Arsenal supporters the world over are breathlessly waiting for the 4th estate to weigh in and see if they are to maintain their anti-Arsenal bias or if they are going to take on the culture of English football which glorifies leg-breaking tackles.
Unfortunately, there are some scum, the Tony Cascarino’s* of the world, who are still banging on about the “speed of the game” and how “such a lovely lad” like Shawcross could never harm a fly much less a Welshman. Fortunately, from what I can tell, their numbers are getting smaller as thinking folks, like Patrick Barclay, weigh in and blame the establishment for what happened on Saturday.
Here’s a round-up of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in today’s media.
The Good
There was a remarkable interview on the SkySports Sunday Supplement with Sam Wallace of the Independent, Patrick Barclay of The Times, and Neil Custis from The Sun. If you only have time for one interview or article today about this issue, this is the one. It starts slow, with Sam Wallace doing the whole “just too quick” and “he’s not that type of player” bullshit but then Patrick Barclay and Neil Custis step in and take the interview over.
Barclay is adamant that the problem is that there’s a “wildness” to the English game that is considered not only acceptable but is encouraged. Moreover, his example of this wildness is last season’s tackle by Ryan Shawcross on Adebayor which happened 5 yards off the pitch. It’s a subtle dig at the whole notion that “Shawcross isn’t this type of guy” when so very clearly after breaking Francis Jeffers’ ankle two years ago, then the Adebayor tackle, and now the Ramsey tackle, Ryan Shawcross is that type of guy. If by that type of guy you mean “someone who is at best serially reckless and at worst intentionally out to harm his fellow professionals.”
But Barclay makes another important point and that is how in England a player can tackle another with their studs 8 inches off the ground but in other leagues that is simply not acceptable. He then reiterates my point of yesterday that this is the fault of the refs and the FA; players wouldn’t tackle like that if they were red carded for it irregardless the broken legs.
And then Neil Custis from The Sun weighs in with his criticism of the teams which simply come out to kick Arsenal off the pitch. In this he backs up Arsene Wenger’s claims and again points the finger directly at the FA for not doing anything about it.
But it’s what Barclay says at the end that’s truly remarkable. As they are getting ready to fade out, the presenter asks if Arsenal can win the title. Barclay says no, but he praises Arsenal as the team in England with the most fiber and mental strength, which they showed with their 3-1 win over Stoke. Again, it’s spot on. I have never seen a team recover from a tackle like that and go on to dominate their opponents the way that Arsenal did on Saturday. Truly amazing grit from this team. Truly.
Meanwhile, Martin Samuel asks how three broken legs in 4 years can be simply down to accident. The best part of this article was the quote, from 2007, about Ryan Shawcross breaking Francis Jeffers’ ankle:
There is no way that was a malicious challenge,’ said David Kemp, assistant manager of Stoke City. ‘Ryan isn’t that sort of player. It was probably a new experience for him to get frustrated, that’s why he chased down the ball and made that tackle.‘There was no malicious intent. It was a genuine attempt. We’ve seen far worse challenges go unpunished. It was just one of those football injuries, one of those incidents that frequently happen in the game. Before long Ryan might be on the end of one himself.
Maybe he’ll get on the end of one himself? Amazingly, that is the mentality in English football isn’t it? Don’t end the wild tackles which cut down people’s careers, tackle back just as wildly.
The Bad
Graham Poll came out against the Shawcross tackle but doesn’t add to the debate. So, I’m putting that here, in the bad. Besides which I can’t really have a Graham Poll article in my good category, can I?
John Cross from the Mirror, who tweeted the other day about how sick to death he is about fans complaining about an anti-Arsenal media bias, puts out what on it’s surface looks like an even handed article which simply details the events and where Ramsey is in the recovery but he ends the article in a peculiar manner:
But Stoke boss Tony Pulis has defended his player, pointing out that he has never been sent off before and also said his team have been victims in the past.
Pulis said: “It’s a disappointing challenge and as I say it’s so ironic that Ryan’s involved in it because of all the players that we’ve got here he’s such a gentle kid, such a gentle lad.
“Just by the effect it had as he was walking off the pitch and what’s happened since it will be devastating for him. We’ll have to make sure we keep a close eye on him. My condolences go out to Aaron and Arsenal. No one likes to see that happen.
“I honestly don’t think that Ryan is the type of a person who would ever go out to do anything like this. We’ll see what effect it has on him. But he’s a great lad.
“Rory Delap broke his leg in a challenge with a Sunderland player a few years ago and was out for nearly eight months. We dealt with it in-house and got on with it.”
