Henry Winter is at it again. This time he comes to the bizarre conclusion that Sir Alex's punishment is nothing of the sort, frankly, Henry concludes, it's a bonus for us to have him banned, the FA are doing us a favour!
Now, Henry has some problems with the FA. Which is fair enough. However these problems blind him to everything else, so when Rooney doesn't face punishment it's down to the FA's silly disciplinary procedures; when Sir Alex complains about an appalling referee it's the FA's fault for letting him get away with it, cos they're scared of him; when Jamie Carragher assaults Nani it's not a problem... the problem is Sir Alex not talking to the press, which is the FA's fault for not enforcing their own rules, and sod the media doing their job and enforcing some sort of consistent standard- from player to player, from team to team- in their moralising.
So when the FA give Sir Alex an insanely long touchline ban for one sentence, one bloody word even, one bloody word that was perfectly fair comment as far as anyone in their right mind could see, this isn't enough for Henry. If it was UEFA it would be a lot worse, he whines:
Consider the article Henry could have written. He could have written one simply comparing the two and urging the FA to harden its punishments. Or he could have just written a factual one on Sir Alex's punishment, what it entails and the games he'll miss. Instead of either of these he gives us a snide little piece in which he suggests Sir Alex has got off lightly. Well. No. He hasn't. By the FA's standards the punishment is extraordinary. And there is no other standard by which to judge it by. So what if it's not as harsh as UEFA's punishments. It's still a huge punishment, by the standards of the possible punishments he could have faced, rather than the impossible punishments he can't face- Why, if he'd said that type of thing about a ref in biblical times be might well have been stoned to death - in medieval times, hung, drawn and quartered - in revolutionary France guillotined. But he didn't, so to say he's got off lightly cos he's being judged by a completely different system is a touch unnecessary.
But not as unnecessary as Henry's final paragraph, where he concludes that, because Sir Alex will be able to use the punishment to instil a siege mentality into the players, the FA have done him a favour:
Now, Henry has some problems with the FA. Which is fair enough. However these problems blind him to everything else, so when Rooney doesn't face punishment it's down to the FA's silly disciplinary procedures; when Sir Alex complains about an appalling referee it's the FA's fault for letting him get away with it, cos they're scared of him; when Jamie Carragher assaults Nani it's not a problem... the problem is Sir Alex not talking to the press, which is the FA's fault for not enforcing their own rules, and sod the media doing their job and enforcing some sort of consistent standard- from player to player, from team to team- in their moralising.
So when the FA give Sir Alex an insanely long touchline ban for one sentence, one bloody word even, one bloody word that was perfectly fair comment as far as anyone in their right mind could see, this isn't enough for Henry. If it was UEFA it would be a lot worse, he whines:
Uefa’s touchline ban is far more stringent, exiling the manager from his players.Sir Alex is barely punished at all by the ban and £30,000, nothing, loose change.
Consider the article Henry could have written. He could have written one simply comparing the two and urging the FA to harden its punishments. Or he could have just written a factual one on Sir Alex's punishment, what it entails and the games he'll miss. Instead of either of these he gives us a snide little piece in which he suggests Sir Alex has got off lightly. Well. No. He hasn't. By the FA's standards the punishment is extraordinary. And there is no other standard by which to judge it by. So what if it's not as harsh as UEFA's punishments. It's still a huge punishment, by the standards of the possible punishments he could have faced, rather than the impossible punishments he can't face- Why, if he'd said that type of thing about a ref in biblical times be might well have been stoned to death - in medieval times, hung, drawn and quartered - in revolutionary France guillotined. But he didn't, so to say he's got off lightly cos he's being judged by a completely different system is a touch unnecessary.
But not as unnecessary as Henry's final paragraph, where he concludes that, because Sir Alex will be able to use the punishment to instil a siege mentality into the players, the FA have done him a favour:
So are United harmed? Not really. The FA has unwittingly given Ferguson and United a cause.
The Scot is the master at circling the wagons, and he will be using this FA sanction to stoke United’s fire even more.
Always beware a team driven by a sense of injustice. Ferguson will drive them hard.
Yes Henry. Quite. If the FA had done nothing it would have been "Man Utd, getting away with it again." The FA hit Sir Alex with this awful ban and it's "Man Utd, getting away with it again." And the media wonder why Sir Alex is a touch frosty at times...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment