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


“Marcus Rashford is fighting a brilliant war, but he has to be careful not to let his football suffer,” is an incredibly strong title from the The telegraph of the day, only surpassed by the brilliance of the subhead:

“The Manchester United player frequently gave the ball Tuesday night after a day of fighting to protect starving children”

Good Lord. Imagine typing that in and thinking it’s good and not absolutely terrible. Thanks for trying to make sure the youngsters are fed, but at least try to complete over 89.6% of your passes in an away win at Burnley next time, buddy.

Luke Edwards is the journalist in question but, since he spent the next few hours stressing out, he’s not the person responsible for either monstrosity.

Well, Mediawatch is here and ready to tear down that payment wall and show that Edwards was just a victim of a) overzealous title writer and b) stupid people who don’t look past that title. before criticizing.

You see, his first five paragraphs are only devoted to calling the Manchester United striker “remarkable”, “one of the best of his generation” and “a role model”. As he writes:

“He could well inspire a generation and bring real change. He sidelined politicians and shaped and led a national debate on child poverty in a country currently filled with health, economic and social distractions.

It is praise. there is no doubt. But then it slowly descends to something a little different as Edwards searches for the reasons Rashford wasn’t at his best at Turf Moor.

“Not for the first time, Rashford prepared for battle with Burnley by choosing another fight to protect starving children, those left behind by those in power and seemingly missed by the private companies tasked with distributing the free school meals to which he fought tirelessly. secure, ”he wrote, laying the groundwork before pointing out that the attacker spent this morning“ in online meetings with officials ”.

“Anyone who has campaigned, anyone who has fought for a cause in a pressure group will know that it can be exhausting,” he adds. And it is around this point that Mediawatch realizes what happens after.

“However, it was a huge game for Manchester United and was transferred to the right wing – his least preferred attacking position – Rashford was overpowered. ”

In the next paragraph, it was “contained”. One more later and ‘he gave the ball on the cheap [sic] in other positions too ”because it has become“ too much to ignore ”for those in the press box desperate for a new narrative.

Edwards then lays his cards on the table:

“This raised a legitimate question. When most players sleep the afternoon before a game, was Rashford’s head [sic] too many thoughts to do it? Did his emotions, his anger at the scandal unfold, emptying him more than he thought? As laudable as his actions are and will continue to be, on this occasion was it a distraction?

And There you go. Well done, Marcus. Well done for this whole campaign and everything, man. But are you sure that you, a 23 year old male, are quite capable of concentrating on more than one thing at the same time? Isn’t all this social justice “draining” and “distracting” from the really important things: 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 that summarily destroys everything he says: A footballer disconnecting from social media more than nine hours before a game is anything but ‘distracted’.

Mediawatch would guess this was the last thing Edwards wrote before Rashford’s sublime assist for the winner Paul Pogba, because in the next paragraph he’s suddenly a player who “even when he’s calm he’s got a knack for be able to make noise when it needs to ‘.

Ah yes, the telltale sign of an “exhausted” and “distracted” young footballer who does not get enough sleep: an assist in the 71st minute against one of the toughest defenses in the country.

Edwards continues anyway, because at this point he’s already written 500 words and isn’t about to delete everything and start over with 20 minutes before full time. We’ve all really been there.

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

So why were you asking rhetorical questions about whether “his emotions” were “draining him more than he thought” and if it all just became a “distraction”?

And why do you now choose to stress that “Rashford must be wary of taking 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 under difficult circumstances?

“Football respects him for what he does, and a lot of the country loves him for it, but Rashford remains an extremely talented footballer and hasn’t played as such, that moment of brilliance aside, against Burnley . ”

Mediawatch would say that not playing very well but still delivering the winning moment is * precisely * how “an extremely talented footballer” often functions.

“He shouldn’t stop what he’s doing, we don’t want him to stop fighting for what he believes in, but no one can face everything and everyone every day of the year. ”

So “he shouldn’t stop what he’s doing”, but neither can he continue to do 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 is each assisting in the Premier League this season. He’s a regular starter for the team at the top of the table. And he spends his free time nowhere near as bright crossing calmly for the children to be fed. The praise you give him at the start of your article doesn’t need to be qualified at any point, much less after he has provided some smart assist to the lone goal of a crucial 1-0 win over the course of which neither he nor his teammates were theirs. better while accomplishing their goal.

The title is terrible, unmistakable clickbait with deliberately negative and evocative language. The caption is obnoxious, honestly quite pathetic when you consider the paper’s political stripes, and has indeed been changed since to reflect how bad it was. The article is much fairer than the two, but not as fair as the reporter who spent Wednesday morning telling people they haven’t read it thinks.

Mediawatch read the article. He would have preferred not. But if you want to get those words printed, then at least own them instead of pointing out the virtues of a paywall and pretending that legitimate criticism is just a “push to be offended” when what is written is offensive.

Imagine doing anything other than praising, supporting and encouraging this guy. It couldn’t be us.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here