Manchester United 4-3 Manchester City
By lakerfanster
@lakerfanster (2577)
September 20, 2009 10:12am CST
In my opinion this is probably the best game of the season, It had everything but sadly I have already seen comments on another board about there being "too much injury time" and talking about the big four.
Well my opinion on the matter is that when City scored, the game did not start again until 91 minutes and however many seconds, that means that there will be another minute or so added to the injury time already allotted which was four minutes. This is typical sour grapes as the amount of "injury time" given is for the half and can be added to if there are stoppages in the injury time.
What are your thoughts on the game and the injury time debate.
1 person likes this
7 responses
@stvasile (7306)
• Romania
20 Sep 09
I think it was a beautiful thrilling game, with a fair result. The game was pretty balanced in the first half, but United dominated most of the second half. Great performance from Ryan Giggs (again), Fletcher, Bellamy and Shay Given. I can't wait for van der Saar to get back on the pitch, as Foster is clearly not a top goalkeeper.
Tevez played pretty well too, I think the first goal is mostly his.
As of the injury time debate - I won't even lower myself to dignify it with a response. It's the referee's decision and nobody can take it back. After all, City scored during the injury time too.
The "big four" is a load of crap too. You can't place Chelsea alongside Liverpool, Arsenal and Manchester United, as they can't even be compared when looking at the trophies they won. So you can't talk about teams challenging the big four when there is no such thing as a big four...
@lakerfanster (2577)
•
20 Sep 09
Don't be so quick to blast Ben Foster as he made an outstanding save against Spurs, He has had his bad moments but he is standing in for one of the best Goalkeepers in the world. Yes he made a mistake today but so did Rio.
1 person likes this
@stvasile (7306)
• Romania
20 Sep 09
It's not Foster's first mistake. He is a good keeper, but clearly below van der Saar's quality. Good thing you reminded me about Rio... I think some of the players should stop acting stupidly and just solve the situations clean and simple. Just like Scholes getting sent off the other week for a missed needless tackle...
Anyway... it's a good thing the Reds managed to win this match - there won't be many teams able to beat City this season.
@gunagohan (3414)
• India
20 Sep 09
having three best strikers and winning 5 games in the beginning doesn't indicate that city is the best...they have to play 33 games yet...at the end, there will be a result that whether city is gonna stay at the top and get a chance to flick arsenal, liverpool, united and chelsea and geta chance to play the Champions League next season...
1 person likes this
@fallenjinx (126)
• Canada
25 Sep 09
Hughes is right to debate the injury time given, but coverage after the game has shown that it is very much a debate and that the injury time given by the referee was about right.
@lakerfanster (2577)
•
26 Sep 09
If Manchester United were not so great at scoring late goals then it would not be an issue. The goal was scored only one or two seconds after the time had been added on for the celebration and substitution. Now any people who believe The ref got it wrong can you please give me an instance when there have been no throw ins, corners, free kicks or even goal kicks for that matter in injury time.
@viet129 (70)
•
21 Sep 09
As a United fan for many years, I must be honest and say I thought there was a little too much injury time but in football, it's 'swings and roundabouts' and things seem to even themselves up over the the season. Same thing happened to City recently but I didn't here them complain when it was to their advantage. Great game and United did deserve the win.
@lakerfanster (2577)
•
21 Sep 09
There would have been too much added time if there were no goals or substitutions. But of course there were. Manchester United scored a second after the whistle should have blown without there having been any goal kicks, throw ins, fouls or corners but there were of course those things.
@masteronline (834)
• Indonesia
21 Sep 09
I love MU. I sad when MU not play in my country because bomb incident. Bravo MU
@abhikmjmdr (779)
• India
20 Sep 09
What a fantastic game! It was like a fairy tale if you are a United fan and a nightmare if you are a City one. The injury time was a bit too long if you ask me but the quality of football was worth it. On performance in the second half, Manchester United deserved to win, except for that stupid error by Rio Ferdinand, there would not have been any debate anyway. All said and done Man U were deserved winners at the end of the day , no denying that.
@lakerfanster (2577)
•
20 Sep 09
I really do not know what Rio Ferdinand had in his mind when he played that ball, it really was very unlike him especially during the last few minutes. Bellamy was fantastic though and took both goals brilliantly, his first was a great goal.
Regarding the injury time, I would have agreed about it being a bit long if there were no goals in injury time. The ref has got to put nearly two minutes back on the clock. if he had not we would be having the same debate about there being too little stoppage time.
@gunagohan (3414)
• India
20 Sep 09
it was an excellent game, rooney striked very early...the line up for the united was very good, rooney and berbatov did a good job as the strikers...it was the best effort from the young fletcher scoring twice and owen scoring in the injury time....
i am happy now , that united might stay in the top of the table for some hours, before the match between spurs and chelsea ....
as concerned abt the injury time, nobody have the choice to argue against injury time, because it is completely referee's decision, all have to bound according to referee, this was a very clean match, referee was a complete middle man, he did a good job, united deserved the victory in the second half..
happy to respond..
happy mylotting...
