Big Match Previews

Big match previews abound today but first we have the issue of Chelsea and Arsenal being bad losers.

In The Guardian Daniel Taylor and David Hytner write:

A war of words broke out between Chelsea and Manchester United last night after Sir Alex Ferguson expressed distaste about the behaviour of Ashley Cole and his team-mates during their draw at Tottenham on Wednesday. "I think the haranguing of referees we have seen is absolutely ridiculous," said the United manager.

In this article about the way players go after referees en masse we have this:

Ferguson is leaving himself open to accusations of double standards given that the Football Association is preparing a case against him, and his assistant, Carlos Queiroz, for their criticisms of Martin Atkinson after the FA Cup quarter-final defeat to Portsmouth two weeks ago.

He is leaving himself open to criticism by the haters who always criticise him. Anyone can see that there is a difference between a manager criticising a ref after a game to TV (even if he may have gone too far) and a gang of players getting into the face of referees in the ridiculous way that Chelsea players do. The accusation of double standards might have made sense if our players had reacted like this to the complete joke of a penalty decision in the Portsmouth game and if Sir Alex had defended them, but as our players didn't react like that we should probably assume that Sir Alex is right in what he says:

The United manager, whose team face Liverpool tomorrow before Chelsea play Arsenal, is still aggrieved by Arsenal's behaviour when they lost 4-0 at Old Trafford in the FA Cup. He said he would never tolerate his players acting like the London clubs'. "We had a pivotal moment some years ago when our players surrounded Andy D'Urso," he said, referring to the incident in January 2000 when the referee gave a penalty to Middlesbrough at Old Trafford. "I went off my head with them about that, I thought it was ridiculous and it never happened again.

The Independent run the story as well with a general snide manner, but nothing worth quoting. The same report then turns to the Liverpool game and makes this stupid claim:

Tomorrow's match ... pitches Ronaldo among equals for once in a while and in Fernando Torres – the country's top striker on current form – a player more likely to deliver on the big occasion.

A sentence designed solely to belittle Ronaldo, from the use of the word striker which excludes Ronaldo from being top on current form, to the unsubstantiated claim that Torres is more likely to deliver on the big occasion; while I have no encyclopedic knowledge of the goals of Torres (and I'm running late so can't look it up) I'm fairly certain he hasn't scored against "the Big 3" this season. Certainly not against us or Chelsea anyway.

The articles actually previewing the game are completely rubbish.

The Guardian starts the hilarity with some sort of points based analysis of the top teams, the only bit I'll quote is David Pleat's verdict:

The crucial game will come on April 13 against Arsenal, just after United's second leg against Roma in the Champions League. Assuming Sir Alex Ferguson's side do not beat Liverpool on Sunday, that fixture could be critical to maintain their advantage. Suggesting that the Londoners will force the draw still gives United the opportunity to take 10 points from their last four games which, with a draw at Chelsea, would be enough for the title.

Assuming we don't beat Liverpool? Why are we assuming that David? So that you can talk on an entirely different game than the one that is happening this weekend? What about Liverpool's recent record against us? What about our home form? What about our miserly 5 goals conceded at Old Trafford? We'd better just assume Liverpool are going to take all 3 points. Fantasist.

More wishful thinking in The Independent:

Since he has not managed to conjure a win – and has inflicted just a single goal – in four seasons of League combat with Sir Alex Ferguson, Rafael Benitez has fewer reasons to be cheerful about this weekend than he might care to admit, but there are grounds for accepting his contention that he is more confident of success tomorrow than before any other of their encounters.

How many times? It's like the beginning of every season where the Liverpool obsessed media predict that this is the season that Liverpool will challenge for/win the title and then within weeks (or days) they realise they are deluded but keep up the pretence for months by constantly asking whether Liverpool are actually out of the title race.

The ultimate fantasy for the Liverpool media is played out in The Times, where they discuss what it would have been like if Ronaldo was a Liverpool player. Yes, they really do. I'm not sure this is worse than Arsene Wenger smugly claiming that Ronaldo could have played for Arsenal, as if Arsenal have a divine right when it comes to poaching foreign talent. I'm not going to quote from it simply because I can't bear to read it again.

A fairly straight telling of Sir Alex's feelings on the game is a slightly better article in The Times.

Don Howe and John Barnes deliver awful verdicts in The Telegraph.

John Barnes delivers the nonsensical:

The critics should relax about Liverpool. If their supporters give Benitez time, and if the team spirit is right, then they might see what they can achieve.

First off I thought Benetiz was loved by the fans? Secondly the argument pretty much amounts to "If everything goes there way then they may just achieve something." However, given that Liverpool always get every marginal decision possible (and if anyone dare give a decision against them the whole media unites to make sure the referees know what to give next time), I'm not sure this argument works - they already get everything, yet win nothing (but cups, where "luck" counts).

The hindsight-is-a-wonderful-thing-I-knew-it-all-along argument:

It was unrealistic to think that a team that finished last season 21 points behind United could catch up in one campaign

And the xenophobic:

Torres is not a typical foreign player; he doesn't go diving in for free-kicks and he can take a tackle; he is a fantastic combination of hard work and talent.

Are we still in the eighties?

Don Howe just delivers the plain stupid:

The message will be clear: give nothing away because winning games 1-0 here and there will be the key to winning the title. That is the key to the consistency that he craves. It might not be pretty, ladies and gentlemen, but if it yields victories in a decisive phase of the season then no one will complain.

It's not every day you read that we play unpretty football. Normally even the most biased don't go that far (they just say that, "Arsenal are the most attractive team like evah", solely to belittle our beautiful attacking football, because they can't do it directly).

The Telegraph redeems itself slightly with an article on Ronaldo's free kicks interviewing Leonel Pontes, who was youth coach at Ronaldo'sSporting Lisbon:

"There was no beating him at table tennis, even when he was 13 or 14. He was the same at football. He was able to say that if you touch the ball in a certain way, it would gain that direction.

"He always wanted to be the best, the strongest, the one who scored the most goals, did the best dribbles. He was terrible for challenges."

The really stupid award goes to David Lacey in The Guardian for "Ronaldo may score lots but he's not yet a goalscorer", which plays on a quote from Brian Clough suggesting you need to score consistently over five season to be considered a goalscorer. My problem with this is that it presents this season as a potential blip in Ronaldo's career, when it is bleeding obvious that there has been a gradual progression in his goalscoring season on season. Not acknowledging this is an omission which really changes the whole essence of the article, from one that would asses his chances of progressing more, to one which just portrays him as a one season wonder.