We don't help ourselves with the 1894 going back to incorporation date due to soundbites form the time interpreted in the 21st century and coming up with something different.We’re basically on the same page, I think. The crucial point, for me, having a thousand times heard the absolute tripe, in pubs and suchlike (echoed, incidentally, by journos who are paid to do a bit of research) that “City have no history”, as if we were invented in 2008 by a consortium hundreds of miles away, was to read an in-depth article in a prominent place which can hardly be ignored, going right back to St Marks and Newton Heath. An article, furthermore, that made it fairly clear (although not Gary James clear) that we were the bigger club for a very substantial part of the twentieth century. My criticism would be that it skates too rapidly over the seventies, when we were at the very least level pegging as a power with United, and actually in a number of seasons ahead of them. United were no great shakes in either the seventies or the eighties. Those were the years of the Liverpool hegemony.
Is there any other type?Saw that, imo a masterclass in snide and selective writing but then I am a paranoid chippy bertie.
Hopefully tomorrow the raggies at the BBC will be doing their usual ever so slightly downbeat and perfunctory match report that follows a City victory.
Everyone in Oldham hates Man United for lots off reasons so no surprise is all City territory. Saddleworth looks like it's now Sky Blue and its one off Greater Manchesters poshest areas along with Alderley Edge.
I thought so, too.Nope, don’t agree,at all. Read it right through, and by going back to the very origins of the two clubs, and tracking them through the twentieth century, it contextualises United’s period of dominance from 1992 to 2011 (2013 was for me a final gasp, an abberation) in a way that I suspect the vast majority of third-party supporters would know almost nothing about.
A couple of omissions that struck me – the article omits to mention that Denis Law started with us. And of course it never really explains the technical reason behind why the City supporter insists on calling them Stretford (and why I call them Trafford, and why that billboard welcoming Tevez to Manchester was, quite simply, correct).
By the BBC’s standards, a good effort. For once.
Simplified for you mate.Everyone hates Man United
Obviously we'll agree to disagree, but I should perhaps clarify a bit what it was that got my goat about it which was mostly quite subtle. I'll use a couple of examples:
The language/adjectives used to describe City's and united's relative highs and lows are different. United's lows are described as 'mediocrity' whilst City's are described as 'unfathomable feats of self destruction', united's mistakes are describe as 'mis-steps' as opposed to (bad) 'habits that would come to rest at the very core of the clubs identity'.
The graphics and quotes used in the dividers. So there is some half hearted condemnation of Keane in the text but the graphic which has the much larger font uses keane's deflecting quote around the supposed lack of spirit in the City team for failing to retaliate. Similarly the Tevez element talks about savvy marketing but the much larger graphic has gpc's quote about it being small time. There is also a graph in the section that is entitled 'City's Era', except the graph doesn't just cover City's era it covers much bigger period when united were dominant, sure it shows City's rise but if you want to make the point that City have been dominant over the last decade which was the purported purpose of that section there are literally dozens of more appropriate or relevant graphs you could use.
I'm not saying it's an egregious piece and you make the valid point that some somewhat more balanced history is better than none for people who have no clue. I do however think it still reeks of the kind of writing style we have got used to from the BBC in relation to City and united over recent years.