(Image from here)
The word "fluff" features heavily in the papers today. Michael Owen misses a few chances and every (pretty much) article on it uses some variation on "fluffs his lines" to describe it. Is this just sheer laziness on the journalists' part? Why bother with originality when cliche will do? Or is it something darker? Let us consider 2 things 1) Journalists (all of them, pretty much) hate Manchester United; 2) Every journalist (pretty much) really, really wants Michael Owen to fail (they'd all written him off after Newcastle, pouncing on Big Sam saying he wasn't worth the risk, gloating over which little club he would go to. But then he signs for us and now, if he's a success they'll have been shown up - obviously they're hungry for him to fall flat on his face). So there is no real need for a conspiracy of journalists to decide on the "fluff" cliche - rather the fluff cliche becomes a signal that all these pieces are dying for failure, bringing out the negative in an effort to undermine Owen.
After that preamble, let us look at the best of the reports of the match last night, from Daniel Taylor in The Guardian (he doesn't use the word "fluff"):
The word "fluff" features heavily in the papers today. Michael Owen misses a few chances and every (pretty much) article on it uses some variation on "fluffs his lines" to describe it. Is this just sheer laziness on the journalists' part? Why bother with originality when cliche will do? Or is it something darker? Let us consider 2 things 1) Journalists (all of them, pretty much) hate Manchester United; 2) Every journalist (pretty much) really, really wants Michael Owen to fail (they'd all written him off after Newcastle, pouncing on Big Sam saying he wasn't worth the risk, gloating over which little club he would go to. But then he signs for us and now, if he's a success they'll have been shown up - obviously they're hungry for him to fall flat on his face). So there is no real need for a conspiracy of journalists to decide on the "fluff" cliche - rather the fluff cliche becomes a signal that all these pieces are dying for failure, bringing out the negative in an effort to undermine Owen.
After that preamble, let us look at the best of the reports of the match last night, from Daniel Taylor in The Guardian (he doesn't use the word "fluff"):
A striker of Owen's predatory abilities will undoubtedly be frustrated when he recalls the five chances that came his way before he was substituted 63 minutes into this friendly. It was noticeable, too, that his name was not sung by an uncertain Old Trafford crowd but it would be wrong for him to be heavily criticised. For the most part Owen looked sharp and alert and, apart from a clumsy finish when he was sent clear by Darren Fletcher in the second half, it could not be said that he looked rusty or uninterested or out of touch – or any of the allegations that were frequently levelled at him during his unhappy time at Newcastle United.
Rooney, playing in the classic No10's position where he is indisputably at his best, angled a wonderfully measured pass to send Owen running clear. It was a pass of disguise and beauty, a moment of penetrative brilliance that split the entire Valencia defence. Owen was in his usual position, hanging on the shoulder of the two centre-halves, loitering with intent. Suddenly he was away, and he would get to the ball first, winning the race ahead of César Sánchez and lifting the ball up and over the goalkeeper.It was a moment of classic Owen, except for the ball spinning just by the right-hand post. Yet it was a sunrise of a smile that would suffuse Owen's face. At Newcastle it would have been a scowl, a shake of the head perhaps, but Owen's body language has completely changed. He looks as if he has fallen back in love with the game.
Which sums it up well. It was disappointing he didn't score, he had chances (nothing you'd call a sitter, but definite chances), and should have scored, on another occasion he'd have had a hat-trick, on most occasions he'd have got at least one. Yet, he looked sharp and was making the right runs, getting into scoring positions. He didn't have the look of a past-it striker.
For contrast let's look at the worst of the bunch, Neil Johnston in The Independent:
For contrast let's look at the worst of the bunch, Neil Johnston in The Independent:
Manchester United's new striker failed to impress in front of Fabio Capello at Old Trafford last night.
After hearing of Owen's impressive form during United's tour of Asia, Capello took the opportunity to check out the former Liverpool player, whose last appearance for his country was March 2008.
He probably wishes he had not bothered as Owen squandered a hatful of chances to mark his Old Trafford debut with a goal.
After being put clean through by Rooney in the 21st minute, the free signing from Newcastle should have been celebrating his fifth goal in a United shirt.
This time, however, Owen's composure deserted him as he stabbed the ball wide of the target with only the keeper to beat.
Before we get to the meat of the criticism I would just like to question the fact that this report, in a "quality (ha) broadsheet-type paper" has paragraphs the length of which the editor of The Daily Star would probably think too simplistic.
Have their standards really dropped so far?
Onto the actual criticism - first paragraph/sentence - Yes, he missed his chances, but he looked sharp, fully fit (and weren't these two things Capello's main worries about him? His lack of games? His actual scoring rate has never been in doubt has it?). He might have got away with this had he carried the thought further, perhaps added a second sentence to the paragraph?
I'll take the second and third paragraphs together (fairly sure he could have just joined them himself...) seeing as the third is the punchline to the second. Capello also had Foster to watch, Rooney, Carrick, Rio was playing, so why he'd be "wishing he hadn't bothered" is beyond me. Even if Owen had had the game that is described in this article then he'd probably be glad he had bothered, just to see how bad he was. The "squandered a hatful of chances" is obviously dismissive, giving the impression that all the chances were sitters, as well as being purposely misleading by not giving a figure for the missed chances, implying there could well have been more than there was.
Fourth and fifth paragraphs (same as 2/3, just join them, was this guy never taught the difference between a sentence and a paragraph?): That little aside, "free signing from Newcastle," so obviously meant to be belittling and then the most blatantly lying description of a bit of football you're ever likely to see. The opposite is pretty true to this description, Owen's composure allowed him to beat the offside trap and then nicely lift the ball over (not "stabbed", which implies an entirely different kind of shot) the onrushing keeper. It then dropped just wide. It was a chance, but it was bad luck more than any lack of composure which led to it missing.
Then he describes Owen leaving the pitch thus:
Onto the other reports. The Manchester Evening News has the "fluff" but recognises he had a good game:
Have their standards really dropped so far?
Onto the actual criticism - first paragraph/sentence - Yes, he missed his chances, but he looked sharp, fully fit (and weren't these two things Capello's main worries about him? His lack of games? His actual scoring rate has never been in doubt has it?). He might have got away with this had he carried the thought further, perhaps added a second sentence to the paragraph?
I'll take the second and third paragraphs together (fairly sure he could have just joined them himself...) seeing as the third is the punchline to the second. Capello also had Foster to watch, Rooney, Carrick, Rio was playing, so why he'd be "wishing he hadn't bothered" is beyond me. Even if Owen had had the game that is described in this article then he'd probably be glad he had bothered, just to see how bad he was. The "squandered a hatful of chances" is obviously dismissive, giving the impression that all the chances were sitters, as well as being purposely misleading by not giving a figure for the missed chances, implying there could well have been more than there was.
Fourth and fifth paragraphs (same as 2/3, just join them, was this guy never taught the difference between a sentence and a paragraph?): That little aside, "free signing from Newcastle," so obviously meant to be belittling and then the most blatantly lying description of a bit of football you're ever likely to see. The opposite is pretty true to this description, Owen's composure allowed him to beat the offside trap and then nicely lift the ball over (not "stabbed", which implies an entirely different kind of shot) the onrushing keeper. It then dropped just wide. It was a chance, but it was bad luck more than any lack of composure which led to it missing.
Then he describes Owen leaving the pitch thus:
Owen was finally put out of his misery in the 62nd minute when he made way for Dimitar Berbatov.Yes, I'm sure he was miserable, getting a standing ovation and having just played a game in which he's seen for himself just how many chances he'll be getting in a United shirt...
Onto the other reports. The Manchester Evening News has the "fluff" but recognises he had a good game:
In front of the watching England manager Fabio Capello, Sir Alex Ferguson’s “most controversial” summer signing, was presented with three gilt-edge opportunities to get his name on the score-sheet, only to fluff his lines on each occasion.The Mirror is cliched and rubbish (for a change...):
Of particular annoyance to a striker who has established himself as one of the deadliest finishers of his generation, on two of those three occasions he failed to even hit the target.
But despite his unusual profligacy, Owen was still afforded a standing ovation when he departed the pitch shortly after the hour – and neither Ferguson nor Capello can have failed to notice a sharpness in his play that has been conspicuously absent in recent years.
At his best, Owen will know he could have scored at least four goals against a Valencia side that simply couldn’t get to grips with his speed of mind or movement.
In that sense this was the Owen of old – hanging on the shoulders of defenders, making incisive runs that continually cut the Spanish side’s defence to shreds.
the striker fluffed his chance in front of the England boss. ...The Telegraph is cliched (the "fluff" appears in the headline in this one) and blind:
Owen, who was put out of his misery just after the hour as one of a glut of substitutions. ...
sentiment gave way to reality as a once prolific striker showed the extent of his decline. ...
Owen was gifted four opportunities to create the best of first impressions, only to fire wide three times and put another straight at Cesar Sanchez.No he didn't. He had a shot saved by the keeper, he could have put it wider, but it was still a save, not straight at him. I'll give The Telegraph a bit of a pass for praising Valencia:
At least The Sun manages to be cliched in a more specific context:Valencia looks the part. Ronaldo’s boots are hard ones to fill, but the Ecuadorian could have done little more to get off to a good start.
He was by far United’s best player, creating goals for Rooney and Tom Cleverley
He fluffed a one-on-one midway through the first half after Rooney sent him clear. Owen clipped the ball over the advancing keeper Cesar Sanchez but saw it go wide.Back to The Telegraph for Sir Alex's quotes:
“He could have scored four, should have scored four,” said Ferguson. “But his movement in the final third was marvellous.
"It would have been nice for him to score on his first appearance here and he deserved at least one. It was a great ball from Rooney and Michael was really unlucky.”
And some more quotes from Sir Alex on Owen in The Manchester Evening News:
“There seems to be constant debate about the injuries he’s picked up over the years, but you look at Paul Scholes, who’s had two or three bad injuries, and he’s always come back.From The Sun, Sir Alex on Valencia:
“So we are not worried about Michael. If players have the resolve to get back then they always will, and there’s no doubt that Michael still loves the game of football and is hungry to play.”
"Antonio's performance was the most exciting part of the night for me."He has power and speed. Coming to our club, he has taken up the challenge and played with a lot of purpose."
The Times regurgitates an article on Ben Foster in light of Van der Sar's injury. Maybe not word for word but it's the type of the thing that was being written a month or so back, so no need to quote it here.
Sir Alex on transfer spending in The Manchester Evening News:
"We are working from a position of strength.
"We don't suddenly have to splash out to try to compete at the top.
"We are already there, thanks to a long-term strategy of buying mostly young players, who we feel have the potential to become top performers.
"It is certainly our intention to challenge for everything on offer and I feel we are well placed to take on all comers."
The Daily Star works some impeccable logic to declare that Owen won't be picked for the meaningless England friendly next week because he's only played meaningless friendlies for us:
Capello has decided he wants to see Owen scoring in competitive action, rather than friendly run-outs, before picking him.
The England coach announces his squad for Wednesday’s friendly against Holland in Amsterdam on Saturday. The Italian and his No.2 Franco Baldini saw Owen in action last night in a 2-0 friendly win against Valencia at Old Trafford.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment