| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? 18:28 - Oct 18 with 1807 views | GlasgowBlue |
Had it been five opr six I think we would have played with more urgency and City may have sat back to defend their lead.
Also, Town fans leaving when City scored their 4th. Fools. |  |
| |  |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 18:32 - Oct 18 | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone moaning about too much injury time when you’re a goal down, that’s madness. There wasn’t any lack of urgency, a lack of quality decision making maybe. |  |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 18:34 - Oct 18 | jas0999 |
No. The more time the better when you are chasing the game. If anything, surprised and pleased it went against Manchester City. Usually cut short for the big clubs. |  | | |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 18:45 - Oct 18 | Garv |
Not sure I'd have swapped 12 for 6 but there's some logic there, I think.
People who leave early because their team has conceded a goal are wallies, especially away. What's the point. [Post edited 18 Oct 18:46]
|  |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 19:08 - Oct 18 | EastTownBlue |
I was disappointed that 12 was shown, play was restarted following the penalty and sub at 91 only for the final whistle to go dead on 102. As they had the free kick it was very unlikely for us to regain possession and score but … | | | |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 19:44 - Oct 18 | BasingstokeBlue |
When did City score "their fourth"? |  |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 19:47 - Oct 18 | BanksterDebtSlave |
Left at 3-1(82 minutes) to catch the 17:36 to Leeds as Junior had a night shift. Sorry. Did get to listen to commentary on BBC Suffolk via the Sounds App so it was an exciting run/walk. [Post edited 18 Oct 20:51]
|  |
| "They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches." | | Poll: | What you watching. |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 19:48 - Oct 18 | GlasgowBlue |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 19:44 - Oct 18 by BasingstokeBlue |
When did City score "their fourth"? |
85th minute. Loads of our fans left their seats thinking the game was over. By the time VAR disallowed the goal they would have been out of the stadium and not witnessed us score our second and the added on time. | |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 20:33 - Oct 18 | BasingstokeBlue |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 19:48 - Oct 18 by GlasgowBlue |
85th minute. Loads of our fans left their seats thinking the game was over. By the time VAR disallowed the goal they would have been out of the stadium and not witnessed us score our second and the added on time. |
Aah - you meant "by the time City put the ball in the back of the net for the fourth time", as they didn't actually score. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 20:49 - Oct 18 | Ruby |
I said exactly the same at the time. 6-7 mins means they just sit back and try to keep us out. 10+ is almost like a half of extra time and they look to manage it by keeping possession and getting on the front foot. |  | | |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 21:21 - Oct 18 | GlasgowBlue |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 20:33 - Oct 18 by BasingstokeBlue |
Aah - you meant "by the time City put the ball in the back of the net for the fourth time", as they didn't actually score. |
Which the people who left didn't realise. But they did score. It was disallowed. Quite common in football. The goal was disallowed. The goal they scored was disallowed. I guess you had to be there.
edit. I'm old enough to remember seeing us score two goals against West Ham in the FA Cup semi final in 1975. We scored them., Clive Thomas disallowed them. [Post edited 18 Oct 21:28]
| |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 21:44 - Oct 18 | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 20:33 - Oct 18 by BasingstokeBlue |
Aah - you meant "by the time City put the ball in the back of the net for the fourth time", as they didn't actually score. |
The referee gave the goal. They had scored. VAR reviewed it, as normal, and asked the referee to look at it. He did and changed his decision. Only at that point had they "not scored".
The people Glasgow is talking about left between the referee awarding the goal, at which point Man City had scored their Fourth, and the referee overturning that decision, at which point they hadn't.
It's all very Schrödinger's goal and quantum. | | | |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 09:55 - Oct 19 | Guthrum |
Astonished, yes. But not disappointed. |  |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 10:06 - Oct 19 | rickw |
Nope, I was disappointed with the ref giving them free kicks for Anderson especially throwing himself to the floor whenever anyone was close to him, and I was angry at the linesman flagging O'Shea as offside when he'd just knocked it down to Clarke (who would have probably curled it into the far post!) and wasn't offside.... |  |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 10:06 - Oct 19 | HighgateBlue |
I would've settled for 114 or 115 minutes, but 12 will do.
12 in the first half too would've been good, for a total of 114 minutes. I think I've heard that number before in connection with City...
You can't be disappointed with 12 minutes to get an equaliser. If we'd already got the equaliser, then yes, we'd have been up in arms at 12 minutes, but when you're chasing the game? Come off it. Also, just the opportunity to have more minutes against a top side away from home, and not concede any more goals when everyone's surely already tired? I think that will help build belief, fitness, resilience, and confidence.
We come out of that game with a lot of credit. The game plan had to be to soak it up and hit them on the break, hoping we can score either a breakaway goal or a set piece. We scored the breakaway goal, we scored the set piece, and by and large we soaked it up.
Unlocking a stacked defence is hard. It was hard for us in League One, it's hard for England at international level, and it's hard against anyone in the Premier League. This Man City side are masters at it. They have absolute masters at the well timed and precise in-box pass, and they have Haaland, who is the master of timing his runs and popping up where and when needed.
And so the 2 goals weren't quite enough on this occasion. But we're still top half, and that's pretty amazing. Would still bite your hand off for 17th of course. It's more than do-able. |  | | |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 10:10 - Oct 19 | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 10:06 - Oct 19 by HighgateBlue |
I would've settled for 114 or 115 minutes, but 12 will do.
12 in the first half too would've been good, for a total of 114 minutes. I think I've heard that number before in connection with City...
You can't be disappointed with 12 minutes to get an equaliser. If we'd already got the equaliser, then yes, we'd have been up in arms at 12 minutes, but when you're chasing the game? Come off it. Also, just the opportunity to have more minutes against a top side away from home, and not concede any more goals when everyone's surely already tired? I think that will help build belief, fitness, resilience, and confidence.
We come out of that game with a lot of credit. The game plan had to be to soak it up and hit them on the break, hoping we can score either a breakaway goal or a set piece. We scored the breakaway goal, we scored the set piece, and by and large we soaked it up.
Unlocking a stacked defence is hard. It was hard for us in League One, it's hard for England at international level, and it's hard against anyone in the Premier League. This Man City side are masters at it. They have absolute masters at the well timed and precise in-box pass, and they have Haaland, who is the master of timing his runs and popping up where and when needed.
And so the 2 goals weren't quite enough on this occasion. But we're still top half, and that's pretty amazing. Would still bite your hand off for 17th of course. It's more than do-able. |
Talking of which, has the stewards confiscating the gold 1,1,4 balloons been mentioned? | |
| "They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches." | | Poll: | What you watching. |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 13:09 - Oct 19 | Wallingford_Boy |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 18:45 - Oct 18 by Garv |
Not sure I'd have swapped 12 for 6 but there's some logic there, I think.
People who leave early because their team has conceded a goal are wallies, especially away. What's the point. [Post edited 18 Oct 18:46]
|
No offence taken. |  |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 13:22 - Oct 19 | ParisBlue |
I was hoping we'd notch the equaliser in the 115th minute. |  |
| |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 15:04 - Oct 19 | DJR |
I was hoping for 1 minute.  |  | | |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 15:59 - Oct 19 | DJR |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 10:10 - Oct 19 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Talking of which, has the stewards confiscating the gold 1,1,4 balloons been mentioned? |
I didn't see it but the Man City fan I spoke to on the train mentioned it and thought the confiscation a bit over the top. [Post edited 19 Oct 16:00]
| | | |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 16:21 - Oct 19 | HighgateBlue |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 15:59 - Oct 19 by DJR |
I didn't see it but the Man City fan I spoke to on the train mentioned it and thought the confiscation a bit over the top. [Post edited 19 Oct 16:00]
|
It's the Streisand effect isn't it - the fact of confiscation has brought it to the attention of a hell of a lot more people! I'm sure there were other banners and paraphernalia that were not reported upon.
It's fine to have an inflatable banana, but not an inflatable number 1 or number 4? That doesn't seem consistent with any rational policy.
They must have been a little bit touchy to assume that the intended permutation was 114. Why couldn't it have been 411 for example? To honour Phil Foden's Topps Trading card number from 2025/26? :) | | | |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 20:53 - Oct 19 | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Was anyone else disappointed when 12 minutes was shown on the board on 90? on 15:59 - Oct 19 by DJR |
I didn't see it but the Man City fan I spoke to on the train mentioned it and thought the confiscation a bit over the top. [Post edited 19 Oct 16:00]
|
It was a good ten minutes before kick off and they weren't even that big. There must have been an inflatable ban! | |
| "They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches." | | Poll: | What you watching. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
