Three and in – not just another football blog

The press enjoy the debate.  Sky’s Sunday Supplement’s hoard of pundits drool over their croissants the moment the subject comes up.  But does anyone else really care who wears the armband of the national team?

There are few neutrals who didn’t take pleasure in John Terry’s fall from grace a year ago.  The Wayne Bridge stories and subsequent removal of the armband were, let’s face it, funny.

However, the furore around returning the armband to Terry is nothing less than dull.  Let’s look at the bare facts: Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard are both unavailable.  Terry is the natural choice to take the armband, and considering the injury records of his rivals, it probably makes sense to keep it there.

And does it really matter who wears the thing anyway?  In international football, captaincy has long since been a ceremonial role.  But even at club level it is becoming less significant.

Arsene Wenger has long suggested that the armband is a mere symbol – what matters is that the team shows collective leadership and responsibility.  Whilst his own side has generally failed to step up to that idealistic plate, it remains a salient thought.  And it’s not just a foreign school of thought: Alex Ferguson had no qualms about removing the armband from Ferdinand and placing it on Nemanja Vidic.  In the modern game, the iconic skipper has become an increasingly rare motif.

If you are going to create a fuss around a piece of cloth, you might be best to follow the example of Wales manager Gary Speed.  Whatever happens with Terry, he’s unlikely to remain a key component in the side beyond next summer’s European Championships.  In choosing Aaron Ramsey as his captain, Speed has brought stability and direction to his Wales side.

It’ll be interesting to see how their team-mates rally around the respective skippers this Saturday.

“Neil’s keeping a low profile.” murmured Johan Mjallby last Friday to an assorted press pack before Celtic’s – postponed – Scottish Cup tie with Inverness.

Even before the one-sided “Battle Of Parkhead” Lennon had taken to sending his hulking Swedish assistant, or Alan Thompson his affable Geordie first team coach, to conduct media duties.  Why? Most managers would be revelling in their teams relative successes. Especially successes which have seen you out gun your main rivals in the league then dump them out the main domestic cup.

No, Lennon has taken police advice. In the last month he has been woken in the middle of the night by Strathclyde Police three times to be moved to a safe house after credible death threats were received. Numerous internet boards and facebook pages have threads or groups asking for information on his whereabouts so he can be killed or suggesting ways how he can be killed.

Bullets have been posted to him. He is now under 24 hour Police guard.

He probably feels safer sitting in the stand and though that was enforced – he is current serving a 4 match ban which was recently increased to 8 – the police might have instructed him to do this anyway. Lots of wide open spaces on the touchline.

At the recent Old Firm summit, a sickening political photo opportunity masquerading as a purposeful meeting, this was not one of the main agenda items. The Scottish press report but will not condemn the treatment that the Celtic manager is receiving.

Rangers, who the guys issuing these threats are linked with, have been silent also.

The issue is being skirted around because the general feeling that is that Lennon has been passionate, over the top, and mouthy – so basically he deserves this treatment.

In my numerous years watching the game, I have seen Ferguson, Wenger, Muhrinho, Bruce, Pardews and other assorted touchline ranters behave worse than Lennon. I’ve seen them defend their team to the hilt and question perceived injustices. Squaring up to other managers? Aye, tick that box also.

Have they received death threats?

Lennon reveled in his status as hate figure when he was a player. He has done things that he shouldn’t be proud of and I’m sure he isn’t proud of them. His niggling, jack russell round the ankles pest type style of play, added to an unbelievable desire to win was fueled by his perceived image.

He was never a dirty player. He was prone to the odd hot-headed outburst but it’s never been questioned why he was found so despicable that EVERYONE bar the Celtic support in Scotland hated him. The party line was it’s his manner and the way he plays.

Over the years there have been more loathsome men to take to the pitch in Scotland than him. In the last 10 years only three players have been roundly abused in every ground they have visited. Lennon, Aiden McGeady and El Hadji Doiuf. I’ll let you spot the odd one out.

The Old Firm last week got the blame for Scotland’s social problems. Domestic violence, drink abuse and sectarian behaviour was all laid squarely on the doorstep of the clubs. I suppose it’s easier to blame others than take a good look at yourself and ask what can we do to stop this. Firstly let’s start addressing the main issue.

Why does Scotland hate Neil Lennon? There’s a prize for the correct answer.

–

The Lord of the Wing can be found at The Celtic Blog.

John Aldridge, former Liverpool and Ireland striker, doesn’t seem to understand quite how Twitter works. It’s a bit like this:

- Famous footballer or ex-footballer posts something vaguely controversial, perhaps about rival fans

- Fans of famous footballer or ex-footballer RT or say “+1″ or “well said”

- Neutrals might respond to ask a question or engage in conversation

- Rivals fans will bite back, either through infettered invective, personal abuse, or defend themselves by pointing out the perceived hypocrisies of someone criticising them for something when, in fact, the famous football or ex-footballer’s fans are guilty of crimes FAR worse than that.

Yesterday Alridge was at a Man United v Liverpool youth match. He didn’t like some of the singing and said so. Then the rival fans chimed in and there was back and forth. As you might imagine words like ‘twat’, ‘cunt’ and my personal fave, ‘shithouse’, abounded.

Now, regardless of everything else, asking somebody for their name and address on Twitter so you can initiate libel procedings against them is rather naive, you have to say. “Oh here, John. Please, take me to court”. It’s just not going to happen.
And the unfortunate thing is that Aldridge had a chance to make a good point yet allowed himself to get dragged into a childish slanging match. He was caught up in the rivalry between United and Liverpool, Hillsborough songs v Munich songs, and lost the chance to the make the point which journalist Iain Macintosh did:

Hillsbrough or Munich, if you’re using the death of innocent people to score points then there are no excuses. You’re just a prick.

