The way everyone is defending Wiley is by saying how far he ran/can run. The standard here is in The Mail, who claim to have looked at his performance in the game:
A review of the ProZone match data - the tool top players and officials use to analyse their displays - shows that Wiley, 48, ran a total of 6.86 miles during Saturday's match, more than all but four of United's players and three of Sunderland's.
But the ProZone figures exclusively obtained by Sportsmail tell a different story. Not only did Wiley cover more ground than a majority of the players, he also scored well on what referees consider the most important statistical measure of their fitness - how close to the action they were when judging fouls.
Wiley was on average 15.6 metres from the ball when awarding a foul, which is considered an impressive proximity by refereeing chiefs.
Now let's look at what Sir Alex actually said:
"He was also walking up the pitch for the second goal needing a rest. He was not fit enough for a game of that standard," said the United boss.
"The pace of the game demanded a referee who was fit. He was not fit. It is an indictment of our game.
"You see referees abroad who are as fit as butchers' dogs. We have some who are fit. He wasn't fit.
"He was taking 30 seconds to book a player. He was needing a rest. It was ridiculous."
Isn't the point that Sir Alex is making more concerned with time-keeping? Given that Wiley blew up after 4:02 of added time, in which a goal had been scored, when 4 minutes had been held up, and while we were attacking, isn't it correct for Sir Alex to point out the error? It's not about whether Wiley ran a lot, it's about him taking time to recover, stopping the game, and then not adding appropriate time on. I emphasise again that I've not rewatched the game, but let us say that Wiley was taking time to book players - did he add this into stoppage time? I assume not. If he was stopping the game for 30 seconds for each booking, shouldn't he have added more than 4 minutes to the end of the game?
And then you see Jeff Winter say:
"I think Sir Alex may have overstepped the line this time and he may be about to get his comeuppance," he said. "I think referees will be so incensed about this that Sir Alex may find that United no longer get the benefit of the doubt on certain decisions."
Which is wrong on several levels. First off, it presupposes we get the benefit of the doubt now, which is really quite ridiculous given that during the game we could have been given a penalty and Wiley could have given Foster the "benefit of the doubt" on Sunderland's second goal (not that I'm saying that the goal shouldn't have stood, but it's the type of challenge that one quite often sees given as a foul with the commentator's saying, "that's the type of challenge where the keeper always gets the benefit of the doubt." Not this time though...) Secondly, isn't it an admission that referees have an agenda over and above refereeing each game according to its own merits? We now have a scenario where the referees get together to discuss not giving us any decisions, which is the type of bias I always assume to be unconscious made conscious.
Jeff Winter continues to be an idiot throughout the rest of his comments:
"It was a cowardly attack – Sir Alex wouldn't have said it to Alan Wiley's face," said Winter.
"Every game Alan Wiley takes charge of now where he makes a decision which upsets some fans is going to result in chants of 'You're not fit to referee', he's going to be known as the 'unfit ref'. Sir Alex won't care though. He's a knight of the realm and he thinks he's untouchable, bullet proof.
"But he's also a bully. He spoke at Sir Bobby Robson's memorial service a couple of weeks ago and said he'd learnt a lot from Sir Bobby. But he hadn't, they were totally different, Sir Bobby was a gentleman. He was humble and had respect for people."
Winter feels Ferguson neglected to extend Wiley a proper duty of care. "Alan Wiley had not contributed in any shape or form to United only drawing and he cannot fight back. It won't happen but, if I was Alan, I'd be tempted to sue Sir Alex."
He criticises Sir Alex for a personal attack, and then does the same thing, he says Sir Alex wouldn't have said it to Wiley's face (which seems a little wrong, why wouldn't he?) - would Jeff Winter say this rubbish to Sir Alex's face? Maybe Jeff Winter is just jealous that Graham Poll has overtaken him as rent-a-referee.
Something rather silly in The Guardian:
With the issue in effect sub judice the refereeing fraternity had been told to keep quiet but was privately seething at what most interpreted as an ageist attack by a manager of pensionable age who has long railed at colleagues being deemed past their "sell by dates".
I'm sorry - Sir Alex is the ageist? Sir Alex isn't exactly trying to continue running around a football pitch beyond his capabilities, he's a manager, he uses his mind.
