Wenger talking nonsense - Moxey
- Thread starter BBC Sport
- Start date
- Replies 29
- Views 1K
goonergun435
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,286
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
done link
I wasn't refering to this part of the quote. I was asking about the part when he says his players don't tackle :S
EDIT : Totally mis-read your message. Apologies!!
Samir Nasri
Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Can't see why he even moans about tackling. Since every team plays differently. 
I have voiced my opinion on this on another thread and not going to dig up old ground but have found a couple of interesting blogs called left back in the changing room.
The first one is about the amount of broken legs that have happened recently. The guy classes it as a trend.
Broken Legs, Post hoc ergo propter hoc and The Texas Sharpshooters
It isn't often that we talk about logical or statistical fallacies when discussing football. One shouldn't be surprised by this. Not many people talk about logical or statistical fallacies. Or they don't in public anyway.
However, a few things sprung to mind from the Twitter coverage of Hatem Ben Arfa's gruesome injury today. Obviously, I wish him well and a speedy recovery. He'd started the season well and, bar Alan Shearer, most of us knew about him and thought he'd do well in the Premier League.
Over the last year or so there seem to have been a number of gruesome injuries. I wrote this piece on Aaron Ramsey's injury earlier in the year. It seems that there have been more badly broken legs in recent months: Ramsey, Ben Arfa, Valencia, Zamora and others beside. This must mean that there is some sort of trend. Surely?
These injuries add fuel to Wenger's fire that (a) English football is becoming more violent (b) certain teams target other teams (even if inadvertantly. They talk about going in hard and end up injuring someone) (c) players are not given adequate protection by referees. The rising trend of badly broken bones is a horrible testament to that. It seems that English football is getting more violent or, at least, Wenger's ABC is leading to more gruesome injuries.
A big question though... is it a trend?
The human brain sees patterns and it likes to rationalise them. We see two things happen at the same time and believe they must be related or that one has caused the other. As President Bartlett explains to CJ in an episode of the same name 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' means 'after this therefore because of this'. Most heroin users have previously smoked cannabis therefore cannabis is a gateway to heroin. Sound sensible? The following is also true: Most heroin users have previously ate sandwiches therefore sandwiches are a gateway to heroin.
The fallacy here is that we see players being injured and we presume that it is a consequence of a tactic from nefarious teams or individual players. Or it is because referees are not offering adequate protection. However, the leg-breaks above all took place against different teams. If that is true (and it is) either this is some form of cluster or it is a much wider trend.
Famously, in 2003, the burghers of Wishaw pulled down a mobile phone mast because there had been a recent rise in the incidence of cancer in their area. As the mast had been installed fairly recently, the villagers thought there must be a connection between the presence of the mast.
Cancer clusters occur naturally - some places will have greater numbers of cancer clusters than others. The same is probably true of injuries in football (NB: This isn't to say that there aren't some clubs that have reasons for this. Newcastle notoriously have lots of hamstring injuries. This might be random or it might be down to other factors).
Try it yourself - toss a coin 100 times in a row and you will probably produce an extended sequence of tails or heads. Or throw rice into the air. You'll see clusters here and there. They won't be distributed equally. In the same way, it might just be the case that Arsenal have had 3 leg breaks in a number of years (NB: I'm not sure this is more than other clubs. It might just be that it is spoken about more).
It is important to remember that a pattern does not always mean a plan or a trend. In the same way, there will be times when bad leg breaks due to bad tackles will be more numerous than others and there will be times when bad leg breaks due to bad tackles will be less numerous. They have 'clustered'. When we see that cluster, we point it out and need to find a way to explain it.
Statisticians and data geeks even have a name for this phenomenon: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. This derives from a joke about a Texan who shoots at the side of a barn and then draws the bullseye around the area where he has shot most often.
My thoughts: These players have all been horrendously unfortunate. Plenty of bad tackles end up with no injury. Plenty of harmless tackles end up with injury (like Broadfoot on Valencia - it wasn't even a foul let alone a red card offence). However, there is a media story here that there is some form of conspiracy from a number of clubs to rough up clubs.
