Minor Threat

There's just the press conference from yesterday with Sir Alex reported today.  Not too much in it, just a bit of banter about Man City, here from The Times:

When questioned about the growing “threat” of City, Ferguson could
barely keep a straight face. “Excuse me, where are they at the moment?”
he asked rhetorically, knowing that they lie eleventh in the Barclays
Premier League, three points clear of the relegation zone. “At this
moment in time, our threats are still Chelsea and Liverpool, who are
sitting above us.”

M.I.A

Just noticed this article criticising Ronaldo from Ian Herbert in The Independent, too late to include in usual round-up.

Keep Forgetting

Some crap around today.  Graham Poll on Villerreal fouling Ronaldo:

This was effective management of team fouling but Villarreal may still
feel the tactic is worth repeating because Ronaldo was forced out of
the game

No he wasn't, he played the full game.  Did Poll even watch the game?

Mark Ogden in The Telegraph forgets the campaign they usually run against Rooney to have a go at Ronaldo:

Since being subjected to a torrent of abuse from Stoke City's vociferous
supporters at Old Trafford two weeks ago, when he foolishly allowed himself
to be drawn into a series of ear-cupping gestures towards the visiting fans,
Ronaldo appears to have been rattled by his reception on and off the pitch.

In recent seasons, Rooney has found his own temperament questioned following a
series of high-profile flashpoints that have resulted in red cards in the
wake of retaliation to tough play by opposing defenders.

However, the England forward appears to have developed a new aura of calmness
this season, learning to curb his temper and avoid a repeat of previous
disciplinary problems.

Yeah.  I forget how many times Rooney's been slagged off this season for his temperament, but he definitely has, against Hull for one, but here, to make Ronaldo look bad Ogden simply forgets.

Brief interview with Rooney here.

This is the (s)hack

I feared the worst before looking through the match reports this morning, expecting the usual Ronaldo bashing.  This feeling was not only due to the expectation that the normal biases would be in evidence, but also to the utter blindness the ITV commentators demonstrated.  It started when the Villerreal player pinched Ronaldo on the cheek and throughout the replays all they could talk about was Ronaldo making a meal of fouls and going down easily, and the complete refusal to accept that Capdevila deserved to be sent off for a foul which saw studs connect with Ronaldo's Knee, no matter how many replays were shown, instead talking about Ronaldo going down easily and making a meal of things.  So I expected a similar treatment from the papers this morning (especially as he'd been booked for dissent).
Imagine my surprise then to see that most of the papers are actually praising Ronaldo.  Seriously.
The Guardian make this astonishing claim: "Ronaldo, it should be stressed, was the innocent party."  I can hardly believe I've just quoted those words from a national newspaper...
The Times has a "little sympathy":

The United forward was subjected to some horrible challenges, with Joan Capdevila, the Spain full back, sent off for the worst of them with eight minutes remaining.

Sir Alex Ferguson, the United manager, complained of “systematic” fouling of his No 7 and, while such grievances have often fallen on deaf ears in the past, Ronaldo was entitled to a little sympathy last night. Even if it is not always easy to draw parallels between late tackles and “being hit with a baton as you walk down the street”, to use the analogy that Ferguson employed on his arrival in Spain on Monday night, the cumulative impact of the physical suffering that Ronaldo endures over the course of a game, let alone a season, must be enormous. Prima donna he may be, but there are times when his posturing and flouncing can be excused. This match was one of them.

Still the odd dig in there but definately an improvement over the usual.

The Mail are full of praise for him:

it was difficult not to admire the manner in which the 23-year-old led his team’s attacking efforts in the Estadio El Madrigal last night.

After taking such a verbal and physical buffeting at Villa Park on Saturday evening, Ronaldo could have sat this rather meaningless game out and prepared himself
instead for the rigours of Sunday’s visit to the City of Manchester Stadium.

But he chose to play and on a night when attacking football of any note was thin on the ground, he emerged from another evening of rough and tumble tackling with sore ankles but with his reputation as a footballer enhanced.

Ronaldo was pretty much under assault all night. Not all of it was particularly vicious or crude. Some of it was not even intentional. But the monotony of it was notable and
the point is that it was not particularly unusual.

The Sun has this great sentence:

If this player is a diver then he does it in a bramble bush.

