Manchester City Vs Tottenham: Match Thread

[jezz]

I care because it's embarrassing seeing Spurs fans moaning about it on Twitter.

Twitter avoid.

 

[chinaman]

To summarise;
THAT, my fellow Premier league teams, is how fucking good you have to be just to get a single point off of us!

And may I add 'how much you have to spend on your team to get anything out of us".

 

[tiger666]

Twitter avoid.

Well, true enough. Amend to "I care because it's embarrassing seeing Spurs fans moaning about it."

 

[Krafty]

First half felt very much like a game from five years ago or so, when one team dominates, creates chances, but doesn't score and ultimately gets beat - usually it was Spurs on top but ultimately missing out on the win!

Great to get a point from 2-0 down, against megabucks City, away from home, when playing so poorly.

On the flip side, we looked all at sea in that first half, even when we switched formation. Kane, Dele and Eriksen were not in the game at all (although when we did try to get forward you could see we could do something if we were even half competent).

System got exposed, and individually Wimmer looked at sea both positionally and decision making wise, and I think that added to our lack of shape and organisation. Add in the usual suicidal decision making when playing out from the back, and it gave City a lot of hope.

I think the two in support of Kane were too ambitious and did not work hard enough to get back to shore up the midfield - but that might be more tactical than the individuals' fault.

All part of the learning curve for this side, and the fact we have the mental strength and ability to recover from playing poorly, two goalkeeping errors, and draw away to one of the best/richest teams in the league, is a massive positive.

Probably very lucky that we have Wycombe next and we can take it a touch easier.

 

[jezz]

Well, true enough. Amend to "I care because it's embarrassing seeing Spurs fans moaning about it."

Fair enough

 

[Ionman34]

Reading the views here on the Walker push, particularly the fears of retrospective action, I had a read of the law to see how clear it was. After reading the ruling, I think there's a case to argue it wasn't a penalty at all. The law actually states the following;

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless:

• The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or

Fair enough, the dot point includes pushing, but the operative wording is that the push denies the opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
I think it can be argued that Walker didn't, as Sterling still got off a shot that Lloris was required to save. In other words, he wasn't DENIED an obvious goal scoring opportunity as the save had to be made.

As with most laws, it is open to interpretation but, in regard to the possibility of retrospective I can't see that sticking for the above reasons.

I certainly feel that the FA would need a compelling argument to do so anyway.

 

[Drink!Drink!]

Remarkable to think that our central midfield two at the end of the first half dier and wanyama, finished the game as our centre back pairing

#Resilient

 

[DIEHARD]

Reading the views here on the Walker push, particularly the fears of retrospective action, I had a read of the law to see how clear it was. After reading the ruling, I think there's a case to argue it wasn't a penalty at all. The law actually states the following;

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned unless:

• The offence is holding, pulling or pushing or

Fair enough, the dot point includes pushing, but the operative wording is that the push denies the opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
I think it can be argued that Walker didn't, as Sterling still got off a shot that Lloris was required to save. In other words, he wasn't DENIED an obvious goal scoring opportunity as the save had to be made.

As with most laws, it is open to interpretation but, in regard to the possibility of retrospective I can't see that sticking for the above reasons.

I certainly feel that the FA would need a compelling argument to do so anyway.

Clutching at straws man. If Kane was in that position and otamendi pushed him, we would be berating the decision

I agree though there is no chance for retrospective action

 

[Ionman34]

Clutching at straws man. If Kane was in that position and otamendi pushed him, we would be berating the decision

I agree though there is no chance for retrospective action

Far from it. As I said, the ruling allows for interpretation in the wording. Ultimately a ruling would need to be made, but there is most definitely scope to argue that he did not DENY Sterling a goal scoring opportunity. Sterling got the shot off, on target, with pace that forced a save...

A goal scoring opportunity.

That isn't clutching at straws, there's no need to as nothing was awarded, that is offering a cogent counter argument.

 

[RichieS]

It's just a "tee hee" moment of the highest order.

Walker's post match interview may as well have gone "trolololo".