'kin Guardian

Pogue Mahone · 1st December 2008, 12:49

Could they be any more negative about yesterday's performance and result?

Quote:

Ferguson focuses on referee, beeps and pushes but not Ronaldo
United's unquestioning support for their Portuguese winger is starting to wear thin

Andy Hunter

The Guardian, Monday December 1 2008

The greatest sin committed by Cristiano Ronaldo yesterday was to hand Manchester City an opportunity to mock their dominant neighbours. It was more than Mark Hughes's team deserved. Sir Alex Ferguson claimed that the Manchester United winger was attempting to protect his face when he handled Wayne Rooney's corner and received a red card at the City of Manchester Stadium. "If the ball was going to hit him in the face why didn't he just head it?" asked Hughes, his rapid reaction and penetrating question in stark contrast to the performance of his team.

Hughes, like any manager in need of a distraction, did not allow Ferguson's plethora of excuses for Ronaldo's indiscretion go to waste after a dispiriting derby defeat for City. The third red card of the Portuguese's United career gave City a numerical advantage they could not capitalise on but a diversionary tactic their manager did. Ferguson preferred to keep the spotlight fixed on a display that should diminish any insecurity United have developed on their travels this season.

"He was trying to protect himself from the ball hitting his face; he may have got a little shove as well," said the United manager. He then offered a third possible reason as to why Ronaldo, already booked for a foul on Shaun Wright-Phillips, punched the ball as Dimitar Berbatov and Micah Richards wrestled for Rooney's corner.

"He thought he'd heard the referee's whistle," said Ferguson. "But I'm not going to get into the refereeing, we'd be here all day. Sometimes you have to overcome things and we have done that today - with 10 men we proved ourselves."

Ferguson was justified in accentuating the positives of an assured performance, although whether he would have adopted the same line had Richard Dunne equalised in the final moments is another matter entirely. United's defence of Ronaldo, however, was undermined by every weak excuse voiced.

Rio Ferdinand claimed there had been a push; Ronaldo pointed to the injured Richards lying on the floor and also claimed to have heard, mid-leap and with the ball sailing towards his forehead, a whistle for a foul that had yet to materialise. It was an argument he is said to have repeated as he watched the incident on television monitors inside the tunnel.

"I heard a beep," he is reported to have said. Television replays, whether in slow-motion, real-time, from behind the goal or tracking Ronaldo's run, confirmed the winger had merely taken leave of his senses. "I don't think the referee had any choice," said Hughes. "I don't know what excuse they'll give for that. It was a soft sending-off but a second yellow card, so he had to go."

As Ferguson vented his spleen at the fourth official and his players raged at Webb over the supposed injustice, their energies would have been better spent on questions to their own No7.

So often the saviour, he was almost a liability here and it was in spite of his contribution that the champions reclaimed civic pride (after two defeats by City last season) and, more importantly, secured their finest away win of the season so far, with 10 men.

Painting Ronaldo as the innocent victim again is a mistake, however. Barring a hitch in the voting system the United star should be announced as the European player of the year today and collect the Ballon D'Or tomorrow but his claims to greatness will never be indisputable while he considers himself above the law and a victim of it.

The only target yesterday for "systematic fouling", the term Ferguson used to describe opponents' treatment of Ronaldo after a bruising night in Villarreal last week, was Wright-Phillips, with four visiting players booked for fouling the England international. "United have experience of controlling the game and dictating the play and sometimes they do that by breaking the momentum of their opponents' attacks," said Hughes. "Shaun was stopped on numerous occasions in good situations. It showed United felt he was a real threat and that is something all managers will target."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...united-ronaldo

Not one mention of any of the notable performances from our best players (e.g. Carrick, Park, Raffael) Barely even mentions our overall dominance of the game. Comes across as a load of bitter whining and nothing of any use to someone who might have missed the match. How the hell did this drivel get signed off as being an objective report of events on the pitch?

It's articles like this which make me think there's truth in the rumours that the paper's Manchester origins have left it staffed mainly with bitter blues.

