When United had an eight-point lead, most pundits agreed they had the title sown up. Now, we're reading articles about City dominating for a decade or more.
But that's Goal.com for you...
Forty-four years of failure can't be wiped away in one season, but the hurt has been relieved.
By the same token, United have been here before, and they've knocked Liverpool off their perch and recovered from the surges of Leeds United, Blackburn Rovers, Arsenal and Chelsea. Why shouldn't it be the same with City?
Remember, United came second with the highest points total ever. One mistake against Vincent Kompany (who, by the way, has been outstanding) or a seven-minute collapse against Everton was all the difference.
Rome Wasn't Built in a Day
Roberto Mancini was a fine player with 733 appearances for Bologna, Sampdoria and Lazio. He is also a fine manager—one of the best in the world. He took Inter to three consecutive Serie A titles and was their most successful manager in 30 years.
He has made a good start at City, but never before has he had so much money to spend. Money and success are everything at City. What are the ethics of suspending a player, affirming, with the owner's support, that he will never play for the club again and then recalling him to save the season?
City supporters don't care; the end justifies the means, apparently.
Mancini is supposed to be a strict disciplinarian, but broke his principles when he was desperate.
Sir Alex is not like that. In this and a number of ways, he and Manchester United will always be better than City unless City change.
City have hired mercenary players and continued to employ two players that may delight their supporters, but are figures of ridicule elsewhere.
After Tevez refused to play for City, supporters were saying he should never play for them again. That was conveniently all forgotten when he won them the title.
That is fundamental to the differences between United and City. United don't have double standards. Money isn't everything. They have traditions that supporters have cherished from one generation to another.
In the desperate, 44-year search for success, City have embraced mammon—anything goes, and nothing matters when you're desperate.
I have a genuine fear that we are on the edge of a precipice into which scores of clubs across Europe may fall. Why? Because some clubs appear to have adopted a "money is no object" approach.
Football may be distilled into a global Fantasy Football League of a dozen or so clubs if this goes on, each the plaything of a multi-billionaire.
There is no sour grapes here. Clubs are on the verge of bankruptcy across Britain, kept alive only by misguided men with more money than sense, their bankers or their creditors—including you and me through the Inland Revenue.
If City pay £40 million for the services of Eden Hazard, Lille will be able to survive for a few seasons. Nick Powell's £4 million sale to Manchester United could do the same for Crewe. When Leeds United got sucked onto the financial merry-go-round, they perished.
Be in no doubt whatsoever (because Michel Platini isn't either), if Sheikh Mansour walked away from City or Roman Abramovich from Chelsea, they could fail within weeks.
Look what has happened to one of the two Scottish giants, and they didn't even have a "sugar daddy."
Some sanity needs to return to football. The old values need to be re-established. We hate diving and cheating. We resent the unfair advantage that billionaire money confers. We long for the days when the fans were king and when football Chairmen were benevolent.
Many of those values will always remain at Manchester United, where they always were. There are several ways in which they remain better than City. Some of them are proposed here.