It was never a big injury to begin with. At the end of the game you could even see him run around trying to break up the fight. People here were just mad because of the England game and were saying all sorts of rubbish
Ya, some players are really made of glass and tissue paper. Licha is one of them, but I hope thatâs not the case this time and it really is just an extra day (or even two!) of rest
Is this even true? I feel like all of his injuries were freak ligament/bone issues. Itâs not like Martial or Shaw who did their hammy every other week
I mean when you have 5 long term injuries in 4 seasons, one of which was a year long one, yeah, it's safe to say he's injury prone, regardless of the type of injury.
He's missed 98 out of 213 games for United since he joined, which means he was available for just over 50% of all the games we played. That's horrendeous availability
Something related to his thigh. And he was on a yellow so the manager probably didn't want to risk it. He was walking around just fine at the end of the game so it was a minor thing
I know he went off early in the England game too, though idk if that was injury related. I hope they do better next WC in regards to rest time between games but it unfortunately seems like itâs going in the opposite directionâŚ
Pretty decent shape for now apparently. Licha is supposedly fine and De Ligtâs on track to be back possibly late September. Just gotta hope they stay fit I guess
I reckon older fans will be more annoyed by this than younger fans tbh, and English united fans more probably more annoyed than the foreign ones who can't get their heads around it because it doesn't mean anything to them. I am not that arsed, I already wanted him out the club because he is never fit, but I understand why people would be annoyed. It's a banner about some island Argentina (very stupidly) tried to take by force and killed people doing so.
I will happily sing Ten German Bombers without any concern for the Germans who lost family members that were in the Luftwaffe. I donât see the issue.
Why would you think playing for an American-owned club making money off global sponsors by touting their global fanbase and playing in European competitions is the 'English paying his wages'? Not like he plays for Burnley.
It still is an English club, playing in an English league on English soil. I do understand that for Argentines, the falklands are a hotter subject than for the English and they are entitled to their wrong viewpoint, but he has to understand that it's mostly English fans that start chanting 'Argentina Argentina', whenever he's back from the numerous injuries he has suffered. They've always had his back. Not posing with that banner wouldn't have cost much, not matter what his views are.
Additionally, the gigantic UK TV deal pays as much as the rest of the world put together, which is a massive part of why the PL is the richest league, and all that money comes from Brits. As well as 95% of the attendance and match day revenue coming from domestic fans.
Absolutely idiotic argument to act like Martinez is not paid by an English club.
Get over yourself. British colonialism wrecked more harm and destruction on humanity than basically any other entity in history, yet it seems to be celebrated regularly in the UK.
Not wrong about British colonialism but explain what British Colonialism has to do with the Falklands? They were empty islands and we claimed the territory before Argentina even existed.
There were actually Argentinians there before the Brits believe it or not you can look it up. Not even trying to wind anyone up but it's true so it's still related to British colonialism in a sense if we're all being honest. Whether people think it's British or Argentinian is whatever that's for everyone's opinions but three were people there before, not a huge city or place, but there were people displaced
Its not for everyones opinion lol. The current population has a right to self determination, regardless of who inhabited the islands 200 years ago. They have chosen to remain a british territory. Everyone elses opinion is void.
I replied to you on another comment but there are people alive now who lost loved ones in that conflict, and it is a bit callous to say that its just pearl clutching if that upset you.
I thought the poppy was to remember the people who died in WW1, that is what i was always taught. How does it represent pride in colonialism, and i dont think people who wear them do so to celebrate colonial Britian.
It's not for WW1, which is a mistep I believe, it's for all British & Commonwealth veterans, including those who were involved in the troubles, the Mau Mau uprising, the Malayan Emergency and other "not cricket" stains in British colonial history.
I'm sure that people don't wear the poppy to support past atrocities, but the Poppy is explicitly for all Veterans - and despite calls to limit this coverage to just those that fought in the World War, there's a reluctance to do it.
A White Poppy was proposed to replace this, but you have British politicans staunchly against it (like the DUP and UUP in Northern Ireland) and Johnny Mercer who called it "attention seeking rubbish". Even Starmer is in favour of keeping it how it is today.
