They're joking aren't they?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
littleDinosaurLuke said:
NSIS, games are played over 90 mins; it's quite usual for teams to come to OT and put up resistance for an hour before capitulating. As players tire and the game opens up, skilful and pacy players thrive and we saw that last night. Spurs were overwhelmed. It could have been a lot more than three goals. It was a combination of Utd's excellence and Spurs' shortcomings. I accept that other more defensively capable players may have made a difference, but few teams can put out their best XI every week; it's a squad game and you have to cope. Utd had a number of similarly important defensive players missing.
Click to expand...

It was more the shame of our woeful lack of fight after going 1-0 down, than any special brilliance from Utd. Yes, we badly missed Sandro in front of our back four. However, there are no excuses for the way we just fell apart, and rolled over. Yes you had Vidic missing - Sorry, but Rio is finished at the top level,. IMO. In the end, though, the scoreline reflected, far more, our miserable capitulation, than anything exceptional from Utd.
 
Difference is though, Luke. Whilst you were missing 3 defenders and a striker. We had King, Gallas, Sandro, Modric, Palacios and Crouch were injured, with half fit Jenas and Huddlestone being included on the bench because we simply didn't have anyone else. missing our first choice centre backs, just like you but with the addition of 5 centre mids meaning we fielded our inexperienced 6th choice with someone who we don't play in centre mid.

I'm not excusing anything, we lost, you deserved to win but it was a tough situation for us.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
NSIS, games are played over 90 mins; it's quite usual for teams to come to OT and put up resistance for an hour before capitulating. As players tire and the game opens up, skilful and pacy players thrive and we saw that last night. Spurs were overwhelmed. It could have been a lot more than three goals. It was a combination of Utd's excellence and Spurs' shortcomings. I accept that other more defensively capable players may have made a difference, but few teams can put out their best XI every week; it's a squad game and you have to cope. Utd had a number of similarly important defensive players missing.
Click to expand...

One more correction of your biased assessment. We didn't "resist" for an hour, we COMPETED, and at least matched you in that time. It's what followed the first goal, that I have issue with.
 
In Tottenham's favour Rio and Vidic were out
In Utd's favour they had home advantage, Tottenham had no fully fit senior central midfielders available, the media had been tapping up Modric all summer, the officials favoured Utd (such as letting the thug Jones foul Bale and then yell at him to get up)
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
I'm not sure we're disagreeing about much except that Utd did play impressively in the second half- there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge that- and that your team didn't "capitulate" in the sense of throwing in the towel.

Bale and Lennon didn't get enough of the ball. What service Lennon got, he wasted.

The tactical change by 'Arry to 4-4-2 was the turning point rather than any lack of fight by your team. The two in central midfield were badly exposed.
Click to expand...

Defending is a collective responsibilty. Something we achieved very well against AC Milan, but failed dismally to do at OT.
 
Ensil - I think the concept is that it is not additional, in practice it is almost always underestimated I think
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Curiously, it's the same for both teams and represents the same advantage or disadvantage for each.
Click to expand...

Err - no it doesn't - the longer it is then the more advantage there is for the losing team who have longer to equalise. An equalising goal is worth a lot more than an additional one for the winners.

Much better if the clock was stopped during stoppages as in Rugby, so that there could be no possibiity of bias
 
It's a proven fact that United get more time added on when losing/drawing than any other team, I think it was the Guardian or someone like that who came up with the research.

When United aren't winning at half time no less than 2 minutes of time is added on, minimum of 4 minutes at the 90 minute mark.
 
The Scousers are really bitter, aren't they?
How sad.

You're actually backing up the survey, Lidls.
Man Utd get less stoppage time than everyone at home when they're winning and more than everyone when they're losing.

Don't you think that teams use the same timewasting tactics when they're beating anyone else?
 
And what about at The Emirates, Stamford Bridge, Anfield, White Hart Lane and Eastlands?
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Most of those teams got more stoppage time than Utd, overall as the survey showed. Chelsea, in particular.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt to totally dodge the point.
Utd got more time than everyone when they weren't winning and less when they were.
Basically, what they would have wanted.

The average overall figure is misleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back