Ballin' Outta Control

More of the same today. The most telling and accurate description of the game comes from Fulham's goalkeeper, quoted in The Daily Telegraph:

“We were a little lucky with one or two decisions but I think we deserved to win."

There you have it summed up. Yes they probably did just about deserve to win, they dominated the first half and defended well second half. But, yes they were lucky with some decisions, and on other days some of our chances second half would have been converted and we'd have won the game. Roy Hodgson also sees the game in a similar light, from the same report:

"It's moments again," said Hodgson. "I talk about the moment of the corner kick two weeks ago, which we defend badly and they score. Alex [Ferguson] will be thinking about [Scholes' handball]. Say he hadn't handled, the ball had just gone into the net, and they'd played on with 11 men. It could have been a totally different story."

Fine lines...
And now, to the reporters, who seem to have no idea what a fine line is. Worst offender today has to be the, usually reliable, Daniel Taylor in The Guardian. Take this:

The truth was that Fulham outpassed, outscored and, for long spells, outplayed their opponents. Their performance in the opening 45 minutes was the best, according to Hodgson, they have played under him and, almost unnoticed, the club have reached 40 points with eight games to spare. At this rate Hodgson should be on any shortlist for manager of the season.

They certainly deserved better than for their opponents to resort to the classic cop-out of trying to blame Dowd

Okay, let's have a look at what Sir Alex actually said:

“I was disappointed with the first half, I must admit,” he said. “We didn’t get started at all and that’s cost us the game. They were lively and they got stuck in, and we expected that. They lost 4-0 to us a few weeks ago so we expected a response from them. We didn’t meet that challenge. I think we can thank Edwin van der Sar for keeping us in it. "

And Ryan Giggs:

“We’re obviously disappointed with the result. After losing last weekend, we wanted to come here and put on a good performance. We didn’t do that in the first half – our passing was sloppy and our movement wasn’t good enough. We just couldn’t get it going, the tempo wasn’t good.”

Would someone like to show me where the "classic cop-out of trying to blame Dowd" is in these remarks? It seems more like they're, quite rightly, blaming our dreadful first half performance rather than blaming the referee. The use of, Fulham "for long spells, outplayed" us, is also disingenuous, implying this lasted throughout the game. They outplayed us for one long spell, normally referred to as the first half, not long spells.
His analysis of the Rooney sending off:

United's manager also complained about Rooney's second yellow card, when the forward picked up the ball and hurled it roughly in the direction, but actually a fair distance beyond, where United had a free-kick. "Did he throw the ball in anger? Yes, because he wanted the game to be hurried up," came Ferguson's defence. "Did he throw the ball at the ref? No, the ball went to where the free-kick was taken."

Notwithstanding the fact that this was not true (the ball went past everyone and was not even close to a United player), the most important question was this: was Rooney asking for trouble? Dowd had already flashed six yellow cards and one red as well as warning Ronaldo he was one more misplaced word away from being sent off. Rooney's was a fit of pique, coming only two minutes after Zoltan Gera had hooked in the second goal, and he is fortunate that the FA is unlikely to take any action over the way he left the pitch, punching the corner flag as he went. Rooney is 23 now, not 18. He has been around long enough not to put himself in these situations.

Actually, it is true. MOTD had, in their analysis, an "x" where the foul was commited, Rooney's throw landed on the "x" (quite a feat of accuracy considering his "anger"), the fact that the ball went passed everyone is beside the point, he threw it to the right place, it's just no one was stood in the right place. I'd maybe like to see some criticism of Dowd for being so petty as to want the free kick taking again, considering the situation - he was just wasting time for Fulham - it wasn't like the free kick was taken yards further forward, it was a couple of yards to the side. And no, the question isn't "was Rooney asking for trouble?" It's, was it a show of dissent? No, I don't think it was, and even if it was, given he'd warned Ronaldo without showing a card, why couldn't he have done the same to Rooney? Again, taking into consideration the circumstances, 2 down with minutes to play. As I said, reporters seem to have a hard time with fine lines...
I won't quote his criticisms of Ronaldo; he basically describes his complaining as "tiresome". I'm not sure it's as tiresome as referees constantly letting opponents get away with fouling him, or reporters constantly harping on about it...
The Independent wave away any pretence at neutrality with this:

Having confronted Dowd upon his dismissal, then thumped the corner flag on his way off, he should face more than a one-match ban. If he does not, it is confirmation that the Football Association is retreating from its crackdown on dissent.

Unfortunately for them, The Mirror report that:

FA sources indicated the suspension is likely to be the end of the matter.

I'll believe it when I see it. The Mirror also claim that Sir Alex could face action over his (really mild I thought, considering) criticism of Dowd. This sounds more likely...
The Mail report that Berbatov's "Chipped fingernail" is a little more serious than that:

'We are talking about a muscle tear, which means his foot will be immovable for two weeks. It is most likely that he aggravated his old ankle injury.'

In an attempt to slag off Rooney, Patrick Barclay in The Times destroys his own argument:

Here is a list of players I cannot recall having seen hurl a ball in a referee’s direction, argue, spit and punch a flag before storming off (or gratuitously shove Iker Casillas into an advertising board, or do any of the other things Rooney did in Madrid): Bobby Moore, Bobby Charlton, Pelé, Ronaldo, Franz Beckenbauer, Michel Platini, Marco van Basten, Marcel Desailly, Fabio Cannavaro. You could even add Maradona because, after being sent off in 1982, he learnt his lesson and won the World Cup for Argentina four years later. ...

At a time when the concept of respect is topical — and surely the FA will accept that its fiasco of a campaign requires reinventing when even United, our game’s flagship, all but fly the skull and crossbones — you recall the most recent World Cup and Zinédine Zidane’s head-butt and wonder if standards generally have sunk.

The first paragraph cites great players in an attempt to suggest that Rooney, to be great, shouldn't behave in the manner he does. The second cites Zidane (surely one of the greatest ever) as someone who couldn't control his temper (the standards slipping argument fails here as well, given the inclusion of players contemporary with Zidane in his first list). Nonsense. Need I mention Cantona?