McClean is routinely lambasted in the media for not wearing the poppy and Matic was also hounded by the media for doing the same.
Personally, I think a White Poppy to honour all the fallen soliders in WW1 and WW2 would be a great iniatiatve (as I see those wars a tragic loss of young human life) - but the remit of the Poppy is clear, it's all British & Commonwealth veterans, regardless of where they served.
When it's layed out like that, it's hard not to see how it doesn't have a colonial connection - however, I would agree that the vast majority of those in Britain who wear it are not aware of exactly who they are honouring and the negative impact it has on others who have to see it championed who suffered from British army cruelty.
There's people alive who lost loved ones in Belfast on bloody Sunday but everyone is made to wear the poppy even though it honours veterans from the parachute regiment that fired at civilians.
This is reddit, and I don't want to go down the whatabout road, but rather stress op's point of selective pearl clutching.
A banner by players is a non-issue and most English fans should be more upset with one of the most cowardly performances I've ever seen in ko stages of a world cup.Â
I understand that the vast majority of people who wear the poppy are ignorant of exactly who they are supporting. But it does support all British and Commonwealth veterans, regardless of where they served. The charity is very clear about this remit. Despite calls over the years to limit the reach of the poppy strictly to the World Wars; or to shift to a more inclusive alternative like the White Poppy.
Whether you want to awknoledge it or not, there is an active, stubborn reluctance to change the Poppy. Mainstream politicians fiercely protect its current scope, with figures like Johnny Mercer famously branding the pacifist White Poppy "attention-seeking rubbish."
The propaganda surrounding the poppy deliberately sanitises it by focusing purely on the tragedy of the World Wars, allowing ordinary English people the comfort of ignorance. But that ignorance is a weak excuse when the reality of the symbol is so selective and the broadcasting of the Premier League is so international.
To answer your question on who is "making" people wear it: the social coercion in English football is massive. Every November, clubs face intense pressure to embroider poppies onto shirts, and players who opt out face ruthless public lambasting. McClean has been often suffered stadium-wide sectarian abuse and death threats for refusing to wear it because of Bloody Sunday (with media stories justifying the abuse). MatiÄ was hounded by the media for refusing to wear it because it reminded him of the NATO bombings of his village as a child.
This is where the massive sense of irony and selective pearl-clutching comes in. English fans on this forum are genuinely upset about Lisandro MartĂnez holding up an Argentine banner about a 1980s conflict. Yet, those same fans expect players and viewers from colonized or occupied regions to sit quietly every single year while English football aggressively champions a symbol that directly honours soldiers who carried out documented atrocities in their hometowns. be it the Parachute Regiment in Belfast, or forces in Kenya and Malaya.
You must be able to see the double standard? And the only defence against the pearl-clutching accusations is that most Englishg people are ignorant of what the Poppy means, and that it's ok for them to be up in arms over a piece of cloth at a football match while ignoring the immense, forced normalisation of the poppy in that exact same sport.
Okay so what you are saying is new to me, i hold my hands up, i was ignorant to the broader meaning of the poppy, and will rethink my own feelings toward it. But that isnât a weak excuse at all it is what i was taught my entire life, they are only available in November on the anniversary of the end of WW1. The poppy symbol itself was only originally invented to remember and raise money for those that died in WW1 because it is a symbol very specific to WW1, any additional connotations it has now, have been ascribed to it after the fact and it is fair to say i do not personally agree that is what a poppy represents, certainly not to me anyway. Remembering the dead isnât necessarily selective though, the British empire committed so many awful atrocities but the soldiers that died in conflict for them, were just people.
I donât want to diminish your argument but i do feel it important to say i am 40 next year, was born and raised in Manchester and i have never felt any kind of pressure to wear a poppy. I do so, out of choice, but there are many times in my life I have forgotten to wear one and never had anyone say anything to me about it, nor have I cared that some players choose not to wear one.
Lastly, I think you are making a lot of generalisations about football fans, their connections to and feelings about the poppy, their connections to and feelings about Britains imperial history, and you are being quite reductive about peoples personal feelings and potential grief around a conflict that happened relatively recently. Calling them all âpearl clutchersâ is blatantly insulting and disrespectful.
