[Europa League] Manchester City v JUVENTUS (Sept. 30th 2010) (2 Viewers)

ajit

Senior Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,228
Was he?

Despite City's attacking intentions, we gave away very few chances. Surely this wouldn't happen if 1 of your 4 defenders is getting burned?
I'll admit that he obviously plays some part in the goal we conceded, but such a move is virtually impossible to defend against anyway.

Our entire defence did quite well, De Ceglie even managed to provide some attacking options on the left at times (in difficult circumstances), hence my high rating.
They lacked the end product and our defense did a fantastic job. I won't complain about DC, but a large number of City's chances came from his side. Anyone would have a hard time against Johnson. I'm just upset that you gave DC a higher rating to Grygera :D he did very well. Right about their goal though.

Juventino[RUS];2714186 said:
1-3? no, score was 1-0 and it was 100% penalty on Krasic, dp 2-0, bye bye city.
You don't think there was a second penalty? City's goal was perfect.
 
OP
Zé Tahir

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #563


    130M$ spent and still cant organise themselves :)
    MerCenaries United!

    The much biased epl soccernet site said this:
    "There are an elite group of clubs around Europe who, no matter what their current fortune or status, bring an element of stardust with them wherever they go."
    :touched:

    WE WILL NEVER DIE!
    :touched:
     
    OP
    Zé Tahir

    Zé Tahir

    JhoolayLaaaal!
    Moderator
    Dec 10, 2004
    29,281
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #569
    It has been revealed that Manchester City lost an incredible £121 million in the last financial year and they spent more on wages than their entire income.

    The club's annual report has shown that City's turnover of £125 million was surpassed by the £133 million that they splashed out on wages for new players like Mario Balotelli, James Milner and Yaya Toure.

    Billionaire Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan's first year in charge has shown an increase in income - from £87 million to £125 million - which comes from more season ticket sales and a 400% increase in sponsorship deals. But the 85-page report also highlights the second biggest loss in Premier League history since Chelsea's £141 million in 2004-05.

    The club's net expenditure on transfers from May has been £96.6 million and finance chief Graham Wallace says players were brought in ''to address historical needs''.

    Chief Executive Garry Cook claimed that that the financial results 'should come as no surprise' and said there would be no repeat of the club's transfer spending.

    "It is safe to say that player acquisitions on the scale we have seen in recent transfer windows will no longer be required in the years ahead now that we have such a deep and competitive squad," he said.

    Off the pitch City recruited an additional 106 non-playing staff, they donated £423,586 to UK charities and put over £1.5 million into developments to the stadium and the training ground. Some of these improvements included 408 heated seats in the boardroom and 30% bigger pies on sale during matchdays.

    They did recoup some cash from the sale of 12,000 of Roberto Mancini's trademark scarves, at £8 each.

    However, the club will have to turn things around to get in line with the new UEFA financial regulations. The rules stipulate clubs can lose a maximum of £39 million from now until 2014 or face sanctions which could see sides banned from competitions.

    -soccernet.com

    :howler:

    What do you expect when you try to create "history" overnight?
     

    RAMI-N

    ★ ★ ★
    Aug 22, 2006
    21,469
    Clear penalty. I thought Kompany was getting carded.

    Was DP's freekick a goal? I think it was.
    I believe it was a goal. I watched replays and I saw the most part of the ball crossing the line. I wonder how that extra referee didn't see it :shifty:
     

    PiN7uRiCCHi0

    Senior Member
    Aug 18, 2010
    926
    I'm starting to worry about Marchisio's development. I like his style of play and his skill, but he's been playing without personality lately. Last night he played like a fuckin' Sergio Busquets. Completely anonymous, a shadow on the field, did not have even a slight bit of influence in the game. I'm deeply dissapointed and worried about him.
     

    Ali

    Conditioned
    Contributor
    Jul 15, 2002
    19,317
    I'm starting to worry about Marchisio's development. I like his style of play and his skill, but he's been playing without personality lately. Last night he played like a fuckin' Sergio Busquets. Completely anonymous, a shadow on the field, did not have even a slight bit of influence in the game. I'm deeply dissapointed and worried about him.
    I'll give Claudio atleast one more year. He got a baby at 24 years. I think his kid is 1 year old now. The first years of being a father can be very challenging. Just incase you wonder what this has to do with his form - well there is a lot that a new father goes through naming just a few : Sleepless nights, worrisome moments, irregular patterns etc.
     

    Zidaninho

    Junior Member
    Aug 31, 2010
    369
    Looking at the game stats - it says we had 51% possession - can someone please explain that to me? Man City had the ball for the majority of the match!

    btw - DP free kick was definitely no goal
     

    PiN7uRiCCHi0

    Senior Member
    Aug 18, 2010
    926
    I'll give Claudio atleast one more year.
    It's not that i have no patience for him, exactly the opposite i have all the patience in the world and all the faith for him.

    He's one of the best players that our youth academy has produced in years, if not the best. He's the perfect midfielder, one can't ask for more - he scores goals, has great vision and passing, great first touch, techique, positional awareness, tacticaly smart, hard worker etc. I'm full of praise for him, he's one of my favourite Juve players.

    The point is he's been playing very incosistently and this worries me. Hopefully, he finds his form again and fullfills his potential.
     

    Alen

    Ѕenior Аdmin
    Apr 2, 2007
    52,574
    The ball needs to cross completely, not just a large part of it. Hence, no goal.
    Definitely. We have a perfect angle on the picture above. The post is hiding 1/2 of the ball which clearly says that it isn't a goal, since, in order for that to be a goal, the whole ball needs to be behind the line and from the angle we're given the post shouldn't hide any part of the ball.

    No goal for sure.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)