City have conceded 10 times around about when the 90th minute has started with only 3 goals scored against opponents in that time. That is more than bad luck, that is just careless. It has only though cost City net one point if you take them all into account BUT the real difference was not gaining three points over Sunderland. For the record: Man City 0 points Tottenham -1 point Fulham +2 points Man Utd +1 point Sunderland -2 points Arsenal (home) 0 points (goals conceded on 88 & 90+ minute) Arsenal (away) -1 point (goals conceded on 88 & 90+ minute) Everton -1 point Liverpool 0 points WBA +1 point (conceded in 94th minute)
That Sunderland game under Kerslake might send us down. Other than that, Palace and Stoke away under Malky were watersheds - we had no idea how to win either. Losing games (or points) at the death always feels worse than conceding earlier in the game. Has it always been a matter on lack of concentration amongst the players out there, or could it be the tactics employed more often than not?
I suppose the unanswered question and will never be answered is would Malky have got more hard fought draws and valuable points as that may have been enough!
I already look forward to watching Ole's team more than MM's though. We try to score goals, we are flawed and will probably get relegated but we were already on the slide well before MM left. Sparky mentions Palace and Stoke. I'd add Villa away. MM might have scraped the points needed but his team was always going to struggle for goals and personally I'm not sure his all out defence would have kept us up either. The first 60 minutes of that Kerslake Sunderland game was the best football we'd played for 2.5 years. The players responded brilliantly to being let off the leash, sadly we ran out of legs and didn't have the bench to see it through. I commented at the time those 2 points could be massive. Our PL future could ultimately be 'decided' by KTC shanking the ball back into play rather than into the stand.
I remember the sunderland game like it was yesterday. That was the angriest I have been at a football match in a very long time. What made me most angry was the fact that we seemed to be begging them on bended knee to equalise. We sat back and refused to play any football for the last 25 to 30 minutes, then refused to put the ball in the corner flag, and then to top it all up suffered due to a ridiculous deflected goal. Come to think of it, I know very well how angry West Brom fans must have felt last weekend!!!! I agree with your summary - it has happened too many times to call it bad luck. I think part of it is that we have had a minority of possession in many games and been worn out chasing the ball by the opposition. Part of it is players thinking the job is done and switching off. And part of it is desperation of other teams, all of whom will have seen us as a must win. Regarding Ole - he has us playing some decent football, sadly I dont think we have the grit and guile we had under Mackay. I think that ultimately we will fall 4/5 points short. Would give us a good chance of coming back up if we can keep the bulk together (resigned to the fact that if we do go down we will lose Marshall, Caulker and Medel at least). WOuld love to be proved wrong, and we certainly arent dead and buried yet. I just struggle to see us beating all 3 of palace, sunderland and stoke and 1 of newcastle, chelsea and southampton, which we would need in order to stay up....
But we might be able to lose to Stoke and beat Chelsea or Saints. I know it seems improbable but Palace proved no fixture should be conceded before it begins, particularly at home. 3 wins and a draw would put us very near to survival.
Stevo - the way it's going, 3 wins and a draw would guarantee survival. I've said on another thread somewhere, if we come back with anything at all from St Mary's, I'm sure we'll stay up. Chelsea last game will be massive.
