Monday Moan: Chico & Moyes blasted

Mark Holmes blasts Chico Flores, praises Matt Jarvis and believes Manchester United manager David Moyes is starting to become delusional.

Jarvis honesty should be applauded
A fortnight ago a debate raged over whether referee Jon Moss was right to award a penalty to Liverpool striker Luis Suarez after he took a tumble in the box under a challenge from Aston Villa goalkeeper Brad Guzan.
There were some, such as myself, that argued there was not enough contact to knock Suarez off his stride and that Moss was wrong to give the penalty, but there were others, including a couple of former referees, that insisted Guzan was reckless in rushing out and that whether or not Suarez was genuinely felled was irrelevant.
"If the keeper goes to ground like he did, he has to get the ball," Dermot Gallagher said regarding the incident.
It is interesting, then, that nobody (as far as I am aware) has suggested Matt Jarvis should have been awarded a penalty in West Ham's win over Swansea at the weekend.

As you can see from the picture, it was a remarkably similar situation to the Suarez one with a goalkeeper, Gerhard Tremmel in this case, rushing out of his goal and diving at the attacker's feet.
Jarvis, like Suarez did and like many others would, could have fallen over the goalkeeper to win a penalty, and judging by the debate of two weeks ago, would have been defended for doing so by many.
However, it never entered Jarvis' head to cheat. His only focus was on getting to the ball before Tremmel and knocking it past him in an attempt to score.
He was ultimately unable to do so from a tight angle and instead won only a corner rather than a penalty.
But if, as Gallagher argued, goalkeepers must win the ball when going to ground, why did Jarvis or no other West Ham player appeal for penalty? Why is there no mention in any report of the match of Tremmel's lucky escape? Why have Gallagher and Graham Poll not commented on the referee's mistake?
The ludicrous argument that a goalkeeper sliding along the ground without winning the ball automatically warrants a penalty has been disproven within just two weeks.
In actual fact, the only thing that should matter is whether a goalkeeper or defender makes enough contact with an attacker to impede them.
Forwards engineering contact is not clever play, it is cheating. Forwards receiving the slightest touches is not a justification to fall over, it is cheating. And forwards that don't engineer contact or don't fall over under a brush are not poor decision makers, they are honest players that should be praised at every opportunity by all of those that want to see fairness on the football pitch.
Well done Matt Jarvis. If only there were more like you.
Chico escape sums up problems
Talking of opinions changing like the wind, why is it that many of those who defend a forward's right to fall over under slight contact, 'to get the referee's attention', have criticised Chico Flores' reaction to having the top of his head brushed by Andy Carroll's arm?
Chico, like the forwards that throw themselves to the floor, was simply making the referee aware of the offence committed. You simply cannot defend one action but criticise the other.
Fortunately for me, my constant criticism of the 'contact equals foul' brigade enables me to lambaste Chico without any fear of coming across as a hypocrite.
The Swansea defender is arguably the worst player in the Premier League for play-acting and exaggerating minimal contact to get opponents sent off, and it is despicable and utterly indefensible.
If there was any justice in the world, Chico would now be handed a three-match suspension by the Football Association - the same length of ban he rolled around to land Carroll.
As it is, it wouldn't be any great surprise to see Carroll's ban upheld by the FA while Chico escapes scot-free. If ever evidence was needed that the game needs cleaning up, that is it.
Moyes starting to sound delusional
I am loathe to criticise David Moyes again - it's hardly a secret that I do not believe he is the right manager for Manchester United - but it really was quite shocking to witness live at Stoke on Saturday just how far the team has regressed under his stewardship.
Wayne Rooney, Robin van Persie and Juan Mata all started yet, despite Moyes' bizarre claims to the contrary after the game, United barely threatened. Asmir Begovic made only two saves of note in the entire game - and one of those came from a free-kick in stoppage time. The visitors' sole tactic was to get crosses into the box, a tactic they persisted with until the very end despite Stoke's two centre-halves consistently dealing comfortably with the threat.
There is no doubt he inherited a squad in need of strengthening, but there is nobody but Moyes to blame for the dip of diversity in United's attacks.
Furthermore, there is nobody but the manager to blame for another bizarre substitution which saw him replace the injured Phil Jones with Danny Welbeck, forcing Wayne Rooney to drop into midfield as Michael Carrick moved to centre-half.
United had not played well even until that point but from thereon in they resembled a Sunday League side without any shape or organisation whatsoever. It was only because of Stoke's profligacy that Begovic's fine save from Rooney even mattered late on - Marko Arnautovic and Oussama Assaidi both missed good chances to extend the hosts' lead.
It was Moyes' comments after the match that were most worrying of all, though. He spoke about luck, which is a clear sign of any manager feeling the pressure, and his assertion that United had played well was truly astonishing. Roy Hodgson became something of a joke figure at Liverpool due to his delusional press conferences; if Moyes continues in this vain he risks going the same way.
More to the point, if Moyes is genuinely happy with that level of performance from the champions, the seven-point gap between them and fourth place is only going to extend before the season's end.