Proof – Manchester City are far more entertaining than Spurs

by Paul Connolly

Monday, January 17th, 2011
 

If you listened to most pundits, you’d think Tottenham Hotspur were playing a brand of football only one notch down from Barcelona or Brazil ’70, while Manchester City were some joyless amalgam of 1987-era Wimbledon and any team coached by Steve Bruce.

As is usual with populist opinion, however, this is a right load of old pony. Want some proof? Here you go:
City have scored 37 goals this season to Spurs’ 31.
City have scored 19 goals away from home this season compared with Tottenham’s 14.

Boring, boring City? I don’t think so.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://mcfc.co.uk Goatistuta

    O the irony, Ive said this for some time, whats with this Spurs are the great entertainers rubbish? Just because they play with no control and no care if they conceed doesnt make them a smart team. West Brom play decent football and pass the ball and try to push teams back with a bit of flare etc so should they be considered “better” than City? No way, and once the red tops give up their attempts to make all things Spurs sound positive and look at the facts they may shut up.

  • Homer

    As highlighted in their remarkably entertaining visit to the Emirates recently, how many shots on goal was it? I hear the internet is running out of IP addresses, do the world a favour and free this one up.

  • Ulysses

    Homer, pal, did you catch Spurs’ game against United yesterday? No? You missed nothing. And Arsenal against the mighty TractorBoys were hardly cavalier goal brigands.
    You don’t have to be a Greek god to understand pure fact but it clearly helps.

  • Ian

    Mr Connolly, there is an ancient saying you’re probably aware of: “There are lies, damn lies, then there are statistics.” Football is not so simple a sport that you can say the team that scores the most goals is the most entertaining, there a thousand other factors to consider. My own side, United, have scored a lot of goals this season. Do I think we’ve been more entertaining than Spurs thus far? No, I do not.

  • http://thebeautifulgameweekly.blogspot.com/ Ben McAleer

    If Spurs had City’s strike-force, Spurs would be top of the table.

    One stat on goals doesn’t instantly mean Spurs are more boring than City yet, there is a reason City are second and Spurs are fifth and it is the goals mentioned above.

    Ian is right, if we look at the stats then United, Arsenal and Chelsea are more entertaining than City

  • Jem

    I think the problem is that most people hate City these days for whatever reason (pissed off their crap team didn’t inherit billions I suspect), and with that blinkered bigoted view they will only ever see everything bad about City. Therefore they only remember the 3 or four defensive displays City have had and not the games were City were throwing the kitchen sink at the opposition (and not always winning I might add). It’s just bigoted rubbish. Yes Spurs play going forward as do other teams, but to say City are boring is absolute nonsense. And even though stats don’t tell the full story, you don’t become 2nd highest away scoring team by NOT attacking.

  • Homer

    That is the point though Jem, stats are generally used to validate an argument. The main issue I have is somebody writing a piece like this based on one set of stats, when anyone could use stats to counter that argument, like I did. City had no shots on target against Arsenal recently which based on that stat would put them a long way behind Spurs in the entertainment stats (who went to Arsenal and scored 3 in one half), yet City are 2nd in the table and Spurs are 5th. The fact is that City are a very efficient and effective team at both ends of the pitch without yet playing consistently attractive and flowing football. That said, Mancini isn’t employed to entertain, he’s employed to win things and if he does you won’t care how good the football is or isn’t

  • Jem

    Well said Homer, at the end of the season the only stat that counts its points accumulated. But I still stand over my point that even though City are not the most entertaining club in the country they most certainly are not boring, and the “boring” brigade are bigots, that is if a bigot is someone whose view is blinded by hatred and spite. As a City fan I am not going to put down Spurs, Arsenal or Chelsea (you gotta give me Utd, I am human) just because they are our nearest rivals. I won’t say Arsenal are crap for the sake of it when they are clearly a very good team. But it seems City are this seasons hate magnet and the comments reflect that on all the forums.

  • Darren

    Homer, as a City fan I understand your frustration – but I think you need to direct that at your own teams inability to finish off a game – or would you rather we let you score a couple next time?
    We recently played Everton and had over 25 shots at goal – more than double yours against us – yet they had only 2 shots but scored them both and won the game. Didn’t hear us moaning about them did you?
    To base your views on one game which obviously ‘wound you up’ is wrong. I’m not saying we’re the most attacking or attractive footballing side in the league, however I have heard three opposition fans this year on Radio 5 claim City were the best team they’ve played – one Fulham fan rang in to say City were the best team he’d EVER seen play them at the Cottage.

Previous post:

Next post: