Shaelumstash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 8,254
Again, another Ferguson irrelevancy that was incorrectly propped up as genius.
So lets examine the facts.
1. Scholes when he initially retired did so because he thought his legs were gone and wasn't as instrumental in the big games.
2. His return at City was actually advantage City. Why? Rather than facing an Impressive youngster in Pogba, we were guaranteed the dross that was a retired retuenee in Scholes
As for the game, United was up 3-0 without Scholes. By the time He finally made his debut, he quickly gave away the ball that led to our 2nd. He was the weak link for the last 20 minutes of the game
So as the facts showed, Ferguson's trickery at best had no effect and at worst hurt his team. We lost that game because of a bent ref who gave Kompany a straight red and left us with Ten men. But we almost pulled off the comeback because Ferguson dimly inserted an unfit 37 yearold into the game.
This often happens when people buy into their own hype. Ferguson clearly bought into his own hype. You do too apparently. Hence why you remember those facts so incorrectly.
A 37 yearold retiree returning after sitting out for 6 months will never scare anyone. That Ferguson, and the media, thought this was a significant masterstroke is laughable.
But then again you are right, I don't live in England and thus, I am less swayed by punditry stupidity
Never been to a game and doesn't live in the UK, yet feels entitled enough to comment on every game and the influence or lack of from the UK media.
Welcome to the Social Media age.
I didn't once say that the inclusion of Scholes in that game had a direct influence on the result of that game. I said that Fergurson's handling of the press before the game set the media agenda that he used to his advantage.
Announcing Scholes was returning 48 hours before would have had no impact. Announcing it an hour before the game had a big impact on the mood at the game. But you wouldn't know that because you weren't there.
Fergurson manipulated the press for his own advantage for over 25 years. If you doubt that or don't fully appreciate it, there are countless books written about the man, feel free to study them to expand your knowledge on the subject.
For those of us that had to live through those 25 years, we don't need to read up on it, we already know about it because it played a part in our day lives for over 20 years. We know all about the pressure on referee's, opponents, etc.
You're on the outside looking in, a voyeur. Living outside of the country you're not qualified to comment on the impact Fergurson had on the UK press and the football agenda because you've not experienced it.