Vans till infinity

Before looking at our great attacking play and our defence, new holders of the Premier League clean sheet record, let's just get it out of the way. Rob Styles. I'm a little surprised at the papers today, quite a few of them take a pretty reasonable view of the incident. My worry was that the fact that it was Rob Styles would influence the tone of the reports, his reputation preceding him so much. As I've said before, for all his faults, Rob Styles is at least an "honest" referee - he makes bad decisions for everyone. And last night's game was no exception. In truth he got all the major decisions right, but even having said that he was probably a bit fussy in his bookings (he booked I think 5 West Brom players for dissent), and he let some blatant fouls pass unnoticed while some decent challenges he'd blow up for. The important thing is that he got everything else pretty spot on. First off Gary Neville went down in the box and it looked convincing, but replays showed that the contact was minimal and the right decision was made by Styles (this penalty incident seems to have been forgotten in the wave of derision from West Brom supporters). The sending off? Well, it was a close call but I think it probably right. There was quite a lot of talk last night of it being a 50/50 challenge but it really wasn't, Park was there first and the tackle/lunge by Robinson was certainly reckless (to put it kindly). Most referees would have sent him off I think.
Most of the papers agree, The Independent's assesment is pretty fair:

Robinson slammed into Park Ji-Sung as both men went to ground in pursuit of the ball. The left-back's left boot was only slightly raised but with that glimpse of studs, and the ferocity with which he came at Park he gave Styles an invitation to send him off. Robinson's challenge was not as gruesome as some but he was not in control of the tackle when he collided with Park.

"an invitation to send him off", I think that is fair, implying that Styles had every right to do it, while keeping the air of a bit of a harsh decision - it wasn't mailcious, but certainly reckless.
Onto those that disagree, The Guardian claim it as an "overreaction":

The decision was a grave overreaction by the referee Rob Styles. Robinson and Park Ji-sung both slid into a challenge after 40 minutes. The Albion left-back seemed to try and minimise the contact when a collision became inevitable, but he was still shown the red card. There had been no malice.

In the replays I saw I never noticed him pulling out, The way this is worded, "seemed to try", implies that the writer isn't fully convinced either, and the whole "no malice" argument is the last resort of those claiming a horrendous challenge isn't worthy of a red card. If a challenge is dangerous its dangerous regardless of any level of malice and so deserves a red card.
The Telegraph go for another dubious tactic - the "he went for the ball defence":

As Robinson flew, his left foot angled towards the ball but his right was always going to make bruising contact with Park’s ribs. In approaching an opponent at such speed, Robinson’s carelessness bordered on recklessness. West Brom’s captain never left the ground in pursuing the ball, so Styles could have given a yellow but from the referee’s angle, he could not see the ball, only a Korean midfielder buckling under the force of a late-arriving English full-back.

Robinson was shocked to be punished even with a free-kick and was genuinely stunned when Styles brandished red. Television replays were hardly helpful: from behind, it looked a horror challenge but when seen with the ball in view, Robinson’s case that he was targeting the ball carried some legitimacy. The tough-tackling full-back could have been the victim of his reputation: this was his sixth red card in three seasons.

Even this defence is pretty feeble, "it looked a horror challenge", "he could have given a yellow", implying the possibility of a red was always there, it wasn't some wrong decision, it was a borderline case. Considering the writer goes to such great lengths to defend Robinson, his is the only report that suggests West Brom were trying to rough us up:

Some of the tackles flying in were designed to test the champions’ character. No question. There was a spiky, steely side to Mowbray’s men. No doubt. Carl Hoefkens went through the back of Ronaldo, ignoring the ball, leaving the European Footballer of the Year crumpled on the floor. Valero then poleaxed Ferdinand. United knew they would leave with some bruises.

Which puts Robinson's challenge into a different context, that of the culmination of a campaign of intimidation, which would surely imply the red was right?
Final word on the subject to Sir Alex:

Ferguson described it as "careless and reckless". "They tell me that from the other television angle it doesn't look as reckless but I have to say it was a careless challenge," Ferguson said. "He didn't need to do it, the boy slid into him.

Enough of that. Let's celebrate the great football on display, which most of the papers actually manage to do, although some are a little begrudging (The Guardian, for example). The Mail sum it up pretty well:

It was impressively easy for United. A perfect demonstration of their predatory qualities as well as what continues to be an extraordinary run for a defence bolstered last night by the timely return of Rio Ferdinand.

The Sun are slightly more poetic:

CLEAN SHEETS to clean sweep — United are dazzling brighter than bright as they go hunting success on five fronts.

The Mirror make fun of Benitez's refrain of "Fact" in summing up our recent good run, too long to quote though.
Our defence also, obviously gets plaudits this morning, The Sun labelling us "The InVANcibles", very humourous... The Guardian has the fullest article on the achievement:

It is now 17 hours and 12 minutes since the 38-year-old picked the ball out of the United net in league competition, a record that spans 11 matches and eclipses Cech's mark of 1,025 minutes, which was set in Chelsea's title-winning season of 2004-05, by 360 seconds. It was the 84th minute before Van der Sar could celebrate here, though at that point all the attention was focused on the opposite goal as United went into overdrive.
...
If he completes another 72 minutes without ­conceding a goal against Everton on Saturday, Van der Sar will take possession of the all-time league record, which has been held by Steve Death, the former Reading ­goalkeeper, since August 1979. Ferguson made a point of acknowledging the part other men have played in helping United become so difficult to penetrate "even when we have made changes", although as the last line of defence it is Van der Sar who merits the most praise.

72 minutes? Against a team playing without strikers? Should be a doddle? (Famous last words...)