Age of Reptiles

So, what I saw yesterday was a really good game of football between two really good sides in a good vein of form. What the papers saw seems to be a touch different...
Take The Independent. I should probably pay more attention to which writers do the reports of our games in The Independent, whether it's always the same guy, because nearly every game is viewed in the same begrudging way. According to Sam Wallace what we saw was, "a very average Manchester United side do just about enough to beat West Ham United". Really? Look at this paragraph:

That [a West Ham shot] was the most artfully created chance of a first half in which West Ham had much the better of the game. Parker, one of those not selected by Capello in the England squad for Wednesday, was excellent, twice taking the ball from Ronaldo as he warmed up to dribble his way through West Ham. On the second occasion the winger responded with his can't-be-bothered, self-indulgent worst, sauntering back towards the halfway line after play had long since moved on.

It's a classic piece of work - the pointless slur on Ronaldo, who looked bright first half - it was a credit to the West Ham defence and midfield that Ronaldo was kept in check, rather than the oh-so-predictable charge of not caring on Ronaldo's part - the arguing from one specific example (Parker winning the ball) to a general principle (West Ham having the better of the game) - and a general principle that is just plain wrong. I can't remember exactly when it was, I think it was about the 30th minute, the possession statistic was 58 percent to 42 percent in our favour. In a previous paragraph he even tells the lie of his own position, saying, " it was difficult to remember a really clearly defined West Ham chance", what? Even the chance that he goes on to describe as "the most artfully created of the half"? If you're going to watch the game through Man Utd hating spectacles at least have some consistency in the reporting of it... I could continue picking the report apart forever, but I'll just mention the continuous digs at Ronaldo. In The Sun's story the other day which I quoted from at the time they suggest that opposition fans boo Ronaldo "because he is so good he can destroy teams on his own", and I think that this is what is happening with certain football reporters. It certainly happens in this report. Look at this description of the penalty shout:

With two minutes left in the game, Ronaldo might have had a penalty when he cut in from the left and went past the trailing leg of David Di Michele, which clipped the winger on the very edge of the box. He might just have got the penalty on another day in another stadium – such as Old Trafford – but it was a borderline decision and, for all his posturing throughout the afternoon, it was not like Ronaldo deserved it.

So penalty decisions should now be given on the basis of how much a player deserves it? And another sign of the cliched writing is in the so-tired reference to all the penalties we get at Old Trafford, a myth I no longer feel the need to dispell.
I'll leave The Independent now and, with only a sidelong glance at The Daily Star, whose headline goes for the same Ronaldo "bashing" ("Giggsy shines as Ron loses the plot", which if you hadn't seen the game would probably imply a red card or something bizarre happening, rather than Ronaldo doing his usual act of exasperation), I'll stop at The Guardian, whose report is fairer, although still lacks a little something. For instance:

The United method is to exhaust teams and then defeat them. There is such confidence in the passing that the opposition's lungs burn as they chase after the ball that is being withheld from them. Sometimes, as was the case here, the United display appeals more to coaches than spectators. Domination was carefully established but United were not particularly incisive.

At least we have recognition for our control of the game and our passing. The problem lies with the "United were not particularly incisive", which makes it sound like it was all down to us, rather than the quality of West Ham's defending. I thought the game was so good because it was two sides attacking well, but being blocked by excellent defending. It wasn't a game of lacklustre attacking, but a game of resolute defending. In the second half we looked impregnable, defending as a team, stopping everything. And West Ham's display was similar, only a piece of magic from Giggs could make the breakthrough.
The report on The Guardian blog makes some interesting points. O'Shea as capable defenderbut lacking the driving forward of Evra:

The absence of Patrice Evra certainly hampered United, for although John O'Shea did a tidy job defensively he has neither the pace nor the cutting instinct of the Frenchman. O'Shea offered little support going forward to Cristiano Ronaldo, who could have done with it as he was contained relatively easily by Lucas Neill.

And praising Vidic:

In such circumstances Nemanja Vidic is regularly relied upon to show why he is surely on course to be voted player of the season. ... it is he, rather than Edwin Van Der Sar, who is most deserving of thanks for United's record number of clean sheets. United are top of the league because they make fewer mistakes than anyone else, with Vidic usually being the closest to perfection.

There's, obviously and deservedly, a lot of praise for Giggs in the papers, I'll just quote this one from The Times:

This was just another ordinary afternoon in the extraordinary life of Giggs, an occasion that will barely merit a footnote when the time comes to reflect on the career of the most decorated player in English football history. But, at the venerable age of 35, in the autumn of his football life, his every contribution is to be savoured. The second-half goal that sent United back to the top of the Barclays Premier League was merely a minor classic — a couple of delightful body swerves and a right-foot shot that deceived Robert Green — but, in the wider context, coming on his 786th appearance for the club as he approaches the 18th anniversary of his first-team debut, it seemed to carry an additional symbolism.

The Telegraph's report is probably the best of the bunch, noting both our attacking quality and West Ham's defensive doggedness:

As Van der Sar is quick to point out in his Groundhog Day post-match interviews, United’s defenders play their part in manning the barricades so expertly, and Nemanja Vidic and Rio Ferdinand both deserve continued praise. The constant craving for victory that emanates from Sir Alex Ferguson, and fills Van der Sar, Scholes and Giggs is found throughout this remarkable United team.

Knowing that Upton Park had been the graveyard of their ambitions before, United had been quickly into their stride, the champions’ pace and poise immediately in evidence. Dimitar Berbatov, dropping off Carlos Tevez time and again, glided through from deep early on, his progress stopped only by a magnificent challenge from the excellent Parker, not for the last time.

West Ham’s No  8 embodied the determination and positive intentions of Gianfranco Zola’s side

The Telegraph also has a good round-up of post-match quotes:

United manager Sir Alex Ferguson added: "I am proud for Edwin when you consider that he has achieved everything. You can see the way he is motivated by the challenge of his clean sheets. He has everyone jumping out of their skin at the moment because of the record."

Of Giggs's achievement, Ferguson added: "I am searching my memory bank for the last time he scored with his right foot. I think it was against Coventry 12 years ago.

"He is a credit to the game. If anyone wants an example of how to dedicate themselves to football, you could have no greater example than Ryan Giggs."

The Times, as well as others, cite Sir Alex as writing off Chelsea, which he didn't really:

“It is going to be difficult for Chelsea, it is fair to say,” Ferguson said. “But in the context of football, as we know it, mistakes can be made. We had an 11-point lead over Arsenal in 1998 and lost it. We are not counting our chickens and we don't think we should because this game can come and bite you. We are saying in the dressing-room that this is a fantastic result and performance. It is time to kick on.”

In other news The Sun reports on Bryan Robson suggesting Jose Mourhino might not be the right man to replace Sir Alex:

He said: "I just don't agree when I hear people say that Jose is the perfect boss to take over from Sir Alex.

"Jose is a great coach and the things he achieved at Porto and Chelsea mean he commands huge respect.

"But Manchester United aren't just a club who only want to win things. The fans demand that success is achieved by playing the Manchester United way.

"Attacking football is a vital part of the club's heritage. For me, Jose Mourinho is too cautious in his approach to the game to be manager of Manchester United.

I half agree, but I think that Jose is a man who a) is a traditionalist and b) a good enough manager to play more than one style of football. I would personally like Jose as a replacement for Sir Alex - they are very big boots to fill and someone of Jose's stature and personality would seem to be an ideal choice - however he would have to address the concerns that Robson raises.