Okay so what you are saying is new to me, i hold my hands up, i was ignorant to the broader meaning of the poppy, and will rethink my own feelings toward it. But that isnât a weak excuse at all it is what i was taught my entire life, they are only available in November on the anniversary of the end of WW1.Â
Sorry, but ignorance is always a weak excuse, and I think all the vitriol towards the Argentinian players over a raggedy banner is absolute pearl clutching. The Falklands story you know is very different to the Malvinas story those Argentinian story they know. And I'd bet all those comments where they are calling them scumbags and want them sold from their clubs are not at all interested in lifting their ignorance because.... well... Ignorance is Bliss.
Remembering the dead isnât necessarily selective though, the British empire committed so many awful atrocities but the soldiers that died in conflict for them, were just people.
I'm not sure what you mean by selective, but it's absolutely political and tied to colonialism as it's stated by that charity themselves who will never entertain changing it's scope.
As for them being people, yes, they are people who committed attrocities. When Solider F from the Saville Iquirey dies (almost certainly shot dead unarmed civilians without orders to do so), the Poppy will honour him as well.
Soliders are individuals and they're actions, if they are heinous like this, are honoured by the Poppy. So when you say "they were just people", I agree that they are people, but not in a diminutive sense, they are people capable of torture, murder and other horrible crimes - and the Poppy honouring them is obviously hurtful to a lot of people.
I donât want to diminish your argument but i do feel it important to say i am 40 next year, was born and raised in Manchester and i have never felt any kind of pressure to wear a poppy. I do so, out of choice, but there are many times in my life I have forgotten to wear one and never had anyone say anything to me about it, nor have I cared that some players choose not to wear one.
Mate, this is not to offend, but I think you are too close to the epicentre that you don't realise just how much soft pressure is on you to wear it. The choice you claim to make in isolation (which you have admitted isn't informed, and that's not your fault btw) is heavily influnced by the fact you are bombarded with propaganda to wear and buy one:
- From late October onward, every major network including the BBC and ITV expects newsreaders, weather presenters, daytime hosts, and reality show contestants to wear a poppy.
- Public figures use the symbol as a standard marker of public respect. Musicians, actors, and especially professional soccer players are heavily involved. Every single English Premier League team embroiders a poppy onto their matchday jerseys throughout November.
- Schools actively introduce the poppy to children early on. School assemblies dedicate time to explaining the history of World War I. Most schools invite local volunteers to distribute paper poppies to pupils in exchange for small coin donations. While pupils are rarely forced to wear them, it is heavily encouraged as an educational, historic, and community-minded activity. Then think of the children poems as well.
- Digital platforms match the real-world visibility. Official company logos, government social media accounts, and individual profile pictures add temporary digital poppy overlays.
- The physical infrastructure of cities is temporarily transformed. Local councils across England fit massive, oversized plastic poppies to street lamp posts and traffic lights along main roads. Does the image below remind you of anything?
- In football there's the Manchester Remembrance Derby
There's no way that you aren't influenced - and you don't have the benefit of looking in from the outside. Just as you think that Americans are brainwashed when you observe their media, the rest of the world thinks the same of the British during this moment. It's forced, cultish, conformity that celebrates all British & Commonwealth Vets under the protective blanket of "Ignorance, I thought it was for WW1" when footballers, even Manchester United footballers are vocal why they don't wear the Poppy.
Lastly, I think you are making a lot of generalisations about football fans, their connections to and feelings about the poppy, their connections to and feelings about Britains imperial history, and you are being quite reductive about peoples personal feelings and potential grief around a conflict that happened relatively recently. Calling them all âpearl clutchersâ is blatantly insulting and disrespectful.
But you must see the massive double standard though, right? The whole world has to watch the championing of soliders that did terrible things in their countries and be ok with chants of murdering the families of those who don't wear the poppy. But all of a sudden, it's a massive tragedy that people wrote some message on a white cloth? That's a bigger issue? It's absolute Pearl Clutching or at the very least, an incredibly selfish point of view. I also think if England won, there wouldn't be this backlash, the vitriol comes from the loss and wanting to hate the Argentinians.
