How Twitter reacted to Man United’s 4-0 demolition of Reading
Published:
Manchester United breezed past visitors Reading in this afternoon’s Emirates FA Cup Third Round clash, scoring twice either side of half-time in a 4-0 victory.
We saw Marcus Rashford’s return to form, Ali Al-Habsi’s utter clanger and, of course, Wayne Rooney equalling Sir Bobby Charlton’s record of 249 Manchester United goals.
Here’s how Twitter reacted to it all…
Firstly, the hosts kept it simple to pay tribute to a remarkable achievement.
No-one has scored more goals for #MUFC than @WayneRooney! ⚽️ pic.twitter.com/3l7UdGeTgJ
— Manchester United (@ManUtd) January 7, 2017
And United stars past and present chimed in to show their admiration.
Congratulations @WayneRooney for equalling Sir Bobby’s record ?
— Bryan Robson (@bryanrobson) January 7, 2017
Great team performance and Well done Captain ?? #10#11 pic.twitter.com/bG2qvQZqk0
— Anthony Martial (@AnthonyMartial) January 7, 2017
But it was Rashford’s emphatic finish from about six inches out which seemed to excite one fan more!
Another wonderfully unnecessary Rashford finish to an open net. The boy is a dream
— Big Guy fan (@IWannaRunToU) January 7, 2017
The chance itself owed a lot to Ali Al-Habsi showing all the fine footwork of Ed Balls on the Strictly dancefloor. And it was bad timing from the Reading keeper in every sense.
Cracking way to celebrate a new two-year deal Ali…. ? https://t.co/N8ApeYhRkH
— The Tilehurst End (@TheTilehurstEnd) January 7, 2017
And the Royals’ line-up did include a man who’s made a quite incredible rise to prominence – and went on to produce their best performance of the afternoon.
11 months to the day, Liam Kelly was playing for Bath City vs Oxford City.. now he lines up for #ReadingFC against Manchester United #MUNREA
— Daniel Holloway (@RFCdan) January 7, 2017
But of course, we’ll leave the last word to everyone’s favourite ‘fake Wayne Rooney’s son’ account…
Excellent use of the patella by Daddy.
— Kai Wayne (@KaiWayne) January 7, 2017
Un-knee-lievable.
All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing
