This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

True, but City just lost to Spurs after Kane went off. by tex29

Granted, it was clear from the beginning that City was playing for the 0-0, Aguero took a page out of Mahrez’s book and gave an awful effort on a crucial penalty, and Fabian Delph shouldn’t have been anywhere near City’s starting 11—much less at LB. Nevertheless, Spurs has enough quality, and a good enough manager, to beat any team on any given day.

I would be surprised if City make it through the next two games without dropping points. The key for me is whether City can limit the damage to a draw, because I can’t see Pool making up the goal differential.

P.S. – R.I.P. 96.