The stats say a lot. You've got to have a bit of luck to score 3 out of 5 chances and not concede despite facing 28 opposition chances. No one gets 28 chances to score against us.
Not much better. 4 on target to 3 in our favour I believe. They dominated possession but that has never been a true indicator of dominance against us.
No they don't? We had 4 shots on target to their 3. They had more shots overall. Possession, like corners, shows who had the ball (well duh) but not whether they did anything with it. Shots and shots on target are usually a good indicator though. They had more shots, we had more shots on target.
Yeah OK, we were dead lucky You didn't see the game but you're using stats to 'prove your point' ............. Newcastle were hammered and even their supporters say the scoreline flattered them. But you know better. I believe Swansea had 65% of the possession, at West Ham, had 11 corners but didn't managed one on-target shot. Stats sometimes mean absolutely nothing.
10 shots that were never going to be goals because they were off-target and thus irrelevant. We had more chances - 4 to 3.
But they are still chances. Are you suggesting that someone skying over the bar from a couple of yards wouldn't be a chance? Every shot is a chance.
I'm not proving anything. I really don't have a point. You started by saying that the scoreline flattered Newcastle which seemed extremely unlikely given that you only had two other shots on target and they had a **** load. I'm just giving you some facts which suggest it might not be true to question your belief. I know full well stats can be misleading if the quality of those chances are vastly different but the more chances there are the less likely that becomes. It's not impossible that what you say is true but it is improbable. Those are just facts. Another fact is that football fans are extremely emotive and after a 3-0 derby result Sunderland fans are not going to want to hear anything contrary to their belief that is was an amazing victory, and that Newcastle fans are going to be too downbeat to be rational about the whole thing. As I keep saying I wasn't there and presumably you were so I'm perfectly happy to accept your version of events. I'm just saying it's unlikely based on the above facts. If that's how it happened then great: you were right it flattered them.
There isn't anything to the contrary ........... it was the easiest win we've had for years, we totally humiliated Newcastle on their own ground. If you think that chucking daft stats about off-target shots is of any concern then you're barking up the wrong tree. Every single journalist, including those who are Newcastle supporters, confirm what I'm saying .......... so forgive me from finding your comments a little puerile. It has absolutely nothing to do with being emotive.
Some bollocks being written by both sides on the last few threads, so ill just copy and paste this. 1- City played well against Spurs and were undone by a miss hit shot that fell kindly to Paulinho. Although, to be fair to him, it was one hell of a first touch and finish. Adebayor looked good, and I was happy when he went off, but City had the best chances. A team can have all the possession, but if they don't have anything on target, or make the keeper work, it doesn't matter. Neither do I care we went route 1 for our the goal. I was happy with the point. As we all should be after getting something from the bigger teams. 2- Sunderland beat Newcastle fair and square from what I've heard from Geordies in the pubs round here & MOTD on Saturday. 3- Tight match on Saturday with City coming out on top, well hopefully. I don't care about the rubbish that will fill the papers over the next few days. Mackems can boo Bruce all they want, I doubt he really gives a toss now.
They did beat them fair and square, but Newcastle were ****e, without Cabaye now, and Remy missing, they certainly look short of quality. As I mentioned before we beat them at St James and both these players were playing against us.
