I'm on both sides. I think we lost because City were immense AND we were ****.LeonRivers wrote:I've not seen anything patronising from jim. There are many on here who think we lost that match because we were ****. We actually lost that match because Man City were immense. If someone cannot see that then I'm afraid it's difficult to talk to them without leaving them feeling patronised. It's their issue, not jim's.
West Ham Utd 0-4 Man City (01/02/17)
Moderator: Gnome
- Burnley Hammer
- Posts: 16496
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 12:19 pm
- Location: was Colne, Burnley, Hull, Colchester, Norwich, Derby.... Now Nottingham
- Has liked: 236 likes
- Total likes: 2575 likes
- Contact:
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
- Mega Ron
- Posts: 12447
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:35 pm
- Location: -.-- --- ..- / -.-. ..- -. - ...
- Has liked: 168 likes
- Total likes: 171 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
They were good but we gave them the perfect platform by not trying hard enough first of all and also by having a terrible game plan.LeonRivers wrote:I've not seen anything patronising from jim. There are many on here who think we lost that match because we were ****. We actually lost that match because Man City were immense. If someone cannot see that then I'm afraid it's difficult to talk to them without leaving them feeling patronised. It's their issue, not jim's.
- psychoscoredthelot
- Posts: 10249
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:23 pm
- Location: Upminster
- Has liked: 82 likes
- Total likes: 201 likes
- Hampshire Hammer
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:18 pm
- Location: Somewhere south of sanity
- Has liked: 2488 likes
- Total likes: 77 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
In fairness we made some silly mistakes, partly brought on by City's pressure, and they exploited them with quick thought and deed. City were miles better than us, so fair to say we were playing worse than we have and they played really well - how much us playing crap was due to us and how much due to them forcing on us is an argument we could have for hours.LeonRivers wrote:I've not seen anything patronising from jim. There are many on here who think we lost that match because we were ****. We actually lost that match because Man City were immense. If someone cannot see that then I'm afraid it's difficult to talk to them without leaving them feeling patronised. It's their issue, not jim's.
All of which is separate to Sterling diving
- Up the Junction
- Thinks he owns the place
- Posts: 71101
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 12:03 am
- Has liked: 762 likes
- Total likes: 3498 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
The game I watched was against West Ham, not Spurs.. And no Jim, I'm not shifting the blame, just calling your player out for being a ****ing cheat.btajim - mcfc wrote:The same player who could've gone down against Spurs yet didn't? You lost 4-0 midweek yet are trying to shift the blame on to Raheem Stirling? Words fail me.
- warp
- Posts: 14014
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:13 am
- Location: I am everything about this site which is wrong... i don't give a toss about WHUFC.
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
pretty much.Hampshire Hammer wrote:how much us playing crap was due to us and how much due to them forcing on us is an argument we could have for hours.
and sterling is a diver.
- Rocketron
- Posts: 12917
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 7:45 pm
- Location: Kumb on feel the noize We've got David Moyes
- Has liked: 6 likes
- Total likes: 52 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
Strange how we all see different things.
I thought that was the best game Sterling has ever had since his move to Citeh.
I thought that was the best game Sterling has ever had since his move to Citeh.
- FlorinHammer
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:19 pm
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
We lost because we were poor AND we were up against a VERY good side who played to their ability.
Back in December when we played Burnley and Hull at home, we weren't at our best, especially in the Hull game, we gave them plenty of opportunities to score, but they didn't, because they haven't got the players that Manchester City have. We got through those games because although we were poor, the players we were up against weren't able to capitalise on our mistakes and score - Mbokani was through and hit the post, numerous other times they scuffed good chances.
Manchester City not only capitalised on the multiple mistakes we made, but also played exceptionally well enough to score good team goals themselves.
If you want to beat a team that can buy absolutely world class (or future world class) players like De Bruyne, Sane etc, you have to play to the very top of your ability and hope they have a slight off day. Like we did most of last season. Like Leicester did this season against Manchester City. You can't beat them if you play like we did on Wednesday.
Whilst we were shockingly poor on Wednesday, that isn't the sole reason we lost - we've played terribly and scraped wins before. The other team has to take advantage of us playing poorly. Manchester City did. As should be expected of them - they have a terrific team, and a terrific manager. I never rated Sterling at Liverpool, didn't think he had much in him. But this season he's been much much better.
Whilst I absolutely HATE losing, I'd much rather have been taken apart by a superb team like Man City than other average teams (West Brom 4-0 in the cup under Allardyce, Nottingham Forest 5-0 in the cup etc). As evidenced by losing to Arsenal, Man City (twice) this season, we're inadequately set up to play teams that play the kind of excellent, quick passing football they do. Last season we were unbeaten in the league against Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester City, Liverpool, Manc Utd. This season so far we've played well at Liverpool, one good performance against Man Utd (and one poor one), average at Chelsea in the league (but nearly nicked a draw) and beaten them in the cup. Almost of those teams have significantly improved and upped their game since last year, and we've struggled against it - Chelsea, Man City & Man Utd have all got better this season and we've not been able to match them.
Back in December when we played Burnley and Hull at home, we weren't at our best, especially in the Hull game, we gave them plenty of opportunities to score, but they didn't, because they haven't got the players that Manchester City have. We got through those games because although we were poor, the players we were up against weren't able to capitalise on our mistakes and score - Mbokani was through and hit the post, numerous other times they scuffed good chances.
Manchester City not only capitalised on the multiple mistakes we made, but also played exceptionally well enough to score good team goals themselves.
