On the rabid insanity of certain football writers with a special commendation for Alan Hansen.

Schizophrenic reaction to the game today. We won, but, so the papers have it, should have lost. Arsenal dominated, except for all the chances we had and the saves Lehman pulled off. Arsenal were brilliant...

This report in The Telegraph sums up the quandary:

...an Arsenal side that looked a long way from the exhausted, imploding mess they were supposed to be after their elimination from the Champions League...

As I pointed out yesterday, the papers told us that Arsenal would be like this, it wasn't the official version, it was "paper talk", if you will. So simply because Arsenal managed to play quite well, when the papers told us they wouldn't, it proves how great Arsenal are.

Sir Alex perhaps doesn't help matters here, being magnanimous in victory:

"Arsenal were the better team in the first half," he said. "We were a bit nervous; our passing was poor, our confidence and self-expression were poor and I couldn't wait to get into them at half-time.

"Arsenal were unlucky not to have got something from the game. You couldn't ask for more from a team than Arsenal produced. They gave it their biggest effort and we have still managed to win it."

Yeah, Arsenal were the slightly better team first half, but, as far as I saw it, our defence looked, on the whole, solid, and we created good opportunities ourselves.

The Guardian report demonstrates the technique - report the game as it happens but editorialise so that Arsenal appear utterly dominant - this snippet shows it in action:

The Gunners, playing with great desire and attacking purpose, were frequently finding room down the right but, as has often been the case in recent weeks, their finishing was too often awry. And Rooney almost made them pay against the run of play, when he forced Jens Lehmann into a reaction save with a near-pot toe-poke.

As if to ram home the point, Hleb carved out Adebayor's fourth chance in 34 minutes, bustling through United's midfield, playing in the Gunners striker and watching in dismay as the lanky forward side-footed straight at the grateful Van der Sar. Within seconds Rooney was put clean through at the other end and the advancing Lehmann again justified his surprise selection with a magnificent save with his feet.

Praise Arsenal's attack, suggest Rooney's chance was an exception, praise Arsenal's attack, report on a Rooney chance. Now, the actual flow of the report suggests an end to end game, not an isolated attack that would usually be associated with the words "against the run of play".

The description of the Arsenal goal also plays the same trick:

The second half resumed with the Gunners again on the front foot and they were rewarded for their efforts with the opening goal three minutes in. Van Persie followed up his free-kick to pick up the loose ball, run down the left wing and cross for Adebayor who, finally, managed to bundle the ball over the line with Van der Sar culpably standing rooted to his line.

Arsenal, that great idealistic attacking team would never commit a wrong, so we have "bundled the ball over", not "commited a blatant handball". It's surprising how many reports completely brush over the handball.

The Times begrudgingly admit it:

Adebayor bundled the ball home from barely three yards though there was a strong suspicion that it came off his hand.

The Star are willing to admit there was a "claim":

...a 48th minute opener by Arsenal’s warrior centre-forward Emmanuel Adebayor – despite claims of a handball

(as a sidenote - why is he a "warrior"?)

The Mail, in an otherwise pretty good report, ignore the handball to slag off our defending (which admittedly was at fault for their goal):

As well as the Arsenal goal that came because of a sudden breakdown in communication between Rio Ferdinand and Edwin van der Sar, there were the squandered opportunities to land the first blow.

I could continue like this all day, but I'm going to restrain myself and just hone in on two absolutely awful articles, both from The Telegraph.
First up, Don Howe, whose awful reading of the game I'll quote at length:

Tactics: Manchester United
Defence: Again the United defence was exposed and left looking vulnerable at set-pieces when Adebayor 'nodded' in his goal following a free-kick. This has to be a concern for Sir Alex Ferguson with a trip to Chelsea on the horizon.

Midfield: The perplexing inclusion of Owen Hargreaves on the right looked like an attempt to curb Arsenal's attacking prowess but upset the equilibrium of United's smooth-running midfield to the extent that Paul Scholes and Michael Carrick were rendered unproductive.

Attack: I don't expect to see Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney perform so quietly again in a big game, but their ineffectiveness was a knock-on effect from the midfield changes that suggested their manager was looking for a 1-0 win.

Tactics: Arsenal
Defence: The new-look defence did well enough so Arsene Wenger's decision to include Alexandre Song Billong must be applauded, but Gael Clichy should have taken advantage of the space created by Owen Hargreaves sitting deep down his wing.

Midfield: With their slick passing and movement, Arsenal dominated this department for the first hour as they did in the Champions League game at Liverpool, with Gilberto Silva playing fairly well in Mathieu Flamini's place.

Attack: It was a case of deja vu as Arsenal stylishly outplayed their opponents but failed to supply an end product. Maybe they just needed a little luck, but their lack of a finishing touch left them vulnerable to a team who are bound to create chances.

So it turns out we were absolutely awful all over the pitch, while Arsenal were amazing everywhere. How on earth did they lose? Ah. It's there in that last paragraph - "they just needed a little luck". I'll just quote two bits from The Mail report cited above (which as I hinted before is about the best on the game) - " Wayne Rooney would have had a hat-trick but for the brilliance of Jens Lehmann"; "Even before Gallas handled, Arsenal were alarmingly vulnerable at the back.

Alongside Gallas, Alexandre Song looked every inch a centre half making his first League start of the season, making Wenger's decision to deploy Kolo Toure at right back all the more baffling." I also love Don Howe's "Ronaldo and Hargreaves were both absolutely rubbish, they did nothing but score the goals that won the game..." Is there no quality control when football people submit things to papers (I exonerate David Pleat here, because he does generally seem to have some good insights)?

Could there be a worse article out there you ask? Yes, there could. Who could have written it? Well, The Telegraph was mentioned above and it is indeed over to Mr Alan Hansen whose article could have been written by a computer selecting dominant themes from Arsenal coverage over the season, so horribly wrong and cliche-ridden is it:

What we have seen in the past 10 days is that football is not all about passing and moving, about looking like a great side; other facets of the game are crucial. When the play is scrappy, you dig in as a team. That is where Manchester United are so good, and where Arsenal have fallen down.

I've missed out the bit where he uses that cliche about great teams scraping wins when they're not playing well because I didn't want to embarrass him too much, but this is stupid. When was the play scrappy? He admits himself it was a good game of football, there was no scrappiness (the major moment of scrappiness could indeed be said to have been the goal that Adebayor bundled (euphemism for handled) over the line) from us, we played good football, only denied by Lehman from scoring after a couple of great moves. An accurate description of the game isn't what this is about though, it's about suggesting that we're not very good - the sentence Alan Hansen wants you to read is "When the play is scrappy ... Manchester United are so good".

At United yesterday, Arsenal were beaten when they should not have lost in a million years. But if you can play the way Arsenal did at Old Trafford, then you should be winning.

Yes, they were on top first half. Not in doubt. But there was chances at both ends, it wasn't so one sided that Arsenal "should not have lost in a million years".

You could not say United did a great deal to earn their goals.

Pardon?

You could not say United did a great deal to earn their goals.

I thought that was what he said. At least we didn't handle the ball over the line...