Football 2015/16

[pink_triangle]

5 hours ago, Celery said:

You're completely ignoring Chelsea's results there and how we blew it against poor teams. Bottled it. And that Liverpool Palace game was a total joke. Fine, go for the goal difference but when you concede the first or second, isn't it time to just think about holding onto the 3 points? Liverpool lost their heads. The Chelsea game too, why take unnecessary risks when a draw would have been fine. Bottled it. 

And I never said City didn't deserve to win the league, the opposite in fact. The point was that they shouldn't have had to rely on Liverpool and Chelsea messing up - it should have been won with games to spare given the squad they had. The main reason they only limped over the line is, in my opinion, MP. 

Liverpool won something like 12 of their last 14 games. Then took a crucial loss to a team with significant financial advantages, that is not bottling it. Do you expect them to win all 14.

The idea of a team romping away is dependent on how their rivals do both at the start and end of the season. The city points total wasn't out of line with previous winners.

[Celery]

37 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Liverpool won something like 12 of their last 14 games. Then took a crucial loss to a team with significant financial advantages, that is not bottling it. Do you expect them to win all 14.

The idea of a team romping away is dependent on how their rivals do both at the start and end of the season. The city points total wasn't out of line with previous winners.

It is completely irrelevant what the results in prior games were. Don't forget, it was a Chelsea team cobbled together with all the stars rested for the CL semis. No excuse for losing to them when a draw would have been fine. They lost their heads and had gerrard playing CB on the half way line instead of having a bit of composure and ensuring they didn't lose. They blew it big time in 2 games and it cost them the league that their fans had already started celebrating. And again, you have ignored the crappy Chelsea results and focused on Liverpool. I will always regard that title as the one that got away, should have won it without doubt given our results against the other top clubs. City only won because Chelsea and Liverpool blew their chances. 

[kaosmark2]

Until March that season barely anyone gave Liverpool a chance of winning the title. They then had a fantastic run with a 2 memorable games where they screwed up in spectacular fashion. It wasn't Keegan.

[TheGayTent]

Leaving work early today for the last ever FA Cup game at the Boleyn - the old girl will be rocking tonight

[eastynh]

Pellegrini whatta guy. City were fantastic to a man.

[ThomThomDrum]

1 hour ago, Celery said:

It is completely irrelevant what the results in prior games were...................City only won because Chelsea and Liverpool blew their chances. 

Its like you are being purposefully ignorant to how a league actually works. One doesnt win the league in half a season or because of one game. Cop on.

How the hell are Chelsea's and Liverpool's dropping of points in the first half of the season irrelevant? Perplexing stuff. Lets not forget that Arsenal were looking like a real contender coming up to Xmas then also, but they couldn't string two halfs of a season together. 

City only won because City took their chances.............over the course of the whole season.

Chelsea and LFC didnt because of the 12/13 games in which they dropped points

If you want to be revisionist or reductive then Liverpool lost the league because SG slipped or because a bus got in their way, but thats a idiots way of looking at things. The slip means nothing if stupid points dropped earlier in the season were not dropped

 

 

 

 

[ThomThomDrum]

It would be funny to see Citeh play Bayern and for MP to do over Pep........

[eastynh]

2 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Its like you are being purposefully ignorant to how a league actually works. One doesnt win the league in half a season or because of one game. Cop on.

How the hell are Chelsea's and Liverpool's dropping of points in the first half of the season irrelevant? Perplexing stuff. Lets not forget that Arsenal were looking like a real contender coming up to Xmas then also, but they couldn't string two halfs of a season together. 

City only won because City took their chances.............over the course of the whole season.

Chelsea and LFC didnt because of the 12/13 games in which they dropped points

If you want to be revisionist or reductive then Liverpool lost the league because SG slipped or because a bus got in their way, but thats a idiots way of looking at things. The slip means nothing if stupid points dropped earlier in the season were not dropped

 

 

 

 

I prefer it when people say City only won it because United and Liverpool bottled it. Cheers lads :-)

[ThomThomDrum]

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I prefer it when people say City only won it because United and Liverpool bottled it. Cheers lads :-)

Dont forget Chelsea! Celery will be very upset if you didnt say they were bottlers too! 

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Dont forget Chelsea! Celery will be very upset if you didnt say they were bottlers too! 

When did they bottle it? I don't remember them ever having a chance. The season Liverpool bottled it, City always had enough games I'm hand over Chelsea to claw it back, I think.

 

[mrtourette]

11 hours ago, Celery said:

There were other results too but I can't be arsed to look them up...

I hope my point is clear now. I welcome any constructive debate (see Pink Triangle) but anyone just saying "you're talking shit" and making no point is wasting their time. 

Brilliant

[eastynh]

City win the league and it is because someone else bottled it. United used to do the same thing every season but that was because they always came good at the end of the season, go figure;

 

[eastynh]

6 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Although not likely there is a possibility that City beating Pep could be their only route into CL. If they win that match, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force

It would be better for all if Bayern were to get beat tonight and City get Benfica in next round.

[ThomThomDrum]

Fair balls to em

http://www.joe.ie/sport/borussia-dortmund-have-a-lovely-tribute-planned-for-liverpool-and-the/539537?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=onsite_share

[ToffeePopcorn]

6 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Leaving work early today for the last ever FA Cup game at the Boleyn - the old girl will be rocking tonight

Enjoy bud! Had to give up my ticket as my end of year performance fell on the same day at the same time 

[TheGayTent]

30 minutes ago, ToffeePopcorn said:

Enjoy bud! Had to give up my ticket as my end of year performance fell on the same day at the same time 

That sucks 

[The Nal]

7 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

Leaving work early today for the last ever FA Cup game at the Boleyn - the old girl will be rocking tonight

Enjoy. Will be rocking even more when you win!

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Enjoy. Will be rocking even more when you win!

do you remember those days before fergie's retirement when it seemed impossible for Utd to ever be floundering like they are?

 

 

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

do you remember those days before fergie's retirement when it seemed impossible for Utd to ever be floundering like they are?

I also remember expressing my deep concerns about what would happen when he finally packed it in.

Could win later though. LVG is one of those old school managers who can set his team up well on any given day. 

[Celery]

9 hours ago, eastynh said:

When did they bottle it? I don't remember them ever having a chance. The season Liverpool bottled it, City always had enough games I'm hand over Chelsea to claw it back, I think.

 

Nope. You remember incorrectly. 

9 hours ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Its like you are being purposefully ignorant to how a league actually works. One doesnt win the league in half a season or because of one game. Cop on.

How the hell are Chelsea's and Liverpool's dropping of points in the first half of the season irrelevant? Perplexing stuff. Lets not forget that Arsenal were looking like a real contender coming up to Xmas then also, but they couldn't string two halfs of a season together. 

City only won because City took their chances.............over the course of the whole season.

Chelsea and LFC didnt because of the 12/13 games in which they dropped points

If you want to be revisionist or reductive then Liverpool lost the league because SG slipped or because a bus got in their way, but thats a idiots way of looking at things. The slip means nothing if stupid points dropped earlier in the season were not dropped

 

 

 

 

You have a knack for ignoring 90% of what I post and then have the nerve to imply i'm the idiot. Amusing.

A game in April/ May when trophies are within touching distance is a lot more pressurised that a game at the start of the season when there is plenty time to reclaim lost ground. That is not a difficult concept to understand. 

[pink_triangle]

10 minutes ago, Celery said:

Nope. You remember incorrectly. 

You have a knack for ignoring 90% of what I post and then have the nerve to imply i'm the idiot. Amusing.

A game in April/ May when trophies are within touching distance is a lot more pressurised that a game at the start of the season when there is plenty time to reclaim lost ground. That is not a difficult concept to understand. 

My main problem with your argument is man city's point total that season. If it had been a low points total then you may have a point. However the total was about par for teams who win the premiership.

Can you really read much difference into championship winning teams from man city and Chelsea when the points total was so similar ? You could make the argument that man city's title was more impressive because they were challenged, while Chelsea were handed it on a plate by the ineptitude of others. Note I wouldn't make that argument. I think both were equally worthy champions 

[pink_triangle]

11 hours ago, Celery said:

It is completely irrelevant what the results in prior games were. Don't forget, it was a Chelsea team cobbled together with all the stars rested for the CL semis.

Add the wages of the two teams playing that day, who do you think were higher?

[DomDom1984]

I stopped caring about this dolt's opinion when they dismissed most of a great run to try and prove the point. Horrendous post shifting. 

[Celery]

46 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

My main problem with your argument is man city's point total that season. If it had been a low points total then you may have a point. However the total was about par for teams who win the premiership.

Can you really read much difference into championship winning teams from man city and Chelsea when the points total was so similar ? You could make the argument that man city's title was more impressive because they were challenged, while Chelsea were handed it on a plate by the ineptitude of others. Note I wouldn't make that argument. I think both were equally worthy champions 

I'm not making the argument that they didn't deserve to win or were inferior to any Chelsea team, not in the slightest. I referred to the Chelsea team from last season because it was the most recent season in which the league was won convincingly. The original point was that MP isn't that great a manager because they needed to rely on Liverpool and Chelsea messing up when their squad was far superior. It was one small comment vaguely supporting eastnyh's opinion that MP was shit and City had gone backwards under him. 

Also, you can't make a fair comparison between champions form different seasons by looking at points totals alone. How early the league was won is also important. Champions often drop silly points in end of season games when the title is already over.

 

41 minutes ago, DomDom1984 said:

I stopped caring about this dolt's opinion when they dismissed most of a great run to try and prove the point. Horrendous post shifting. 

What point do you think this dolt is making? You are confused

Edited April 13, 2016 by Celery

[Celery]

26 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Add the wages of the two teams playing that day, who do you think were higher?

Having skimmed over the teams, I would guess they were similar. Can we go back to talking about City now?