Death, taxes, and sensationalist media

To be honest, I hadn't planned on writing this week, because I've been quite busy lately. Of course, that changed once the Guardian published this story in the wake of the Manchester derby, about Manchester United receiving more stoppage time "when they need it". I'm sure you've guessed, I'm indignant about this deliberately lazy and sensationalist piece of journalism.

I'll start with the misleading accusation that United benefitted from "the referee... allow(ing) almost seven minutes, even though the fourth official had signalled a minimum of four" against Manchester City. In reality, those who read my Twitter feed, or more respectable coverage like that of the BBC, saw the very simple calculation. The official gave 4 minutes minimum stoppage, plus 1 added minute for Bellamy's goal celebration in stoppage, plus 30 seconds for United's substitution in stoppage, all of which equals 5.5 minutes. Michael Owen scored at 95:27, within the appropriate amount. The rest of the "seven minutes" resulted from Owen's extended celebration.

As for the report of United getting additional time when they're not winning, it's a true but totally incomplete statistic. Notice anything missing from the Guardian's story? The article provides overall stoppage time figures for the other 'Big Four' teams, but only to cleverly disguise its complete lack of the "winning/not winning" differential for those teams. In other words, despite conducting a thorough "study", the Guardian is conveniently omitting the fact that in all likelihood, this phenomenon happens for every Big Four team.

Without such an anti-United conspiracy theory, the question remains: why do the better teams get more time? Though we can only speculate, we should remember that stoppage time isn't decided in a vacuum, but rather by the events on the field. For instance, the best teams in England play fluid football, with very infrequent fouls.

If these teams play quickly like this, of course there'd be less stoppage time when they're winning. On the other hand, if other teams resort to slow them down with hard tackles and such, then there will be more stoppage time when they're losing. The fact that physical Chelsea leads the 'Big Four' in stoppage time at home supports this theory.

As I said, I'm only speculating, so I'm not claiming to understand the total cause behind the stoppage time disparity. My point is, I noticed the issue's complexity from looking at the basic facts in my free time, so clearly the experts at the Guardian could too. Instead, the Guardian smelled a sensationalist accusation to be printed, and they proceeded to select spotty and misleading evidence in an attempt to legitimize it, while ignoring facts that clearly disproved their potential scoop. They've created an unneeded commotion, not to mention distracted attention from possibly the greatest ever Manchester derby, and I've lost a tremendous amount of respect for the Guardian as a result.

It infuriates me that much soccer media is driven by "flashy stories" such an this, rather than by rational thought and analysis. One of the reasons I write this blog is because I disapprove of this type of laziness and sensationalism, and I think we should strive for a higher quality of talent. In the meantime, we'll have to trust the public to know the difference.