Fergie Right, But That Misses The Point
It probably wouldn't have altered the result, but when Alex Ferguson's decision to leave Wayne Rooney out of the trip to Everton was announced, it was regarded as a Very Serious Matter Indeed. Ferguson had bottled it, Rooney had bottled it, never would've been allowed ten years ago, etc and so on and so forth.
If Rooney had played, there were basically three possible outcomes:
1) He would've thrived on the pressure, ignored the taunts and put in a blinding performance, reminding us of the pre-Bayern Munich days of last season.
2) He would be cowed and anonymous, afraid of his own shadow and a passenger for most of the 90 minutes. Much as he was for England against Switzerland, goal aside.
3) The abuse/pressure would tip a young man - who is highly strung at the best of times - over the edge, and he would become a walking red card. See the corresponding fixture in 2008, when Rooney was withdrawn, kissing the United badge, before he did something silly. Well, even sillier.
In reality, all three outcomes were as likely as each other, so Ferguson was playing the odds. In any case, Rooney has not been United's outstanding performer this season (he's not even been their outstanding striker), so leaving him out was not as major a decision as it would've been six months ago.
Still, ignoring a (physically) fit Wayne Rooney is a big call.
Ferguson's reasons, to protect him from the rancid abuse that would no doubt have rained down, may well be the truth. It might have been a convenient excuse to protect a mentally fragile Rooney even further, but that hardly matters.
There ar
e those that will and indeed already have criticised Ferguson for going soft, and encouraged Rooney himself to 'man up'. The argument is always that a footballer is paid an awful lot of money, and should deal with such taunts.
However, this attitude misses the point spectacularly. Why is it taken as a given and accepted that this abuse would be present? The haranguing of a footballer for something that has absolutely nothing to do with his profession is assumed. Nobody questions whether it is acceptable.
And it absolutely is not. It's not light-hearted banter, it's not fun, and most importantly it is nobody else's business. Without wishing to pre-judge the otherwise excellent Everton support, one assumes the Merseyside air would have been heavy with pious bile, from 40,000 people who no doubt live saintly existences themselves. Even without him on the pitch, there were Rooney songs at Goodison, and some wag took an inflatable doll into the ground with assorted good wishes scrawled all over it.
Those who say Rooney should simply have taken the abuse speak from the fortunate position of never being screamed at about what they may or may not have got up to after hours by a small town's worth of people, after a week's coverage and moralising on the front pages of the most popular newspapers in the country. It's easy to talk theoretically about this sort of thing, knowing you'll never have to be in that situation.
If Rooney had played, and displayed understandable human emotions by reacting (as he is wont to do), he would have been criticised and no doubt punished. It matters not how much a 24-year-old is paid. A stack of cash does not come with a thicker skin. Or at least, a impermeable skin.
Footballers must expect a certain amount of criticism and public attention, but there is a limit, and in an ideal world it would extend only to their performances on the pitch. Obviously, this is not an ideal world, but surely the level of attention and coverage given over to Rooney this week is several giant leaps too far.
Fans complain about over-exposed players and morality in the game, but we have our own role to play. One is not buying newspapers on the basis on salacious gossip, but another is to extend some basic human decency.
Fergie & Ludacris "Glamorous" vs. Flo Rida "Right Round" video
