CFCnet Admin

Media / Press

Recommended Posts

Amazed how some go on about Poo being the 'poor me' types and then scour the press looking to get offended and then come here and say say "we don't care"

How does this flip flopping work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to go on record before today's game and state how much I loathe Geoff Shreeves.

His weaselly voice and weaselly questions , my heart would bursts with joy if he was run over by a combined harvester.

Yes, that's an image to relish certainly. Edited by PeteRobbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil McNumpty on the BBC website

"City manager Manuel Pellegrini was left frustrated last season as his lavishly talented squad failed to live up to their potential, but all the riches were on show in front of a record crowd of 54,331 at the newly extended Etihad as they demonstrated a desire to reclaim the title Chelsea took from them last season."

Dear oh dear could you get a more Blinkered Biased Cack interpretation of events than this. What next? Songs of Praise featuring Kompany and Co singing Kumbaya to show what a peace loving non-confrontational squad they have, incapable of misdemeanour or agression. And we know what Pellegrini means about Man City always dominating Chelsea when they play them. He means they always try to,trip, elbow, hack any player who might present a threat making sure the yellow cards are evenly distributed. I look forward to Pellegrini wondering why - when they again try to do this in the ECL - they end up down to 9 men.

We deserved to lose today but if we do turn it round then all the media gloating will make it even sweeter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harvz   

Can't really blame the press for their severe case of schadenfreude given the events of the last week. Buckle up people. Going to be a bumpy few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil McNumpty on the BBC website

"City manager Manuel Pellegrini was left frustrated last season as his lavishly talented squad failed to live up to their potential, but all the riches were on show in front of a record crowd of 54,331 at the newly extended Etihad as they demonstrated a desire to reclaim the title Chelsea took from them last season."

Dear oh dear could you get a more Blinkered Biased Cack interpretation of events than this. What next? Songs of Praise featuring Kompany and Co singing Kumbaya to show what a peace loving non-confrontational squad they have, incapable of misdemeanour or agression. And we know what Pellegrini means about Man City always dominating Chelsea when they play them. He means they always try to,trip, elbow, hack any player who might present a threat making sure the yellow cards are evenly distributed. I look forward to Pellegrini wondering why - when they again try to do this in the ECL - they end up down to 9 men.

We deserved to lose today but if we do turn it round then all the media gloating will make it even sweeter.

Nice one Duffo and true to boot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Ladyboy in the DM , " Aguero came to score, Costa came to fight".

Thats the Costa who had to fight unconsciousness after a crack with an elbow on the back of his head presumably?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Ladyboy in the DM , " Aguero came to score, Costa came to fight".

Thats the Costa who had to fight unconsciousness after a crack with an elbow on the back of his head presumably?

Costa's fault for leading with his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so it goes, Bournemouth have goal disallowed for being better than Lovren then Liverpool under the new offside laws get a goal that should've been disallowed.

Edited by Mark Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Ladyboy in the DM , " Aguero came to score, Costa came to fight".

Thats the Costa who had to fight unconsciousness after a crack with an elbow on the back of his head presumably?

To be fair to Sky (just his once!) one of the three pundits (Souness, Henry or Quinn) said at half time, "That should have been a red - and had it been Costa on Fernandinho, it would have been." The other two smiled and nodded in unspoken agreement.

But yes, scandalous reporting of it in the Mail.

They then ran another article where they mocked the match review on the official club website. Admittedly there was a lot of blue tinted biased nonsense in there which I can't defend, but then this section in the Mail article had me seething:

"The report begins with mention of a disallowed Ramires goal which apparently happened at the beginning of the second half when the score was 1-0. Anyone remember that?

This 'errant' offside flag supposedly changed the complexion of the contest, but was of such significance that our own Sports Journalist of the Year, Martin Samuel, didn't deem it worthy of a mention in his match report..."

Well I'm not going to turn this into a bash Martin Samuel post because I enjoy his writing, and find him generally fair and balanced in what he writes about us. His match report did not mention the Ramires incident, but it should have done. Just because City were the better side and could feasibly have been 5-0 up by half time, the fact is that they weren't. They only had one goal to show for that first half dominance and as such the Ramires offside decision was a major moment in the game.

At the time it happened, we had stopped leaking chances at the back and had seemingly wrested midfield control. Had the goal stood there is every chance that we could have gone on to win from 1-1. City could have been demoralised thinking, "We've hammered this lot first half, how the hell is this 1-1?"

People pointing out that it finished 3-0 so was rendered immaterial are missing the point that goals change matches. At 1-1 we don't have to chase the game and take risks anymore, conversely City have to start taking more risks in an attempt to get back in front. This change in situation makes it less likely we'll concede again in the remainder of the match and more likely that they will.

If Ramires had indeed been offside, this whole discussion wouldn't have needed. But this is the second issue here, though at first watch he looked well offside, the replay showed him to be level with the back leg of the defender out wider - in other words, onside and the goal should have stood. Gary Neville admitted as much in commentary. I say replay because it was only the once. Sky, realising we'd been hard done by chose NOT to show it again and then it was not shown again or even discussed as an issue in the post match pundits discussion. A major moment which could have affected the whole pattern of the rest of the match was simply glossed over or airbrushed from history. The Daily Mail line above simply proves that.

And THAT is the real scandal about this whole affair. Bournemouth were similarly harshly treated last night (in fact even worse because at least their performance was deserving of a point whereas ours wasn't) and the pundits discussed the refereeing mistakes at length.

This is a perfect example of why Chelsea fans feel victimised and persecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now