Shut Up, I'm Dreaming of Places Where Lovers Have Wings

The main stories today all stem from an interview with Sir Alex by Alistair Campbell, from The New Statesman, with The Times having it in full here, I'll quote the bit where he names his "dream teams":

AC Your United dream team, out of the players you've managed?

AF My problem with United is I have had so many great players that I can't do one dream team.

AC Do two, then.

AF Well, two goalies for sure - Schmeichel and Van der Sar. Both top 'keepers. Full backs, Denis Irwin, Gary Neville, Evra, and these Da Silva boys are something else. Centre backs, you'd have to say Stam, Bruce, Ferdinand and Pallister. For midfield . . . I ask myself who were the players you could not leave out. Bryan Robson, for sure. Roy Keane. Scholes. Giggs - never, ever leave him out if I was playing my best team. Ronaldo and Cantona are both “never leave out” players. You'd have Beckham knocking on the door. Out-and-out strikers, where do I start - Van Nistelrooy, Cole, Yorke, Solskjaer, Sheringham. As for Rooney, if I left him out, I'd have to do it by e-mail or I'd never hear the end of it. God, when you go through it like that, I have been blessed with terrific players.

His comment on "Rafa's Rant" has reopened the feud, according to The Guardian:

Sir Alex Ferguson has re-opened his feud with Rafael Benítez by describing as "weird" the Liverpool manager's outburst against him and questioning the effect it had on the Spaniard's players.

Ferguson was responding to Benítez's criticisms of him in January when the Manchester United manager was accused of, among other things, influencing ­referees and damaging the Football Association's Respect campaign. In an interview with the New Statesman, Ferguson was asked what he thought of the "facts" that Benítez had listed as grievances. "Weird," he said. "I really don't know what he was talking about. I'd be amazed if his staff or his players thought it was a good idea."

Ferguson was not willing to elaborate but it is thought he was referring to the way Benítez's team lost their form almost straight after he had gone on the attack. United had been seven points behind at the time but the champions now have a four-point advantage at the top of the Premier League despite their 4-1 mauling by Liverpool at Old Trafford last Saturday.

The episode has irreparably damaged the relationship between the two managers, with Ferguson questioning at the weekend that he "would need to read more of Freud" before he could understand what Benítez was talking about.

This loss of form and the Freud thing, something I covered the other day.
The Independent has a quote from Sir Alex saying he relishes the challenge from Liverpool, but only if we emerge triumphant:

Ferguson... revealed the tension which has been associated with the tussle with Liverpool. "It can be edgy, but you have to accept the challenge. Being there is the greatest thing and that's what we are all striving for," he told Inside United magazine. "You only really relish it if you end up winning. You're prepared to go through the agony as long as you end up on top."

The Times report on the possibility of a "fixture pile-up" resulting from the new date for our game against Wigan:

Manchester United could face a fixture pile-up as the title race reaches its conclusion as the FA have announced the league leaders will travel to Wigan Athletic on Wednesday, May 13.

In addition, if the Premier League leaders reach the semi-finals of the Champions League, it will result in five games in fourteen vital days as they seek to retain their league and European crown.

And, in the next paragraph they have to refer to Sir Alex not giving an interview yet again:

Sir Alex Ferguson, the United manager, caused a storm by refusing to talk to Sky Sports after their 4-1 humiliation to Liverpool

Why does the information in the first two paragraphs lead to this being trotted out? There's no logical connection. After my rant against this yesterday at least The Times manages to muster up an article on the FA Cup semi at Wembley fiasco, the FA's response is truly ridiculous:

The FA was unmoved last night, insisting that the matches were arranged weeks ago with Sky Sports and Setanta

How is this even a defence? This response surely just makes it worse, implying that they only consulted TV people, never considering the fans who might want to actually attend the game. If only The Times could raise the indignation for this that they manage for Sir Alex not talking to Sky. Maybe now's the time to quote the disclaimer that follows nearly every reference to Sky in The Times:

The satellite television operator, in which News Corporation, parent company of The Times, has a 39.1 per cent stake

That'll be why then...
Nani quoted by The Mirror as liking Jose Mourinho for the next Man Utd manager:

Nani said: "For him to manage United would be easy. He would be successful without any problems. ''

Misleading headline of the day goes to The Mirror for this, "Barcelona and Manchester United are right to fear Liverpool, says Alan Hansen". Nowhere in the article does Alan Hansen say we're scared of them the two relevant quotes are these:

“Johan Cruyff has spoken out this week that Barcelona are afraid of drawing Liverpool in the Champions League quarter-final"
and
"One thing’s for certain none of the foreign sides will want to draw Liverpool on Friday."

So he doesn't say anything like we're scared of them. And I personally would love the chance to knock them out of the Champions League.
Absolute non-story of the day goes to The Sun for their story on how we won't be able to reloan Tevez, but will have to buy him instead. Really? I never knew that... I'm not even sure why they've bothered with it. Nowhere in the article is there even a sniff of someone saying that we're trying to renew his loan, and I've never seen any story suggest it anywhere. Odd.