That's the argument I'm trying to make, it's never isolated incidents. It always happens in several games in a season. The Wigan incident isn't likely to have changed the outcome of the game, you were A) getting battered and B) had had a get out of jail free card getting a goal disallowed for a non-existent infringement in the first half. Against Chelsea, 2 extremely questionable penalties in the space of a few minutes when you're 3-0 down to bring it to 3-2. A red card against QPR in the first few minutes, as well as a penalty, now odds tell us you would probably have won that game anyway, but a resurgent QPR fighting for survival, we all saw what happened when you played Blackburn at OT earlier in the season. Playing against 10 men with a free goal thrown in to really give you that extra advantage, for most of the game, you're going to sit there in denial and pretend that the game couldn't have played out differently had that not been given? And that's without even considering the psychology of it. The match against Chelsea, had it gone how it should you'd have 1 point less on the board. But is that really true? I bet there'd have been other points dropped after that. It played an important part in keeping the gap closed on City, it was the start of an 8 game winning run. Are you seriously going to sit there and pretend that getting a draw away at Chelsea after being 3-0 down doesn't have a significant effect on the players psychologically? That makes a difference, that will have certainly been the catalyst for the 8 wins on the bounce. Losing like you deserved wouldn't have ended the season, not by a long shot, but I guarantee it wouldn't have given your players a feeling of being unbeatable, or even untouchable. No matter how you want to spin it, doesn't matter if your tiny brain can't comprehend it, but these decisions change seasons. The go-to quote is always "these things even themselves out over the course of the season", which is true in most cases, but it doesn't seem it in this one. Poor refereeing seems to be giving you points you don't deserve all the time, but not causing you to drop points that you deserved. So how does that not change a season?
You win some you lose some. Today we were unlucky not to of had a second penalty. Thats the big talking point here. Midweek we could of had another, could of got us a draw. It wont matter tbh as we will win the league by more than a point imo.
This is why I love Stoke. Not only do they compete with the big teams and regularly beat them, but they do it in a way that inspires maximum bitterness in whiny opposition fans and managers. In many ways, they are the ideal way to run a PL team that can't compete financially with the rich boys. Much the same way Utd are the ideal way to run a team that can compete financially with the other rich clubs
Excellent bit of subjectivity there. Using the same logic: - The psychological effect of the penalty we should have been given against Stoke was the reason we drew with Basel at home in the CL - The psychological effect of the dodgy free kick Adam got for Liverpool against us at Anfield was the reason we lost to City 6-1 the following week - The psychological effect of the non penalty Newcastle got at OT was the reason we lost to Palace in the League Cup and away to Basel in the CL Look at that. Clear 'evidence' of how the bad refereeing decisions that occurred earlier in the season are the reason we went out of the League Cup and CL, and have 'psychologically' prevented us from having a 10 point league in the PL. Damn those referees for ruining our season...
There was a penalty not given against Wigan? Funny there's no mention of it anywhere. The questionable decision was to do with the corner that lead to their goal, that they deserved anyway. The talking point is the dive that Young made, he went into it. He made the contact with the defender who was obviously making an attempt to get out of the way, with the intention of avoiding giving away a penalty. As for "oh we'll win it by more than a point anyway" rubbish, you've not read a word I've said because you're an idiot who cares little for anyone's opinion but your own, which in turn makes your opinion worthless. You don't respect the opinions of others, why should I respect yours? I shouldn't, so I won't. On top of that it's hopeless namecalling and bollocks anyway. These decisions and the timing of them change games and change seasons. And if there's no bias and you always get fair refereeing, how is it every time Howard Webb referees a game of yours, there's a questionable or even blatantly wrong decision given? Every time. It's not isolated incidents, this is continued poor refereeing in favour of your team. Always. The context of a bad decision has as much of an impact, if not a bigger impact, than the direct consequences of the decision. Like I said, there's no use complaining about a penalty you didn't get when you were already 2-0 up and not looking like conceding, then using it as the basis of an argument for "oh well we get just as many against as for", because the decisions against are, 9 times out of 10, in non game changing situations. The decisions for are 9 times out of 10, in game changing situations.
Thanks guys.. We (Stoke) have not been beaten by ANY of the so called top teams at home this season.. only Arsenal to play now. We've had some luck as shown by that table fair enough. We ALL get good breaks and bad one's. I wager half those who put that table toghether never watch a full 90mins. Re Europe it was great while it lasted.. See you next season Utd fans. At least you never give us grief. Win, lose or draw same with Sir Alex. Hope to welcome you too the Britannia next season as CHAMPIONS... will you win it? For me the bets are off, YOU get it done always have always will. Any Utd fan who has a spare ticket from the Citeh Derby can I have first refusal? THAT will be some game. GOOD Luck!
Congrats on showing how blinkered you really are http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...after-1-0-win-to-underdogs-at-DW-Stadium.html "The champions can complain about poor second-half decisions from Phil Dowd, gifting Wigan the corner from which the outstanding Shaun Maloney scored and then denying United a penalty when Maynor Figueroa handled" http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/apr/11/wigan-manchester-united-premier-league-report "The league leaders did have a clear penalty rejected when Maynor Figueroa handled Jones's cross with 18 minutes remaining, and they could dispute the corner that led to Wigan's winner." The only reason you didn't hear about it is that Utd were happy to admit we weren't good enough and the bad decisions didn't affect that. Whereas whenever the decision goes in our favour you lot can't shut up about how it influenced the entire course of the game or some other such ****...
That is a fair point, one I am willing to hear and argue with, unlike that clown UIR. The Stoke penalty, could go either way really. Probably a fair point, I didn't see it. The free kick was won by Suarez after being fouled by Ferdinand, which Gerrard then scored. There was no questionable decision and you were lucky to get an equaliser in that game. I would argue that the loss against Man City was entirely down to being outplayed. The non-penalty for Newcastle, I'll give you that one. But I doubt it's going to have much of an effect on a game in a competition that your manager openly admits on a regular basis means nothing to him. The Champion's League loss is fair enough and could very well have been affected. Although I still believe getting 2 wrong decisions your way in a single game to bring you level from 3-0 down, it's pretty drastic and makes me wonder why Howard Webb is still allowed to referee your games. I think the Newcastle penalty was put down to bad luck and put to bed with an away win at Aston Villa before you even got to your Champion's League game. Had there been a loss shortly after your game against Chelsea, I doubt the effect would have lasted so long. It's the butterfly effect at work. I don't think any one can argue that this seems to go in your favour quite often.
Oh put a ****in sock in it, you weren't that much bigger than Leeds until you started winning the Premier League practically every season. The exponential growth of your club happened around the same time as Leeds were doing well in Europe, so don't give me that crap.
Not really, every time there's a decision genuinely go against you that changes a game, no matter how crap you were Ferguson always has to have a paddy in the media about it. Then the next week when he's gifted points on a plate with questionable decisions he's back to his "well that's the way it goes sometimes" routine, faking humility. As for the Wigan game, the only recent argument you can come up with in the same game as a decision went your way. The numbers just don't add up.
It was a clear penalty, and should have been a sending off as Woodgate came straight through the back of Hernandez, and also injured him. I know photos aren't the best way to judge these things, but it's pretty clear here: please log in to view this image The free kick was won by Adam, and the contact was as minimal as the Young one today. Both players could've stayed on their feet, both chose to go down. Young just did it with a bit more style As for being lucky to get an equaliser, luck had nothing to do with it. We created the chance, we scored the chance, end of. We were outplayed against City, but that was largely due to Evans being sent off, and whether that was due to the psychological damage of being on the end of a contentious decision against Liverpool, we'll never know... Probably didn't have much effect on the LC, but again who knows? After all, we are basically just guessing here. It's odd how you are so strongly against UIR arguing that the decisions didn't change the result in the games against QPR and Villa, but so convinced that they must have affected other games. Mainly cos one of the decisions was spot on (AVB basically admitted Sturridge fouled Evra) and the other was contentious. And given that Webb could well have sent Cahill off in the first half (have still seen no replays of that incident that show Cahill making any contact with the ball), I think those two decisions pretty much even themselves out. You think this and yet you are sure that the positive psychological effects of the other decisions have lingered so long as to influence the season? Again, it's all just guesswork. Actually there have been plenty of contentious decisions that have gone against us this season. They just aren't noticed because we still get a result from the game. Hernandez pen vs Stoke Rio non pen vs Newcastle Adam free kick vs Liverpool Cahill non red card vs Chelsea Welbeck penalty should've been given vs Fulham away (we won 5-0) Dempsey elbow on Jones not punished vs Fulham (same game) Penalty should've been given at home vs Stoke (we won 2-0) Ashley Cole not sent off for a stud lunge on Hernandez home to Chelsea (we won 3-1) Welbeck goal wrongly disallowed for offside away at QPR (we won 2-0) The only reason this 'butterfly effect' you talk about seems to go in our favour so often is that we make it work in our favour. And when it goes against us, we don't let it affect us. That's why we're top of the league See the examples above. The simple fact is that we are the best team in England at the moment based on our results. And the best team in England tends to win more matches than all the others, regardless of decisions. So when the decisions go against us, they are far less likely to actually matter, and hence the media and opposition fans are far less likely to actually care.
Another episode of Swarbs Owns You, brought to you by NOT606 Man Utd board, in partnership with the ' SWARBS DOES WHAT HE LIKES ASSOCIATION' partly funded by the **** ABU NETWORK.
