It was more the shame of our woeful lack of fight after going 1-0 down, than any special brilliance from Utd. Yes, we badly missed Sandro in front of our back four. However, there are no excuses for the way we just fell apart, and rolled over. Yes you had Vidic missing - Sorry, but Rio is finished at the top level,. IMO. In the end, though, the scoreline reflected, far more, our miserable capitulation, than anything exceptional from Utd.
Difference is though, Luke. Whilst you were missing 3 defenders and a striker. We had King, Gallas, Sandro, Modric, Palacios and Crouch were injured, with half fit Jenas and Huddlestone being included on the bench because we simply didn't have anyone else. missing our first choice centre backs, just like you but with the addition of 5 centre mids meaning we fielded our inexperienced 6th choice with someone who we don't play in centre mid. I'm not excusing anything, we lost, you deserved to win but it was a tough situation for us.
One more correction of your biased assessment. We didn't "resist" for an hour, we COMPETED, and at least matched you in that time. It's what followed the first goal, that I have issue with.
...fail! Luke, it was our long awaited first game of the season...so when you've quite finished gloating...
In Tottenham's favour Rio and Vidic were out In Utd's favour they had home advantage, Tottenham had no fully fit senior central midfielders available, the media had been tapping up Modric all summer, the officials favoured Utd (such as letting the thug Jones foul Bale and then yell at him to get up)
Defending is a collective responsibilty. Something we achieved very well against AC Milan, but failed dismally to do at OT.
Unusually I'm with LIDL on this one - pedantically the added time is to make up for time lost to ensure that the full 90 mins is available
Ensil - I think the concept is that it is not additional, in practice it is almost always underestimated I think
Err - no it doesn't - the longer it is then the more advantage there is for the losing team who have longer to equalise. An equalising goal is worth a lot more than an additional one for the winners. Much better if the clock was stopped during stoppages as in Rugby, so that there could be no possibiity of bias
It's a proven fact that United get more time added on when losing/drawing than any other team, I think it was the Guardian or someone like that who came up with the research. When United aren't winning at half time no less than 2 minutes of time is added on, minimum of 4 minutes at the 90 minute mark.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/fink_tank/article6887985.ece There's one study of it.^ There are others, too.
The Scousers are really bitter, aren't they? How sad. You're actually backing up the survey, Lidls. Man Utd get less stoppage time than everyone at home when they're winning and more than everyone when they're losing. Don't you think that teams use the same timewasting tactics when they're beating anyone else?
You again? Got today's quota of hubcaps already, have we? In the extremely unlikely event that you have something intelligent to add, please feel free to come back. Otherwise, kindly **** off!
Nice attempt to totally dodge the point. Utd got more time than everyone when they weren't winning and less when they were. Basically, what they would have wanted. The average overall figure is misleading.
