Rashford can’t be brilliant for Man United * and * feeding the kids

by



[ad_1]

“Marcus Rashford is waging a brilliant war, but he must be careful not to let his football suffer,” is an incredibly forceful title from the Daily telegraph, second only to the brilliance of the subtitle:

‘The Manchester United player frequently gave away the ball Tuesday night after a day fighting to protect starving children

Good sir. Imagine writing that and thinking that it is okay and not absolutely terrible. Cheers for trying to make sure the youngsters are fed, but at least try to complete more than 89.6% of your passes in an away win at Burnley next time, buddy.

Luke Edwards is the journalist in question but, as he has spent the next several hours emphasizing, he is not responsible for any of the monstrosities.

Well, Mediawatch is here and ready to tear down this paywall and show that Edwards has simply fallen victim to a) an overzealous headline writer and b) dumb people who don’t look past that headline before criticizing.

You see, its opening five paragraphs are devoted solely to calling the Manchester United striker “extraordinary”, “one of the best of his generation” and “a role model.” While writing:

It could well inspire a generation and bring about real change. It has put politicians on the defensive and has shaped and fueled a national debate on child poverty in a country that is currently rife with health, economic and social distractions.

This is praise. There’s no doubt. But then slowly it turns into something a little different as Edwards searches for the reasons why Rashford wasn’t at his best on Turf Moor.

Not for the first time, Rashford prepared for battle with Burnley by choosing another fight to protect the starving children, the ones let down by those in power and seemingly let down by the private companies in charge of distributing the free school meals for which they fought tirelessly. sure, ‘he writes, laying the groundwork before noting that the forward spent that morning’ in online meetings with the culprits. ‘

“Anyone who has campaigned, anyone who has fought for a cause as part of a pressure group will know that it can be exhausting,” he adds. And it is at this point that Mediawatch realizes what comes next.

“This, however, was a great game for Manchester United and they headed to the right wing, their least favorite attacking position, Rashford was subdued.”

In the next paragraph it was “content”. One more later and ‘gave him the cheap ball [sic] in other positions as well ‘as it became’ too much to ignore ‘for those in the press box desperate for a new narrative.

Edwards then places his cards on the table:

‘He posed a legitimate question. When most players sleep the afternoon before a game, Rashford was [sic] too full of thoughts to do it? Were your emotions, your anger at the unfolding scandal, wearing you down more than you thought? As commendable as his actions are and will continue to be, this time was it a distraction?

And there it is. Well done, Marcus. Greetings for all that campaign and everything, friend. But are you sure that you, a 23-year-old man, are fully capable of concentrating on more than one thing at a time? Isn’t all this social justice “exhausting” and a “distraction” from the really important stuff: playing well against Burnley at Turf Moor? Are you getting enough sleep? These are legitimate questions, remember.

Edwards even mentions a tweet from Rashford himself summarily destroying everything he says: a footballer who disconnects from social media more than nine hours before a game is anything but “distracted.”

Mediawatch would guess that was the last thing Edwards wrote before Rashford’s sublime assist for the Paul Pogba winner, because in the next paragraph he’s suddenly a player who ‘even when he’s quiet, he has the ability to be able to make noise. when He needs. ‘

Ah yes, the tell-tale sign of an ‘exhausted’ and ‘distracted’ young footballer not getting enough sleep: a decisive assist in the 71st minute against one of the toughest defenders in the country.

Edwards goes on regardless because at this point he has already written 500 words and he is not willing to ditch all of that and start over with 20 minutes to go full time. We’ve all really been there.

“Rashford has to be careful, although the most important stats don’t show a player being distracted or exhausted.”

So why were you asking rhetorical questions about whether “his emotions” were “wearing him down more than he thought” and if all this was becoming a “distraction”?

And why does he choose now to point out that ‘Rashford must be careful not to take on too much’ when it was he who made the difference? What excuse did Edinson Cavani, Anthony Martial and Bruno Fernandes have for not scoring? Or, and bear with us here, Can elite footballers just have days off with no obvious explanation in difficult circumstances?

“Football respects him for what he is doing, and a large part of the country loves him for it, but Rashford is still a hugely talented footballer and he didn’t play like one, putting aside that brilliant moment, against Burnley.”

Mediawatch would argue that not playing so well but still providing the moment to win the game is * precisely * the way that “ a very talented footballer ” usually operates.

“You shouldn’t stop what you are doing, we don’t want you to stop fighting for what you believe in, but no one can take on everything and everyone every day of the year.”

So “he shouldn’t stop doing what he’s doing,” but neither can he keep doing what he’s doing while fulfilling his role as a Manchester United player to the best of his ability.

Rashford is one of six players with at least five goals and assists each in the Premier League this season. He is a regular starter at the top of the table team. And she’s spending her free time far from being so brilliant doing a quiet crusade for the kids to be fed. The praise you give him at the beginning of your article doesn’t need to be graded at any point, never mind after he provides a canny assist to the only goal in a crucial 1-0 win during which neither he nor his teammates were in. their best while still achieving what they set out to do.

The headline is terrible, an undeniable clickbait with deliberately negative and evocative language. The subtitle is abhorrent, honestly quite pathetic considering the newspaper’s political allegiances, and indeed it has since been changed as a reflection of how bad it was. The article is much fairer than both, but it is not as justified as the journalist who has spent Wednesday morning telling people who have not read it he thinks it is.

Mediawatch has read the article. I would rather not have. But if you’re going to publish those words for print, at least adapt them instead of emphasizing the virtues of a paywall and pretending that legitimate criticism is simply a “script to be offended” when what is written is offensive.

Imagine doing anything but praise, support, and encourage this guy. It couldn’t be us.



[ad_2]