Hendo- since when has passing the ball for passing’s sake been exciting attacking football. Yes City can pass the ball all they want but City had 24 shots on goal but only 4 on target. And scored only 1 goal.
Yes City might have been the better team on the day but doesn’t mean you deserved to win.
That’s the arrogance of the big teams that because they dominate most of the games they are the better and more deserving side. Football is about scoring goals!
What I would add is that most of City’s games in recent years have been great to watch, with teams pulling out the stops to try and beat them or reduce the damage. Very few City games turn out to be drab affairs.
Contrast with Man Utd, their game v Leeds being their 8th 0 - 0 this season. 😴😴😴😴😴😴😴. It remains one of this seasons great mysteries why such a boring team is 2nd in the league.
It does appear to be gratuitously perverse to imply that the leading scorers, and the team with the most shots, in the league are not playing exciting attacking football.
Indeed but Chelsea won the league title in 2004 and 2005 and United won it in 2003 but none of those I would say were amazing swashbuckling sides - however all 3 teams were top scorers in those seasons. Incidentally United have scored only 5 goals fewer than City. I think the shots taken stat is a bit misleading as it includes blocked shots which we all know doesn’t really mean anything.
In fact many would argue that Leeds have been very exciting to watch this season but they’ve scored fewer goals than Spurs who many would say have been less exciting
Of course, however. City were not the recipients of Southampton's generosity.