Invasion of the Moral Crusaders

Not much around today but, after the stupidity of the last few days, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Having said that, what there is around today is pretty dire.
The Daily Star have quotes from Sir Bobby Charlton which appeared pretty much everywhere else on Monday. To be fair, as I never got round to quoting them then, I probably shouldn't criticise too much... Here they are anyway:

“There’s a bit of pride been hurt there,” said Sir Bobby, “but I don’t think Sir Alex will have to work too hard to rejuvenate them.

“But work he will. Getting to the end of the season, all matches are important. When the next one comes along on Saturday, I’m sure he will be ready for it.

“I think there was just a little bit of stress, because we kept on winning matches.

“It helps to maybe turn the gas down a little bit – and a lot of pressure has maybe eased.

“I’m hoping we are going to do better because of this result.”

The Times just won't leave it. Yet another article on Sir Alex not doing the post match Sky interview. It's a 60 second or so interview for god's sake, is it that important? Reading this nonsense it is, apparently, crime of the century:

This is nothing less than scandalous, not least when you consider that United have a contractual obligation to put up a senior management figure for interview, as well as a moral responsibility to the millions of fans who tune in on Saturday and Sunday evenings hoping to hear the views of the single most important and knowledgeable person in English football.

In the absence of any noticeable condemnation from the very organisations that exist to rein in errant behaviour - not least the United board - is it any wonder that Ferguson is so dangerously out of control? That he runs United like his own personal fiefdom? That he has routinely snubbed post-match press conferences (another part of a manager's duties) for more than seven years? That he bawls out journalists who ask awkward questions as a matter of course? That he has banned so many scribes that his own press office finds it difficult to keep track of who's in and who's out?

Give it time and Ferguson will think nothing of banning opposition managers from Old Trafford on the ground that they dared suggest they might beat United.

At first I thought this faux outrage must be tongue-in-cheek, but I'm now fairly sure it's meant to be taken seriously. "Moral responsibility"? "Moral responsibility"?! When I watch MOTD and an opposition manager doesn't show I really do not care. How often is anything of note said in a post match interview? "Moral responsibility"?!!!? And why no mention of Harry Redknapp, who also won't speak to the BBC here? And why no look at the BBC's behaviour, of Sir Alex saying he only wants an apology from them, and they preferring to stay on their high horse? Don't they have a "moral responsibility" to try and get him back, for the poor, neglected MOTD viewer, whose life is incomplete without a 30 snippet of Sir Alex?

And as for the finish:

Ferguson will change only if confronted. That is why Sky Sports should give him a taste of his own medicine by “boycotting” payment of United's share of the television rights income, estimated at a total of about £50 million. That is the only thing that might persuade the United board to bring into line a manager whose behaviour - and I choose my words carefully - shames English football.

The first bit; yesterday's stupid article on this subject noted that there is, "a clause that demands that clubs make their “best endeavours” in providing coaching staff for comment after a match." So I'm not sure Sky would be on very sure legal footing in withholding the money. And secondly, "I choose my words carefully". How pompous? After the rest of it I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but Jesus, who is this guy (It's Matthew Syed btw)?

Elsewhere in The Times it is reported that

Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester City Council, has joined the chorus of calls for the tie to be moved to a stadium farther north after branding the decision to play late in the afternoon on Sunday [at Wembley], April 19 as “ludicrous” and “a failure of common sense”.

Couldn't agree more. Isn't there some sort of "moral responsibility" on the part of the FA to do something about this? Why doesn't Matthew Syed "choose his words carefully" and get on his high horse about this blatant putting of money over fans which "shames English football"? Isn't that his "moral responsibilty" as a journalist?

Martin Samuel suggests, following recent talk, that David Moyes wouldn't be a good replacement for Sir Alex:

In comparison to the top clubs, however, Everton are financially weak and, as a result, play their football a certain way. Even against inferior teams Moyes favours caution, which is understandable, but hardly the best grounding for career promotion.

A top four club need to play on the front foot, they need to make the game, even away from home, and they need a manager to embrace that style. Could Moyes do this? The Manchester United board would have to take his word for it, because he will not be able to call on many examples that demonstrate a penchant for the cavalier at Everton.