Bit of fact from The Mirror:
The FA are studying Ferguson's outburst in which accused Wiley of not being fit enough to officiate in Premier League matches and have written to the Manchester United manager, demanding he explain his comments.
Ferguson has a week to respond and Soho Square officials will then decide if there is enough evidence to hit him with an improper conduct charge.
He would then be landed with a fine or a warning if he is found guilty, although a touchline ban would be extremely unlikely.
I like this comment from someone or other in The Sun:
Alan Leighton said: "If Ferguson gets away with this, other managers will do the same.
"We've already had Blackburn boss Sam Allardyce complaining that Peter Walton was not fit to be a referee.
"Prozone stats monitor displays in every game. If Alan Wiley or any other ref were not fit, they would not be refereeing."
Yeah, now the floodgates will really open, because no manager ever criticises a referee do they? No. Not half of all managers every week...
Onto other matters, and Ben Foster's omission from the England squad is given a bit of attention. What I find interesting is the inclusion of Paul Robinson in the squad. If Ben Foster isn't upto it, I'm not entirely sure Robinson is. He let in six against Arsenal at the weekend and then gets a call-up? If one removes the blinkers and looks beyond the stereotyped flattery of Arsenal's amazing football, one could have noticed that Robinson was pretty unconvincing during that game. I haven't seen much of him this season, but from what I have seen, he's at least as unconvincing as Foster. Some things still have the feel of truth though, this from The Guardian for instance:
To put it another way, there is an authentic sense that Edwin van der Sar's understudy at Manchester United has blown it for this season, and if that sounds terribly harsh then consider the fact that Capello has been at every one of the games this season in which the man hailed by Sir Alex Ferguson as "England's goalkeeper for the next 10 years" has brought back memories of the Spanish sports daily AS's assessment of David James in the 2004 European Championship.
James, AS wrote, had become "a danger to his own players" and, in Foster's current form, the truth is Capello could not dare select him. Had he wanted him in his squad, the England head coach would have asked him to report to the FA's medical staff, as is common practice these days.
Perhaps the problem is that Capello has watched Foster more than Robinson...
Evra has a nice little dig at Liverpool:
"Chelsea away is the game I always want to win more than any other.
"If we win there it sends out a message to all the top four.
"There are other important games, such as we need to do well against Liverpool after losing 4-1 at home to them last season.
"But if you ask me to choose one game, I'll pick Chelsea away."
And while we're on the subject, remember Benitez moaning about a lack of money as the reason they didn't win the league last year? Not true according to someone who should know:
Liverpool's co-owner George Gillett has defended his and Tom Hicks's reign at Liverpool and pointed the finger at the manager, Rafael Benitez, after a disappointing start to the season.
... Gillett pointed to the investment he and Hicks have made when saying the owners were not responsible for any shortcomings.
"We have invested more money than our competitors, in keeping with the history of the club," he is quoted as telling a representative of the fans' group Spirit of Shankly last week. "In the last 18 months, we have invested £128m on top of what has come in.
"That means it should be getting better. Now if it's not getting better, it's not Gillett and Hicks; it's the manager; it's the scouting. You have to make sure you balance out your analysis. There was plenty of money, so if you have any complaints, take a look at the ins and outs."
The Sun reports Danny Welbeck and Ritchie de Laet get contract extensions.
There's an article on The Guardian blog about the "stagnation" of the top 4, which seems to want to have it's cake and eat it. After going on about the top 4 getting worse the finish is this:
Broadly speaking, there is a levelling down among the habitually dominant clubs. There are obvious explanations in the shrinkage of owners' personal fortunes and the drop in the value of the pound. However, there are no indications that the sides are therefore doomed to be also-rans in Europe. Real Madrid, who spent £226m on Alonso and three other new players, were as fragile as any of them when losing to Sevilla at the weekend.
In any case, it is time to relish the pleasures of comparative weakness in this country. There ought to be relief that United, for instance, can fall at Burnley or that Liverpool can be beaten 3-1 at Anfield by Aston Villa. The Premier League has slipped back slightly, but in doing so it may lead to a period in which results can once more take us by surprise.
It doesn't add up as an argument, because if the top 4 had slipped back he should be arguing we won't do as well in Europe. If we're still likely, in his opinion, to do well in Europe then it would appear that it's the rest of the Premier League that have caught up. Personally, as the top 4 in the league is taking on it's familiar look, I'm not sure what he's talking about...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment