It depends on the viewpoint you put on it. In terms of our lack of finishing, I would say that we weren't h lucky as that was just bad finishing. It was lucky for you though in that normally, you'd expect to be punished.
The result was a fair one, but I think people misinterpret what is meant by luck. You can still be lucky and end up with a deserved result.
We weren't unlucky, that should have said.
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by The Phenom - Thread Killer (U20037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 12 seconds ago
Also, Kane was offside for the 2ndelay goal. Anyway you could debate that Sane handled the ball for Man City's first goal.
Yeah, ref had a shocker. But it happens, so you gotta move on.
_____________________________
Kane was dead in line with the defender when it was passed to him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a look again, Kane is def offside.
https://youtu.be/ZDpmjLd5IO0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
specsavers mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check ut your own link you plum - did you not notice the big white line that clearly shows Kane onside - and you have the stupidity to suggest Specsavers - you couldn't make it up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what? im telling cuuunte to go there for the reasons you have just mentioned
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 second ago
comment by The Phenom - Thread Killer (U20037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 12 seconds ago
Also, Kane was offside for the 2ndelay goal. Anyway you could debate that Sane handled the ball for Man City's first goal.
Yeah, ref had a shocker. But it happens, so you gotta move on.
_____________________________
Kane was dead in line with the defender when it was passed to him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a look again, Kane is def offside.
https://youtu.be/ZDpmjLd5IO0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
specsavers mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check ut your own link you plum - did you not notice the big white line that clearly shows Kane onside - and you have the stupidity to suggest Specsavers - you couldn't make it up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
calm down, he agreed with you
In that sense Man City have only themeselves to.blame. Also the referee played a part in it too.
Well, we can blame the referee too that doesn't deteact from the fact we are to blame for letting a two goal lead slip though.
City were like the Borg "resistance is futile" but our developing resilience and mental toughness gained us a very good point in the end.
comment by Limbo. Limbo Like Arsene. (U3732)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 second ago
comment by The Phenom - Thread Killer (U20037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 12 seconds ago
Also, Kane was offside for the 2ndelay goal. Anyway you could debate that Sane handled the ball for Man City's first goal.
Yeah, ref had a shocker. But it happens, so you gotta move on.
_____________________________
Kane was dead in line with the defender when it was passed to him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a look again, Kane is def offside.
https://youtu.be/ZDpmjLd5IO0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
specsavers mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check ut your own link you plum - did you not notice the big white line that clearly shows Kane onside - and you have the stupidity to suggest Specsavers - you couldn't make it up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
calm down, he agreed with you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
short fused
I'd say it was lucky. You had the luck from City's inept finishing. On another day, you could have been 3 or 4 down by HT. Spurs were lucky Walker wasn't red carded and City handed a penalty. That was pure luck. Yaya is now taking the penalties and he has a 100% record for City.
Like I said in an earlier post we were completely out played yet we scored the only 2 decent goals in the game. I just wish we could of got 1 more on target in the time that remained after we'd equalised. Overall though 4 points off 1 of our main rivals is a good return.
This article is mostly rubbish.
We were extremely lucky to get a point. City played us off the park.
Firstly, we were lucky with the Walker incident. Walker should have been sent off and a penalty given. Whether they have a bad record at converting penalties isn't that relevant, they were still 2-1 up at the time and would have been playing against 10 men.
Secondly, the goals we let in were complete goalkeeping presents given by our keeper. I think he still thought it was Christmas. So in a sense City were lucky that Lloris had such an unusually off day. But if you are to see that as luck, maybe in the same sense we should see it as luck that we weren't down before half time with City outplaying us and having good chances. If you're to discard the luck element there and say City should simply have been less wasteful in front of goal, then the same could apply to our our defence (including Lloris) and ask why we didn't perform better?
Thirdly, to those who say it should have been 2-0 to us if you take out the Lloris errors, then I'd disagree. Football doesn't really work like that. Those goals will have affected the way the rest of the way the game went, and in indeed it's as if we needed to go behind to give us the much needed kick up the arris, similar to when we went behind against Burnley.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
City have been very wasteful this season.
People point at Sterling who is of course wasteful, but collectively they create and miss a shed load of chances nearly every game.
Go back to their title winning sides and they had players who were clinical goalgetters. Dzeko who is still one of the best old fashioned number 9's in Europe was backing up Aguero, while Toure was a goal machine from midfield.
Maybe Jesus will give them a boost in this regards in the remainder of the season but he's another youngster like Sterling, Sane, Iheanacho.
They really need a reliable 24-30 year old who has been there and done it and who is clinical.
great point
suited us fine....
