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...