Manchester City

[JacknDanny]

More utter hypocrisy from Mancini last night, in trying to influence the ref regarding Johnson's tackle. He'll argue that Johnson's tackle was worse than Kompany's, and he might be right, but if you are against putting pressure on the ref, you should be against it in all circumstances. You can't suddenly make exceptions that it is ok and acceptable, when it is one of your players fouled against, or when you deem it to have been a bad one. Complete nonsense.

The tackle was worst than Kompanys, ie slightly higher and 2 feet together, but it was neither intentional or dangerous IMO, and did not deserve a booking... which makes Kompanys sending off even harder to take.

Dont know what you mean about Mancini?? The cameras did not pan to him, and the City players were not surrounding the ref or kicking off about the decision.

If its something Mancini has said in interview, then remember English is not his first language. He is furious that Kompany was sent off. He probably feels the same way I do about Johnsons tackle, but he cannot understand why Johnson was not sent off, even though he believes the tackle did not warrant a sending off, why Kompany and NOT Johnson? The answer is because the referees are simply not consistent enough

[rixalex]

The answer is because the referees are simply not consistent enough

On that we agree, but i'm of the belief that they need more help. They are only human after all. Mistakes will happen. Of course they are easier to accept when they are not against one's own team.

[JacknDanny]

The answer is because the referees are simply not consistent enough

On that we agree, but i'm of the belief that they need more help. They are only human after all. Mistakes will happen. Of course they are easier to accept when they are not against one's own team.

Agreed... but how difficult is it to sit them all down and teach them consistency? If the ref misses something thats a different thing. When is a handball a handball? When is a tackled deemed a foul/booking/sending off? How does the advantage rule work ( there is NO consistency in this... some refs work it well, others havent got a clue)

Make the referee accountable.... I will be watching Foy with interest next time he referees, because any tackle with both feet even slightly off the ground, must be a sending off in his book??? Totally ridiculous... more work needs to be done with the refs...

Anyway, this is not the place or the time.... let me mourn in peace!!

[StevieH]

The tackle was worst than Kompanys, ie slightly higher and 2 feet together, but it was neither intentional or dangerous IMO, and did not deserve a booking... which makes Kompanys sending off even harder to take.

neither was a foul. neither injured or touched the opposing player, both got the ball. kompany's sending off was ridiculous and driven by circumstance - if it wasn't against united the ref would have given a yellow card i reckon. at most.

kompany's website statement last night was spot on. when you start sending players off for 'ifs' and 'maybes' rather than actual fouls where does it stop?

[rixalex]

The answer is because the referees are simply not consistent enough

On that we agree, but i'm of the belief that they need more help. They are only human after all. Mistakes will happen. Of course they are easier to accept when they are not against one's own team.

Agreed... but how difficult is it to sit them all down and teach them consistency? If the ref misses something thats a different thing. When is a handball a handball? When is a tackled deemed a foul/booking/sending off? How does the advantage rule work ( there is NO consistency in this... some refs work it well, others havent got a clue)

Make the referee accountable.... I will be watching Foy with interest next time he referees, because any tackle with both feet even slightly off the ground, must be a sending off in his book??? Totally ridiculous... more work needs to be done with the refs...

Anyway, this is not the place or the time.... let me mourn in peace!!

Agree with all of that. There is room for improvement. And why they don't have TV interviews with refs after the game, so as to explain their decisions / apologise for bad ones, i really don't know.

As for mourning, steady on mate, only first leg of mickey mouse cup.

[rixalex]

The tackle was worst than Kompanys, ie slightly higher and 2 feet together, but it was neither intentional or dangerous IMO, and did not deserve a booking... which makes Kompanys sending off even harder to take.

neither was a foul. neither injured or touched the opposing player, both got the ball. kompany's sending off was ridiculous and driven by circumstance - if it wasn't against united the ref would have given a yellow card i reckon. at most.

kompany's website statement last night was spot on. when you start sending players off for 'ifs' and 'maybes' rather than actual fouls where does it stop?