City were lucky to not have several players booked
City were lucky Hugo made two errors
City were lucky Sane wasnt given as handball
We were lucky City's finishing was poor
We were lucky we did not concede a penalty
We were lucky Walker did not get sent off
From a (relatively) impartial point of view, Spurs were a bit lucky. It's rare an opposition team wastes as many situations as City did. Plus the walker push, should have been a red and a pen.
But that doesn't make City unlucky - they got what they deserved. They had plenty of opportunities and didn't take them.
I'd be happier with a point as a Spurs fan than I would be a City fan that's for sure!
Just one point:
"Now onto the Walker incident. In my opinion it was a penalty and a red card, and Sterling should have gone down. Walker took a calculated risk, and it proved the correct decision. Well done Kyle. "
I totally disagree with this. Sterling deserves full marks for not going down, and continuing to do his best to score.
I would also say that perhaps this incident can be used as another argument for using video replay. Walker got away with one there.
comment by AlwaysCalledTed (U21270)
posted 11 hours, 39 minutes ago
Just one point:
"Now onto the Walker incident. In my opinion it was a penalty and a red card, and Sterling should have gone down. Walker took a calculated risk, and it proved the correct decision. Well done Kyle. "
I totally disagree with this. Sterling deserves full marks for not going down, and continuing to do his best to score.
I would also say that perhaps this incident can be used as another argument for using video replay. Walker got away with one there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting knows that if you are fouled you need to go down or you almost certainly won't get the fair decision ...
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 14 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by AlwaysCalledTed (U21270)
posted 11 hours, 39 minutes ago
Just one point:
"Now onto the Walker incident. In my opinion it was a penalty and a red card, and Sterling should have gone down. Walker took a calculated risk, and it proved the correct decision. Well done Kyle. "
I totally disagree with this. Sterling deserves full marks for not going down, and continuing to do his best to score.
I would also say that perhaps this incident can be used as another argument for using video replay. Walker got away with one there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting knows that if you are fouled you need to go down or you almost certainly won't get the fair decision ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What you say should NOT be true.
Referees and Linesmen should determine fouls without such antics.
Which merely encourage diving.
Do you like divers?
Sign in if you want to comment
Why was it a Lucky Point?
Page 2 of 2
posted on 23/1/17
It depends on the viewpoint you put on it. In terms of our lack of finishing, I would say that we weren't h lucky as that was just bad finishing. It was lucky for you though in that normally, you'd expect to be punished.
The result was a fair one, but I think people misinterpret what is meant by luck. You can still be lucky and end up with a deserved result.
posted on 23/1/17
We weren't unlucky, that should have said.
posted on 23/1/17
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by The Phenom - Thread Killer (U20037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 12 seconds ago
Also, Kane was offside for the 2ndelay goal. Anyway you could debate that Sane handled the ball for Man City's first goal.
Yeah, ref had a shocker. But it happens, so you gotta move on.
_____________________________
Kane was dead in line with the defender when it was passed to him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a look again, Kane is def offside.
https://youtu.be/ZDpmjLd5IO0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
specsavers mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check ut your own link you plum - did you not notice the big white line that clearly shows Kane onside - and you have the stupidity to suggest Specsavers - you couldn't make it up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
what? im telling cuuunte to go there for the reasons you have just mentioned
posted on 23/1/17
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 second ago
comment by The Phenom - Thread Killer (U20037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 12 seconds ago
Also, Kane was offside for the 2ndelay goal. Anyway you could debate that Sane handled the ball for Man City's first goal.
Yeah, ref had a shocker. But it happens, so you gotta move on.
_____________________________
Kane was dead in line with the defender when it was passed to him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a look again, Kane is def offside.
https://youtu.be/ZDpmjLd5IO0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
specsavers mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check ut your own link you plum - did you not notice the big white line that clearly shows Kane onside - and you have the stupidity to suggest Specsavers - you couldn't make it up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
calm down, he agreed with you
posted on 23/1/17
In that sense Man City have only themeselves to.blame. Also the referee played a part in it too.
posted on 23/1/17
Well, we can blame the referee too that doesn't deteact from the fact we are to blame for letting a two goal lead slip though.
posted on 23/1/17
City were like the Borg "resistance is futile" but our developing resilience and mental toughness gained us a very good point in the end.
posted on 23/1/17
comment by Limbo. Limbo Like Arsene. (U3732)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by puffinthebushkangaroo (U1950)
posted 1 second ago
comment by The Phenom - Thread Killer (U20037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Conte'nt (U20893)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 12 seconds ago
Also, Kane was offside for the 2ndelay goal. Anyway you could debate that Sane handled the ball for Man City's first goal.
Yeah, ref had a shocker. But it happens, so you gotta move on.
