One Hell of a Party

The papers are pretty much unanimous in praise of us this morning, a sign that we were unequivocally the best team yesterday - only if we'd won by 5 or 6 would I expect all the papers to praise us.

I give you this, from The Independent (whose claim to independence seems odd, given that they seem the paper most obsessed with slavishly following the anti-Man Utd agenda):

However, under the most serious analysis it was maybe not a triumph guaranteed to fill Anfield with too much alarm. Yes, United displayed plenty of virtuosity towards the end – even the extraordinarily brittle temperament of Cristiano Ronaldo had steadied to the point where he was producing almost as many points of danger as tantrums, but there was certainly an uneven quality to much of the performance.

So while every other paper is saying what a bad weekend it was for Liverpool, James Lawton believes they have little to worry about? Really? Even Alan Hansen seems to think this weekend was bad for Liverpool:

In beating Chelsea, United came back with their best performance of the season against one of their biggest rivals. If Liverpool had beaten Stoke on Saturday and United had just drawn on Sunday, all would have been well for Benitez, but instead the headlines on Monday morning are all about United and how good they are. That only puts more pressure on the Liverpool players.

But James Lawton thinks we weren't any good and Liverpool are cruising. Sorry? We win our games in hand we go top of the league, we could be top of the league before Liverpool win again. No worries for Liverpool? And the criticism of our midfield, which absolutely controlled the game, especially second half just reads like a Liverpool fan's sour grapes:

Whether it is now installed as smoothly, and as permanently as Ferguson later suggested, is of course a still open question. United might also ponder the lack of midfield rhythm which seemed to be a direct consequence at times of Michael Carrick's absence. Of course there was Giggs, waspish, defying the years and in the most crucial moments supplying the vital edge of confidence, but until the virtual collapse of Chelsea as a seriously competitive unit, there was still a sense that United had known much more coherent days.

Absolute idiocy.
Elsewhere, at least, we get long overdue praise, as does Ronaldo for that matter. And as does Giggs. I looked with horror when I saw that we were starting with Giggs in midfield, but credit where credit's due, he had an amazing game. I've not been convinced by him for quite some time but this performance was truly class.
On Ronaldo, this article by Richard Williams is a nice one:

Last night, watched by a crowd including Fabio Capello and Jose Mourinho, the winger irradiated a vital match with a spirit of invention that would have done credit to any of football's famous free spirits. Leaving blue-shirted defenders lying in the gutter like so many smashed-up supercars, he carried a constant promise of danger and had a hand in Manchester United's second and third goals, scored by Wayne Rooney and Dimitar Berbatov. The two disallowed efforts, however, provided equally vivid memories.

There's quite a few pieces praising Giggs, I'll just quote this one, from The Telegraph:

And Ryan Giggs? Unbelievable. Man of the match from central midfield. The only Premier League player mentioned in "The Simpsons", Giggs seems to have been around since Wallis Simpson but he effortlessly defied Old Father Time as well as Michael Ballack, Frank Lampard and John Obi Mikel. Giggs, 35 going on 25, kept nicking the ball, kept weaving through the midfield.

There's a nice story in Martin Samuel's column in The Mail, who knows how true it is:

Apparently, the day after Steven Gerrard was arrested over the fracas in the Southport bar, Ferguson arrived at the Manchester United training ground in a state of high excitement.

Seeing his players poring over the news in the papers he seized his moment.

‘See?’ he snarled.

‘That Liverpool lot are celebrating already. They think they have won it.’

I shall end with this summary of Sir Alex's response to Benitez. I chose this summary because it demonstrates so well the bias we face. Here's the offending sentence:

The governing body could yet write to the United manager asking him to explain his comments regarding the fixture list, but the Scot poured scorn on Benítez's complaints.

How long ago did he make these comments? Why on earth is there the need to put this in the article, except to side with Benitez?