Got no problem myself with people being sent off for ifs and maybes. If a player saves his leg from a probable break by jumping out of the way of a reckless challenge, punishment should be equal to were he not to have jumped out of the way. Of course this requires making a judgement based on ifs and maybes. All we can hope for is it being a considered judgement. It won't always be.

[StevieH]

The tackle was worst than Kompanys, ie slightly higher and 2 feet together, but it was neither intentional or dangerous IMO, and did not deserve a booking... which makes Kompanys sending off even harder to take.

neither was a foul. neither injured or touched the opposing player, both got the ball. kompany's sending off was ridiculous and driven by circumstance - if it wasn't against united the ref would have given a yellow card i reckon. at most.

kompany's website statement last night was spot on. when you start sending players off for 'ifs' and 'maybes' rather than actual fouls where does it stop?

Got no problem myself with people being sent off for ifs and maybes. If a player saves his leg from a probable break by jumping out of the way of a reckless challenge, punishment should be equal to were he not to have jumped out of the way. Of course this requires making a judgement based on ifs and maybes. All we can hope for is it being a considered judgement. It won't always be.

no it shouldn't, that's a mental approach to take. you're advocating non-contact football there. you want to start booking or sending players off for every aerial challenge because they were maybe thinking about trying to headbutt the opponent?

i don't have a problem with referees sending off players for violent challenges which were clearly intended to hurt or injure an opponent, but neither kompany's nor johnson's were - they both got the ball. unfortunately referees are not allowed or encouraged to employ common sense and so kompany was sent off and a match ruined in the 12th minute. the rule shouldn't be as arbitrary as 'well if he leaves the floor or has both feet off the ground he's got to walk brian'.

[carmine]

Did any of you see Kaboul's sending off by Chris Foy in our game at Stoke? Not even about consistency in this guy's case. Not fit to referee, end off.

[rixalex]

The tackle was worst than Kompanys, ie slightly higher and 2 feet together, but it was neither intentional or dangerous IMO, and did not deserve a booking... which makes Kompanys sending off even harder to take.

neither was a foul. neither injured or touched the opposing player, both got the ball. kompany's sending off was ridiculous and driven by circumstance - if it wasn't against united the ref would have given a yellow card i reckon. at most.

kompany's website statement last night was spot on. when you start sending players off for 'ifs' and 'maybes' rather than actual fouls where does it stop?

Got no problem myself with people being sent off for ifs and maybes. If a player saves his leg from a probable break by jumping out of the way of a reckless challenge, punishment should be equal to were he not to have jumped out of the way. Of course this requires making a judgement based on ifs and maybes. All we can hope for is it being a considered judgement. It won't always be.

no it shouldn't, that's a mental approach to take. you're advocating non-contact football there. you want to start booking or sending players off for every aerial challenge because they were maybe thinking about trying to headbutt the opponent?

i don't have a problem with referees sending off players for violent challenges which were clearly intended to hurt or injure an opponent, but neither kompany's nor johnson's were - they both got the ball. unfortunately referees are not allowed or encouraged to employ common sense and so kompany was sent off and a match ruined in the 12th minute. the rule shouldn't be as arbitrary as 'well if he leaves the floor or has both feet off the ground he's got to walk brian'.

Determining whether challenges were intended to hurt or injure is hardly a scientific business either. Requires getting inside the heads of players - rather you than me. Requires speculation.

And i'm not advocating non-contact football. All i was saying, is i don't have a problem with ifs and maybes. If the ref thinks the tackle was dangerous, the player should be booked accordingly. All comes down though to the good judgement of the ref, and i'm not arguing that it is always good.

[StevieH]

Determining whether challenges were intended to hurt or injure is hardly a scientific business either. Requires getting inside the heads of players - rather you than me. Requires speculation.

And i'm not advocating non-contact football. All i was saying, is i don't have a problem with ifs and maybes. If the ref thinks the tackle was dangerous, the player should be booked accordingly. All comes down though to the good judgement of the ref, and i'm not arguing that it is always good.

and this is where it gets really muddy isn't it? the rules are simply wrong in this instance - they don't allow referees to make a good judgement call. they say that if the player is off the floor then he's got to go off (i'm paraphrasing obviously).

you said 'booked accordingly', and if that was deliberate i agree. chris foy could have booked kompany, or even just had a stern word with him - we're only 12 minutes in here lad, i'm letting this one go because you didn't touch nani but anything remotely like that again and you're walking.

the best ref i've seen in my lifetime basically ignored what his FA told him and employed his own judgement, pierluigi collina. and he was respected by just about everybody in the game as a result.

[StevieH]

Did any of you see Kaboul's sending off by Chris Foy in our game at Stoke? Not even about consistency in this guy's case. Not fit to referee, end off.

i think he's an attention-seeking pillock but that's probably another discussion.

[rixalex]

you said 'booked accordingly', and if that was deliberate i agree. chris foy could have booked kompany, or even just had a stern word with him - we're only 12 minutes in here lad, i'm letting this one go because you didn't touch nani but anything remotely like that again and you're walking.

You ask for consistency, but then you advocate refs making decisions based on how many minutes into a game it is. So the same challenge that occurs 10 minutes from the end of a game, will get treated differently from a challenge that occurs 10 minutes in. I don't perceive that as being consistent or fair.

Giving players due warning, well that i can agree with. And that is what i believe should have happened to Kompany. But it didn't. Tough on City, and Mancini had every right to feel aggrieved. It was only the blaming Rooney thing that in my opinion, and based on the way Mancini acted himself with regards Skrtel, was daft.

[mrbojangles]

Horrible display last night!!

Only Micah Richards came away with any merit.

We created little, and what was created Aguerro tossed off.

Admittedly we were missing our 3 best players and Balotelli was not fully fit, but still disappointing for me!!

It did show to me that Savic is not close to being a Premiership player (him and Lescott passing the ball to each other all night like we were 10-0 up showed a lack of confidence). If I were Mancini, I would persevere with Nedum, and give him the next 3 or 4 games

Johnson, to me, is a poor mans Peter Barnes... gifted but way too inconsistent.

Nasri?? <deleted>? Wish he would turn up!! Aguero looks tired, I would rest him against Wigan.

And finally, Mr Kolarov!! proving that yes, even a blind squirrel will find the odd nut!!

I would not like to be sat behind the goal when he was playing.... particularly if sitting in row Z.

Ditto. You just saved me loads of time having a moan

[StevieH]

You ask for consistency, but then you advocate refs making decisions based on how many minutes into a game it is. So the same challenge that occurs 10 minutes from the end of a game, will get treated differently from a challenge that occurs 10 minutes in. I don't perceive that as being consistent or fair.

no, that isn't what i said. i want them to treat challenges consistently irrespective of when they take place in a match. i also want them to not give red cards for challenges which are patently not dangerous, like kompany's. kompany's challenge wasn't a red card whether it happened after 12 minutes or 82. it was just bad refereeing under pressure from stupid rules and a clueless FA. plus ca change.

Giving players due warning, well that i can agree with. And that is what i believe should have happened to Kompany. But it didn't. Tough on City, and Mancini had every right to feel aggrieved. It was only the blaming Rooney thing that in my opinion, and based on the way Mancini acted himself with regards Skrtel, was daft.

well rooney's a hypocritical gobshite and a <deleted>, you'll get no argument from me there. but then so are almost all in football.

[rixalex]

well rooney's a hypocritical gobshite and a <deleted>, you'll get no argument from me there. but then so are almost all in football.

If we are talking about hypocriticism, on this occasion, what has been noticeable is Mancini's, not Rooney's. I appreciate the need of some however to get in the Rooney what a wanke_r comment whenever possible.

[rixalex]

no, that isn't what i said. i want them to treat challenges consistently irrespective of when they take place in a match.

Why, in your imaginary scenario, did you have the ref mentioning to the lad about how many minutes in to the game they were? Sounded to me like the ref was saying, "look i'm not going to book you now because the game has only just started, and if i book you now, i get all this agro from people saying i ruined the game and i can't be arsed with that".

