Yep that's the one I saw! 38 - 62 seems a bit harsh to me, still it was similar to the Arsenal game, they may have had the ball but we didn't let them do anything with it!
and that's the point really - its like liverpool fans drooling over their possession stats as they mull over another blank in front of goal. having tonnes of the ball in your own half is pointless
Again, it's difficult to get a definitive stat. The Beeb has a probably wildly inaccurate 34%-66%, I've seen 11%-89% on one site! Suffice to say, their possession didn't count for much on the day.
i read a united fan on twitter claiming that it was laughable that anyone could claim norwich deserved to win. i can only assume they weren't at the match or even watch it on tv because their reasoning for this was the match stats. "38-62%, more shots on and off target, 12 corners to 0" - this was apparently why united should have won! it has nothing to do with what you do with the ball, actual quality of chances created, getting the ball in the net and doing anything with your set pieces then!!
they were the official match stats supplied by opta (or whoever did them for champions league) below is an interesting piece on possession stats i saved for a rainy day... http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...t-champions-league-possession-percentages-win
It's rather comical the way that fans of other clubs can't get their heads round the fact that we are a decent side and doing well. The only exceptions seem to be Swans fans, probably due to our having done the double over them last year. A normally sensible Saints fan was shocked that the top clubs couldn't after all be relied upon to beat the likes of Norwich, so upsetting the comforting thought that, while Manu U and Arsenal et.al. might well beat Southampton, that didn't much matter because fellow "relegation strugglers" would get the same treatment!
ourselves and swansea have so much in common. we probably don't have much in common on the field of play but overall, as clubs, we are similar. there is definitely a respect between both sets of fans for what each club has done, possibly made more so by the debacle unfurling at loftus road, home of our 'promotion buddy'. in a way, both our clubs sail somewhat under the radar yet get so much right whilst rangers get all the hype but get it all wrong. a sort of version of the 'leeds effect'! saints should be like us and swansea, and while they are not like rangers really, the amount of money spent on their team means they have increased pressure on them, which they shouldn't really have from the media. not sure if that has got to their fans or whether it is just they are a bit 'out of practice' at what the premier league is all about.
A lot of Saints fans still live in the distant past, a perspective from which recent events, including the ignominy of administration and several seasons in League One, can be comfortably excluded. Even the ones who recognise that history is just that, still obviously feel that Southamption is "bigger" and somehow destined to become established in the upper half of the PL.
no they aren't - the beeb do their own stats, hence why they are always different to the official opta stats (and always wrong)
Woah guys don't fall out over it, we won the game that's what really matters. By the way the Irish Racing post said the stats were 49% - 63%, and Alan Shearer said 35/40/45/50%- 40/45/50/55%
Yep I thought so as well, but I am slightly biased. Still think 38-62 was thought up by a United fan!!!!!
football can be deceptive, especially via possession stats. its what you do with the ball that counts and the areas you have that possession. we had lots of the ball in the final third whilst united had lots of the ball at the back and midfield, but more often than not went sideways and backwards, hence why they topped the possession chart but didn't create as many good chances as we did. we deservedly won because we used the ball far better than united did. there is no great conspiracy involved! it really is that simple. 40-60 was my impression and that was roughly what it was.