I'm not saying that there isn't a trend. I'm certainly not denying that individual cases might have interesting circumstances. I'm just saying that those who argue for such a trend's existence should be able to give us some deeper analysis of the trend than pointing to fairly different examples spread out over a large number of games
http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.com/2010/10/broken-legs-post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc.html
The second Blog is by the same person about the time Aaron Ramsey got injured.
How best to protect players?
I'd like to separate a few things out before I start.
Wenger can be myopic, arrogant and have an exceedingly short memory (as we shall see). All managers can be like this – Rafa can, Fergie can, they all can.
However, regardless of this, a young man is seriously injured. Criticising Wenger in this instance does not equate to a support to some of the uglier teams in the division. I am sure that we all wish Aaron Ramsey a very speedy and full recovery. It sounds perverse that 6 months out is a 'good result' but let us hope that his recovery is quicker even that that.
That said, we also need to square two things (a) how do we protect players adequately (b) how do we make sure we don't go down the ridiculous Wenger/Platini view of 'no tackles allowed, thank you very much'.
I should also note that I broke my tibia when another player tackled me as a 12 year old. This may colour my judgement one way or the other but it is, as they say, on the table.
So, to our tale... I’ll take a look over Wenger and then look at the nature of the game.
Wenger’s hypocrisy
There was a bit of an overreaction with the way it was treated. We looked after it carefully and we saw that it was just a mistimed tackle. That is why we didn't see why it could flare up and make a national story.
This was not Tony Pulis or Gary Megson or some other other gravy free-basing Northern monkey.
It was Arsene Wenger following William Gallas' tackle on Mark Davies
There is a case for saying that Gallas's tackle was worse than Shawcross's on Saturday. Shawcross was much nearer to getting the ball, he did not go in studs showing and nor did he go in off the floor. Gallas and Arsenal were very lucky not to receive any form of punishment for this offence and Davies was lucky not to end up in a treatment room. So when Wenger says we should spare him the 'Shawcross isn't that sort of player' we should remember he is more than happy to play a similar card himself when it suits him. He used almost exactly the same word.
Incidentally, Shawcross hardly did a Roy Keane when he stood over the stricken player goading him. He walked off in tears.
It is, of course, unfashionable to say but Aaron Ramsey was frightfully unlucky on Saturday. A millisecond either way and he would have had a sore leg rather than a broken one - it would still have been a foul but these are the margins the game is played on.
Now, as we all know, About Diaby was a player who had his leg broken against Sunderland. However, let’s not forget, only a month after Eduardo’s horror tackle Diaby dished out much of the same. The words ‘It is always Arsenal’ means something slightly different.
Steinsson, like Davies, was incredibly lucky that Diaby's foul did not leave him with a broken leg. Again, studs up, late and off the ground... but, it wasn't comparable to the other fouls to Wenger. No, 'it was a fraction high'. A fraction high… exactly, Arsene. Fractions, very sadly, are minimal but matter massively.
Now, Wenger is a manager I admire massively. I will not criticise his tactics because I believe that the game should be played the way he attempts to play. That isn’t to say, of course, that this is the only way the game should be played and I do not believe that other teams should play into Arsenal’s hand.
Remember also that, generally, teams that dominate possession is likely to be tackled more because the opposition do more tackling. (That isn't always true: Hull are the most fouled team in the Premiership this season: that is a Hull player is more likely to be fouled than an Arsenal player).
That is key: What does Wenger think is an acceptable way to try and beat his team? Should other teams lie down and allow Arsenal to win? Should they try and play a game that they are incapable of playing? Should they try not to tackle? One of Wenger’s largest problems is his absolute refusal to attempt to play outwith his footballing philosophy. To some extent, I have massive sympathy with this but it just isn’t a successful strategy to win trophies relentlessly.
Are Arsenal as clean as is made out?
Are Arsenal a dirty team? No, of course they are not. However, Wenger’s early days of Adams, Keown and (in particular) Viera, the team were known to ‘put it about’.
Wenger is a very clever man. Far cleverer than me. Whilst I believe that he was genuinely upset on the evening of the match but let us not forget that he is pushing an agenda here and has been for a number of years. He wants to create an environment where tackling his team is questioned by those tackling and where referees rule in his favour. Remember him tarring Darren Fletcher by calling him 'an anti-footballer'?