_____________________________
Kane was dead in line with the defender when it was passed to him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a look again, Kane is def offside.
https://youtu.be/ZDpmjLd5IO0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
specsavers mate
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check ut your own link you plum - did you not notice the big white line that clearly shows Kane onside - and you have the stupidity to suggest Specsavers - you couldn't make it up
----------------------------------------------------------------------
calm down, he agreed with you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
short fused
posted on 23/1/17
I'd say it was lucky. You had the luck from City's inept finishing. On another day, you could have been 3 or 4 down by HT. Spurs were lucky Walker wasn't red carded and City handed a penalty. That was pure luck. Yaya is now taking the penalties and he has a 100% record for City.
posted on 23/1/17
Like I said in an earlier post we were completely out played yet we scored the only 2 decent goals in the game. I just wish we could of got 1 more on target in the time that remained after we'd equalised. Overall though 4 points off 1 of our main rivals is a good return.
posted on 23/1/17
Weird article
posted on 23/1/17
This article is mostly rubbish.
We were extremely lucky to get a point. City played us off the park.
posted on 23/1/17
Firstly, we were lucky with the Walker incident. Walker should have been sent off and a penalty given. Whether they have a bad record at converting penalties isn't that relevant, they were still 2-1 up at the time and would have been playing against 10 men.
Secondly, the goals we let in were complete goalkeeping presents given by our keeper. I think he still thought it was Christmas. So in a sense City were lucky that Lloris had such an unusually off day. But if you are to see that as luck, maybe in the same sense we should see it as luck that we weren't down before half time with City outplaying us and having good chances. If you're to discard the luck element there and say City should simply have been less wasteful in front of goal, then the same could apply to our our defence (including Lloris) and ask why we didn't perform better?
Thirdly, to those who say it should have been 2-0 to us if you take out the Lloris errors, then I'd disagree. Football doesn't really work like that. Those goals will have affected the way the rest of the way the game went, and in indeed it's as if we needed to go behind to give us the much needed kick up the arris, similar to when we went behind against Burnley.
posted on 23/1/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 23/1/17
City have been very wasteful this season.
People point at Sterling who is of course wasteful, but collectively they create and miss a shed load of chances nearly every game.
Go back to their title winning sides and they had players who were clinical goalgetters. Dzeko who is still one of the best old fashioned number 9's in Europe was backing up Aguero, while Toure was a goal machine from midfield.
Maybe Jesus will give them a boost in this regards in the remainder of the season but he's another youngster like Sterling, Sane, Iheanacho.
They really need a reliable 24-30 year old who has been there and done it and who is clinical.
posted on 23/1/17
great point
suited us fine....
posted on 23/1/17
City were lucky to not have several players booked
City were lucky Hugo made two errors
City were lucky Sane wasnt given as handball
We were lucky City's finishing was poor
We were lucky we did not concede a penalty
We were lucky Walker did not get sent off
posted on 23/1/17
From a (relatively) impartial point of view, Spurs were a bit lucky. It's rare an opposition team wastes as many situations as City did. Plus the walker push, should have been a red and a pen.
But that doesn't make City unlucky - they got what they deserved. They had plenty of opportunities and didn't take them.
I'd be happier with a point as a Spurs fan than I would be a City fan that's for sure!
posted on 23/1/17
Just one point:
"Now onto the Walker incident. In my opinion it was a penalty and a red card, and Sterling should have gone down. Walker took a calculated risk, and it proved the correct decision. Well done Kyle. "
I totally disagree with this. Sterling deserves full marks for not going down, and continuing to do his best to score.
I would also say that perhaps this incident can be used as another argument for using video replay. Walker got away with one there.
posted on 24/1/17
comment by AlwaysCalledTed (U21270)
posted 11 hours, 39 minutes ago
Just one point:
"Now onto the Walker incident. In my opinion it was a penalty and a red card, and Sterling should have gone down. Walker took a calculated risk, and it proved the correct decision. Well done Kyle. "
I totally disagree with this. Sterling deserves full marks for not going down, and continuing to do his best to score.
I would also say that perhaps this incident can be used as another argument for using video replay. Walker got away with one there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting knows that if you are fouled you need to go down or you almost certainly won't get the fair decision ...
posted on 24/1/17
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 14 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by AlwaysCalledTed (U21270)
posted 11 hours, 39 minutes ago
Just one point:
"Now onto the Walker incident. In my opinion it was a penalty and a red card, and Sterling should have gone down. Walker took a calculated risk, and it proved the correct decision. Well done Kyle. "
I totally disagree with this. Sterling deserves full marks for not going down, and continuing to do his best to score.
I would also say that perhaps this incident can be used as another argument for using video replay. Walker got away with one there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting knows that if you are fouled you need to go down or you almost certainly won't get the fair decision ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What you say should NOT be true.
Referees and Linesmen should determine fouls without such antics.
Which merely encourage diving.
Do you like divers?
Page 2 of 2