|
|
 |
|
The Manchester derby continues to dominate the pages of Her Majesty's Press and a variety of angles have been taken. The Guardian - once a Manchester paper of course - carries out the most in-depth study of Sunday's totemic classic.
The Guardian's Daniel Taylor carries out a forensic study of injury-time played by Manchester United. In "Revealed: Manchester United get more injury time when they need it," Taylor supplies the following stats:
"After the controversy over Michael Owen's winning goal in Sunday's Manchester derby, the Guardian has looked at all of United's league matches at Old Trafford since the start of the 2006-07 season and discovered that, on average, there has been over a minute extra added by referees when United do not have the lead after 90 minutes, compared to when they are in front. In 48 games when United were ahead, the average amount of stoppage time was 191.35 seconds. In 12 matches when United were drawing or losing there was an average of 257.17sec.
"The average stoppage time added at Old Trafford in the period in question is below that given at Anfield, the Emirates Stadium and Stamford Bridge. United's is 205 seconds, compared to Liverpool's 210sec, Arsenal's 224sec and Chelsea's 229sec."
Taylor is granted another space in the paper to document the long-running emnity between Sir Alex Ferguson and Mark Hughes. He quotes from the autobiography of a former United security guard in "Defeat will not make Mark Hughes alter his views on Sir Alex Ferguson":
"Ned Kelly, once United's head of security, remembers bumping into Hughes in a nightclub one evening in 1995, shortly after the player had left Old Trafford to join Chelsea.
"Whether it was the lateness of the hour, the strength of the alcohol, or something he had read ... Sparky wanted to talk only about his former manager," Kelly recalls. "'Fergie never really rated me as a player,' he complained. 'I was only brought back from Barcelona to keep the fans happy.'"
"Kelly remembers telling him "that's bollocks", but being unable to cheer him up. "Mark refused to listen. He was more interested in berating Fergie. It was sad that someone who had given such sterling service to the club had spent all those years believing his manager had thought so little of him."
Comments
 |
Posted by Kevin on 09/22/2009
Can I just point out that it would not be unreasonable to assume that if a team that is expected to win is not, more fouls would be committed, therefore more cards and more added time? They should take a look that those stats too.
Also, could it not be that refs feel that if a game is done and dusted, there is no real need to extend it further?
I don't quite understand why would big teams get preferential treatment from the refs anyway, why do they?
|
Posted by staNza on 09/22/2009
Time waits for Man United?
hey guys, football is all about ball game (round ball) - there's luck too - so dont agrue with extra time and so on - Man Utd is a good team - that's why we won 3rd BPL Champs in a row - please watch out ur mouth!!
staNza
|
Posted by Tom Dane on 09/22/2009
Is it strange at all that when United are behind more time is added? No. Probably, the visiting team is drawing time, substituting etc. Maybe The Guardian journalist should look at the number of substitutions in the two kinds of matches - +2 substitutions alone would justify the +1 minute added. Also - what about the other top teams? Does the same go for them, or even mid-table teams - how does it look here? Unscientific, groundless and boring - stop the United witch hunt already.
|
Posted by Cyril Wayongo on 09/22/2009
time rans so fast when Man u is playing because one really enjoys the game . Maybe the referees also tend to enjoy the Man u games at old trafford and forget to end the game on time hence the extra seconds after normal added time.
what Man city forgot last weekend is that you dont celebrate at old trafford until the referee has signalled end of the game.
|
Posted by ben muzambi on 09/22/2009
Hey guys, these things happen to all teams all the time, same as all refereeing decisions, some go against you, some in your favour. This is what football is all about. I guess on the balance of play, possession etc, United deserved to win, they needed it more. Forza United!!
|
Posted by Lamin Camara on 09/22/2009
Can some please tell me what would have happened if it were City that scored during the addtional time? Are they gonna say no this is not fair because a few more seocnds have been added on?
The time was there for both teams and the team with more composure won the game. It's no magic but hardwork and perseverance...
It is not over until it is all over
|
Posted by Steve Bailey on 09/22/2009
So the facts spell out what we already knew. Man U win by hook or by crook(ed refs).. Unlucky City, but really what was Stephen Ireland on on Sunday?? Probably a United win at Betfred such was his ineptitude.
|
Posted by Jonathan on 09/22/2009
Guys the game is played for 90 + minutes even 100. City lost it squarly. they were wasting time when drawing and United were trying to play. KUDOS TO UNITED.
|
Posted by Livie Joburg on 09/22/2009
the match stats simply defined the team that deserved to win. City celebrated for more than a minute after Bellamy had put city on level terms with united and the fourth Match official had anounced already the 4 injury minutes. The referee had to put the waisted minute and seconds on top of the 4 that was put..dont hate United, u will spoil the premiership.
if u cant beat them join them !!!
|
Posted by khinboon on 09/22/2009
I see you reject my perfectly valid argument. I wonder are you trying to misled your reader.
I have post a very valid point to justify the extra time man utd needed. With link from wikipedia and fifa.
I have no idea why its not on the board.
Seriously, why am I bothering posting here. This is the last time I ever visit here.
Its a waste of my time.
|
Posted by Karl on 09/22/2009
The commentators on Fox Soccer Channel summarized the added time quite well, reckoning 1 minute for the celebration and 25 to 30 seconds for a substitution. They concluded that the referee was "spot on" in his timing.
|
Posted by Geb on 09/22/2009
Kudos Lamin Camara, did they allow only United to play in the extra time? No, City too had the extra time to score, but they didn't. Perhaps the ref wanted City to win and gave them extra time but when United scored he thought okay that's it.
|
Posted by teejay banks on 09/22/2009
Let all opposing fans watch their unbredled tongue,they all expectad a draw game and united got a win.U can see life without Ronaldo and playing against the vanpire (tevez)
|
Posted by Kenny on 09/22/2009
In the end you have to win the game but it was an absolute shame that the refs wouldn't stop the game. I don't care about either teams and as an outsider I expected the whistle to blown twice when the ball was in midfield high in the air. That's normally when the refs call it time.
Also, Ferguson has got it completely wrong when he said they should have been 6-0 up. As soon as United when up, City was on the attack to equalize. That's how football works and Fergie knows it better than anybody else. I don't believe United would be going all out if they were even 2-0 up so the question of going 6-0 up against City's defense is impossible even for the talent that United has.
I think Ferguson likes to take these cheap shots. I will bet my money on City for the return derby because they'll be out for blood. But it makes it all the most interesting..so thanks AF!
|
Posted by nessen naek on 09/22/2009
man.utd play well n we can't say that because of 2 min more that man.utd win..because man.city too was playing why they have not keep the ball between 2min/...??
because they was playing too win it too...so it fair i think,if city have score they would keep the ball or pass it to the keeper just to lose time....
so man.utd n man.city was playing both we can't say that a team stop playing football because the minutes is finish without the ref say something...
n in football everything happen just believe....
|
Posted by Ash on 09/22/2009
Best explaination I heard all day from the poster above me. Yup, MAYBE the ref ACTUALLY wanted City to win and create a sensational upset but too bad Man U scored instead.
|
Posted by Gabsi on 09/22/2009
Everyone who speaks against United does so out of Envy. City could have also scored during the injury time. Would have said the ref was in favour of United? Give us br..k
|
Posted by Farhad on 09/22/2009
It is sad that Taylor put effort to write about extra time instead of focusing on the game
United was the better team. Regarding the extra time, it was 4 min. extra time + 1 min for goal celebration + 30 sec. for substitution Carrick = 5,30 extra time. United scores at 95,26.
4 sec before time.
|
Posted by rajan on 09/22/2009
i am surprised to see shebby singh and steve join in the bandwagon to berate man utd . come on guys , be man enough to admit that MAN UTD don't rely on that extra time to win games . read the FIFA rules first . give respect to Sir Alex please . we need PUNDITS who don't take sides .
|
Posted by Wole Peter on 09/22/2009
I do not understand all this crying about 6 minutes added time. Man Utd scored the 4th in 4:36 secs which is within a reasonable time, and Hughes accepted that the game should have been stopped immediately after the goal, which is senseless. Please, let's focus on the game, and Man Utd to savour its victory.
|
Posted by Ernie on 09/22/2009
Adding 1.5 minutes onto the allocated 4 minutes is equivalent to adding 17 minutes onto each 45 minute half!
The officials claim the extra time was added due to Man City's goal celebration time. Was there any added time for the Man Utd celebration?
Everyone knows about the penalty statistics at Old Trafford.
Conspiracy?
|
Posted by java on 09/22/2009
the best team won. that extra minute was awarded to both teams to use it.
man u for life
|
Posted by dread bar on 09/23/2009
hahahhaa... Chelsea enjoys!!!
now man u ,man c and gunners fights each other!
look who is leading now!!!
|
Posted by jhon_03 on 09/23/2009
Let's say City scored instead, what will the storyline be?
Football, in all its drama, was played that day in perfection. Everybody enjoys extra times when we know they still matters. These moments are what the fans love and hate, and this is football at its best.
|
Posted by steven on 09/23/2009
it's so obvious that all you MU fans are delusional. having 6 min extra time without any injury is ridiculous and unacceptable. it's a shame to football that MU get this special treatment most of the time.
Posted by Magadi on 09/23/2009
It really not fair that when man united is losing or drawing more minutes that when they are winning is added. Given that Man united had the home ground advantage any extra time is to their advantage and I really don't find any fair play in the game.
Posted by Rajabu on 09/23/2009
Better to give a trophy to Man U than doing such stupid things like what happen at Old traford, If they think Man U is the best team,is there any necessity to have such tournament.The best league is Spanish & Italy.No matter how big the is,if is not doing well no partiality like Old Traford.
Posted by ramada on 09/23/2009
hey rajabu ur so funny! ur analysis is a bit dull!if u thnk best league is an italian league!
Posted by john on 09/24/2009
| |
Post your comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Categories
Recent Posts
Archives
|
RSS feed