In 2005-6, Fletcher was yellow carded four times in 49 games for United and Scotland.
In 2006-7, Fletcher was booked three times in 46 games.
In 2007-8, Fletcher was booked five times in 30 games.
In 2008-9, Fletcher was booked six times in 46 and (very controversially) a red card in the Champions League Semi-Final.
Up until 30th January 2009-10, Fletcher had picked up four bookings and a red card (for two bookable offences).
Compare with the most beautiful player in the Premiership:
In 2005-6, Fabregas was booked 7 times in 54 games and sent off once.
In 2006-7, Fabregas was booked 9 times in 59 games.
In 2007-8, he was booked 10 times in 55
In 2008-9, he was booked 8 times in 33.
Up until 30th January 2009-10, he'd been booked 4 times.
So, Wenger's spin seems to have worked. Instinctively, I'd have thought Fletcher was far dirtier. Now, why is this relevant, you may ask, saying that Fabregas’s offences are much less likely to result in injury than, say, someone like Shawcross. My point is that Wenger has labelled an opposition player an ‘anti-footballer’ when, in reality, his own captain (and a far finer player) is a dirtier player.
This is part of Wenger’s wider spin campaign to make referees more stringent against his opponents. Fair play to him – all managers are at it.
The nature of tackling and bad luck
A terrible tackle can lead to no injury if the tackled player is standing in a certain way or if the fouler goes in at a certain angle. Fractions matter, millimetres matter, milliseconds matter and there are a thousand and one variables. None of this, as it happens, is planned. Shawcross didn't plan to be a millisecond late or millimetre high any more than Diaby was lucky that the angle of Davies' shinpad saved him from a Shawcrossian fate of tears at the Reebok. Hundreds of variables end up impacting on one other - sometimes a player is left with a bruise and sometimes their leg is blown to smithereens. Sometimes innocuous tackles end up ending careers, sometimes horror tackles see both players walking away.
However, like the ''cancer outbreak in village stories'', Wenger sees three leg breaks over five seasons and does not see a coincidence. It is massively unfortunate for Diaby, Eduardo and Ramsey but it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a coincidence. Remember Djibrill Cisse has had his leg broken twice...
He sees teams target his team, get in about them and 'up them' and sees injuries as inevitable. How then does Wenger explain the horror tackles of Diaby and Gallas? Were they targetting Bolton. Or was it a coincidence?
Wenger undermines his own thesis today: 'I didn't see many bad tackles in the game (against Stok)'. Which one is it, Arsene? Are the likes of Stoke going out of their way to kick you all over the pitch or not?
Incidentally, this is backed up by the fact that in of all the teams that have played Arsenal four times or more in recent seasons: Stoke have averaged the least fouls against Arsenal (indeed, this squares pretty badly with the Stoke near the bottom of the disciplinary table... they actually commit less fouls per game against Arsenal. That is they do the opposite of targeting Arsenal). (Reference OPTA). To reiterate... Arsenal are less likely to be fouled by Stoke players than any other team in the league.
As Wenger said the day before the game, Stoke are more than just a physical side and he noted that with players like Etherington, Fuller and Tuncay ‘they can play football too’.
I garner no pleasure from posting the video on the blog. The sequence of events to me was:
(a) Shawcross takes a heavy touch
(b) The ball runs into Ramsey's path
(c) Stretching Shawcross tries to boot the ball as Ramsey touches it for the first time
(d) He misses the ball kicking through it and, ultimately, injuring Ramsey awfully.
Should Shawcross have just let the ball go? It was a 50-50 ball he was ''entitled'' to go for - now, of course, I wish he had let the ball go so Ramsey could go about doing what he does so brilliantly but I'm not sure that would be good for the game. Match of the Day looked at this in-depth, as it happens, and came to the same conclusion.
Was he entitled to go for the ball? Yes. Should he have been sent off? I'd say if there hadn't been an injury he'd have taken a booking but can understand why the referee raised the red card.
