Wilbred T Pricklepop wrote:
:lol:
The media can really be up man united's arris sometimes.
my personal favourite: "United, for example, had 59.3 per cent of incorrect decisions go against them; City had 73.7 per cent of incorrect calls go against them. The difference between them and United is that when they lost out to refereeing decisions it didn’t alter the eventual result and only cost them two points."
So man city had a higher percentage of calls go against them, but because they were good enough to win games despite this and man united weren't, man united have been badly done to?
Great logic.
That is a very biased article, alleged facts (have they really gone though all that footage just to write a pro united article?) have been twisted to suit an agenda.
I dont think its part of a pro united agenda, just someone with too much time on their hands on who wants to look clever.
They seem to have focused on a very small number of decisions, assumed that all penalties are converted and failed to take account of the fact that you cannot change one decision and assume that the rest of the game is unaffected.
For example, they've "adjusted" City's 2-1 defeat at Chelsea to a 2-2 draw on the basis that a penalty should have been given for a foul on Silva. But if that penalty had been awarded and if it had been converted to put City two up, the likelihood is that City would have gone on to win the game.