Floyd · 1st December 2008, 12:57

Terrible article. It doesn't really tell anything about the match.

Simon Adebesi · 1st December 2008, 13:08

FFS, not another "the media is against us" thread.

The Guardian had another article that wrote up the match report. It is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...manchestercity

This article wasnt a match report. Which is why it doesnt tell you much about the match.

pillory · 1st December 2008, 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Not one mention of any of the notable performances from our best players (e.g. Carrick, Park, Raffael) Barely even mentions of our overall dominance of the game.

But it's not supposed to be a match report, is it? It's mainly an article about Ronaldogate XIV.

A load of shite anyway, of course. "United's defence of Ronaldo, however, was undermined by every weak excuse voiced." Yeah, sure, but how about mentioning the quite relevant fact that the second booking was actually wrong, regardless of whether he was pushed or assualted by a whistle or whatever?

Slugger · 1st December 2008, 13:09

Its not so much that they are bitter blues but that they are shit sports journalists who rarely focus on anything beyond what the common ABU would when talking about United i.e the actual playing of football.

Also what the fuck does the journalist expect Ferguson to do- turn on his own player in public. Thats a fucking retarded notion- Ferguson rarely if ever criticises individual players in public- it is part of what makes him a great man manager.

Utd heap · 1st December 2008, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Adebesi

FFS, not another "the media is against us" thread.

The Guardian had another article that wrote up the match report. It is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...manchestercity

This article wasnt a match report. Which is why it doesnt tell you much about the match.

Yup.

Scouse thread.

Ignore it, we won the derby...

sincher · 1st December 2008, 13:34

The article is about right about the Ronaldo sending off too. Completely stupid rush of blood IMO - all the excuses seem a bit stupid.

Amir · 1st December 2008, 13:37

In all honesty, I'm not sure why Ronaldo's sending off caused such a fuss, not to mention articles that deal only with that incident. No one thinks he handballed with an intention to cheat or anything. It was just a wierd, crazy moment, we still won the game, and the lad will miss a match he was never going to take part of anyway. It's all good.

Simon Adebesi · 1st December 2008, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amir

In all honesty, I'm not sure why Ronaldo's sending off caused such a fuss, not to mention articles that deal only with that incident. No one thinks he handballed with an intention to cheat or anything. It was just a wierd, crazy moment, we still won the game, and the lad will miss a match he was never going to take part of anyway. It's all good.

Hark. The voice of reason.

pillory · 1st December 2008, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by sincher

all the excuses seem a bit stupid.

Some of them do, but not the one about the whistle.

And why are people saying Ronaldo claimed to have been pushed? (See for instance The Guardian's match report.) He did no such thing.

Simon Adebesi · 1st December 2008, 13:57

Because Rio claimed he'd been pushed, I think.

Pogue Mahone · 1st December 2008, 14:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amir

In all honesty, I'm not sure why Ronaldo's sending off caused such a fuss, not to mention articles that deal only with that incident. No one thinks he handballed with an intention to cheat or anything. It was just a wierd, crazy moment, we still won the game, and the lad will miss a match he was never going to take part of anyway. It's all good.

Apart from the ref anyway, because otherwise he shouldn't have booked him.

These journalists earn a living reporting on football but don't even know the rules of the fecking game. How can someone report on that incident and fail to make the point that a deliberate hand-ball is not an automatic yellow card?

That's what pissed me off about the media's coverage of the whole fiasco, only one pundit has actually pointed out that the referee was wrong to send Ronaldo off (and that's Graham Poll, who makes the excuse that this is only obvious after watching four replays... yeah right...) These twats are supposed to provide balanced coverage of events on the field.

By all means crucify Ronaldo for being a twat when he picked up his first booking but anyone who actually knows the rules of the game could and should have pointed out that the second yellow was extremely harsh, irrespective of the excuses given after the game (which were a bit stupid).

It doesn't matter why he handled the ball, it does matter that handling the ball did not give him any sort of unfair advantage, or deny the opposition possession of the football. Hence it's a free-kick but not a yellow card. Something this twat of a hack completely fails to point out.

GDH · 1st December 2008, 14:10

I haven't a clue what's worth writing about here. Ronaldo clearly thought the game was to be stopped, and as stupid as he was not to just go for the header anyway, there was no cheating, there was no referee bias, there was no controversial incident. It was just a moment of stupidity, wouldn't have been an article if it were anybody else. Case in point, Paul Scholes. He didn't get an article, because it doesn't sell enough papers. And that actually WAS cheating.

Utd heap · 1st December 2008, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDH

I haven't a clue what's worth writing about here. Ronaldo clearly thought the game was to be stopped, and as stupid as he was not to just go for the header anyway, there was no cheating, there was no referee bias, there was no controversial incident. It was just a moment of stupidity, wouldn't have been an article if it were anybody else. Case in point, Paul Scholes. He didn't get an article, because it doesn't sell enough papers. And that actually WAS cheating.

Correct.

spinoza · 1st December 2008, 14:11

I don't see how you expect good journalism from the back pages though. It's sport - and it's football - a stinking cesspool of tribalism, prejudice and bias.

Wandering Red · 1st December 2008, 14:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slugger

Also what the fuck does the journalist expect Ferguson to do- turn on his own player in public.

It's what Mourinho does and they wank over him.

I'm sure Fergie let Ronaldo know how he felt in private, but publicly it's always them against us. And rightly so.

Laphroaig · 1st December 2008, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDH

I haven't a clue what's worth writing about here. Ronaldo clearly thought the game was to be stopped, and as stupid as he was not to just go for the header anyway, there was no cheating, there was no referee bias, there was no controversial incident. It was just a moment of stupidity, wouldn't have been an article if it were anybody else.

True. The incident is very easily comprehended. Ronaldo thought he heard a whistle, and stopped playing. Everybody with an eye or two and the slightest of common sense understands that. Furthermore, as stated time and again in other threads, the rules are quite clear that this doesn't call for a card of any sort.

Still all the rags are having a feast, writing about Ronaldo's petulance, mocking SAF for his defense and stating as a fact that the handball automatically warrants a red card, and thereby left Webb with no choice.

I shouldn't be surprised, but I'll never cease to be hugely disappointed by the newspapers' knowing and willing lack of integrity.

peterstorey · 1st December 2008, 14:50

The papers now have their agenda set by Sky, who seemed more interested in making an issue of the sending off than talking about the football.

Laphroaig · 1st December 2008, 15:03

Yes of course, I should've said Sky and the rags.

horselesspaul · 1st December 2008, 15:12

I just read this. What an ABU crock.
I work in sound, doing scores and post, and I clearly heard an extraneous whistle.
Andy Hunter is a total c0ck.

Manchester City 0 : Manchester United 1.

SmashedHombre · 1st December 2008, 15:14

No wonder he wants to feck off to Spain

Castolo · 1st December 2008, 15:30

Andy Hunter is the Guardian's Merseyside based football writer.

Make of that what you will.

green demon · 1st December 2008, 16:16

Ronaldo did claim he was pushed. The first thing he did after the whistle was to point to his back and Micah Richards on the floor. If you look at the replay, and I did a few times: every time it was clear that Richards pushed him in mid-air. Ronaldo thought, therefore, he was fouled - so the phantom whistle that only he heard he probably assumed was for a penalty.

However, there was no whistle, as the ref missed the push, so it had to be a booking. The only point, as Ruud Gullit pointed out was the first yellow card was crazy. Any foul or tackle (as in this case) on Wright-Phillips led to a booking. SWP fouled Evra as strongly as one he recieved but didn't get booked.

Also: Richards showed his plan early on; he went studs in at Vidic's chest but pretended to be injured himself to avoid what would have been the most justified booking in the game. When he pushed Ronnie for the handball he did the same to make himself look innocent. Disgraceful behaviour from a player I usually admire (even if not his team).

Count Duckula · 1st December 2008, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by peterstorey

The papers now have their agenda set by Sky, who seemed more interested in making an issue of the sending off than talking about the football.

Case in point the Van Persie goal, where the rags and Sky seem more outraged by the fact he was offside than the fact Arsenal deserved to win.

moses · 1st December 2008, 16:29

Andy Hunter is an unashamed scouser, writes really good pieces on the behind the scenes activity at a_field. I like the Guardian, they encourage opinion ... it's tricky journalism ... and a United fan like Smyth is almost apologetic so he comes across as anti United sometimes. Like anything, if you know the journo you can glean more from the article. But you are right, on face value this is a whine. But it was an opinion piece , their match report called us "the real kings of Manchester" in the opening paragraph.

Dobba · 1st December 2008, 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by green demon

However, there was no whistle, as the ref missed the push, so it had to be a booking.

That's the point...it didn't have to be a booking.

Brwned · 1st December 2008, 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by pillory

Some of them do, but not the one about the whistle.

And why are people saying Ronaldo claimed to have been pushed? (See for instance The Guardian's match report.) He did no such thing.

It shown you at an angle from behind the goal where Ronaldo's first reaction was to signal to his back after the match in the Skysports analysis.

Laphroaig · 1st December 2008, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by green demon

Ronaldo did claim he was pushed. The first thing he did after the whistle was to point to his back and Micah Richards on the floor.

He was pointing to the player(s) on the ground. I read that as him asking the ref if that was the reason why he heard the whistle, not necessarily as a claim that he was pushed.

Quote:

However, there was no whistle, as the ref missed the push, so it had to be a booking.

For the umpteenth time: Not according to the rules!

pillory · 1st December 2008, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by green demon

Ronaldo did claim he was pushed. The first thing he did after the whistle was to point to his back and Micah Richards on the floor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwned

It shown you at an angle from behind the goal where Ronaldo's first reaction was to signal to his back after the match in the Skysports analysis.

Fuck, you're right. I missed it even though I watched the replays five times, probably because I was looking for the more traditional pushing-the-air gesture.

I'm still not 100% convinced his gesture meant "hey, I was pushed", but let's pretend this never happened and go back to saying YOU CAN'T FUCKING GIVE A BOOKING FOR THAT READ THE FUCKING RULES YOU FUCK.

Dyslexic Untied · 1st December 2008, 17:11

Whether or not he did it because he thought he heard a whistle, as long as there was no whistle it`s still a very clear yellow isn`t it? There was no way of avoiding it IMO.

It`s one of those incidents you can explain but not excuse.

pillory · 1st December 2008, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruben

Whether or not he did it because he thought he heard a whistle, as long as there was no whistle it`s still a very clear yellow isn`t it?

No...

Laphroaig · 1st December 2008, 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruben

Whether or not he did it because he thought he heard a whistle, as long as there was no whistle it`s still a very clear yellow isn`t it?

No. He didn't handball it to gain an advantage. It wasn't unsporting behavior. Therefore no card. Somebody should post the rules in this thread too.

Pogue Mahone · 1st December 2008, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

No. He didn't handball it to gain an advantage. It wasn't unsporting behavior. Therefore no card. Somebody should post the rules in this thread too.

I'm tempted to ask that those few lines are made into some sort of sticky - on the home-page of redcafe - until this whole saga dies down.

Whatever about fans not being familiar with the rules, it does my fecking head in when people who make a living from giving their opinion on the game can't be arsed to learn the rules. I mean, how hard can it be?

Laphroaig · 1st December 2008, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

I mean, how hard can it be?

To be fair, reading rule books are extremely boring. It's a lot more fun to make them up.

Simon Adebesi · 1st December 2008, 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

I'm tempted to ask that those few lines are made into some sort of sticky - on the home-page of redcafe - until this whole saga dies down.

Whatever about fans not being familiar with the rules, it does my fecking head in when people who make a living from giving their opinion on the game can't be arsed to learn the rules. I mean, how hard can it be?

Its a farce that this sorry SNAFU might rate as a saga, and might go on long enough to need a sticky.

We got the points and Ronaldo will serve his ban in a game he wouldnt have played anyway. In other words, this was almost a victimless crime. In a sane world this would all have been forgotten about by the time the Blackburn game kicks off.

Dyslexic Untied · 1st December 2008, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

I'm tempted to ask that those few lines are made into some sort of sticky - on the home-page of redcafe - until this whole saga dies down.

Whatever about fans not being familiar with the rules, it does my fecking head in when people who make a living from giving their opinion on the game can't be arsed to learn the rules. I mean, how hard can it be?

Feck off, I`ve had an law-exam today and have had other stuff to do lately than read Fifa rules. Though it is somewhat related. I asked a question and got it answered, fair enough.

edit: didn`t see the part about "whatever about fans".

Pogue Mahone · 1st December 2008, 17:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Adebesi

Its a farce that this sorry SNAFU might rate as a saga, and might go on long enough to need a sticky.

We got the points and Ronaldo will serve his ban in a game he wouldnt have played anyway. In other words, this was almost a victimless crime. In a sane world this would all have been forgotten about by the time the Blackburn game kicks off.

This is all true.

RK · 1st December 2008, 17:28

The amusing thing is that it shouldn't even have been a booking, yet they base the whole article on it. Nobody seems to have the facts right.

Fuck the media. Seriously, fuck right off.

Gazza · 1st December 2008, 17:32

Someone in the Times, I think, actually wrote that Ronaldo got the ball for his first booking. Why no one else in the media can't see that I can only speculate...

Brwned · 1st December 2008, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazza

Someone in the Times, I think, actually wrote that Ronaldo got the ball for his first booking. Why no one else in the media can't see that I can only speculate...

He definitely didn't get the ball.

I've watched it 4 or 5 times now and every time you can clearly see Ronaldo's foot doesn't touch the ball. He kicks Ronaldo's foot and stop's a counter-attack, it's a fair booking imo.

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

'kin Guardian

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

1st December 2008, 12:57	#2 (permalink)
Floyd Doesn't like his Tagline played with Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Chicken Of The Coast Posts: 6,820	Terrible article. It doesn't really tell anything about the match.

1st December 2008, 13:08	#3 (permalink)
Simon Adebesi Reserve Team Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth. Posts: 4,784	FFS, not another "the media is against us" thread. The Guardian had another article that wrote up the match report. It is here http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...manchestercity This article wasnt a match report. Which is why it doesnt tell you much about the match.

1st December 2008, 13:09	#5 (permalink)
Slugger Drag Queen & Town Drunk Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: The 'fast Posts: 751	Its not so much that they are bitter blues but that they are shit sports journalists who rarely focus on anything beyond what the common ABU would when talking about United i.e the actual playing of football. Also what the fuck does the journalist expect Ferguson to do- turn on his own player in public. Thats a fucking retarded notion- Ferguson rarely if ever criticises individual players in public- it is part of what makes him a great man manager.

1st December 2008, 13:34	#7 (permalink)
sincher Les jeux sont Fait Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: YSC Posts: 17,614	The article is about right about the Ronaldo sending off too. Completely stupid rush of blood IMO - all the excuses seem a bit stupid.

1st December 2008, 13:37	#8 (permalink)
Amir First Team Regular Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Rehovot, Israel Posts: 12,810	In all honesty, I'm not sure why Ronaldo's sending off caused such a fuss, not to mention articles that deal only with that incident. No one thinks he handballed with an intention to cheat or anything. It was just a wierd, crazy moment, we still won the game, and the lad will miss a match he was never going to take part of anyway. It's all good.

1st December 2008, 13:57	#11 (permalink)
Simon Adebesi Reserve Team Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth. Posts: 4,784	Because Rio claimed he'd been pushed, I think.

1st December 2008, 14:10	#13 (permalink)
GDH Reserve Team Player Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,166	I haven't a clue what's worth writing about here. Ronaldo clearly thought the game was to be stopped, and as stupid as he was not to just go for the header anyway, there was no cheating, there was no referee bias, there was no controversial incident. It was just a moment of stupidity, wouldn't have been an article if it were anybody else. Case in point, Paul Scholes. He didn't get an article, because it doesn't sell enough papers. And that actually WAS cheating.