Football must remain a contact sport
As above, Wenger is pushing an agenda here. In all sports where there is contact there will inevitably be injuries. This is true in rugby union, rugby league and football. Indeed, in many non-direct contact sports (like cricket or skiing) many people can get injured.
Big, blockbusting tackles are a great part of the game. Football is a fast game, played at a high tempo. The nature of the game is that legs go crashing into other – that’s why footballing injuries are often worse than rugby union even if it is a less inherently violent game. Players sliding along the ground at pace will always risk hurting someone – either out of them mistiming, the other player being quicker/slower, the ball deviating for whatever reason or any number of other factors. It is inevitable people will get hurt and a number of reforms in recent years (and the application of certain rules) has changed this massively. Players who leave the floor are almost always sent off. Players who go in with raised studs are almost always sent off. Players who go through the back of a player are almost always booked.
Sadly, you either accept that tackling will sometimes result in injuries or you do away with tackling. You can put in safeguards but, realistically, this is the choice the authorities (and fans) need to think about.
The psychology of Arsenal’s complaining
That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t be vigilant in enforcing the rules around tackling. However, we don’t want to move to a system where players can’t slide tackle or, I’d say, that a mistimed tackle automatically leads to a red card.
The more Arsenal complain about this the more a number of things happen:
a) The effect becomes cyclical – their opponents are more likely to try and intimidate them.
b) This is more likely, in turn, to affect Arsenal negatively
c) It begins to burden the team psychologically – the focus will always be when they go to some Northern **** hole that the team will kick them all over the pitch (which none do, otherwise there would be a **** of a lot more sending off), physically intimidate them and, I’d wager, aggravate referees. This is a long-standing thing: Phil Neville said, when he was still at United, ‘I think Arsenal players have it in their contracts that you can’t tackle them’.
So it is a difficult thing to get right: We don't want to get rid of tackling. It is an art form and an art form that, sometimes, can lead to injured players. Equally, we wish to protect players.
Simply, Wenger has a very valid case but he makes it very badly.
http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-best-to-protect-players.html
The first one is about the amount of broken legs that have happened recently. The guy classes it as a trend.
Broken Legs, Post hoc ergo propter hoc and The Texas Sharpshooters
It isn't often that we talk about logical or statistical fallacies when discussing football. One shouldn't be surprised by this. Not many people talk about logical or statistical fallacies. Or they don't in public anyway.
However, a few things sprung to mind from the Twitter coverage of Hatem Ben Arfa's gruesome injury today. Obviously, I wish him well and a speedy recovery. He'd started the season well and, bar Alan Shearer, most of us knew about him and thought he'd do well in the Premier League.
Over the last year or so there seem to have been a number of gruesome injuries. I wrote this piece on Aaron Ramsey's injury earlier in the year. It seems that there have been more badly broken legs in recent months: Ramsey, Ben Arfa, Valencia, Zamora and others beside. This must mean that there is some sort of trend. Surely?
These injuries add fuel to Wenger's fire that (a) English football is becoming more violent (b) certain teams target other teams (even if inadvertantly. They talk about going in hard and end up injuring someone) (c) players are not given adequate protection by referees. The rising trend of badly broken bones is a horrible testament to that. It seems that English football is getting more violent or, at least, Wenger's ABC is leading to more gruesome injuries.
A big question though... is it a trend?
The human brain sees patterns and it likes to rationalise them. We see two things happen at the same time and believe they must be related or that one has caused the other. As President Bartlett explains to CJ in an episode of the same name 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' means 'after this therefore because of this'. Most heroin users have previously smoked cannabis therefore cannabis is a gateway to heroin. Sound sensible? The following is also true: Most heroin users have previously ate sandwiches therefore sandwiches are a gateway to heroin.
The fallacy here is that we see players being injured and we presume that it is a consequence of a tactic from nefarious teams or individual players. Or it is because referees are not offering adequate protection. However, the leg-breaks above all took place against different teams. If that is true (and it is) either this is some form of cluster or it is a much wider trend.
Famously, in 2003, the burghers of Wishaw pulled down a mobile phone mast because there had been a recent rise in the incidence of cancer in their area. As the mast had been installed fairly recently, the villagers thought there must be a connection between the presence of the mast.