If you want to beat a team that can buy absolutely world class (or future world class) players like De Bruyne, Sane etc, you have to play to the very top of your ability and hope they have a slight off day. Like we did most of last season. Like Leicester did this season against Manchester City. You can't beat them if you play like we did on Wednesday.
Whilst we were shockingly poor on Wednesday, that isn't the sole reason we lost - we've played terribly and scraped wins before. The other team has to take advantage of us playing poorly. Manchester City did. As should be expected of them - they have a terrific team, and a terrific manager. I never rated Sterling at Liverpool, didn't think he had much in him. But this season he's been much much better.
Whilst I absolutely HATE losing, I'd much rather have been taken apart by a superb team like Man City than other average teams (West Brom 4-0 in the cup under Allardyce, Nottingham Forest 5-0 in the cup etc). As evidenced by losing to Arsenal, Man City (twice) this season, we're inadequately set up to play teams that play the kind of excellent, quick passing football they do. Last season we were unbeaten in the league against Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester City, Liverpool, Manc Utd. This season so far we've played well at Liverpool, one good performance against Man Utd (and one poor one), average at Chelsea in the league (but nearly nicked a draw) and beaten them in the cup. Almost of those teams have significantly improved and upped their game since last year, and we've struggled against it - Chelsea, Man City & Man Utd have all got better this season and we've not been able to match them.
-
- Posts: 15966
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:01 pm
- Has liked: 24 likes
- Total likes: 745 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
City played very well but we gave them so many chances to do so and so many errors that led to goals.
we had no desire,energy or apparent tactics to deal with them.
no good talking about what we should have done ie press hard and fast against them because with carroll in the team we cannot press as a unit.
Everton beat city by pressing and not giving them a chance to settle. They had the fitness level to do this
we lost because city were better, we were awful, we have no fitness this season.
Sterling is a talented player but a cheat. I am glad he does not play for us.
One thought after the game I had was how teams like city and united just buy the best players so how can the premier league as a sport claim to be totally competitive/ Football in this country is dying as its geared to the top 5/6. The rest make the numbers up and provide goalfest opportunities for the rich teams.
we had no desire,energy or apparent tactics to deal with them.
no good talking about what we should have done ie press hard and fast against them because with carroll in the team we cannot press as a unit.
Everton beat city by pressing and not giving them a chance to settle. They had the fitness level to do this
we lost because city were better, we were awful, we have no fitness this season.
Sterling is a talented player but a cheat. I am glad he does not play for us.
One thought after the game I had was how teams like city and united just buy the best players so how can the premier league as a sport claim to be totally competitive/ Football in this country is dying as its geared to the top 5/6. The rest make the numbers up and provide goalfest opportunities for the rich teams.
- -DL-
- Bag Man
- Posts: 30097
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:43 am
- Has liked: 834 likes
- Total likes: 4918 likes
- Contact:
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
Years ago sunshine. I changed a while ago for the better. Shame the same cannot be said for the way you've changed, eh?btajim - mcfc wrote: Nonsense. City's forward three of Stirling, Sane and Jesus were immense and are only going to get better considering how young they all are. We got it spot on and simply punished every single mistake you made.
I was thinking about whether I should reply to this given your vicious outbursts before.
Remember where you are Jim, it's a West ham forum, so don't start getting all tetchy when we don't start getting our cocks out and ****ing over your bought success.
If you only want to read praise for your lot, then I'm sure you'll find plenty on a City forum.
People have got it spot on. Since you're mob has been winning things, your posting style has changed big time. Whilst I wouldn't be quite as harsh as Phil S, he mostly has a very valid point.
You may have been there when they were ****, but boy are you very much like the rest now. Such a shame to see.
- Sir_Trevor
- Posts: 4517
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:09 pm
- Has liked: 274 likes
- Total likes: 352 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
Just watching Man C v Swansea. Swansea giving City a much better game than we did, basically because they are pressing them hard and not letting them play. They look far less dangerous today, even at home.
Need to bear this in mind, I think, when we are debating whether City were impressive or we were poor.
I'd also suggest that we remember that Southampton have lost 6 of their last seven too.
All in all, I think it does also show that some teams' systems/players are just particularly suited against certain opposition. City certainly seem to like us.
Need to bear this in mind, I think, when we are debating whether City were impressive or we were poor.
I'd also suggest that we remember that Southampton have lost 6 of their last seven too.
All in all, I think it does also show that some teams' systems/players are just particularly suited against certain opposition. City certainly seem to like us.
- HammerMan2004
- Posts: 26906
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:01 pm
- Location: I have no idea.
- Has liked: 522 likes
- Total likes: 1317 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
We absolutely gifted Man City three goals. I wouldn't worry about it.
- chappo59
- Posts: 5150
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:41 pm
- Location: In a land far far away where away defeats are frowned upon
- Has liked: 398 likes
- Total likes: 226 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
The game Swansea are giving Citeh shows how truly cowardly we were against them. I don't care how much they are worth it was no excuse for handing them that game on a plate and standing back and letting them waltz through us. I really hope we've learned from that game.
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
Yh slightly different when you gift a team 3 goals in the first half and then have to chase the game in an awful atmosphere. Just looked at a stat that since the beginning of last season we are top of the league in giving away goals leading from individual mistakes with 24. The next team is Liverpool with 16. Crazy.
- Ozza
- Posts: 28282
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:41 pm
- Location: Here, there, every f****** where
- Has liked: 943 likes
- Total likes: 2391 likes
Re: West Ham Utd vs Man City: match thread
If city had converted their dominance in the first half against Swansea like they did against us it would have been a similar score line (in my opinion)