Printable View
Its embarrasing the press are salivating over yesterdays win, city created their own problems by their terrible defending against a championship side then got out of jail. <BR><BR>In 1989 we went to anfield 3 points behind the champions, needed to win and did it with the last kick of the game. City did the same, yes it was dramatic but to compare it with 1989 is seriously insultive. I expect nothing else from sky/the sun etc.
I think the fact it was the top 2 on the night makes our better.
And the fact that no-one gave us much of a chance (as opposed to City who were odds on favourites to see off QPR with ease).
And we didn't need to spend a billion pounds to do it.
In brief: us :bow:
i was thinking the same thing about the two and the city game edges it.
They need to keep pushing their product so next season will be even more "sensational" and the one after that will be "out of this world bob"
It's all bullshit. Anfield 1989 could never be topped. As you say, 1989 is the underdogs doing what was assumed to be impossible, 2012 is a foregone conclusion almost fucked up. Nothing is similar.
Not trying to WUM here but why shouldn't it be compared with 89?
Strip everything away, the fact it was City, Sky etc. It was a pretty dramatic footballing moment, titles are very rarely decided like that. :shrug:
It should be compared but in the comparison ours is better IMO for the reasons I've given above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Overmars
Off course it can be compared with 89, it wasnt far behind and in sporting terms was spectacular. But to say it tops 1989 is frankly insultive. Most football fans are soo blinkered they dont understand our game was thriving pre sky. When sky sports started covering football in england they subjected us to the shamen and sonia at half time ! Fortunately they have refined and improved their offering sinceQuote:
Originally Posted by Marc Overmars
Ok thats my post for the season done , how ya doing letters?
i was at anfield to see us win that game and it absolutely blew my mind we managed to do it. in terms of pure theatre, yesterday somehow managed to top that.Quote:
Originally Posted by north bank nutter
It was worth waiting for.Quote:
Originally Posted by north bank nutter
I'm fine thanks. Hope you're well :tiphat:
89 was definitely more exciting.
Needing to beat QPR at home slightly less so although they tried their best.
Yes thanks, cba with footy forums anymore it gets too depressing hearing all the gloomsters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Letters
Considering how badly we started we played some pretty spectacular football in the second half of the season only to show a soft underbelly again. City arent that good a side, certainly compared with Arsenal and Manure sides of the past. I would say two world class signings a bit of luck on the injury front and we arent that far from silverware. Keep the faith.
89 it was won with Class and Style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQmO3S2eLPE
No diving around, no play acting, no hysteria or stupid commercial fuelled commentary, the two top teams head to head deciding it on goals scored in the last seconds of the season, superior in every way to city's billion quid raid that almost fell to pieces against ten man relegation candidates. Magical night versus monstrous moneyfest.
89 was definitely better.
Arseblog :bow:Quote:
And while the Invincibles have rightly been named the best team of the Premier League era, the whole concept of a ‘Premier League era’ is a load of old bollocks. It ignores the fact that football, and great football at that, existed long before Sky and the marketing men got their greedy hands on the game.
“We’ve never seen anything like this”, bleated the pundits after an admittedly exciting end to this season, but frankly anyone who thinks Man City struggling to beat off 10 man relegation fodder at home is more worthy than Arsenal having to beat the reigning Champions by two clear goals at their own ground – and doing so in the final seconds of injury time – is off their rocker.
http://arseblog.com/2012/05/squad-assessment-part-1/
I think that City's tops Man Utd's comeback against Bayern Munich and Liverpool against AC Milan. The reason being, Man City HAD to score 2. Man Utd had to score 1, and therefore would have been able to force the game into extra time. As it happens, Bayern heads dropped, and they managed to score the winner in added time, too.
Liverpool against AC Milan was remarkable. However, they had an entire half to do it and that crucial 3rd goal of their comeback was a penalty.
However, Anfield 89 tops it all. I remember, embarrassingly, asking the question in the 'Final Day Fixtures' thread in the wake of Aguero's goal, but with the benefit of a cool head, I can now see that the circumstances around Michael Thomas' goal were so much more different. We HAD to win by 2 clear goals (something no other team had done at Anfield since 1983), we were given no chance (even one of the well-known tabloids published 'You've got no chance, Arsenal' on the front page on the morning of the game) and it was a stand-alone fixture having been delayed to the bank holiday weekend. Everything about that night was special.
As for final day drama, I've been told that almost every league title deciding game(s) went down to the final day in the decade of the '70s (although final day fixtures used to be staggered somewhat)
I'll need clarification on this. Need some of our old stalwarts to confirm (Conewood, I'm looking in your direction!)
94/95 was better tbh
How Man Utd didn't score again in that game against West Ham is plain weird.