Recently, ESPN’s Simon Barnes published an article entitled “How spirited United ‘won’ Manchester Derby.” For argument’s sake, it’s worth considering the article to be a serious evaluation of the game with some deliberate irony. It is also looking at the positives which, in fairness, did exist to some degree from a Manchester United fan’s perspective.
The first line of the article was ambitious, and a little bit of tongue in cheek in its presentation, but an actual verdict put forward as a constant theme throughout the article by Simon Barnes. “Manchester United beat Manchester City 0-1 yesterday” (the article was published the day after the defeat). No, they lost 1-0. I know it can be difficult to comprehend the difference between a win and a defeat (apparently), but saying United won the game when they lost 1-0 sets the tone of a fairly thought-provoking article.
Moral victories don’t count; yes Manchester United can build on the performance making them “count” in future, but at least give an assessment as to how, rather than attach bait in the title and first line to draw readers into an article. It’s all well and good having an attractive first line, but it’s going to take more than “looking like they are going somewhere” to describe the way forward for United.
After this, it all gets a bit confusing. Contradictions aplenty with “United deserve to lose”, then being contrasted with “United still walk away with more than City” adds to the slightly vague route forward for United. Statistically, Manchester City were better anyway, more shots on target, corners and marginally more possession, let alone three clear penalty decisions turned down which would have made the victory far more comfortable. Barnes does touch on this, saying “at least 2.5 of the penalties were turned down incorrectly” but this demonstrates the element of fortune United had.
Of course, it did strike me this article had some important underlying points that are worth touching on. The assessment of Chris Smalling’s red card is correct, but I suppose even the most delusional fan couldn’t argue with that. Then Joe Hart is credited with a “Man-of-the-Match-worthy save”, again a fairly rational and sensible verdict.
Unfortunately, such sensibility is quite limited and frankly a rarity; at one point, the article says “these points do tend to undermine my argument”, as briefly the article begins to do the job of unravelling the issue put forward to the reader for itself. It’s understandable at a base level to admire Manchester United’s “spirit”; they are a team who can find redemption in Louis van Gaal for certain, most likely in the form of a top four finish. The issue is that classing a 1-0 loss to Manchester City in such a positive manner exemplifies the problem since Sir Alex Ferguson left; the winning mentality has disappeared. It’s certainly better under Van Gaal, who wouldn’t go as far as Moyes in saying they “admire” Man City. However, as the article says, “They’re getting last-minute goals to draw rather than win these days”, or worse still – no last minute goals at all.
After addressing “spirit” and “tradition”, we go on to discuss the “intangibles” which act as a currency that can be exchanged for three points now, I suppose. If we are going to discuss intangibles and hypothetical scenarios, it comes back to the point that City could have had three penalties, and hypothetically win the game even more easily. “Intangibles” are intangibles for a reason; they don’t actually exist or, if they do, in ambiguous circumstances that still, unfortunately doesn’t change the fact Manchester United lost the game.
Rather than focusing on events that didn’t or are yet to happen, it may be worth focusing on why the game was lost and how to improve rationally. For instance, how better to incorporate an absent yet still immensely talented Robin Van Persie into the game like Manchester City managed to incorporate their star striker Sergio Agüero into proceedings at the Etihad? Also assessing how Manchester United have the talent, there is no doubt in the likes of Ángel Di María’s ability to be the catalyst needed in midfield, but ensuring such players are not wasted in key games.
If both Di María and Van Persie have an off game, something is clearly wrong in the set-up of the team. It’s of vital importance to install basic discipline into players; Chris Smalling was rightfully sent off, as the article suggests, but why on earth didn’t a professional footballer have enough discipline to last a half? These are real questions that still remain unanswered and unfortunately, the article seeks refuge in that “spirit” and “tradition” will miraculously solve things.
Van Gaal has had success follow him wherever he has gone; his presence at the club to rival that of Sir Alex Ferguson needs to reflect such a record. Seen as though hypothetical scenarios are touched on, here’s one: if Van Persie or any other player would have scored in the last minute of the Derby, would Van Gaal have been critical in such a player taking their shirt off to celebrate? Would he have ridiculed an outburst of passion as opposed to a complete absence of discipline like we saw from Chris Smalling?