Cancer clusters occur naturally - some places will have greater numbers of cancer clusters than others. The same is probably true of injuries in football (NB: This isn't to say that there aren't some clubs that have reasons for this. Newcastle notoriously have lots of hamstring injuries. This might be random or it might be down to other factors).
Try it yourself - toss a coin 100 times in a row and you will probably produce an extended sequence of tails or heads. Or throw rice into the air. You'll see clusters here and there. They won't be distributed equally. In the same way, it might just be the case that Arsenal have had 3 leg breaks in a number of years (NB: I'm not sure this is more than other clubs. It might just be that it is spoken about more).
It is important to remember that a pattern does not always mean a plan or a trend. In the same way, there will be times when bad leg breaks due to bad tackles will be more numerous than others and there will be times when bad leg breaks due to bad tackles will be less numerous. They have 'clustered'. When we see that cluster, we point it out and need to find a way to explain it.
Statisticians and data geeks even have a name for this phenomenon: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. This derives from a joke about a Texan who shoots at the side of a barn and then draws the bullseye around the area where he has shot most often.
My thoughts: These players have all been horrendously unfortunate. Plenty of bad tackles end up with no injury. Plenty of harmless tackles end up with injury (like Broadfoot on Valencia - it wasn't even a foul let alone a red card offence). However, there is a media story here that there is some form of conspiracy from a number of clubs to rough up clubs.
I'm not saying that there isn't a trend. I'm certainly not denying that individual cases might have interesting circumstances. I'm just saying that those who argue for such a trend's existence should be able to give us some deeper analysis of the trend than pointing to fairly different examples spread out over a large number of games
http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.com/2010/10/broken-legs-post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc.html
The second Blog is by the same person about the time Aaron Ramsey got injured.
How best to protect players?
I'd like to separate a few things out before I start.
Wenger can be myopic, arrogant and have an exceedingly short memory (as we shall see). All managers can be like this – Rafa can, Fergie can, they all can.
However, regardless of this, a young man is seriously injured. Criticising Wenger in this instance does not equate to a support to some of the uglier teams in the division. I am sure that we all wish Aaron Ramsey a very speedy and full recovery. It sounds perverse that 6 months out is a 'good result' but let us hope that his recovery is quicker even that that.
That said, we also need to square two things (a) how do we protect players adequately (b) how do we make sure we don't go down the ridiculous Wenger/Platini view of 'no tackles allowed, thank you very much'.
I should also note that I broke my tibia when another player tackled me as a 12 year old. This may colour my judgement one way or the other but it is, as they say, on the table.
So, to our tale... I’ll take a look over Wenger and then look at the nature of the game.
Wenger’s hypocrisy
There was a bit of an overreaction with the way it was treated. We looked after it carefully and we saw that it was just a mistimed tackle. That is why we didn't see why it could flare up and make a national story.
This was not Tony Pulis or Gary Megson or some other other gravy free-basing Northern monkey.
It was Arsene Wenger following William Gallas' tackle on Mark Davies
There is a case for saying that Gallas's tackle was worse than Shawcross's on Saturday. Shawcross was much nearer to getting the ball, he did not go in studs showing and nor did he go in off the floor. Gallas and Arsenal were very lucky not to receive any form of punishment for this offence and Davies was lucky not to end up in a treatment room. So when Wenger says we should spare him the 'Shawcross isn't that sort of player' we should remember he is more than happy to play a similar card himself when it suits him. He used almost exactly the same word.
Incidentally, Shawcross hardly did a Roy Keane when he stood over the stricken player goading him. He walked off in tears.
It is, of course, unfashionable to say but Aaron Ramsey was frightfully unlucky on Saturday. A millisecond either way and he would have had a sore leg rather than a broken one - it would still have been a foul but these are the margins the game is played on.
Now, as we all know, About Diaby was a player who had his leg broken against Sunderland. However, let’s not forget, only a month after Eduardo’s horror tackle Diaby dished out much of the same. The words ‘It is always Arsenal’ means something slightly different.