1st December 2008, 14:11	#15 (permalink)
spinoza Paz's ion Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Walking in a whisky wonderland. Posts: 23,637	I don't see how you expect good journalism from the back pages though. It's sport - and it's football - a stinking cesspool of tribalism, prejudice and bias.

1st December 2008, 14:50	#18 (permalink)
peterstorey Winner of the 'Most pompous arrogant pretentious Gooner' title 2004 & 2009 Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Happy those, who can remain at Highbury! Posts: 16,652	The papers now have their agenda set by Sky, who seemed more interested in making an issue of the sending off than talking about the football.

1st December 2008, 15:03	#19 (permalink)
Laphroaig First Team Sub Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,943	Yes of course, I should've said Sky and the rags.

1st December 2008, 15:12	#20 (permalink)
horselesspaul Man U fan Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: It's Manchester United, United or Man United. Posts: 3,576	I just read this. What an ABU crock. I work in sound, doing scores and post, and I clearly heard an extraneous whistle. Andy Hunter is a total c0ck. Manchester City 0 : Manchester United 1.

1st December 2008, 15:14	#21 (permalink)
SmashedHombre Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Lake Ch... Posts: 24,369	No wonder he wants to feck off to Spain

1st December 2008, 15:30	#22 (permalink)
Castolo Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,355	Andy Hunter is the Guardian's Merseyside based football writer. Make of that what you will.

1st December 2008, 16:16	#23 (permalink)
green demon Caf Nostradamous 2008 Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: I wouldn't sell that Mob a virus for less than 80 million. Posts: 7,181	Ronaldo did claim he was pushed. The first thing he did after the whistle was to point to his back and Micah Richards on the floor. If you look at the replay, and I did a few times: every time it was clear that Richards pushed him in mid-air. Ronaldo thought, therefore, he was fouled - so the phantom whistle that only he heard he probably assumed was for a penalty. However, there was no whistle, as the ref missed the push, so it had to be a booking. The only point, as Ruud Gullit pointed out was the first yellow card was crazy. Any foul or tackle (as in this case) on Wright-Phillips led to a booking. SWP fouled Evra as strongly as one he recieved but didn't get booked. Also: Richards showed his plan early on; he went studs in at Vidic's chest but pretended to be injured himself to avoid what would have been the most justified booking in the game. When he pushed Ronnie for the handball he did the same to make himself look innocent. Disgraceful behaviour from a player I usually admire (even if not his team).

1st December 2008, 16:29	#25 (permalink)
moses thinking about mount olive Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: my amn keyboar is broken Posts: 15,099	Andy Hunter is an unashamed scouser, writes really good pieces on the behind the scenes activity at a_field. I like the Guardian, they encourage opinion ... it's tricky journalism ... and a United fan like Smyth is almost apologetic so he comes across as anti United sometimes. Like anything, if you know the journo you can glean more from the article. But you are right, on face value this is a whine. But it was an opinion piece , their match report called us "the real kings of Manchester" in the opening paragraph.

1st December 2008, 17:11	#30 (permalink)
Dyslexic Untied Ruben Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Oslo Posts: 8,960	Whether or not he did it because he thought he heard a whistle, as long as there was no whistle it`s still a very clear yellow isn`t it? There was no way of avoiding it IMO. It`s one of those incidents you can explain but not excuse.

1st December 2008, 17:28	#38 (permalink)
RK First Team Regular Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 10,532	The amusing thing is that it shouldn't even have been a booking, yet they base the whole article on it. Nobody seems to have the facts right. Fuck the media. Seriously, fuck right off.

1st December 2008, 17:32	#39 (permalink)
Gazza Magic Carpet Pilot Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: "The great thing about United, as a result of Matt Busby, is that they have a philosophy of a club that is very discernable. You know what Manchester United stand for." Posts: 26,013	Someone in the Times, I think, actually wrote that Ronaldo got the ball for his first booking. Why no one else in the media can't see that I can only speculate...