[JacknDanny]

no, that isn't what i said. i want them to treat challenges consistently irrespective of when they take place in a match.

Why, in your imaginary scenario, did you have the ref mentioning to the lad about how many minutes in to the game they were? Sounded to me like the ref was saying, "look i'm not going to book you now because the game has only just started, and if i book you now, i get all this agro from people saying i ruined the game and i can't be arsed with that".

I think the minutes into a game become important in relation to intent.

In Kompanys case 12 minutes in, no bad tackles so far in the game, in my opinion an innocuous challenge, therefore very difficult to prove intent.

Johnsons tackle came at the end of the game, again innocuous and with seldom bad tackles in the game, again intent very hard to prove.

Now if in either case the game had been full of bad blood with warnings going out all over the place, OR either player had been fouled a few minutes previous by Nani or Milner, then you could have an arguement for intent.

I agree if the tackle is a disgraceful tackle then it doesnt matter if its the first or last minute, he has to go..... but 12 minutes into a game with barely a tackle made...... stupid!!

[rixalex]

I think the minutes into a game become important in relation to intent.

In Kompanys case 12 minutes in, no bad tackles so far in the game, in my opinion an innocuous challenge, therefore very difficult to prove intent.

Johnsons tackle came at the end of the game, again innocuous and with seldom bad tackles in the game, again intent very hard to prove.

Now if in either case the game had been full of bad blood with warnings going out all over the place, OR either player had been fouled a few minutes previous by Nani or Milner, then you could have an arguement for intent.

I agree if the tackle is a disgraceful tackle then it doesnt matter if its the first or last minute, he has to go..... but 12 minutes into a game with barely a tackle made...... stupid!!

I get what you are saying but i just think that mentioning time at all, talking about 12 minutes into a game, only confuses the issue. This has nothing to do with the time in the match, it has to do with players being given due warning first, when possible. Kompany should have been warned to calm down, and that should have been the end of that.

Anyway, i think we pretty much agree on all this. It wasn't the point i came here to make.

My point was about Mancini. I'm interested to know what you thought when he did the imaginary card waving trick trying to get Skrtel sent off? I speak out about this business, when players from my team do it, and i speak out in disgust. I would especially speak out, if they did it one week, and then the next complained about someone from another team, doing something similar.

[Abrak]

BTW complaining about lack of depth with your squillions is a bit much. At last count, including U21s and loanees, you had 44 in your squad. And considering that Balotelli comes on the pitch with number 45 you are taking the piss.

[bkkjames]

Stevie, correct me if I am wrong, but me seems to recall that you are proponent of ref mistakes as part of the game? Bad calls even out and all that. .

[JacknDanny]

BTW complaining about lack of depth with your squillions is a bit much. At last count, including U21s and loanees, you had 44 in your squad. And considering that Balotelli comes on the pitch with number 45 you are taking the piss.

Abrak, you might be ok on stats, but when it comes to real facts, your head wobbles a bit.

Premiership teams are now limited to 25 players, including 8 home grown.

Tevez is taking up one spot, Toure brothers unavailable, Kompany banned, Silva injured, leaves us 18 players to choose from!!. I am not complaining, but it doesnt matter how rich you are, there is nothing you can do until we sell and then buy again this month.....

Re Marios 45, he has always wore that number in his career... something to do with respecting WW2 .... Dont see how that is taking the p!ss

[JacknDanny]

I think the minutes into a game become important in relation to intent.

In Kompanys case 12 minutes in, no bad tackles so far in the game, in my opinion an innocuous challenge, therefore very difficult to prove intent.

Johnsons tackle came at the end of the game, again innocuous and with seldom bad tackles in the game, again intent very hard to prove.

Now if in either case the game had been full of bad blood with warnings going out all over the place, OR either player had been fouled a few minutes previous by Nani or Milner, then you could have an arguement for intent.

I agree if the tackle is a disgraceful tackle then it doesnt matter if its the first or last minute, he has to go..... but 12 minutes into a game with barely a tackle made...... stupid!!

I get what you are saying but i just think that mentioning time at all, talking about 12 minutes into a game, only confuses the issue. This has nothing to do with the time in the match, it has to do with players being given due warning first, when possible. Kompany should have been warned to calm down, and that should have been the end of that.

Anyway, i think we pretty much agree on all this. It wasn't the point i came here to make.

My point was about Mancini. I'm interested to know what you thought when he did the imaginary card waving trick trying to get Skrtel sent off? I speak out about this business, when players from my team do it, and i speak out in disgust. I would especially speak out, if they did it one week, and then the next complained about someone from another team, doing something similar.

The difference is Macini was not waving an imaginary card at the referee.... he was indicating to the 4th official, AFTER the incident. My read of it was he was p!ssed off and asking why the lad had not been sent off.

I think players on the field doing it to the ref in real time is not right, and if a City player does it, I do not like it... Nasri has a habit of doing it, and I dont like it

[rixalex]

The difference is Macini was not waving an imaginary card at the referee.... he was indicating to the 4th official, AFTER the incident. My read of it was he was p!ssed off and asking why the lad had not been sent off.

I think players on the field doing it to the ref in real time is not right, and if a City player does it, I do not like it... Nasri has a habit of doing it, and I dont like it

So you see no hypocrisy in a manager doing at the side of the pitch, and then complaining about a player doing it on the pitch? (and actually, to be fair, Rooney was not doing the imaginary flag waving <deleted>, he was just pointing out that it was a two-footed tackle - perhaps he shouldn't have done, perhaps it wasn't his business, but my point is, Mancini is not the person to be complaining about this sort of stuff).

[JacknDanny]

The difference is Macini was not waving an imaginary card at the referee.... he was indicating to the 4th official, AFTER the incident. My read of it was he was p!ssed off and asking why the lad had not been sent off.

I think players on the field doing it to the ref in real time is not right, and if a City player does it, I do not like it... Nasri has a habit of doing it, and I dont like it

So you see no hypocrisy in a manager doing at the side of the pitch, and then complaining about a player doing it on the pitch? (and actually, to be fair, Rooney was not doing the imaginary flag waving <deleted>, he was just pointing out that it was a two-footed tackle - perhaps he shouldn't have done, perhaps it wasn't his business, but my point is, Mancini is not the person to be complaining about this sort of stuff).

He was communicating AFTER the incident, to the 4th official.... NOT in real time to the referee. I see that as different, not hypocritical

[Abrak]

BTW complaining about lack of depth with your squillions is a bit much. At last count, including U21s and loanees, you had 44 in your squad. And considering that Balotelli comes on the pitch with number 45 you are taking the piss.

Abrak, you might be ok on stats, but when it comes to real facts, your head wobbles a bit.

Premiership teams are now limited to 25 players, including 8 home grown.

Tevez is taking up one spot, Toure brothers unavailable, Kompany banned, Silva injured, leaves us 18 players to choose from!!. I am not complaining, but it doesnt matter how rich you are, there is nothing you can do until we sell and then buy again this month.....

Re Marios 45, he has always wore that number in his career... something to do with respecting WW2 .... Dont see how that is taking the p!ss

Well it all depends what you call REAL facts.

Of course you can only have a named squad of 25 members (like every other Premiership team). You are allowed as many under 21 players as you like to choose from and these dont count to your named squad. And then of course you have players that you have sent out on loan. So City in fact have 44 players with squad numbers, the highest of which is 65 - Bradley Robinson.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Manchester_City_Squad_Numbers.html

I still dont understand what Mancini is going on about about in terms of getting more depth in his squad.

[JacknDanny]

BTW complaining about lack of depth with your squillions is a bit much. At last count, including U21s and loanees, you had 44 in your squad. And considering that Balotelli comes on the pitch with number 45 you are taking the piss.

Abrak, you might be ok on stats, but when it comes to real facts, your head wobbles a bit.

Premiership teams are now limited to 25 players, including 8 home grown.

