Harry Shannon
I’m a big fan of football/soccer (your choice about what to call it). In particular, Manchester United of the English Premier League. I have supported them ever since I was about six or seven years old, when Gordon, the boy next door who was a year older and therefore knew everything, told me they were the team to go for.
So when I read on the Guardian website the headline: “Manchester United can forget a title challenge with a defence like this” it got my attention. The article described how vulnerable the team is when the opposition attacks in certain ways, particularly crosses from the wings. It made sense, given what I have seen this season of how United play.
But then I looked at the numbers – at least so far in the season, with only one game to play – the table will be finalized after the matches on Sunday 26 July. Liverpool, who won the League, have conceded 32 goals, the fewest of any team. The team with the next fewest is Manchester City, who gave up 35 goals. Tied for the third fewest are Manchester United and Sheffield United, each letting in 36 goals.
The big difference is in the number of goals scored. Liverpool have scored 82, Manchester City 97. Manchester United have managed just 64, while Sheffield United have even fewer, only 38. So the Guardian article got it completely the wrong way round.
Which raises the question: do you trust your instincts and impressions, or the evidence of the numbers? Yes, whenever I see Manchester United’s opposition attacking, I get anxious. But that’s because I don’t want United to concede any goals, let alone one or two per match. [It’s actually just under one per game, 36 in 37 matches.] In the same way, I have huge expectations whenever they attack, and long for a goal every time, setting myself up for many disappointments.
So back to my question: My emotional involvement makes it hard for me to be objective. Instead, I have to go with the evidence. Sure, it would be good to improve United’s defence. But the numbers show that’s not the main problem.