by Beefymcfc » Sun Feb 01, 2015 1:04 pm
I've not really commented on the thread because I became so incensed with yesterdays game and the portrayal post-match. The fact that Maureen hardly got any stick for his childish behaviour, refusing to give any comment, pre or post-match, really grips my shit. Then, the tactics he adopted, once again, to kill a game of football that was to be televised to an estimated 650 million punters, are just deplorable. What did we get from the commentators though, did we get 'The Special One' getting special treatment from them, highlighting how he does this in every big game, making what could be a real spectacle and turning it into a drab event that most neutral fans wouldn't want to watch again? No, of course not. Instead they tried to justify it, constantly referring to their 120 minutes 5 days before.
Yes, they played a game but isn't that what your squad is for, afterall, it's not as if the Chelsea squad is short of a few quid? This was also constantly referred to, saying how little Chelsea had on the bench rather than stating that due to their own actions, they had a few people out, namely Costa. And what about the excitement of the goals with Remy getting the commentators screeching his name with RatBoy choking his words he was so excited. Compare that to ours where both of them near enough sighed Silva's name, as if we'd just shit on their jam sandwich. They even started on the line of offside, begrudgingly accepting that there was no infringement once we'd seen the replay 5 times. To top all that, during the post-match analysis, Sky then decided to show the 'Controversial' moment when the ball was kept in by Hazard but was given as a throw in to us, making out that it had an affect on the Chelsea players and led to our goal. The fact that Hazard had already lost the ball and it was now in our possession was of no real significance to them, it was portrayed in such a manner that Maureen should feel aggrieved, again.
But what about the media, surely they would be all over Maureen's tactics, telling us all how he's killing the game, surely? Well, after reading a few match reports I can report that not too much has been made of the tactics adopted, more that both teams contrived to play for a draw and leave honours even. In fact, one report, in the Telegraph, actually lays into our players, with the emphasis on us not having the team to fulfil our dreams and not inline with our new training complex. Hayward states that Chelsea could afford to lose the game not quite understanding that if that was the case then Maureen would surely have gone out to play football and stamp their mark on the PL. He gives a little credit with his 'City played well enough' comment but somehow put it across that we should have been winning these games, away, to the top team in the PL. Really, it's that easy is it, Paul?
After a game like yesterday where we had better stats in all areas you'd think there'd be a bit of pro-City reporting, contrasted with anti-Chelsea/Maureen bile. Isn't it always that way with us? But no, these fucktards stick to what they know best. They tipped Chelsea for the title and they'll print what suits them, not what the real news is. Opinion is the new fact and fact is not worth reporting, it doesn't get the hoards buying their papers or clicking their links.
We went to Stamford Bridge, under a bit of a cloud, and bossed them. That is the fact, nothing more, yet we seem to be the ones getting the stick, yet again. No real mention of Chelsea not even receiving a yellow for numerous tackles or the fact that if Sergio was on form, he'd be banging those chances away. No, it doesn't work like that. All's that matters is that their teams, or their opinions, count. And I'm fucking sick of it.
Oh, and Maureen, what did you call Fat Sam's West Ham when they stopped you from scoring, you hypocritical snivelling little fuck.
In the words of my Old Man, "Life will never be the same without Man City, so get it in while you can".
The Future's Bright, The Future's Blue!!!