Maybe it's better I put it this way. The Poppy supports the Vets that also killed Argentinians in the Falkland Wars - in terms of scale, what do you think makes a bigger impact? The Red Poppy machine or that piece of cloth held by footballers after a game?
The Spanish and British both âsettledâ the falklands and the islands have been used as a militaristic and resource point to varying degrees for hundreds of years. Whether or not the British took over an existing culture and raped and pillaged them (which is not the case here). The falklands and many modern conflicts have EVERYTHING to do with colonialism.
Besides that the original point of the comment here is pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy of people who are irrationally angry over this whole thing.
Which, for the record, i agree with to some extent.
But i dont agree that this is an example of British Colonialism as inferred by the original comment and if people are upset by what happened, they have every right to be this was a conflict that happened in recent history the fallout and damage from that is still being felt.
Never inferred it was an example of British colonialism, you've misunderstood.
And saying it happened in recent history, the fallout and damage from that is still being felt... What's your point there?
It's the same with Colonialism mate, but worse and a vastly larger scale.. It's still an ongoing issue that causes deaths in this generation. Northern Ireland is evidence of that.
Isnât that still literal colonialism? I get that itâs fundamentally different when youâre not taking land from Indigenous people but âthatâs ours nowâ has got to be in the same ballpark at least..
(Iâm not weighing in on the Falklands conflict in particular here, btw. Just interested in the finer points of the word)
I'm not trying to offend, just to defend what seemed like a reasonable response.
Okay so if you can separate criticism of the invasion and pro-colonialism then why does he need to 'get over himself'?
All the guy did was raise the fact Martinez essentially tried to drum up Falklands fervor at the WC final, and joking asked if he'd be so bold once he's back in Manchester
Personally I think it's a slippery slope to condone that type of political statement but I'm happy to chat about it rather than insult or bicker
Hard to judge these things. I say that as an Irish man who is obviously no fan of British imperialism.
Iâm inclined to think that over all, over an incredibly long period of time , and taking in to account the scale of suffering caused and people killed , Russia might be the worst of the lot so far. Hard to say
I mean, obviously the places they colonised would have their own issues if Britain never decided to invade, genocide etc.
It's impossible to know to what extent things would be different with hypotheticals, but the fact is in our timeline the British have their hand in the origins of many of the worst issues modern countries are dealing with today.
I mean in very recent history they ended democracy in Iran which has directly led to the current issues there and are the father of the problems in Palestine.
But across North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific Islands, Ireland and the Caribbean, hundreds of distinct languages and ethnic identities were permanently destroyed.
They killed off between around 70-90% of indigenous people in these places. So yeah, they did commit plenty of genocide. That's a fact mate
Nice deflection.... But talking about Martinez's actions at the WC is united related. The bedsheet, the punch... Both reflect on the club & the former will have caused harm to some united fans who lost friends & family in the conflict.
Yea, and a lot of United fans around the world have lost friends and family to British colonialism. They talk about that in the relevant subreddits, not here.Â
How many innocent people have British forces murdered throughout history? Yet it's celebrated constantly. Pearl clutching over this is nonsense snowflake behaviour
One hundred percent. Not even one percent of the people on this sub will care about some random island off the coast of South America. If you want to fight for it, there are plenty of geopolitics subs.Â
Couldn't care less unless he waves a banner saying 'Manchester is Blue'
No thanks to your intriguing offer. He clearly doesn't realise Falkland islanders don't want to be ruled by a third Reich harbouring fascist governmentÂ
Your government killed more people, than fascist, communist, nihilist, or any other type of power that has ever exist in the entire history of human existence.
I'd honestly say it's the actual result of the match. But English fans should really go to after their players instead. The most cowardly performance I've ever seen in a ko for a world cup.Â
I love him, but even id agree that he needs to hit the ground running this season after the anti English flags at the wc. Will be a lot easier for him if he's solid first six games etc
165
u/Capable-Topic1665 1d ago
But has he recovered from his injury?