Where is the outrage?

[Jangle]

Jose Mourinho might not stand on the touchline and tap his watch but he’s the new Fergie when it comes to getting added time in a tight match at home.
John Terry’s winner against Everton came in nearly six minutes of time added on, even though the physios were on the field only once in the second half.
Chelsea were also given an extra six minutes and 44 seconds in their 0-0 draw with West Ham and seven minutes and 15 seconds when Eden Hazard’s penalty rescued them a point against West Brom back in November.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz2uFWo9sjF
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Tilla]

Such biased reporting! If you check the stats, it will show that the goal by Terry was scored in 90 +3 minutes of the game. So if 6 minutes were added, it would be to the benefit of Everton and not Chelsea. I guess the writer should be saying the extra 3 minutes to make 6 minutes added time was Roberto Martinez minutes, as only Martinez and his side would benefit from the extra minutes played. If the game were stopped at 90+3, Chelsea would have already secured the winning goal and would not need the extra 3 minutes he claim was added. I guess the reporter did not watch the game.

[Rockman]

Of course that is said in hindsight.The length of the overtime was determined and declared before Chelsea scored,Chelsea by virtue of being a real contender stood to benefit from overtime ergo...

[Tilla]

OK, point taken about 6 minutes awarded before Chelsea registered their goal.

The statistics however show that Everton had the majority of possession (53% to 47%). It would therefore appear that if the referee were giving time to any team, it wold be to Everton to press home their advantage. It is really surprising that now that Chelsea eked out a goal in that time, it is Jose's time. What is Everton had scored and won in that time, would it still be Jose's time?

[Rockman]

The overtime represents a complete gane,the stats on Chelsea winning that is higher as reflected by the current EPL standings,arguably,Chelsea only needed more time to get its act together.It lead in shot attempts and shot on target despite having lower possession.

[Tilla]

The overtime represents a complete gane,the stats on Chelsea winning that is higher as reflected by the current EPL standings,arguably,Chelsea only needed more time to get its act together.It lead in shot attempts and shot on target despite having lower possession.

Added time, not overtime. OK, so what is the grouse by Jangle then? From what you are saying, Chelsea dominated in terms of shots and shots on goal. Since added time reflects the total game, I am not seeing the point in making a case against Mourinho. Although I have in the past agreed that referees give Fergie time. This is because you would see ManUre have teams on the back foot and the ref would not blow the game off until they got the result they wanted.

Awarding 6 minutes in this game with Everton dominating could have gone either way. Chelsea however took the opportunity.

[HL]

Tilla, you start to sound like the MenU and Liverpool FAN-atics on the forum. Can't tell them nutt'en......

On the other hand, the 2 most unbiased individuals on this forum is TopBrick and myself ...we call it as we see it:

[Tilla]

Me biased? HL, this is what you had to say on Sattiday: HL's Comment

It is surprising that now that Chelsea got a chance and took it, all of a sudden it is Mourinho time.

[Rockman]

Thanks for tge correction,added time and not overtime.
As to Everstrong dominating the game,I would refer you to the the stats on the whole.

[Peter R]

The outrage against a jaywalker cannot be the same as the outrage against a housebreaker or worse... if the jaywalker start break house then... Don't worry though, him under scrutiny.

[HL]

That's exactly what I said Tilla.

But now i am reliably informed (by the forum eXperts) that 3 min. time added--became 6 min.

Ssssup wid dat? Chelsea start to get help from the ref dem like ManU (of the past).

Keep it up.

[Tilla]

But now i am reliably informed (by the forum eXperts) that 3 min. time added--became 6 min.

Ssssup wid dat? Chelsea start to get help from the ref dem like ManU (of the past).

The referee added 6 minutes as pointed out to me by Rockman. Everton who was dominating at that point could not make anything out of the game. My point is, if they were dominating, it would stand to reason that the ref was trying to give them time to win. It so happens that Chelsea scored in the 93rd.

[Tilla]

As to Everstrong dominating the game,I would refer you to the the stats on the whole.

Rocky, follow mi! At the point near the close of the game, Everton was having the upper hand and on the front foot so to speak. The stats would not give you the picture and the point we are discussing here. Close to the end of the match, Everton was dominating. The referee added 6 minutes, and Chelsea hit the onion bag in the 90 + 3. For all intent and purpose, it could be argued that the referee added excess added time to see if Everton could get the win. So it would more be Roberto Martinez time, it so happened that Chelsea benefited.

[Rockman]

If Everstrong had the lion's share of possession then the time(of dominance)you chose to mention is one of many such periods.Chelsea dominated in other crucial areas despite....