In reality, he has already called both Smalling and even Van Persie “stupid” inadvertently; it doesn’t strike me as the best strategy in winning a players respect. Most importantly for Van Gaal, he will need to find the best from his Dutch counterpart, Van Persie, if he wants success with United, there is no doubt in this. Sir Alex Ferguson managed such a feat and it’s no coincidence United won the league when the striker was firing on all cylinders.
The article actually claiming a United win in any way (albeit perhaps ironically) sums up the post-Ferguson era of irrational madness we are in. It was always going to be a difficult period when Sir Alex left after 27 years, but most felt a few years without the title, whilst finishing fourth would be the minimum requirement. This, of course, failed drastically in the first season under David Moyes, but it’s condescending if not disrespectful to start praising a club of Manchester United’s stature for losing or perhaps even drawing games.
Improvement has come over the past few weeks and that’s as far as the praise can go right now. After conceding five to Leicester, it was hard for improvement not to ensue, in all honesty. A draw against Chelsea and a loss in the Manchester Derby isn’t progress enough to warrant the extreme “optimism” in the Simon Barnes article, though. What perhaps might, is addressing the needs of the team in the January Transfer Window.
The disparity between defence and attack suggests a miscalculated sporadic splash of money to try and solve all the problems at the club. Admittedly, some of the money “splashed” will be of much use still, especially if Falcao stays more than a season at the club. However, to have a complete “team”, the unanimous verdict from fans has to be that some of this money should have been spent on the defence in summer. Instead, it’s now the remaining money, however much that is, that will have to do the job.
“The beginning of the long and winding road that leads back to greatness” doesn’t start with defeat or with drawing games. It’s starts, unsurprisingly, with winning, even if the article hints otherwise. I do fully comprehend that, if United play in the same style they played in for brief periods of the game, it could help them be victorious against lesser opponents. In fairness, in a roundabout and unusual way, this point is made and I can agree with that, it is still very much a work in progress, though, as Barnes suggests.
As well as this, whilst writing I am witnessing Manchester City losing yet again in the Champions League, and they have gone down to nine men. Discipline isn’t just lacking in the red half of Manchester it seems; criticism of City in the article strikes as true and can be understood entirely, especially with the much-needed success in Europe lacking
Manchester United themselves have no real consistency either way yet, though, having lost three, drawn four and won three. With no Champions League, there are no excuses for not performing in the Premier League. Off the back of two difficult fixtures, they should go into the game against Crystal Palace at home this weekend not looking just to win, but dominate and give a convincing performance such an attacking-oriented team is capable of. At the back, they need to be much more disciplined, structured and the selection of the back four until January if possible needs to be less experimental. Constantly changing it around can be very damaging but has been necessary (debatably) to this point.
For the time being we are still in “the transitional stage”. The review after three months Van Gaal asked for has been scrapped and again he used the evaluative adjective he is so fond of “stupid” to describe his judgement. Van Gaal is anything but stupid; he has had a difficult start and now the real judgement comes into play. I do agree the road back to “greatness” starts now, but not entirely for the same reasons as in the Simon Barnes article. It’s not a case of United simply wanting to recover any more, after spending £150m in summer signings; they simply have to with the sheer quality at their disposal.
United need a win and, as aforementioned, have a team more than capable of getting one. Whether the “recovery” is a team capable of Champions League qualification remains to be seen, but a morale win in the Manchester Derby does no one at such a great club any good, for the time being.
Thank you for reading. Please take a moment to follow me on Twitter –@LWOSDanSiggins. Support LWOS by following us on Twitter – @LWOSWorld and “liking” our Facebook page.
Feel free to discuss this and other footy related articles with thousands of fans at r/football.
Have you tuned into Sports Events Guide Radio? LWOS is pleased to bring you 24/7 sports radio to your PC, laptop, tablet or smartphone. What are you waiting for?
Main Photo