The Independent can't quite bring themselves the whole hog and still manage to find some criticism of Ronaldo:

He is operating in a perpetual state of agitation – reluctant to accept a handshake; ready to take the extra, theatrical roll when fouled. He was also quite prepared in the second half here to stand, hands on hips, near the partisan Villareal's partisan Frente Amarillo 'ultras', eyeballing the assistant referee who adjudged him to have fouled Capdevila. After removing the ball to where he thought the kick should be taken, he was booked for dissent.

But even they accept he was "more sinned against than sinner".
Why this change of heart?  Is it because it was just really too much to ignore it last night (unless you're Jim Beglin)?  Or is it because Sir Alex had a go:

his manager said the treatment confirmed his theory that Ronaldo is a deliberate and sustained target for United's opponents.

"If
the referee does his job that's sufficient. The problem is the press
don't do enough," said Ferguson. "Systematic fouling is happening now,
it is a tactic. One foul becomes another becomes another, and
eventually the referee thinks he's diving.

You decide...

Home of the Brave

Some more sniping at Ronaldo in the papers this morning.  Sir Alex has a very good take on the whole thing, quoting from The Mail:

'He took some tackles on Saturday. Most of them were fair and some were not so good.

'He did not always get the protection he deserved but he showed great
courage and I admire that. He had some cuts on his ankle but he is OK.
Nothing unusual. He wants to play against Villarreal. I would rather
him sit it out. But when players show that amount of enthusiasm you
don't deter them. You encourage it.'

Truth Serum

Funniest sentence ever in The Mail today, from the report on our game and Villa's claim for a penalty:

Sir Alex's contention, that the Serbia defender had won the ball, was
greeted by the only neutrals inside Villa Park - in the press room -
with snorts of derision.

Journalists eh?  Never biased...  Even Martin O'Neill wasn't certain:

In my opinion, it should have been a penalty, although that was debatable.

So, yeah, let's snort with derision...

The Independent decide to go with episode 1293 of the Slag-off-Ronaldo-show, presumably next week they'll return to the Wayne-Rooney-is-sooo-temperamental-show...

Moaner (Relentless Legs)

This is what happens when Ronaldo makes a tackle, rather than having to put up with being fouled continuously. 

Haters

There aren't many days like this... There really is nothing but nice things to be said about us today.  What is the world coming to?  Where have all the haters gone?
Take this from The Guardian:

Even those who did not necessarily carry the fortunes of Manchester United close to their heart, whose heads had not been turned by the whispered blandishments of Sir Alex Ferguson, could not fail to leave Old Trafford on Saturday afternoon without a glow of pleasure over the appropriateness of this result.

This had less to do with United than Stoke, even though there were times, especially in the second half, when the home side produced some breathtaking exchanges. Cristiano Ronaldo, in particular, showed some scintillating touches and Dimitar Berbatov, once again, proved himself one of the best hold-up men in the game.

No, it had more to do with Stoke. Their football failed to fire the imagination and a large section of their witless supporters soured the spirit by verbally abusing Ronaldo whenever he was remotely near the ball. No footballer should be subjected to that. No spectator, either. And after the match the distressingly hard-of-hearing Stoke manager, Tony Pulis, completed a squalid little day for his club when he said: "You get some banter. I don't know what they were singing. I switch off when I'm in the technical zone."

Praise for Ronaldo?  One minor gripe I could have is that the following quotes from Danny Higginbotham are only fully given in this report, not the others.  BUt that would be petty gripe I guess:

It was left to Stoke's left-back Danny Higginbotham, who started his peripatetic career at Manchester United, to partially redeem the day for Potteries folk. He said of Ronaldo: "The lad was absolutely brilliant - you just have to say what a great player he is. He's the best in the world, there's no doubt about it. I don't believe he has a weakness."

And that abuse? "I don't think it bothered him in the slightest bit. That's testament to the character of the lad. You don't become world player of the year and get talked about like he does if you're not special. People can say what they like but his quality rises above everything else. You simply have to admire anyone who can score more than 40 goals a season. People say he dives but he's from a different culture and I've got absolutely no complaints about him. He's an unbelievable player."

I like the description of Ronaldo's game from The Independent:

Welbeck almost overshadowed Cristiano Ronaldo who, as he kicks on from last season, is making the prospective £160,000-a-week wage demands United could face from his representatives look difficult to face down. He didn't play Premier League football until 21 September, remember, but he is its second top-scorer this morning and currently United's most compelling performer by a distance. He wasn't immune, in the course of taking his career goal tally from 99 to 101 with two more dipping free kicks, to the Stoke fans who threw abuse at him. The kisses he blew back and the leg he wiggled in time to their vitriol egged them on. But then he calmly dismembered right-back Andy Griffin's game and self-belief.

The Telegraph have high praise for Welbeck and The Mail praise Ronaldo. 
Days like this are very rare. 

Transona 5

A good win yesterday, a great first goal from Danny Welbeck, Ronaldo back on song, what more could we ask for.  Even the papers give us a bit of credit - they even give Ronaldo some credit...
Look at this from The Mail on Sunday:

For most of this season, Ronaldo's performances have been a pale
imitation of his true form; of the menace and bravado that brought him
42 goals for United, as they won the title and the Champions League.

But yesterday he burst into life. He scored two goals, one of breathtaking magnificence - and created havoc wherever he roamed.

The Times call him "Irresistible", while The Independent point out he is joint second in the top scorers "despite not playing till September 27".
And so to The Guardian and Ian Whittel:

The game told us nothing about United's championship credentials and
the destiny of this season's title. As for Ronaldo? The petulance and
frustration he showed for so much of this game suggest it will take
time, and presumably another summer of Real Madrid courtship, before he
looks content playing for United again.

Squeeze me?  Belittle us and then make stuff up about Ronaldo?  What's that all about?  He looked back to his best (as the other papers acknowledge, perhaps Ian didn't get the memo...) and fully involved in the game at all times.  And yeah he appealed for a few free kicks when he felt he'd been fouled, not like him at all is it?  While we're talking pettiness read this paragraph:

As has often been the case throughout so much of his Manchester United
career, Cristiano Ronaldo dominated Old Trafford proceedings with two
goals, including his centenary goal for the club, then pouted his way
through the remainder of a match his team won at a canter.

His second goal was in the 89th minute, so this sentence pretty much suggests that Ronaldo "pouted his way through" the fnal minute of the game.  If you're going to write shit, get it to make sense...

The Guardian also have a good interview with Rio Ferdinand here.

Doomtrooper

Didn't see the game last night and, if this report from The Guardian is anything to go by then it probably wasn't a bad thing:

Discounting the moment when the fourth official, Colin Webster, rescued
a mouse from the side of the pitch, it was not until the hour-mark
before the first genuine moment of excitement

However I'm not sure whether to actually believe that report as all the other reports seem to make the game sound a little better than that.  The Times:

QPR were hanging on for dear life by the time Danny Welbeck was brought on in
the 72nd minute, but having withstood a siege, thanks mainly to Radek Cerny,
their goalkeeper, the Coca-Cola Championship team looked as though they were
going to take a one-sided contest into extra time.

Sir Alex's thoughts from The Telegraph:

“It was just a matter of opening them up and taking the first chance, but that
was difficult,” Ferguson said. “We created a lot of chances, but at
the moment they’re just not going in for us.

“There was some relief when we finally made the breakthrough because, as the
game wears on, it only takes a second to score a goal and QPR, with their
massive support, were always going to give it a go at some point. The
attitude of the players was very good, though, and I’m pleased to go
through.”

The other news is of course of Owen Hargreaves missing the rest of the season and career being in danger, from The Guardian:

Owen Hargreaves' future as a professional footballer is in jeopardy
after he was ruled out for the rest of the season because of his
persistent problems with tendinitis. Hargreaves underwent surgery on
his right knee yesterday and will also need a successful operation on
his left knee if his career is to progress beyond the age of 27.

Although Sir Alex seems slightly more optimistic than that:

"We gave him injections to begin with but, when that didn't clear it
up, we sent him to see people in London and Sweden and, again, we never
really got to the bottom of the problem," Sir Alex Ferguson explained
before last night's 1-0 Carling Cup win over Queens Park Rangers. "We
needed to speed it up, which is why we decided to send him to the best
man possible. It's been really difficult for the lad, being out so
long. But what we are trying to do is put this to bed and get him back
as a fit player next season. The operation went well although, of
course, we won't know the exact circumstances until we've got him back
with us."

Kerosene

Just going to post on one report this morning.  This, from The Independent.  It is an 11 paragraph report.  7 of those paragraphs discuss Wayne Rooney's temperament. This was a great game of football and The Independent spend 7 paragraphs out of 11 discussing Wayne Rooney's temperament.

Definition of insane.

One of those days

There's a sentence in The Independent's report on the match which, in between all the lavish praise for Arsenal in today's papers, pretty much sums up the game:

Ferguson will need to analyse what went wrong.  Bad luck, for
sure, contributed. United, probably, had more chances. But nothing ran
for them until Rafael da Silva – a chirpy, impressive replacement for
the sluggish Gary Neville – smashed in his 90th-minute volley.

And I'm a bit short on time today so I'll leave it at that.  It was a great game of football, but not one that proved anything about Us, or anything about Arsenal.  It was a game where they got the run of the ball and scored their chances, while we didn't.  We had more possession, more shots on and off target and yet we lost.

One of those days.

Don't Believe The Hype

This story doesn't really concern Man Utd but it is Roy Keane and he is slagging off the media so... From The Independent:

Keane said he will not be doing so in a television studio soon. "I
was asked last week by ITV to do the Celtic game," he said. "A couple
of weeks before that I was asked to do the United game against Celtic
at Old Trafford. I think I've done it once for Sky. Never again. I'd
rather go to the dentist. You're sitting there with people like Richard
Keys and they're trying to sell something that's not there.
"After the Newcastle game we had Keys on saying we've never seen
anything like it, dressing things up that weren't really there, just
because he was in a bad mood. If you're going to watch a game of
football, just go and watch it. Anytime I watch a game on television I
have to turn the commentators off. They say: 'He's playing really well'
and I'm thinking: 'No, he's not'. My advice to anyone is don't listen
to any of the experts.

And I love this quote by Sir Alex on his FA charge, from The Guardian:

Ferguson's jibes were reserved for the Football Association, which has
charged him with improper conduct for verbally abusing the referee Mike
Dean after the game against Hull City last weekend. "I've not read it,"
he said. "I'm a little bit surprised but it's the FA and they have
probably been dying to send me a wee letter."

The Power of Independent Trucking

In the run up to the Arsenal game we find a very nice example of the bias we have to face:

The FA decided Wenger's comments post-Stoke did not cross the line into
bringing the game into disrepute but it charged his Manchester United
counterpart Sir Alex Ferguson with improper conduct. He was angry at
the referee Mike Dean's decisions in the home win over Hull on Saturday
and confronted him on the pitch.

One rule for them and another for us.  Makes a change...
The Independent pretty much admit that the FA has a vendetta against us:

The Football Association has renewed its attempts to challenge Sir Alex
Ferguson's conduct with referees, lodging their third improper conduct
charge in two seasons

The way they describe the decisions in the Hull game which most infuriated Sir Alex is a masterclass in understatement:

...enraged by Dean's decision to award Hull a penalty and failure – as he
saw it – to issue Hull's Michael Turner with a second yellow card
following his challenge on Michael Carrick. The penalty decision
certainly looked an acceptable one, though Turner's challenge on
Michael Carrick would have earned some players a second yellow.

Some players?  Do they mean that the other players would have got a straight red?  Let's assume not.  They truly are Independent...

Bring on The Clowns

The reports on the game last night are a pretty anodyne bunch.  Plucky Celtic, misfiring us.  No real point in going through them (full disclosure I'm pretty busy at the moment and like I say there's nothing to get my teeth into with these reports so I'm saving some time).
This, from The Guardian, has a pretty good summary of quotes from Sir Alex:

"Given the performance in the second half, I think they are ready for a
big game on Saturday," Ferguson said. "It is never easy picking teams
with the squad I have got and having a lunchtime game against Arsenal
to come, that was a bit of a dilemma for me."

Stop the Nonsense

If yesterday's reports were a touch biased in Hull's favour, today's are insane.  Reading the reports today you'd probably think that Hull should have won.  I'm reading about how rattled we were, how they beat us tactically.  I'm reading everything but the truth, and I'm yawning at the return of the Rooney bashing.  The Mail spend pretty much their whole match report slagging him off, as do The Times.  I can't even be bothered to look at it in detail, it's just the usual rubbish.
The difference between yesterday's reports and today's seem to be, not an extra day's reflection making the reports that bit fairer but, simply that an interview with George Boateng has become available for the reporters to use and they write their reports around the quotes.  It seems like a ridiculous way to write a match report.  Why give Boateng's words such weight?  Where's the balance?
Take The Guardian report, where we have Boateng saying "Tactically United had problems with us when we switched from 4-3-3 to
4-4-2. When we went one on one on them,
they didn't know what to do. We had them rocking."  Instead of just treating this with the pinch of salt that anyone who had seen the game would treat it with (where is Sir Alex's quote about them only having 2 chances in today's papers?  Not fitting the agenda?), The Guardian pretty much bases their entire report around it:

Admittedly Ronaldo, who scored twice, Berbatov, Carlos Tevez, and an
increasingly annoyed Wayne Rooney all spurned inviting opportunities to
send Hull back along the M62 thoroughly thrashed but, as dusk
descended, United's lack of midfield authority threatened to undo them.

With
a 4-1 lead narrowed to 4-3, the closing eight minutes featured Ronaldo
making a last-ditch clearance, Rooney becoming enveloped in red mist
and home fans frantically urging the referee to blow the final whistle.
"We got ourselves in an embarrassing situation," said Ferguson whose
attacking riches - Tevez, once again, began on the bench - are leavened
by a surprising shortage of a string-puller.

Granted, Michael
Carrick, newly fit after injury, can dictate games from that department
and it was no coincidence that United began seriously wobbling
following his withdrawal but, right now, Carrick is not quite in
Lampard's league. Moreover, he does not enjoy the luxury of playing
alongside a midfield anchor in the mould of Chelsea's enforcer Mikel
John Obi. Instead, with Owen Hargreaves facing knee surgery and a
six-month lay-off, Carrick found himself alongside the predominantly
attack-minded Anderson.

This really doesn't make much sense does it?  It pretty much reads - We need a string puller, Michael Carrick is a string puller, dictated the game, but we need a string puller, oh, and a defensive midfielder.  It makes no sense.  Anderson had a pretty good game to these eyes and as we were attacking pretty much the entire game, constantly on the front foot, Neville, Evra, Ferdinand all playing more adventurously than usual, why wouldn't Anderson join in.  There was a barely a threat form Hull the entire game.  But that's not how George Boateng sees it so let's ignore the facts...

Lies, and release from silence

I think this quote from Sir Alex sums up yesterday's game pretty well:

“You’ve got to credit Hull because they never gave in,” he said, “but they had
two chances and scored three goals which is some achievement.”

"Curmudgeonly" is how The Telegraph describe this comment, and the, perfectly valid, criticism of the referee is taken the same way with all the papers ignoring or justifying the dreadful decisions.  Take this from The Telegraph again:

Ferguson felt Michael Turner should have picked up a second yellow card for a
foul on Carrick with the score at 4-2, but the incident was at worst
borderline and as excuses go it was less than convincing.

"Borderline"?  What?  As far I as was concerned it was borderline straight red, it prevented a goal scoring opportunity, Carrick would have had a shot at goal but for the cynical foul, yellow was the very least it deserved.
The Guardian report completely ignores this incident and gives Hull credit where credit's due:

They deserve credit at the very least for coming to Old Trafford to
play football and for sticking to their guns even when seemingly out of
the contest.

 but is it really necessary to ignore refereeing decisions to give them credit?  And as for the penalty, The Guardian's description, "Rio Ferdinand unnecessarily grappled Mendy to the floor", makes it sound so clear cut, as does The Independent's "Rio Ferdinand clearly fouled Mendy in the box".  I really don't see how it was given, it was a coming together, a nothing tackle.  I was astounded when he gave it.  It seemed like Mike Dean just wanted to give Hull absolutely every chance to get something from the game, including playing more stoppage time than was indicated while Hull had the ball, I thought he was just going to play on till they scored.  Do the papers mention any of this? Of course not, it's just Sir Alex being "Curmudgeonly".
At least The Times has the decency to mention Sir Alex's concerns, and admit he was at least half right:

Ferguson also
believed Mike Dean was a factor and had to be restrained by Gary Neville
from confronting the official at full-time.

Ferguson felt Dean should have given Michael Turner, already booked, a second
yellow card for felling Michael Carrick as United’s midfielder was about to
go through on goal, and that Dean was wrong to give the penalty which
allowed Geovanni to make it 4-3 when Rio Ferdinand blocked off Mendy with
his arm. Ferguson seemed wrong about the Ferdinand incident, correct
regarding the Carrick one.