Steinsson, like Davies, was incredibly lucky that Diaby's foul did not leave him with a broken leg. Again, studs up, late and off the ground... but, it wasn't comparable to the other fouls to Wenger. No, 'it was a fraction high'. A fraction high… exactly, Arsene. Fractions, very sadly, are minimal but matter massively.
Now, Wenger is a manager I admire massively. I will not criticise his tactics because I believe that the game should be played the way he attempts to play. That isn’t to say, of course, that this is the only way the game should be played and I do not believe that other teams should play into Arsenal’s hand.
Remember also that, generally, teams that dominate possession is likely to be tackled more because the opposition do more tackling. (That isn't always true: Hull are the most fouled team in the Premiership this season: that is a Hull player is more likely to be fouled than an Arsenal player).
That is key: What does Wenger think is an acceptable way to try and beat his team? Should other teams lie down and allow Arsenal to win? Should they try and play a game that they are incapable of playing? Should they try not to tackle? One of Wenger’s largest problems is his absolute refusal to attempt to play outwith his footballing philosophy. To some extent, I have massive sympathy with this but it just isn’t a successful strategy to win trophies relentlessly.
Are Arsenal as clean as is made out?
Are Arsenal a dirty team? No, of course they are not. However, Wenger’s early days of Adams, Keown and (in particular) Viera, the team were known to ‘put it about’.
Wenger is a very clever man. Far cleverer than me. Whilst I believe that he was genuinely upset on the evening of the match but let us not forget that he is pushing an agenda here and has been for a number of years. He wants to create an environment where tackling his team is questioned by those tackling and where referees rule in his favour. Remember him tarring Darren Fletcher by calling him 'an anti-footballer'?
In 2005-6, Fletcher was yellow carded four times in 49 games for United and Scotland.
In 2006-7, Fletcher was booked three times in 46 games.
In 2007-8, Fletcher was booked five times in 30 games.
In 2008-9, Fletcher was booked six times in 46 and (very controversially) a red card in the Champions League Semi-Final.
Up until 30th January 2009-10, Fletcher had picked up four bookings and a red card (for two bookable offences).
Compare with the most beautiful player in the Premiership:
In 2005-6, Fabregas was booked 7 times in 54 games and sent off once.
In 2006-7, Fabregas was booked 9 times in 59 games.
In 2007-8, he was booked 10 times in 55
In 2008-9, he was booked 8 times in 33.
Up until 30th January 2009-10, he'd been booked 4 times.
So, Wenger's spin seems to have worked. Instinctively, I'd have thought Fletcher was far dirtier. Now, why is this relevant, you may ask, saying that Fabregas’s offences are much less likely to result in injury than, say, someone like Shawcross. My point is that Wenger has labelled an opposition player an ‘anti-footballer’ when, in reality, his own captain (and a far finer player) is a dirtier player.
This is part of Wenger’s wider spin campaign to make referees more stringent against his opponents. Fair play to him – all managers are at it.
The nature of tackling and bad luck
A terrible tackle can lead to no injury if the tackled player is standing in a certain way or if the fouler goes in at a certain angle. Fractions matter, millimetres matter, milliseconds matter and there are a thousand and one variables. None of this, as it happens, is planned. Shawcross didn't plan to be a millisecond late or millimetre high any more than Diaby was lucky that the angle of Davies' shinpad saved him from a Shawcrossian fate of tears at the Reebok. Hundreds of variables end up impacting on one other - sometimes a player is left with a bruise and sometimes their leg is blown to smithereens. Sometimes innocuous tackles end up ending careers, sometimes horror tackles see both players walking away.
However, like the ''cancer outbreak in village stories'', Wenger sees three leg breaks over five seasons and does not see a coincidence. It is massively unfortunate for Diaby, Eduardo and Ramsey but it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a coincidence. Remember Djibrill Cisse has had his leg broken twice...
He sees teams target his team, get in about them and 'up them' and sees injuries as inevitable. How then does Wenger explain the horror tackles of Diaby and Gallas? Were they targetting Bolton. Or was it a coincidence?
