That is not a "double blow", that is the rules of the game. City werent randomly singled out for this harsh punishment. I dont think it was a hugely controversial foul either so im not sure what the complaint is in this regard.
It doesn't matter. You parked the bus and tried to get goals by set pieces and counter attacks. If it works for you that's fine but other clubs prefers to win in style.
It was not a defensive approach. The 11 who started simply didn't keep the ball when they had it.
Chelsea didn't even try to keep the ball. Whenever they won the ball they'd just hoof it to Robben or Duff or whichever fast winger they had at the time.
Absolute proof (as if it was needed) that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Should Chelsea have got the steamrollers out again?
Not a Man City fan but had they stayed 11vs 11 they were doing ok against a super Barcelona.
They weren't doing that brilliant and regardless, what you are saying couldn't be more irrelevant. Whether something is up for review in the future or not doesn't make a decision 2 weeks ago suddenly wrong.
And for the record it shouldn't be removed, standard knee-jerk reaction to a media furore brought on by people who can't see beyond the end of their nose.
I mean FFS it was only at the last World Cup we had people bleating that only giving a pen for deliberate handball on the line wasn't fair when the player missed the penalty along with a red card being given! Suddenly we were talking about "penalty goals" and other nonsense. Now we are saying that a pen for denying a goalscoring opportunity is plenty sufficient! Thats great until the first pen is missed early on in a game an the fouling side still have 11 men on the pitch and the guy who gave the pen away scorers the winner. Then it will all be unfair again no doubt……….
People need to think through the OVERALL impact of rule changes, not just how it would affect the one decision they didn't really like.
The main thing was to avoid humiliation. I don't feel that City were humiliated or disgraced. They played well, but Barcelona were slightly better. There's no shame in losing against Barcelona in my opinion.
Avoid humiliation? That is something that I would expect a fan of a team like Steaua Bucharest, Norwich or Celtic not bloody Manchester City. You should be going there to win!
And I would also say Barcelona were considerably better.
There's a lot of excuses made for Man City in this thread. The simple fact is they've not been good enough. All this about Champions League experience, PSG are newcomers to the Champions League, they have performed better than Man City.
Dortmund only recently returned to the Champions League after a long absence. It took them 1 season to get a grips, next season they're in the final. Similarly Atletico Madrid have had no problems this season.
With the amount of money Man City have spent and are spending, they are simply under performing. There is no reason they shouldn't at least be able to give Barcelona a match. Yet over the 2 legs they looked a league below Barcelona.
Man City simply aren't as good as they've been billed to be in this country. Time and time again they've been shown up by the best teams.
There's a lot of excuses made for Man City in this thread. The simple fact is they've not been good enough. All this about Champions League experience, PSG are newcomers to the Champions League, they have performed better than Man City.
Dortmund only recently returned to the Champions League after a long absence. It took them 1 season to get a grips, next season they're in the final. Similarly Atletico Madrid have had no problems this season.
With the amount of money Man City have spent and are spending, they are simply under performing. There is no reason they shouldn't at least be able to give Barcelona a match. Yet over the 2 legs they looked a league below Barcelona.
Man City simply aren't as good as they've been billed to be in this country. Time and time again they've been shown up by the best teams.
Atletico didn't draw Barcelona in the last 16 did they ? They drew AC Milan, a club in turmoil.
With a bit of luck, City can win the Champions League next season, let alone making the semi-finals.
They weren't doing that brilliant and regardless, what you are saying couldn't be more irrelevant. Whether something is up for review in the future or not doesn't make a decision 2 weeks ago suddenly wrong.
As I say they were doing ok. But as football fans go two will see the game differently. And yes I consider it relevant when we still have an archaic rule influencing a competition of the level of the champion's league.
And for the record it shouldn't be removed, standard knee-jerk reaction to a media furore brought on by people who can't see beyond the end of their nose.
I mean FFS it was only at the last World Cup we had people bleating that only giving a pen for deliberate handball on the line wasn't fair when the player missed the penalty along with a red card being given! Suddenly we were talking about "penalty goals" and other nonsense. Now we are saying that a pen for denying a goalscoring opportunity is plenty sufficient! Thats great until the first pen is missed early on in a game an the fouling side still have 11 men on the pitch and the guy who gave the pen away scorers the winner. Then it will all be unfair again no doubt……….
People need to think through the OVERALL impact of rule changes, not just how it would affect the one decision they didn't really like.
A penalty an offensive team should be scoring every time. If they miss it's their failure to capitalise. The offender will get a yellow card- and there's no nonsense whereby a team is double-punished being a man down and out of the match, and a goal down.
A penalty an offensive team should be scoring every time. If they miss it's their failure to capitalise. The offender will get a yellow card- and there's no nonsense whereby a team is double-punished being a man down and out of the match, and a goal down.
Not that I significantly care about this.
And if that is your opinion then thats fine. I find it odd, but ok, no problem.
However the fact remains that its not some bizarre rule. There are essentially two punishments being handed out and its logical. If you as the fouler (for want of a better word) denies a goalscoring opportunity then your foul is worth a red card. Totally logical. If you commit a foul in the box, then it is a penalty. Again, totally logical. The fact that it may mess up the asthetic beauty of the remainder of the game for the viewing public doesnt mean its any less logical or the rules should be changed. By applying the same logic you could headbutt a player in the box and it would be ok cos its a penalty so no need for a card.
Under your rules players would never think twice about committing the foul because there is always the chance that the penalty would be missed. Just as right now a player may deliberately handle the ball on the line if its late on in the game because even with the red card the pen may still be missed. Its all about risk/reward. Early in a game the player may not handle in the same way because even if the pen is missed there is still a large part of the game to go with 10 men.
If City were knocked out as a result of some horrific refereeing miscarriage of justice I would totally agree with any perceived issue. However they werent. They had a man red carded for a red card offence that everyone knew would be a red card offence before the game started.
If City were knocked out as a result of some horrific refereeing miscarriage of justice I would totally agree with any perceived issue. However they werent. They had a man red carded for a red card offence that everyone knew would be a red card offence before the game started.
Sorry I guess this is where there's confusion. I don't think there was a miscarriage of justice. My view is that Man City played ok. Analyzing the score as 2-0 down and Man City therefore dismal- is an injustice when you both factor in the archaic rule, and the way thinks were going pre that man sent off. No doubt Barcelona would be one goal up, but Man City were still in the tie to both equalise, and defend from a second.
And if that is your opinion then thats fine. I find it odd, but ok, no problem.
However the fact remains that its not some bizarre rule. There are essentially two punishments being handed out and its logical. If you as the fouler (for want of a better word) denies a goalscoring opportunity then your foul is worth a red card. Totally logical. If you commit a foul in the box, then it is a penalty. Again, totally logical. The fact that it may mess up the asthetic beauty of the remainder of the game for the viewing public doesnt mean its any less logical or the rules should be changed. By applying the same logic you could headbutt a player in the box and it would be ok cos its a penalty so no need for a card.
Under your rules players would never think twice about committing the foul because there is always the chance that the penalty would be missed. Just as right now a player may deliberately handle the ball on the line if its late on in the game because even with the red card the pen may still be missed. Its all about risk/reward. Early in a game the player may not handle in the same way because even if the pen is missed there is still a large part of the game to go with 10 men.
It's less about the aesthetics and more about the unfair application of a double punishment. A straight red card given- for a goalscoring opportunity- which it should be pointed out might not be scored. So the offensive side get a penalty, and the player is sent off- and with that effect putting this side effectively out of the game.
They've been given that goalscoring opportunity back! And because a tackle missed on this occasion the side has been double punished. With both the goal, and the player sent off.
It has been glaring out to football pundits for years.But that's as much as I'm going to say on this. Just hope they implement it.
It's less about the aesthetics and more about the unfair application of a double punishment. A straight red card given- for a goalscoring opportunity- which it should be pointed out might not be scored. So the offensive side get a penalty, and the player is sent off- and with that effect putting this side effectively out of the game.
They've been given that goalscoring opportunity back! And because a tackle missed on this occasion the side has been double punished. With both the goal, and the player sent off.
It has been glaring out to football pundits for years.But that's as much as I'm going to say on this. Just hope they implement it.
Sorry but the BIB shows where you are wrong. If the attacking team are simply "getting the goalscoring opportunity back" then if there is no red card for the foul then how are the defending team being punished for the foul? They arent. They were facing a goalscoring opportunity, they committed a blatant foul and the only punishment for it is facing another goalscoring opportunity. How can that possibly be more logical or fairer?
