Because they don't play the way you do obviously. Your passing numbers aren't inherently superior to other teams, there are better teams in europe than you that pass far less than you.
Manchester City 17/18 discussion | "If you're here for the Champions clap your hands" (#6505)
- Thread starter simonhch
- Start date
It's just all very sterile with City, isn't it?
A pitch invasion for a League, Carabao Cup double is very strange. And it wasn't even the title winning game (we spoiled that party
). Their promo video for winning the title really freaked me out, it reminded me of The Truman Show, as if everybody was in on something that the viewer had no idea about.Because it's pointless.
Kudos to them for the great season, they walked the league and PL looked piss easy for them.
Still it's all so artificial about them. It's like they're trying so much to be a big club and to be recognized as such but it fails every time.
Still it's all so artificial about them. It's like they're trying so much to be a big club and to be recognized as such but it fails every time.
Maybe most of the passes are needless and it might have same effect whether they make 800 passes or 1000 passes or 2000. But what it has done is it gives a feeling of superiority to them because of their passing and possession and many teams go to Emptihad hoping it wont be a heavy defeat. It frustrates those teams and changes their mentality/attitude when playing against City which is like job half done for City before kick off.
100 points plus
We won the league in joint-record time and we're likely to do it with the most points and goals in the history of the Premier League. Being the sort of team that can produce 1,000+ passes in one game contributes to that massively.
Great 1st post.
Blue Moon are a man down
Their other poster is going to be a bit lonely then.
Very fake and plastic. Honestly until they have 30 years of history behind them as top club they will never be in same light as Liverpool or united.
Take nothing away from their performances this year. Top class.
I think they will be stronger next year with mendy back. I think he is beast. All depends if he can get back to his best after injury
The best football PL has ever seen is your opinion.
Everything else he said is true and you might try to say something about that.
But can they win it three in a row!
This. I don't remember us ever documenting a speech by Fergie after we would win the title for example. Not to mention clap your hands stuff.
It's all so cringe. Like it was said here on previous page it looks like - look at us, we're so big and strong.
Sure Pep will get some more money, maybe fix a defense a little, and all other positions.
They'll be even better cause they can, it's up to other clubs to try to come close to them.
They will probably have the best season in the PL ever but that still doesn't make them the best team PL has ever seen and that notion is doing the rounds last month or so.
I see your point, I was just pointing out a facet a City's game that contributes to it that I think is pointless in the game.
They haven't accomplished that yet and passing back and forth at short range is not the reason they've had such a great season.
I think the post by @Swift Football explains more or less what I am trying to say. Moreover, how many teams actually press City? a 1000 passes would be incredible if it was against a team like Liverpool who press a lot but we've seen that teams will just sit off and let City play their game which is why they can make a thousand passes in a game.
Not sure what this has to do with my post at all @Treble?
I simply replied to a post claiming City are "playing the best football the PL has ever seen", which is bollocks for me, that Arsenal side were a much better side to watch.
Because they don't want to as it ultimately serves no purpose. Pretty simple tbh.
they are just too good
What does that make Liverpool then?they are just too good
Let's remember that City fans started crying after we beat them and they couldn't clinch the title against us.
No. There are quantifiable reasons why City are the best PL team in one season: points; goals scored; wins; goal difference..etc. Whether you like the style is your opinion. Mine is that City play the best football and if you don't like it then you are a dinosaur or a Utd fan in denial, in my opinion. As for the Irish glory hunter's comment about playing youth, I'm happy with what City are doing. Today's game saw a number of changes that reflected the current squad's needs. Playing youth for no reason is pointless. Nevertheless Foden got more good minutes.
So whoever doesn't agree with your opinion that City is playing the best footbal PL has ever seen is a dinosaur or Utd fan in denial?
Sounds legit. I mean we should all agree with your opinion not to be dinasours then.
I mean getting most points and goals doesn't mean that's the best football ever played in PL. It's just that, most points and goals scored.
As for comments about Irish glory hunter they're out of order. What does him being from Ireland has to do with anything?
And his point still stands.
It's not about playing youth for no reason but giving some chances to youth especially if you have mega, plus, ultra youth facilities.
Last edited:
I didn't like Pep's football at Barca and I don't like it at City. I find it boring. If your opinion is that anyone who doesn't like it is a dinosaur or a Utd fan in denial, my opinion is that you are a moron.
Opinions, eh?
Opinions, eh?
They scored five goals today, but did they really need 1000 passes to achieve that? It is just passing for the sake of it. They could do it as efficiently without all that passing.
Who's this whopper?
I would hope that you have received a warning for this post as it is diabolical to say the least.
Having the opinion that SAF & Wenger's teams played better football than this current City team does not mean i am a dinosaur or in denial.
I'm predicting he won't last long.
Apparently passing the ball 1000 times is something to be lauded. I have no idea why.
Fair play to them, have been the best in the league for sure (way best). But if you have won the league in January, you should be winning atleast the FA cup or be in the latter stages of CL. Most of Fergie's side did that.
Call me biased but they are the best PL side ever but they are not the best English side we have seen since 1992.
Call me biased but they are the best PL side ever but they are not the best English side we have seen since 1992.
I would expect the best PL team ever to win the CL as well. That's the competition City fans pretend not to care about because they aren't good enough to win it.
Total spend is much more relevant than most expensive single transfer. Seems an obvious error.
Because out of the 660m United fans world wide, it only matters if you're from Manchester, didn't you know?
Now that I think of it, if I'm gone down in @el magico 's estimations for not being from Manchester is that just as bad as being a City fan and active on an United fan forum?
. I believe your peers on Bluemoon would not approve.
Last edited:
It's easy to pick an choose numbers to fit while not even comparing them to other clubs that were rivaling United at the time or looking at players United had sold, isn't it?
To put that first figure (1998/99) into context, let's look at what United had spent in the 6 previous Premier League seasons, when they'd won 4 titles and 2 FA Cups: £3.05m net. Liverpool had spent £30m net during that same period and won a single League Cup. Chelsea spent £24.8m net and won an FA Cup, a League Cup and a Cup Winner's Cup. Newcastle spent £43.4m (£32.2 million in the 1995/96 season alone - £9m more than United spent in their treble winning season) and have still won nothing. Blackburn broke British transfer records (I can't find figures for their spending) and won the title once. Manchester City spent £19.2m and got relegated twice.
In 2001/02, United had won three titles in a row and were at the time one of the top clubs in Europe. In the seasons 1999/2000 - 2001/02, United spent £37m and won 2 league titles. Liverpool spent £32.5m (winning an FA Cup, a League Cup and a UEFA Cup, Chelsea spent £40.75m (winning an FA Cup), Newcastle spent £34.1m (winning nothing), Leeds spent £59.2m (also winning nothing), while City spent £22.7m (outspending United in 2000/01 - and getting relegated again).
In 2002/03, United signed Rio Ferdinand. The final fee for him was £27.5m (was supposed to be £29.3, but Leeds took a reduced final payment in 2004). In total, we spent £27.35m net that season. City spent £30.35m (more than United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Newcastle, and possibly every other team in the league that season).
In 2003/04, United sell Veron and Beckham, and spend a huge £2.94m net on the replacements. Chelsea spend £121m net. Arsenal spend £16.6m net, Liverpool spend £11.5m net, City spend £4.9m net.
In 2004/05 United spent £34.1m net on players. Chelsea spent £92.5m net, while the next biggest spenders were Liverpool with £25.25m net.
In 2006/07, United made a £5.25m profit on transfers, signing Michael Carrick after selling Van Nistelrooy and others. Liverpool spent £14.3m net, Chelsea spent £39.3m net. Aston Villa, Newcastle and Everton all outspent United that season too.
In 2007/08, United spent a net £25.8m, outspent by both Liverpool (spend a net £38m) and City, who spent £43.1m net on players.
2008/09 - Manchester City break the British transfer record for Robinho, spending a net £118m on transfers. United's £35.5m net spend that year is dwarfed in comparison.
Personally, I'd say United earned both the money they spent and the right to spend it. They also got great value for the most part, and had to compete with three or four other clubs at most points in the Premier League era to do so. It's only the post-Fergie/post Abu Dhabi era that we have done poorly in the market, but that is both a mixture of hapless managers and the prices being distorted by PSG and City, forcing others to pay the same fees as they do.
Edit: Most of these figures can be checked here and on Transfer League, by the way.
Well it is, but when total spend doesn't support your argument....
It's like City fans, all were born and still live within walking distance of the stadium.Because out of the 660m United fans world wide, it only matters if you're from Manchester, didn't you know?
I refuse to believe that the 9 of them live walking distance from the stadium.