Wenger undermines his own thesis today: 'I didn't see many bad tackles in the game (against Stok)'. Which one is it, Arsene? Are the likes of Stoke going out of their way to kick you all over the pitch or not?
Incidentally, this is backed up by the fact that in of all the teams that have played Arsenal four times or more in recent seasons: Stoke have averaged the least fouls against Arsenal (indeed, this squares pretty badly with the Stoke near the bottom of the disciplinary table... they actually commit less fouls per game against Arsenal. That is they do the opposite of targeting Arsenal). (Reference OPTA). To reiterate... Arsenal are less likely to be fouled by Stoke players than any other team in the league.
As Wenger said the day before the game, Stoke are more than just a physical side and he noted that with players like Etherington, Fuller and Tuncay ‘they can play football too’.
I garner no pleasure from posting the video on the blog. The sequence of events to me was:
(a) Shawcross takes a heavy touch
(b) The ball runs into Ramsey's path
(c) Stretching Shawcross tries to boot the ball as Ramsey touches it for the first time
(d) He misses the ball kicking through it and, ultimately, injuring Ramsey awfully.
Should Shawcross have just let the ball go? It was a 50-50 ball he was ''entitled'' to go for - now, of course, I wish he had let the ball go so Ramsey could go about doing what he does so brilliantly but I'm not sure that would be good for the game. Match of the Day looked at this in-depth, as it happens, and came to the same conclusion.
Was he entitled to go for the ball? Yes. Should he have been sent off? I'd say if there hadn't been an injury he'd have taken a booking but can understand why the referee raised the red card.
Football must remain a contact sport
As above, Wenger is pushing an agenda here. In all sports where there is contact there will inevitably be injuries. This is true in rugby union, rugby league and football. Indeed, in many non-direct contact sports (like cricket or skiing) many people can get injured.
Big, blockbusting tackles are a great part of the game. Football is a fast game, played at a high tempo. The nature of the game is that legs go crashing into other – that’s why footballing injuries are often worse than rugby union even if it is a less inherently violent game. Players sliding along the ground at pace will always risk hurting someone – either out of them mistiming, the other player being quicker/slower, the ball deviating for whatever reason or any number of other factors. It is inevitable people will get hurt and a number of reforms in recent years (and the application of certain rules) has changed this massively. Players who leave the floor are almost always sent off. Players who go in with raised studs are almost always sent off. Players who go through the back of a player are almost always booked.
Sadly, you either accept that tackling will sometimes result in injuries or you do away with tackling. You can put in safeguards but, realistically, this is the choice the authorities (and fans) need to think about.
The psychology of Arsenal’s complaining
That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t be vigilant in enforcing the rules around tackling. However, we don’t want to move to a system where players can’t slide tackle or, I’d say, that a mistimed tackle automatically leads to a red card.
The more Arsenal complain about this the more a number of things happen:
a) The effect becomes cyclical – their opponents are more likely to try and intimidate them.
b) This is more likely, in turn, to affect Arsenal negatively
c) It begins to burden the team psychologically – the focus will always be when they go to some Northern **** hole that the team will kick them all over the pitch (which none do, otherwise there would be a **** of a lot more sending off), physically intimidate them and, I’d wager, aggravate referees. This is a long-standing thing: Phil Neville said, when he was still at United, ‘I think Arsenal players have it in their contracts that you can’t tackle them’.
So it is a difficult thing to get right: We don't want to get rid of tackling. It is an art form and an art form that, sometimes, can lead to injured players. Equally, we wish to protect players.
Simply, Wenger has a very valid case but he makes it very badly.
http://leftbackinthechangingroom.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-best-to-protect-players.html
Wengers not stupid at all and he does have an influence with the press and started the campaign knowing it would be jumped on but with what I posted above also prove he is yet again very hypocritical when it comes to anything to do with his team. A certain section of Arsenal fans wont hear a bad word said about Wenger and will defend him to the core but maybe if they took off the rose tinted glasses just for a few seconds then they will also see that their team are not as innocent as well when it comes to tackling the opposition.
If you actually read the article instead of dismissing it straight away because its about your beloved manager then you'd see that he does know what he's talking about.
Moxey > You