As a City fan, it's easy to write what I am about to, but I do genuinely mean what I'm about to say. Really good cup final. Sunderland were much the better team in the first half, and it took two absolutely outstanding goals to break Sunderland down. City's third goal was merely material - Sunderland had to go for it, and as a result were always susceptible to being left open at the back, and thus susceptible to a counter attack. The commentators said several times that City were below par. I think we should be praising Sunderland's performance for that. City didn't play to their capabilities, not because City themselves had an off day, but because Sunderland simply didn't allow them to play. Poyet got his tactics spot on, and it's only because of a moment of individual brilliance by Toure (a moment which simply can not be accounted for when it comes to a managers tactics/approach to a game), and then, one minute later, a superb finish by Nasri, that ultimately undid Sunderland. But Sunderland had their chances. And come half time it wouldn't have been unfair on City had Sunderland had more than a one goal lead. I thought Sunderland were excellent in the first half especially, but even after going behind, remained a threat and a fully fit (and thus more alert) Fletcher would most probably made more of the opportunity in the second half that fell his way. It's horrible to lose a cup final. I know that as a City fan all too well. Not just the FA Cup final last season against Wigan, but I'm old enough to remember the 1981 loss to Spurs (and consequently (obviously) the reply of that particular game). A consolidation for Sunderland - you're still in the FA Cup, and I hope that you stay up - I genuinely mean that.
Nice 1 RC. 2-1 yes, 3-1 was a bit hard too stomach. I can accept getting beat off a bloody good team and two exceptional goals. I agree I was annoyed about the City below par comments. I thought we put in a fine shift and deserved our half time lead. Man C stepped it up 2nd half and got their rewards with two superb strikes Still proud of my team this evening
Cheers mate, always a tough game against City, but we took it to you, and two wonder goals were our undoing. Not sure Toure was even going for the shot (debatable, but if he was, magic), and Nasri who caught us while we were still reeling from the 1st goal. As much as it is to be gracious in defeat, it's also a mark of a man who is gracious in winning. There has to be a winner, and a loser in a game of football - but to me, we came out winners in my eyes. At the start of the season, we thought we were dead and buried, and to get to where we are now is remarkable. Still a long way to go, but hopefully with some belief, we can get over this speed hump with the Gus Bus.
Well said fella. Congratulations on your win. A top quality strike from toure, had that not happened we may well have won it but it did and he is a top player. In the end we just never quite had enough, who knows we may get a chance at revenge in the FA cup.
The trouble is after we got beat off Liverpool in 1992 people mentioned their quality and here we are 22 years later saying the same thing, tight arse owners have cost us, and Man c and Chelsea were at the same level as us up to about 10 years ago but they spent and we did not, and this is net result, Colback, and Brown go backwards and we caved in in the 2nd half, bloody dissapointed for the 5th time at wembley now, spending money is the answer. Good jobfor 3rd time running i duffed going to wembley. And by the way ripleyscat try 6 relegations, 2 leeague cup final defeats, 4 play off defeats, and 1 f a cup final defeat, but relegation to the old 3rd division was the ultimate sufferering.
Thanks for that fella. Eases the pain a bit to know we played very well but couldn't quite bring the silver home. Now go catch Jose and win the league.
I don't think it's a case of tight arse owners monty. City and Chelsea spent because their owners have much more money than the rest. In terms of what the owners of City and Chelsea have spent compared to their owners overall wealth, then it's a relatively small amount of their wealth that they have invested. Yet the levels of spending seen by City and Chelsea could wipe out the overall wealth of the owners of other clubs. I don't think anyone, irrespective of their wealth, is prepared to take such a risk. Nor do I think that they should be criticised for not doing so. I would say that City were at the same level as Sunderland 10 years ago, but at that time Chelsea were streets ahead of both of us. 10 years ago, actually 15 years ago, Chelsea were playing in European competition (remember the game against Barcelona in the Champions League where they were 3-1 up after the first leg - that was in 1999 - Neither City or Sunderland were anywhere close to competing in that competition at that time).