Of course the lead sentence is the most important in any article, but second is the ending and here he ends with what many Stoke fans are pointing to as a reason why Shawcross’ red card should be appealed. In the demented minds of cavemen like Tony Pulis since they had one of their legs broken at one point, that makes it ok for them to break legs. And John Cross from the Mirror, gave credence to that by printing that retarded quote — you know, to “balance” his article.
The Ugly
These article are easy to find, open the Independent and you will see they run the gamut from pro-Shawcross pieces which claim the footballer is simply “unlucky” to articles describing the pain that Shawcross is in and how his teammates are rallying around the poor lad. That first, the Sam Wallace piece is most remarkable since it sets out to describe what a great guy Shawcross is and how we shouldn’t label him as dangerous, despite the indisputable fact that Ryan Shawcross broke Francis Jeffers’ leg in 2007, tackled Adebayor off the pitch last season and put the striker out for 3 weeks, and broke Aaron Ramsey’s leg this year. What exactly does the kid need to do to earn the label dangerous? Hit someone with a brickbat?
There are so many of these type of articles out there right now that it’s not even funny. Each paper has a variation on the “Stoke rally around wounded Shawcross” story that it almost seems they are taking copy from each other. The Times’ piece by Oliver Kay is almost comical in its strident defense of the “passion” of the English game: as if passion can only be expressed in leg breaking tackles. Kay even makes the claim that these leg-breakers are what make the EPL so marketable. I’ve heard that before, over here in the States in relation to our American football where “big hits” are a part of the game that many are seeking to stamp out. I guess that sport is no fun to some people unless they can turn it into blood and guts, “modern gladiators” and all that pablum.
But the final word has to go to two of my favorite columnists Shirtless Jaime Redknapp and Tony Cascarino** who both simply say something stupid, don’t back it up, and move on. Redknapp calls Aaron Ramsey “unlucky.” UNLUCKY! Like there were some fans in the stands who witnessed Ryan Shawcross break Aaron Ramsey’s leg and said “ohhh, unlucky Aaron, unlucky!”
Cascarino*** takes this “unlucky” theme and compounds the douchenozzlery by throwing in his two-cents worth in saying he didn’t even think it was a red card. Fucking mind-blowing, really. Just fucking mind-blowing.
How much are these two guys paid to say this stuff and how the fuck do I get THAT gig?
Conclusion
I want to end with a Rafa Benitez quote. After playing Sam Allardyce’s Blackburn Rovers and seeing his players kicked all over the pitch by a pack of cheats and scum like El-Hadji Diouf, Rafa coughed up this gem:
We try to do our talking on the pitch. If they are pleased with the way they play under this manager it is their decision. They have a style and they are a team that plays this way under this manager.
I think it is a model for all the managers around the world, their style of football, his behavior. It is the perfect model for all the kids and I’m sure all parents will enjoy this model and encourage their kids to be the same. The style of football, I think, Barcelona are thinking of copying
The same could be said about a dozen or so teams in the EPL, Rafa. A dozen.
*I apologize for my language here, I know how rude it is to use that word.
** Again, my apologies.
***7amkickoff sincerely regrets the use of such language and will attempt to not say this word ever again.
Arsenal News 24/7
I already missed the Good, Bad and Ugly stuff… Spot on, as usually, Tim.
Kudos to Barclay and Samuel, really. I’d personally also move Cross to the Good category, let alone for his tweets. He was the first one to slam the LHS trio for their MoTD Shawcross compassion.
I think it’s Louise Redknapp who should be considered unlucky.
In any other industry or profession these injuries would be punished in the courts under H&S rules, assuming they were unintentional, or the criminal courts, if was intentional.
To say they are acceptable because they have happened before is like saying miners should still work with no helmets and a canary in a cage. When will the FA UEFA & FIFA really try and cut this out rather than getting so distraught when somebody dives.
The FA should remove Shawcross from England duties at the very least, but if they had any standards at all they wouldnt still have Terry there on the basis that he is a classless twat.
Please add a section labled
“Downright Fucking Reprehensible”
then add this link
http://blogs.soccernet.com/stokecity/archives/2010/03/englands_ryan_shawcross_can_ho_1.php?
March 1st, 2010 at 8:57 am
@FabGooner, Appalling.
I have read enough pieces over the past couple of days and tried to let myself give Shawcross some kind of benefit of the doubt but given his history and the still shots that i saw of the challenge where he is clearly going to the tackle recklessly in the worst possible technique, there can only be one logical conclusion: he is either extremely stupid or a thug. Either ways, that kid does not belong on a football field. I am still in shock over the injury – and it’s kind of put me off football for the moment. Such a shame cos we had a great win and we should be celebrating. Instead I find myself in a dark place and full of negativity towards all the factions that have contributed to this “accident”. I hope that something good comes out of all this, that more people take notice of the kind of reckless challenges that go unpunished, and that something is done to at least scale back on excessive physical approach taken on by some managers. However something tells me that I might as well be dreaming.
March 1st, 2010 at 8:57 am
Got links to stills?
March 1st, 2010 at 9:31 am
XTG posted these yesterday:
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2194/horrifictackle1.jpg
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4702/horrifictackle2.jpg
I cant believe it! I went on the Stoke blog linked above and at the top there was an advert for the Health and Safety Executive which said
“Simple mistakes can shatter lives. Your actions could stop them happening”
Bloody hell that says it all. We should all do everything we can to stop players getting injuries, intentionally or otherwise.
Shawcross was not malicious but his lack of skill and training cost Ramsey dear.
Well said. Anyone prosecuted for dangerous driving where someone is killed or injured has “no malicious intent”. However, the punishment is usually more severe than when no-one is injured and rightly so.The attitude adopted by Stoke and others (we know who they are) is, to me, akin to dangerous driving and not considering the implications of their actions.
i’d like to nominate this one for the “good if not outstanding” section, not for its take on the tackle but for shining a bright light on glenn whelan’s actions immediately thereafter:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23811008-glenn-whelan-how-i-tried-to-help-stricken-aaron-ramsey.do
well done, mr. whelan.
The “Independent” is a joke. I haven’t read one of their “articles” in well over a year and a half. They are simply xenophobic and narrow-minded. If I remember correctly it was they who were the most vocal about the Eduardo-vs-Celtic incident (not 100% sure, as I didn’t read any).
extra kudos to samuel who is the only one i’ve read so far who mentions the real victim is going to be in a bed and cast for a long time. I actually believe all the other articles with pro-shawcross agendas don’t mention this fact because they think people will forget ramsey in all the commotion they create.
We won’t forget you Aaron. Get well son.
Not suprising, eventually Shawcross would become a victim and need all the English men to rally behind him. This happened to Taylor too, who broke Educado’s leg. I hope any team would win the world cup except England.
Rumours are out there that Ramsey might be back in 6 months which I hope is true. Wish him a speedy recovery, brilliant talent
i am equally baffled with the media.. its shocking.. mirrorfootball had a poll asking people if wenger should stop whining.. the nerve! that was the last time i go on that shit website.
i am almost certain abt media getting paid to be biased against arsenal. i find it hard to believe that only arsenal fans see what we see… its just ridiculous.
how many pre match stories been there saying we need to stop arsenal from playing? in each game there is something like that. wenger said some guy in a man utd game did the same. was there just to make fouls. we need to be physical because arsenal are too fast. so kick them. wtf?
WHEN WILL THE FA DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? and as you rightly said in the previous blog, please tell us what is right? what are the fucking rules FA? is this allowed?
these last few days have left me shattered. i dont know how arsenal players are copping with it… reading some articles i was in tears so many times. and angry so using some language like you used today is understandable.
ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB SHOULD TAKE STRONG ACTION AGAINST THE FA THIS TIME. the arsenal board has to take some action. wenger alone will be ignored like how the media does. ALL ARE SOLD.
Talk about absolutely fucking unacceptable. http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/85/england/2010/03/01/1812964/arsenal-comment-how-many-more-injured-players-will-it-take
March 1st, 2010 at 10:25 am
@plunkitt, I stop reading Goal.com alooong time ago.
Any defense of Ryan Shawcross that starts out with: he’s a great guy and doesn’t have a mean bone in his body is a problem.
Charles mansion was a great guy to his followers and so was Hitler.
I’ll admit that I have a problem with people described as “great guys” which is code for: I don’t really know them but they smile nice, they dress nice and they have good grooming so I have to assume that they are just swell people. Why wouldn’t they be. Ted Bundy sure seemed like a great guy until it came time for that goodnight kiss.
There is a reason that actions speak louder than words. The smile can lie, words can lie but actions especially repeated actions don’t lie.
http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_5991629,00.html
I’ve linked this article because I want to talk about fantasy in the world football. If I need an one eyewitness at my trial whose testimony can save me from the electric chair please do not call Danny Pugh to the stand. For the record Danny, replay will show that your hand which is attached to your forearm was away from your body (and the elbow was bent at 90 degrees) and you made a downward motion when your arm came in contact with the ball thus causing the ball to ricochet and not rebound (if it were a ball to arm).
There are two words in the english language that send shivers down my spine, the first is ‘interpretation’, and the the second is ‘expediency’. What, I hear you ask has this to do with Aaron, or Cryin’ Shawcrass.