Essentially you are giving the defending team a free foul.
There's a lot of excuses made for Man City in this thread. The simple fact is they've not been good enough. All this about Champions League experience, PSG are newcomers to the Champions League, they have performed better than Man City.
Dortmund only recently returned to the Champions League after a long absence. It took them 1 season to get a grips, next season they're in the final. Similarly Atletico Madrid have had no problems this season.
With the amount of money Man City have spent and are spending, they are simply under performing. There is no reason they shouldn't at least be able to give Barcelona a match. Yet over the 2 legs they looked a league below Barcelona.
Man City simply aren't as good as they've been billed to be in this country. Time and time again they've been shown up by the best teams.
I dont think they did that badly really, and no one can say with a straight face that Barcelona are anything but a super team. Even when they dont play well they are a force to be reckoned with.
Having said that, the only real opinion that matters is how does the money feel about this. If those rich folks are not happy then its a problem, if they are looking longer term then its all ok.
You ask anyone not really into football who the big English teams are they never pick Man City. Its always Liverpool, Man UTD, maybe Arsenal and if they have been out of touch its Nottingham Forest. Man City are not a big name team just yet, although clearly they are aiming to change that. I think its rather telling how much it has cost them in money to simply put themselves into the mix at the top. They need to keep this up and bring a few more bits of silverware back now and again. I wonder what the other teams think as well, could they push this money into it, is this what it takes to get into the very top.
Maybe UTD's fall will be City's (or would it be Cities, I can never remember) ascension.
(One thing I do know is someone somewhere is earning a cream of it all haha)
This is just excuses over 3 seasons. You can't keep blaming the draw.
PSG drew Barcelona last year, they went out, but they at least looked like they were in the same league as Barcelona.
Atletico have played Barcelona 3 times this season, and again have given them a far better match than Man City did.
I'm pretty sure Messi was on the bench when PSG went to the Nou Camp.
Atletico are not in the same league as Barcelona. Last time I saw them play Barcelona, they parked the bus.
Real Madrid, the club that spent 1 billion Euros struggled against Barcelona in recent years.
I don't think City struggled against Barcelona. Ultimately they lost because of Demichelis and Lescott .. This team needs a world class CB and then it be a real force to be reckoned with .
Their performances highlight the huge differences between the City and Chelsea takeovers!
City were a club that hadn't won a sausage in donkeys years, and were a club that was going nowhere! Then, money was thrown at them putting them straight into the deep end without anykind of natural progression behind them.
Chelsea had been winning things, including a European trophy. They'd become increasingly consistent in the league and were getting better and better. Then came qualification for the CL, and then came the money.
SF in their first CL season, and it should have been a final, but threw it away against Monaco.
Chelsea were ready for it, while City are still learning on the job.
There's a lot of excuses made for Man City in this thread. The simple fact is they've not been good enough. All this about Champions League experience, PSG are newcomers to the Champions League, they have performed better than Man City.
Dortmund only recently returned to the Champions League after a long absence. It took them 1 season to get a grips, next season they're in the final. Similarly Atletico Madrid have had no problems this season.
With the amount of money Man City have spent and are spending, they are simply under performing. There is no reason they shouldn't at least be able to give Barcelona a match. Yet over the 2 legs they looked a league below Barcelona.
Man City simply aren't as good as they've been billed to be in this country. Time and time again they've been shown up by the best teams.
Couldn't agree more, for all the money Manchester City have spent they ain't half got some average looking players, its inexcusable that they should be so light in defence.
Pelligrini will go the same way as Mancini if he doesn't buck his ideas up, 2 years for him to prove himself i reckon so a big season for him next season as he will likely have no credit in the bank from this season.
What i don't understand with Tottenham and Man City is why on earth have neither of them gone for Rafa Benitez?, hes a proven elite level coach and is certainly a level or 2 up from the managers both clubs have been hiring in recent years.
Manchester City want to do well in Europe right? Benitez is the man then, no question about it, it would be entertaining to see Mourinho and Benitez head to head again, Moyes, Pelligrini and Wenger are no real threat, its to easy for Mourinho, Benitez at City would be a real threat for Mourinho, no doubt about it.
Couldn't agree more, for all the money Manchester City have spent they ain't half got some average looking players, its inexcusable that they should be so light in defence.
Pelligrini will go the same way as Mancini if he doesn't buck his ideas up, 2 years for him to prove himself i reckon so a big season for him next season as he will likely have no credit in the bank from this season.
What i don't understand with Tottenham and Man City is why on earth have neither of them gone for Rafa Benitez?, hes a proven elite level coach and is certainly a level or 2 up from the managers both clubs have been hiring in recent years.
Manchester City want to do well in Europe right? Benitez is the man then, no question about it, it would be entertaining to see Mourinho and Benitez head to head again, Moyes, Pelligrini and Wenger are no real threat, its to easy for Mourinho, Benitez at City would be a real threat for Mourinho, no doubt about it.
Man City only hire attack minded managers.
Benetiz is a result manager. He grinds out results like Mourinho, Moyes etc.
Comments
http://espnfc.com/news/story?id=740695&cc=5739
Something that should be removed from our current game.
Not a Man City fan but had they stayed 11vs 11 they were doing ok against a super Barcelona.
Or lose it 'in style', eh?
Absolute proof (as if it was needed) that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Should Chelsea have got the steamrollers out again?
That's the spirit Danny, you passionate developer or homegrown talent!
They weren't doing that brilliant and regardless, what you are saying couldn't be more irrelevant. Whether something is up for review in the future or not doesn't make a decision 2 weeks ago suddenly wrong.
And for the record it shouldn't be removed, standard knee-jerk reaction to a media furore brought on by people who can't see beyond the end of their nose.
I mean FFS it was only at the last World Cup we had people bleating that only giving a pen for deliberate handball on the line wasn't fair when the player missed the penalty along with a red card being given! Suddenly we were talking about "penalty goals" and other nonsense. Now we are saying that a pen for denying a goalscoring opportunity is plenty sufficient! Thats great until the first pen is missed early on in a game an the fouling side still have 11 men on the pitch and the guy who gave the pen away scorers the winner. Then it will all be unfair again no doubt……….
People need to think through the OVERALL impact of rule changes, not just how it would affect the one decision they didn't really like.
Avoid humiliation? That is something that I would expect a fan of a team like Steaua Bucharest, Norwich or Celtic not bloody Manchester City. You should be going there to win!
And I would also say Barcelona were considerably better.
Dortmund only recently returned to the Champions League after a long absence. It took them 1 season to get a grips, next season they're in the final. Similarly Atletico Madrid have had no problems this season.
With the amount of money Man City have spent and are spending, they are simply under performing. There is no reason they shouldn't at least be able to give Barcelona a match. Yet over the 2 legs they looked a league below Barcelona.
Man City simply aren't as good as they've been billed to be in this country. Time and time again they've been shown up by the best teams.
Atletico didn't draw Barcelona in the last 16 did they ? They drew AC Milan, a club in turmoil.
With a bit of luck, City can win the Champions League next season, let alone making the semi-finals.
Generally he isn't but in that tie he tried to do what others have done which is retreat and basically allow Barcelona all the possession.
A penalty an offensive team should be scoring every time. If they miss it's their failure to capitalise. The offender will get a yellow card- and there's no nonsense whereby a team is double-punished being a man down and out of the match, and a goal down.
Not that I significantly care about this.
And if that is your opinion then thats fine. I find it odd, but ok, no problem.
However the fact remains that its not some bizarre rule. There are essentially two punishments being handed out and its logical. If you as the fouler (for want of a better word) denies a goalscoring opportunity then your foul is worth a red card. Totally logical. If you commit a foul in the box, then it is a penalty. Again, totally logical. The fact that it may mess up the asthetic beauty of the remainder of the game for the viewing public doesnt mean its any less logical or the rules should be changed. By applying the same logic you could headbutt a player in the box and it would be ok cos its a penalty so no need for a card.
Under your rules players would never think twice about committing the foul because there is always the chance that the penalty would be missed. Just as right now a player may deliberately handle the ball on the line if its late on in the game because even with the red card the pen may still be missed. Its all about risk/reward. Early in a game the player may not handle in the same way because even if the pen is missed there is still a large part of the game to go with 10 men.
If City were knocked out as a result of some horrific refereeing miscarriage of justice I would totally agree with any perceived issue. However they werent. They had a man red carded for a red card offence that everyone knew would be a red card offence before the game started.
Concentrate on avoiding humiliation where possible and then start thinking big.
It's less about the aesthetics and more about the unfair application of a double punishment. A straight red card given- for a goalscoring opportunity- which it should be pointed out might not be scored. So the offensive side get a penalty, and the player is sent off- and with that effect putting this side effectively out of the game.
They've been given that goalscoring opportunity back! And because a tackle missed on this occasion the side has been double punished. With both the goal, and the player sent off.
It has been glaring out to football pundits for years.But that's as much as I'm going to say on this. Just hope they implement it.
Sorry but the BIB shows where you are wrong. If the attacking team are simply "getting the goalscoring opportunity back" then if there is no red card for the foul then how are the defending team being punished for the foul? They arent. They were facing a goalscoring opportunity, they committed a blatant foul and the only punishment for it is facing another goalscoring opportunity. How can that possibly be more logical or fairer?
Essentially you are giving the defending team a free foul.
This is just excuses over 3 seasons. You can't keep blaming the draw.
PSG drew Barcelona last year, they went out, but they at least looked like they were in the same league as Barcelona.
Atletico have played Barcelona 3 times this season, and again have given them a far better match than Man City did.
I dont think they did that badly really, and no one can say with a straight face that Barcelona are anything but a super team. Even when they dont play well they are a force to be reckoned with.
Having said that, the only real opinion that matters is how does the money feel about this. If those rich folks are not happy then its a problem, if they are looking longer term then its all ok.
You ask anyone not really into football who the big English teams are they never pick Man City. Its always Liverpool, Man UTD, maybe Arsenal and if they have been out of touch its Nottingham Forest. Man City are not a big name team just yet, although clearly they are aiming to change that. I think its rather telling how much it has cost them in money to simply put themselves into the mix at the top. They need to keep this up and bring a few more bits of silverware back now and again. I wonder what the other teams think as well, could they push this money into it, is this what it takes to get into the very top.
Maybe UTD's fall will be City's (or would it be Cities, I can never remember) ascension.
(One thing I do know is someone somewhere is earning a cream of it all haha)
Its typical of the media though - can be very hypocritical at times.
When England play and don't succeed its "we must develop young talent for the sake of England's future"
But any other part of the season its "what proven world class player do x need to improve them"
Oh, presumably because that is something that City haven't done before.:o
I'm pretty sure Messi was on the bench when PSG went to the Nou Camp.
Atletico are not in the same league as Barcelona. Last time I saw them play Barcelona, they parked the bus.
Real Madrid, the club that spent 1 billion Euros struggled against Barcelona in recent years.
I don't think City struggled against Barcelona. Ultimately they lost because of Demichelis and Lescott .. This team needs a world class CB and then it be a real force to be reckoned with .
City were a club that hadn't won a sausage in donkeys years, and were a club that was going nowhere! Then, money was thrown at them putting them straight into the deep end without anykind of natural progression behind them.
Chelsea had been winning things, including a European trophy. They'd become increasingly consistent in the league and were getting better and better. Then came qualification for the CL, and then came the money.
SF in their first CL season, and it should have been a final, but threw it away against Monaco.
Chelsea were ready for it, while City are still learning on the job.
Couldn't agree more, for all the money Manchester City have spent they ain't half got some average looking players, its inexcusable that they should be so light in defence.
Pelligrini will go the same way as Mancini if he doesn't buck his ideas up, 2 years for him to prove himself i reckon so a big season for him next season as he will likely have no credit in the bank from this season.
What i don't understand with Tottenham and Man City is why on earth have neither of them gone for Rafa Benitez?, hes a proven elite level coach and is certainly a level or 2 up from the managers both clubs have been hiring in recent years.
Manchester City want to do well in Europe right? Benitez is the man then, no question about it, it would be entertaining to see Mourinho and Benitez head to head again, Moyes, Pelligrini and Wenger are no real threat, its to easy for Mourinho, Benitez at City would be a real threat for Mourinho, no doubt about it.
Man City only hire attack minded managers.
Benetiz is a result manager. He grinds out results like Mourinho, Moyes etc.