Diademk07:


Unmarked? What was that black defender doing beside Mata kicking?

You know what? I define my own tap in and for me Rooney header was a tap in from close range under no obstruction.

elampiro:


Rooney was in the second box, then counted about three steps to the edge of the first box.

If Rooney had even scored from 19 yards without anyone in goal, I could call that a tap in. But with someone to beat, it is never a tap in.

Diademk07:


Who did he beat? The goalkeeper? Especially one who already flapped first when Martial missed-hit the shot?

elampiro:


Yes, the keeper was on his feet and dived full lenght towards the ball.

Elxandre:
a tap in is quaresma's goal against croatia.
u don craze my guy.

Diademk07:


Lol!

You know I could have stated 'Rooney header' in my first post? But I want to emphasise what I thought about the goal and for me, it was an easy goal which depended a lot on Martial mis-hit shot.

Still what I think it is.

Diademk07:


Unmarked? What was that black defender doing beside Mata kicking?

You know what? I define my own tap in and for me Rooney header was a tap in from close range under no obstruction.

elampiro:


Rooney's goal was from a clear cut chance. But not a tap in.

Someone like you would call Torres goal a tap in when he dribbled the goalkeeper when Chelsea beat Barca. Or when a striker intercepts a back pass, then beat the goalkeeper, you would call it a tap in.

There is a difference between goal from clear cut chance and a tap in goal.

Vanquay16:
The fact Mourinho might want to sign Ballotelli proves one thing...He knows Rooney is useless as a striker and besides its more likely a loan deal.

Liverpool offered to pay some of his wages when he begged sassuolo to loan him. I still think it might be a loan deal, a fairly cheap one at that so it's not a bad deal.

Diademk07:


The same loan deal like Falcao's that had Chicharito leave?

We have one in Rash that has better potential than Chicharito and has done better than Ballo last year but no, it's Ballotelli that's the answer?

The main fact is Mourinho hardly trust kids and that's the raw truth. The man never seems to amaze me.

Vanquay16:

Man Utd knew what they were getting involved in when they signed the "Useless one" I maintain my stance, he's here to waste our money and time.

Rashford is the only True No 9 because I see Martial deployed on the wings a lot, so it's not that bad if we get one more.

Diademk07:



Clear cut chances could lead to tap in goals though. That's why we have poachers in the game.

That's why players who does a lot than just poaching in the goal wouldn't be called out.

That's exactly what Torres did vs Barca. He made a lot of effort to ensure ''a sure'' goal by dribbling the keeper in order to face an empty net and that's no tap in but in Rooney case, the keeper could have kept it out on any other day and he could have let in as well however the main fact is that it was easy for Rooney in that position under no pressure.

Just to say, my main point from the start was that we hardly create a lot in the game and we had to depend on Martial mishit leading to a "tap in", Ibra brilliance and a mistake from the opponent.

elampiro:


What was the scoreline in that Bournemouth vs Manchester United match, and what was the scoreline in the rest league games? Did you know Chelsea won from an outside the box effort from Costa? City from an own goal?

Vanquay16:
The fact Mourinho might want to sign Ballotelli proves one thing...He knows Rooney is useless as a striker and besides its more likely a loan deal.

Liverpool offered to pay some of his wages when he begged sassuolo to loan him. I still think it might be a loan deal, a fairly cheap one at that so it's not a bad deal.

Nahh, we dont and will never need Balotelli .... He should take his soccer to China or U.S

Diademk07:


Bournemouth was a weak opponent though.

Did you see Valencia cross before Martial mishit? The opposition defender already got the ball off Valencia and instead of booting it off if he didn't have the confidence of keeping it under control, he had to lose it again to Valencia.

That was 2 mistakes leading to just 1 goal, apart from
the mistake that led to the first goal.

BTW, I had to comment on our performance because someone was mocking how City scored vs Sunderland.

Vanquay16:
The fact Mourinho might want to sign Ballotelli proves one thing...He knows Rooney is useless as a striker and besides its more likely a loan deal.

Liverpool offered to pay some of his wages when he begged sassuolo to loan him. I still think it might be a loan deal, a fairly cheap one at that so it's not a bad deal.

Vanquay16:

Man Utd knew what they were getting involved in when they signed the "Useless one" I maintain my stance, he's here to waste our money and time.

Rashford is the only True No 9 because I see Martial deployed on the wings a lot, so it's not that bad if we get one more.

afrodoc2:

Mourinho is not a fool, no way are we bidding for Balotelli.
Rashford at the moment is way better than Balotelli and offers the pace and movement that we lack.
To be abundantly clear i will take Will Keane ahead of this current Balotelli

elampiro:


You only see negatives.

What about Valencia's pull back to Mata, then Mata to Rooney that should have been a goal had Rooney not miscued the shot?

afrodoc2:

Mourinho is not a fool, no way are we bidding for Balotelli.
Rashford at the moment is way better than Balotelli and offers the pace and movement that we lack.
To be abundantly clear i will take Will Keane ahead of this current Balotelli

elampiro:


You only see negatives.

What about Valencia's pull back to Mata, then Mata to Rooney that should have been a goal had Rooney not miscued the shot?

Between Bournemouth and Sunderland, which was a weaker opponent?

Diademk07:


The main point is we hardly created a lot similar to City's performance and the emphasis was on the goals scored.

Also, Bournemouth was as poor as Sunderland. At least, Sunderland parked the bus vs City unlike Bournemouth.

eph12:

You contradicting yourself here. In the same sentence you saying mourinho is wasting money then admitting to needing another striker which by the way is nonsense. Calm your tits down bro mourinho wouldn't sign Balloteli unless he needs him

GloryIsaac:

Nahh, we dont and will never need Balotelli .... He should take his soccer to China or U.S

lekkie073:
where the hell r u ppl getting dis rubbish of Jose wanting to sign baloteli. why don't u read d full details of an article before jumping to banal conclusions. I bow for una o

Vanquay16:


I never said he needed a striker, I only implied Balotelli might be loaned in as a cover



[b][i][color=#770077]Why don't you read my post again before jumping into banal conclusions?

According to you, "Might want" is "wanting"

elampiro:


You have forgotten that Mourinho has his tactics. His first priority is to make his team compact at the back to make it difficult to break down or concede goals. The midfielders and wingers play deep most of the time to protect the defence.

So you cannot compare City's approach to ours. It is scoreline that matters to Mourinho, not pressing possession or pressing the opposition.

Vanquay16:


[b][i][color=#770077]I never said he needed a striker, I only implied Balotelli might be loaned in as a cover striker,