Tevez is taking up one spot, Toure brothers unavailable, Kompany banned, Silva injured, leaves us 18 players to choose from!!. I am not complaining, but it doesnt matter how rich you are, there is nothing you can do until we sell and then buy again this month.....

Re Marios 45, he has always wore that number in his career... something to do with respecting WW2 .... Dont see how that is taking the p!ss

Well it all depends what you call REAL facts.

Of course you can only have a named squad of 25 members (like every other Premiership team). You are allowed as many under 21 players as you like to choose from and these dont count to your named squad. And then of course you have players that you have sent out on loan. So City in fact have 44 players with squad numbers, the highest of which is 65 - Bradley Robinson.

http://www.myfootbal...ad_Numbers.html

I still dont understand what Mancini is going on about about in terms of getting more depth in his squad.

I am fully aware of the FULL facts, its just that you were implying that City had a huge pot of players to choose from, which they dont, and that in some way it was taking the p!ss that Balotelli wears 45!!!

I will explain to you what Mancini means about getting more depth......... Right now Tevez is taking up 1 place, and 2 other players in the squad, Mancini has decided since September are not upto scratch ( Onouha and Bridge) means we have 3 passengers... So he needs those 3 to be sold, so he can buy 3 more players. He has to do that before the end of the transfer window. Having the current injuries and loss of Toure brothers has made that more significant.

[smokie36]

Sell those 3 and buy half the Barcelona team. We know the plan Jack.

[JacknDanny]

Sell those 3 and buy half the Barcelona team. We know the plan Jack.

But the point I am trying to make to Abrak, is if we did what you are suggesting, we could only use 3 of the Barcelona team (assuming we had sold Tevez/Onouha and Bridge)

[mrbojangles]

Sell those 3 and buy half the Barcelona team. We know the plan Jack.

Smokes, unless somewhere in the pipeline there is a plan for the Arab version of Andrex to sponsor our toilets for 400m quid, that won't be possible. We will (have to) adhere to FFP.

[Abrak]

BTW complaining about lack of depth with your squillions is a bit much. At last count, including U21s and loanees, you had 44 in your squad. And considering that Balotelli comes on the pitch with number 45 you are taking the piss.

Abrak, you might be ok on stats, but when it comes to real facts, your head wobbles a bit.

Premiership teams are now limited to 25 players, including 8 home grown.

Tevez is taking up one spot, Toure brothers unavailable, Kompany banned, Silva injured, leaves us 18 players to choose from!!. I am not complaining, but it doesnt matter how rich you are, there is nothing you can do until we sell and then buy again this month.....

Re Marios 45, he has always wore that number in his career... something to do with respecting WW2 .... Dont see how that is taking the p!ss

Well it all depends what you call REAL facts.

Of course you can only have a named squad of 25 members (like every other Premiership team). You are allowed as many under 21 players as you like to choose from and these dont count to your named squad. And then of course you have players that you have sent out on loan. So City in fact have 44 players with squad numbers, the highest of which is 65 - Bradley Robinson.

http://www.myfootbal...ad_Numbers.html

I still dont understand what Mancini is going on about about in terms of getting more depth in his squad.

I am fully aware of the FULL facts, its just that you were implying that City had a huge pot of players to choose from, which they dont, and that in some way it was taking the p!ss that Balotelli wears 45!!!

I will explain to you what Mancini means about getting more depth......... Right now Tevez is taking up 1 place, and 2 other players in the squad, Mancini has decided since September are not upto scratch ( Onouha and Bridge) means we have 3 passengers... So he needs those 3 to be sold, so he can buy 3 more players. He has to do that before the end of the transfer window. Having the current injuries and loss of Toure brothers has made that more significant.

So what you are really saying is that Mancini just thinks that his squad is not good enough. I guess he could have added Hargreaves to the passengers but he has only just recruited him. The problem is that when you regard Bridge - a player with 36 England caps and a player that Arsenal are reportedly wanting to take on loan - as a 'passenger' that you wish to jettison so that you need to increase 'squad depth' you do sound like the most overly spoilt child in the street.