the former Clements, Watford high street. Surely my luncheon ventures are proof beyond compare of my loayality to the noble Hornet cause? I actually meant that it was obviously fascinating from a Horn perspective but that even for neutrals it was a compelling 1st half intriguingly poised.
Seem to work for Wolves. Chelsea v Wolves Possession Home 76% Away 24% Shots Home 22 Away 2 Shots on Target Home 6 Away 1 Corners Home 13 Away 0 Fouls Home 8 Away 14
The thing is, if you have set up the team to contain and then go a goal behind it would take about 4 subs just to set up the team to change the way they were playing and capable of trying to go toe-to-toe with City and quite likely to cause us to lose by even more. On another point altogether, in previous seasons we have got better and better at playing the top 6 and indeed last year did well. This year I feel we are, for the first time, going on the pitch looking to compete equaly with them and so far we have come up just a bit short but I honestly feel like we are very close to a breakthrough.
Comparing Chelsea with MC is hardly a reliable comparison is it. The attacking threat is miles apart. 29+ goals & 17+ points.
Yes, I understand this argument/theory etc. It was a bad/unfortunate decision, but personally I don't think it would have affected the final outcome if that didn't happen against 'this particular' opposition. Could be wrong of course. It's hypothetical & we'll never know.
Maybe it’s been mentioned already, and I’ve just missed it, but I’m assuming from the lack of a card afterwards, the ref missed Silva’s hand of God moment? Also thought the Cleverley card was quite soft, and given his game, blunted his ability to snap at City somewhat.
Ok, how about this then? Wolverhampton Wanderers 1 Manchester City 1 28.9 Possession % 71.1 1 Shots on target 6 11 Shots 18 433 Touches 844 260 Passes 644 19 Tackles 9 35 Clearances 11 5 Corners 9 4 Offsides 3 1 Yellow cards 2 13 Fouls conceded 8
This season we have taken points of every team barring 5 of the top 6! This is the first season I believe we have done this, This shows how consistent we are at taking points from games except the elite! Progress has been made, hopefully next season we will be able to turn some of the defeats into draws and may even better our cursory single top six win per season!
Even more likely to have lost if we’d scored the first two. Tierney would have been in overdrive to be MotM.
V similar, btw, to the promo season, if I remember. The q I have is, where/how did Wolves drop their points vs the bottom 14. I haven’t seen it for ages but I imagine we’re beasting it for Bottom 14 trophy. A testament to the discipline which Javi instils.
Which is the whole point of people making the comments they are about how the decision completely changed the match....
Incident beginning to be airbrushed from history now. No mention of the decision in Metro just gushing about Raheem’s hat trick and how Man City need to take one game at a time.
It would help if the Referees were interviewed after the game and given their views of the major decisions, however it appears what they say goes whether it is correct or not!
PGMOL - the organisation that employs the referees - has apparently issued a statement confirming Tierney got it wrong. They quoted former ref Chris Foy saying: That's as close as we'll get to 'sorry'.
I believe Sterling was offside when the ball was played through to Aguero for the second goal however nothing was said about that!
True. One thing is certain.If Betty had been the ref on Saturday she would not have allowed the first Jeff Stelling 'goal'.
He was offside, but the ball wasn't played directly to him, it was passed to Aguero. This is allowed. When the ball was squared to him, he was still offside, however, he was not ahead of the ball. This type of goal was correct and is a clever way to use the offside rule. City score 100's of goals like this, and their passing is so quick that is baffles the officials, so even when City get the move wrong and a player is actually offside, there is a high chance the goal will stand anyway. In the past, City have scored quite a few offside goals against us, that should have been disallowed, but were allowed to stand. I think their speed of play, the low standard of officiating in England, and just old fashion bias plays a large part in why this continually happens.
Cue the latest ******** phrase being used, “you make your own luck” which seems codewords for quite a lot of decisions go with these teams.
I think technically that was okay on the different phases of play rule, but I agree it is a nonsense.
Sterling was in an 'offside position' when the ball was played through to Aguero. But it's not an offence in the laws to be in an offside position alone. And then he was onside for the cross so there's no case to answer there.
I've noticed this before. I suspect Pep encourages his forwards to be in behind the defenders but onside by not interfering with play. It's playing up to but not breaking the rules. At home every call goes in their favour even when City get it wrong so its also a percentage play. Add in a few incompetent refs like Tierney and you can see why they do it.
Its been done for years, remember Arsenal and Thierry Henry running us ragged by simply walking into offside positions whilst runners from deep pick up the ball in acres of space
Paul Tierney has held his hands up and admitted he got it wrong. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ard-Sterlings-controversial-opening-goal.html "I know it was the wrong decision, but I had to do something. City were struggling to break this Watford team down so what can you do? It's cruel to see City suffer like that, so I did what any right minded official would do in the circumstances."
And that's why referee's shouldn't be involved in off-side decisions when behind the motion of play. We've had some **** referee's this season but at least they keep their nose out of it mostly when it comes to offsides.
