Sterling ‘shame’, Mourinho ‘meltdown’, Martial’s £937k wage
7 days ago, 15:00
Raheem Sterling won a penalty on Wednesday. Manchester City were already beating Shakhtar when he accidentally kicked the floor in the opposition area, which referee Viktor Kassai wrongly adjudged to have been a foul. City went on to win 6-0.
Sterling spoke after the game, saying he “went to chip the ball”, wasn’t sure what had happened, and “didn’t feel contact”. He apologised to the officials who, it should be reiterated, were the ones who made the actual mistake. He did so likely expecting a backlash the following morning.
Those who thought that The Sun would have been at the front of that queue, sharpening their pitchforks and demanding justice, can pat themselves on the back for the most predictable of all predictions ever. They pull out all the stops on Thursday morning.
They call this, an incorrectly awarded penalty, a ‘City sporting shame’ in the same week as the widespread FFP allegations levelled against the club.
They say City and Sterling ‘were slated for showing “zero sportsmanship” over a farcical penalty ‘cheat’ storm”, leading this match report not on their own opinion, nor on quotes from a manager, a player or an expert pundit, but on completely unbiased tweets from rival ‘football supporters’.
They quite hilariously cross out the ‘6’ in the scoreline and replace it with a ‘5’. This is gloriously childish stuff.
They tell us that ‘not one City player tried to overturn the decision’, and that ‘good sportsman’ Robbie Fowler’ famously begged the referee not to award him a penalty against Arsenal in 1997 after he fell over in the box’.
Fun fact No.1: Robbie Fowler dived. He did not just ‘fall over’, he actively dived. Raheem Sterling did not. Perhaps that’s why Fowler owned up: it’s easier to do so when you know you’ve got something to own up to.
Fun fact No.2: That penalty was still given. And the rebound was scored after David Seaman saved it. It’s almost as if referees won’t change their mind just because a player has asked them to.
The best part of it all? The author of the article is Carl Long. Carl Long does not actually exist. The Sun are clearly not quite brave enough to stick an actual person’s name to it.
Dave Kidd lays it on even thicker in his Sun match report. He says Sterling ‘accentuated his fall’ before later adding that he ‘would surely have made it look more convincing had he been trying to cheat’. Well, which is it?
Kidd then cleverly says ‘there was an argument to suggest Sterling should have done a Robbie Fowler and come clean about it’, ensuring never to reveal his own opinion on what Sterling ‘should have done’, while pretty much revealing his own opinion on what Sterling ‘should have done’.
Again, Fowler dived. That is why he ‘came clean’. There was nothing for Sterling to ‘come clean about’ here.
But what about City? Apparently they ‘could even have either intentionally missed the penalty or run in a deliberate own goal in the interests of fairness after the interval’. ...
Category: sports football mediawatch football