EPL - Manchester United vs Manchester City - Sep 20
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
true, but when carrick was sent in, the commentators remark that it was to make the referee "add" more time instead.. logical?
it wouldn't be logical if late subs were a time wasting tactic all this while, right?
then suddenly in extra time, u squeeze out extra extra time?
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
true, but when carrick was sent in, the commentators remark that it was to make the referee "add" more time instead.. logical?
Good move by SAF.
But I think Mark Hughes has a valid grouse that the referee added too much time in addition to the 4 minutes of extra time.
Even with the substitution, he should have only allowed for at most 5 minutes in total.
Owen scored at 5 1/2 minutes into injury time if I can recall correctly.
-
Originally posted by kopiosatu:
it wouldn't be logical if late subs were a time wasting tactic all this while, right?
then suddenly in extra time, u squeeze out extra extra time?
I do see ur points, but it seems, that for this time, SAF is "tricking" the referee to unconsciously add in the time for one final MU push than to "take" time out.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Good move by SAF.
But I think Mark Hughes has a valid grouse that the referee added too much time in addition to the 4 minutes of extra time.
Even with the substitution, he should have only allowed for at most 5 minutes in total.
Owen scored at 5 1/2 minutes into injury time if I can recall correctly.
yes, maybe, just maybe, someone "up" there, wants to see a city lost..
-
ayiah debate here, what's the point
man city don't complain then there will never be official reports on how the time was added
-
city really need a better manager.
hughes doesnt seem to know what to do.
he didnt do anything when they were under constant attack.
man u were the better side but they owe their winning goal to the referee who played 6 1/2 instead of 4 mins injury time.
-
actually hughes did a change
and caused man city to kena under constant attack
-
Originally posted by kopiosatu:
it wouldn't be logical if late subs were a time wasting tactic all this while, right?
then suddenly in extra time, u squeeze out extra extra time?
Substitutions are allocated 30 seconds almost every one knows this i guess... Most substitutions are done before the 90 therefore the "extra time" added at the end together with any injury time. You are also correct that sometimes a sub is made during added time to waste time, but how they waste time could be slowly walking off and slowly getting into position but the referee could still stop his watch or add time onto it I guess... There is nothing wrong to it... If a player gets injured during added time and stays down for 2 mins, I belief 2 mins will be added onto the added time as well... And if you are allocated time before the 90, then I don't see any reason why you don't get after the 90...Ferguson was not pleased that Martin Atkinson was appointed for Sunday’s derby, a man he still believed eliminated United from the FA Cup against Portsmouth two seasons ago. A penalty should have been given but he didn't gave...
Laws of the game are specific in saying that “the allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee” and so Atkinson cannot be faulted technially for finding an extra 2 minutes in addition to the four minutes he allowed at the end of the second half... City's celebrations and Carrick's substitutions and United's own celebrations are good reason for the added time I guess... At the end, only the losers will try to make it an excuse... But they can only blame themselves for not keeping their defence well until the final whistle...
-
Anyone noticed that all the goal scorers were English?
-
if late subs just add on to the time
then what for do it when it doesn't end the game earlier?
unless they are constantly gambling that the referee will keep the time running while the fella is slowly walking off.
-
Originally posted by sand king:
Anyone noticed that all the goal scorers were English?
british / UK u mean
-
Originally posted by kopiosatu:
if late subs just add on to the time
then what for do it when it doesn't end the game earlier?
unless they are constantly gambling that the referee will keep the time running while the fella is slowly walking off.
Well, I guess there are lots of reason for it...Like replacing a tired player... or adding someone who has other qualities to the replaced player? Like better crossing, penalty takers or free-kick takers or a long range shooter or even just to disrupt the opponent's momentum and formation...
Bottomline is, there is no reason you are not allow to use up your 3 subs... Maybe even just put in a more experienced player for a young one like in this case... Or it could even be just adding Carrick's game count to the season? lol
Its all in the discretion of the manager...
-
Originally posted by kopiosatu:
british / UK u mean
Yeah, they were all Brits. Would like to see this more often, I'm watching the ENGLISH.PL to begin with. I support the 6+5 rulling totally.
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
Substitutions are allocated 30 seconds almost every one knows this i guess... Most substitutions are done before the 90 therefore the "extra time" added at the end together with any injury time. You are also correct that sometimes a sub is made during added time to waste time, but how they waste time could be slowly walking off and slowly getting into position but the referee could still stop his watch or add time onto it I guess... There is nothing wrong to it... If a player gets injured during added time and stays down for 2 mins, I belief 2 mins will be added onto the added time as well... And if you are allocated time before the 90, then I don't see any reason why you don't get after the 90...Ferguson was not pleased that Martin Atkinson was appointed for Sunday’s derby, a man he still believed eliminated United from the FA Cup against Portsmouth two seasons ago. A penalty should have been given but he didn't gave...
Laws of the game are specific in saying that “the allowance for time lost is at the discretion of the referee” and so Atkinson cannot be faulted technially for finding an extra 2 minutes in addition to the four minutes he allowed at the end of the second half... City's celebrations and Carrick's substitutions and United's own celebrations are good reason for the added time I guess... At the end, only the losers will try to make it an excuse... But they can only blame themselves for not keeping their defence well until the final whistle...
Well said.
While it's true that the ref seemed to add too much time, that's still hardly an excuse for Man City to let in the final goal. It was their own weak defence that let in the goal. They could have parked a bus in front of their own goal and just soak up every Man U attack to get away with one point.
Want to blame the referee also, it can still be argued that he did it within reasonable limits, and it is up to him as to how much should be added. I remember a World Cup match many years ago where the referee added almost nine minutes.
If Man City had scored in the 96th minute, would Mark Hughes be complaining over the extra time? No.....
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
If Man City had scored in the 96th minute, would Mark Hughes be complaining over the extra time? No.....
Winning statement.
-
Even before the season started, many people have reckoned the defence would be the weak link.
Man City has the fire power, but defence-wise, probably needs 1 or 2 top class defenders to balance the team.
-
this match confirmed one thing. foster is not ready and suited to the stage at man utd. he is a good goalie with potential, but not a great one. utd need a great goalie like VDS or Peter Schmeical type. Foster reminds me of the potential of Carroll and Howard many years ago, but they didnt make it at Utd.
Foster would do well at watford or even Blackburn or Sunderland, but not at the top 4 clubs. how many times have you seen foster fumbled, coming out to punch the ball to an opponent, or his kicking problems reminded me of Bosnich, not to mention his slow decision making and his lack of confidence in his right leg. If he indeed succeed VDS as utd no 1, I think he will costs utd progression to CL or worse, the league title.
Remmeber Carroll fumbling at 2005 CL at OT against AC Milan, scored by the on loan crespo. what about howard fumbled a shot against Porto in the last minute of the CL in 2004.
I hope fergie dun make his previous goalie mistake again and better bid for buffon or cech to succeed VDS long term, however much they costs. if a lesser goalie than Peter Schmeical was in goal at the CL 99 finals against bayern, bayern would have won the match. It was schmeical who kept utd in the match before 2 injury time goal won it for utd. goalie is especially important, as his saves and heroics will account for either winning or losing the match or titles. if not, why fergie go buy VDS in 2005 and not kept faith in howard then? because he knew that howard doesnt have what it takes to do well at a top club. remember Taibi lol
Arsenal is a case in point. Almunia is good, but not a great goalie. He has made quite a few fumbles in goalkeeping. i rate Lehman better than Almunia although Lehman is also dodgy at times. If Arsenal want to win trophies, better find a great goalie. Great goalie also made mistakes sometimes, but their presence inspire confidence and their saves can win you matches.
-
Not too sure if people noticed after the goal was scored when Foster fumbled.
The television panned to a shot of VDS and a kid (his son maybe? ) sitting beside him in the stands and VDS was seen telling the kid something.
Probably some advice like: "If you are the goalie and have the fucking ball and the opposing striker is charging towards you, kick the damn ball out instead of trying to outdribble the striker"
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Not too sure if people noticed after the goal was scored when Foster fumbled.
The television panned to a shot of VDS and a kid (his son maybe? ) sitting beside him in the stands and VDS was seen telling the kid something.
Probably some advice like: "If you are the goalie and have the fucking ball and the opposing striker is charging towards you, kick the damn ball out instead of trying to outdribble the striker"
the problem is foster is already quite limited in his skills, does he really think he is as skilled as barthez, who often tried to fool and dribble past strikers charging in? Does he really think he is really a top class goalie? I think not. Look how many times he hesitated, slow decision making and his right feet simply cannot make it. Barthez is so much better in his right foot kicking than foster. I hope this once and for all, prove that he simply isnt suitable to be utd no 1 goalie after VDS retire. If not, we are going to relive the days of carroll, howard, bosnich and taibi all over again.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
the problem is foster is already quite limited in his skills, does he really think he is as skilled as barthez, who often tried to fool and dribble past strikers charging in? Does he really think he is really a top class goalie? I think not. Look how many times he hesitated, slow decision making and his right feet simply cannot make it. Barthez is so much better in his right foot kicking than foster. I hope this once and for all, prove that he simply isnt suitable to be utd no 1 goalie after VDS retire. If not, we are going to relive the days of carroll, howard, bosnich and taibi all over again.
The commentators were also saying Foster did well when playing championship football.
But when playing against top premier league teams, he just looks out of place.
Maybe it's a confidence issue or psychological thing.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Not too sure if people noticed after the goal was scored when Foster fumbled.
The television panned to a shot of VDS and a kid (his son maybe? ) sitting beside him in the stands and VDS was seen telling the kid something.
Probably some advice like: "If you are the goalie and have the fucking ball and the opposing striker is charging towards you, kick the damn ball out instead of trying to outdribble the striker"
there is also a lack of communication betwen ferdinand and foster, as they are quite near each other when the ball came in. if foster wants to claim the ball he should have sprinted out and he sort of like hesitated and then chut pattern when he realised tevez is so damn near him to challenge for the ball.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
The commentators were also saying Foster did well when playing championship football.
But when playing against top premier league teams, he just looks out of place.
Maybe it's a confidence issue or psychological thing.
championship and BPL or EPL, the gulf is so wide you know lol. he did well while on loan at watford just goes to show that he is only suited for clubs like watford or burnley and not utd. the stage is too big for him to fill at utd. besides he is not as talented as others said he is. I see a top goalie when I see one, cos class is permanent, form is temporary. foster sadly neither has form nor class. does fergie want to kid himself when he said foster can be england no 1 at next year world cup lol. its true that confidence plays a part, cos he has little confidence in his own ability, as he know he is not in the same class as Reina or Cech or VDS.
Time for Thomas Kucszak to claim the goalie jersey before VDS returned from his injury. Its fair that Thommo is given the chance to show what he can do, since foster time and again fumble.
-
Ty For revenging
haha -
Originally posted by charlize:
Even before the season started, many people have reckoned the defence would be the weak link.
Man City has the fire power, but defence-wise, probably needs 1 or 2 top class defenders to balance the team.
Joleon Lescott was a sensible buy.
And that was probably their only truly sensible buy.
But they definitely need to shore up their defence in the next transfer window.
Somehow, I get the feeling that the sheikhs who's supplying the moolah is pressuring Hughes to spend on top-quality strikers for their entertainment.... to hell with defence!
-
Originally posted by sand king:
Yeah, they were all Brits. Would like to see this more often, I'm watching the ENGLISH.PL to begin with. I support the 6+5 rulling totally.
well, I think UK is better cause bellamy is wales... and not a brit if U ask him..