The problem is the refereeing! Referees are, ‘interpreting’ the rules of the game, and letting ‘expediency’ cloud their judgment to let the game ‘flow’. Therein overlooking dangerous challenges that fail to harm, or connect; and not punishing incidents off the ball; body checking, shirt pulling, ‘careless’ use of arm and elbow, tripping, pushing etc. (Watch John Terry, and the Chelski team).
The referees are not there to interpret anything, they are there to apply the rules as written, even if it interrupts the game. Also, they need to stop applying two sets of rules, one for incidents outside the penalty area, and another set for inside. Fouls are fouls wherever they are commiited, and if these means more penalties, and more cards, and sending-offs, so-be-it.
It is from this shambolic approach that teams low on skill can perpetuate their over aggressive, intimidatory policy, because they are allowed to. Which brings us back to Stoke City, and Cryin’ Shawcrass, because that is how they set out their stall, and speak of it openly, along with the Boltons and Hulls of this world. This creates a mindset in the players, who play with intent to do harm. Take out the ball and the man, if you can’t get the ball then just get the man.
Of course they will say no one goes out with the intention of breaking an opponents leg, but the mentality is such, and this seems to apply to the FA the pundits and the press, that it’s OK to use excessive force and illegal challenges, and if someone suffers serious injury as a result, well that’s just bad luck.
As for being a nice kid and didn’t mean it, no he didn’t deliberately try to break a leg, but he went in with intent, to harm, and has done it before. Where is the innocence in that?
Viva?
March 1st, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I hate to disagree Viva but the referee IS actually there to ‘interpret’. The referee will use his judgement in the case of physical contact as to what is appropriate or not.
The rules of the game:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/81/42/36/lawsofthegameen.pdf
Careless, reckless, using excessive force.
“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
- No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent
- A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned.
“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
- A player who uses excessive force must be sent off.
Nobody can honestly argue that Shawcross did not use excessive force therefore the red card was appropriate. No debate. Any nonsense about it being barely a yellow is just horse-shit.
If Stoke appeal it. The ban will be increased to 4 or more.
March 1st, 2010 at 8:04 pm
@Patrick, Then I hope they do. That way the FA will be forced to increase his ban.
Another video of Saint Shawcross maiming a player during his loan spell at Royal Antwerp (Belgium).
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:31 am
Not a very good view of the tackle. Got a report on the outcome?
an interesting conversation on fox soccer news tonight, between bobby mcmahon and derek taylor:
dt: injuries like this bring up for you the issue, what commentators often call “harsh yellow cards”.
bmc: we hear it week in and week out, but ultimately dangerous and excessive tackles are not punished, we’re encouraging things like this. there is so much stuff being talked about, and there are so many things missing the point here. it’s getting contaminated with petty points being made about arsenal, and teams playing arsenal, and arsene wenger, and “well arsenal did this”, etc. the bottom line is, this isn’t a tackle, this is a scythe, right? it’s not a 50-50 tackle. if it was a 50-50 tackle they both would have arrived at the same time. so, inherently it is not a 50-50 tackle. shawcross does not tackle, he scythes through, ramsey’s leg is planted, and it’s a tragic double broken leg. two bones are fractured. it is excessive, it is reckless, and for commentators, or other managers, or anyone to come in and try to objectively claim “it wasn’t a bad tackle”, well, maybe they’re right, it wasn’t a bad tackle at all, it was an assault. it was awful.
dt: do you think he meant to?
bmc: it doesn’t matter.
dt: i’m gonna “roy keane”, go get’em.
bmc: it’s totally irrelevent. it’s irrelevent. it doesn’t matter. there’s nothing in the rules about intent. it talks about excessive. that’s what contaminates the conversation. “well, he’s a good guy, he didn’t mean it.” well, you don’t get off with that. he did it, it was excessive, it was reckless, and it finished up with somebody with a double broken leg.
*****
spot on, bobby. this is exactly what patrick details above from the rules.
and for anyone not able to watch it, you could tell bobby was PISSED. dt had to shift to the penalty “discussion”, which discussion pissed bobby off even more (he said pugh had no right to have his hand where it was if he didn’t want to be called for a handball).
good lad, bobby.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:15 am
Wow. Bobby, to be fair, does always refer to the rules when analyzing a game. Wow.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:05 am
Does anyone have a video of this discussion? I would love to see it.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:12 pm
@scruzgooner,
I missed FSR that night and I knew Bobby would speak with ten times the sense of the morons in the English media.
Good job Bobby McMahon. I knew I liked you for some reason and that’s because you are the voice of reason with a Scottish accent.