The same goes for Heysel, Istanbul, Ibrox and anywhere else people have died because they went to a football match. It’s not funny.

He’s absolutely right. And that’s the point Aldridge should have made. He was well within his rights to be offended by songs like that at a youth match but instead of taking the moral high ground he made himself look as big a twat as all those who defend that kind of ‘banter’.

I’m not innocent enough to believe fans will ever rise above and stop singing these songs, each using the other justify their existence, but when high profile guys like Aldridge get involved the way he did it doesn’t help matters at all.

While I don’t really agree with Manchester United going into media lockdown after the Liverpool game, I can understand it. Alex Ferguson is short-tempered at the best of times and the defeat to Liverpool was painful and damaging. Coming just a few days after defeat to Chelsea and the Rooney elbow incident it’s the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The camel, let’s face it, wasn’t the strongest camel either. Its back was riddled with spina bifida and bone-rot. Still, I think United have done themselves, and the game, a bit of a disservice.

The more I see Jamie Carragher’s tackle the worse it gets. Nani is lucky in that he lifted his leg off the ground just before contact was made. Had he not, then I suspect the injury would have been far, far worse. The nasty gash on his leg might keep him out for a few weeks but he could easily have been out for months.

The ridiculousness of the system means that Carragher can’t be punished any further but United should have come out and condemned the tackle and how dangerous it was. Sure, Rafael made a bad tackle as well but there’s nothing to say they couldn’t have admitted that. It doesn’t take away from the fact that Carragher’s challenge is exactly the kind that the game should be ridding itself of.

That no retrospective punishment can be made is ludicrous in this era and regardless of what you might think of the United manager his words hold much weight. When we see incidents like Carragher’s challenge it’s important that they get the focus they deserve. Too often football and the media focus on the trivialities, like Nani crying, instead of the real issue.

There should be real debate on how to properly punish those kinds of dangerous tackles and on why FIFA can find the time to ban snoods while continuing to ignore video technology. By failing to publicly address those issues and going into lockdown, I think United are doing the wrong thing.

Ferguson should have immediately condemned the Carragher challenge and swallowed any criticism of the Rafael one. Then, perhaps, we’d be talking about important things, like how to prevent serious injury, instead of what appears to be another strop from the United manager.

In his Five Things We Learned From Liverpool vs Manchester United article, The Guardian’s Daniel Taylor came down harder than Jamie Carragher on Nani, who was tearfully substituted after feeling the effects of a horrific lunge from the Liverpool defender.  Taylor insists:

“Bryan Robson never cried. Roy Keane never cried. Heck, we never even saw tears from Cristiano Ronaldo, the man who wrote the book on football prima donnas.”

It makes me sick, these foreigners coming over hear with their overactive tear glands.

Oh, wait.

I like Daniel Taylor’s work, but it does seem a little perverse to me that a journalist is quicker to criticise the reaction of a badly injured player than the perpetrator of a quite horrific tackle.  It’s symptomatic of the prevailing attitudes in English football that create an environment in which challenges like this take place.

Man United’s loss to Chelsea last night was telling. Not just in terms of how it opens up the title race but it gave us another fabulous insight into the world of Alex Ferguson.

Barely hours after Wayne Rooney had gotten away with his elbow, United found themselves on the wrong end of a couple of decisions. Firstly, I thought the penalty was extremely generous. Zhirkov ran into Smalling who made no Denilsonesque wave of his leg. He just stood there and the Russian tumbled.

Then, having already been booked, the exciting David Luiz very obviously and very deliberately fouled Wayne Rooney. It was a second yellow offence, no doubt about it. Especially when you consider what Vidic got his second yellow for. But perhaps Martin Atkinson chose to overlook the foul because it was on Wayne Rooney. Perhaps it was some payback for Rooney’s first half dive.

Whatever the reason for it, it was a poor decision. Luiz should have gone. And the United manager’s ire was understandable. Yet surely after getting away with one over the Rooney incident he’d keep quiet? Nope. That’s forgotten, water under the bridge already, and he directed the invective towards Atkinson.

I must say that, when I saw who was refereeing it, I feared the worst. You want a fair referee, you know … You want a strong referee, anyway, and we didn’t get that.

It will be interesting to see how the FA react to this. Having been accused, wrongly in my opinion, of being in United’s pocket because of Clattengate, they know face a situation where a top level manager has called into question the integrity of a match official.

Like I say, I can understand the ire, but casting those kinds of aspersions on a referee is not something that goes down well at Soho Square. I suspect an FA charge and this time not even Mark Clattenburg can save him.

Maybe it’s because I’m a soft Southerner, but I honestly can’t see what’s wrong with wearing a snood. When Samir Nasri & Co donned the tubular neck scarf for the first time, they can’t have imaged the reaction they’d provoke – partly because on the continent some footballers, like Gigi Buffon, have been wearing them for years.

Despite the insistence of certain managers, including Arsene Wenger, that the scarves actually provide a safeguard against injury, the old school of the British game have come out in force against them, with Alex Ferguson reportedly banning them from Old Trafford and claiming that “real men don’t wear snoods”.

That’s right, Fergie.  Real men, like Wayne Rooney, elbow people in the neck when they’re not looking and then run away.

Notts County manager, Ferguson acolyte, and self-proclaimed ‘Guvnor’ Paul Ince is the latest to speak out about snood-gate:

“Back in my time, and I sound old now, it was black and white boots and that was it.

Now you’ve got snoods, people wearing headphones when they are doing interviews, which I find disrespectful, pink boots, green boots, you name it they’ve got it, tights – they’ll be wearing skirts next.”

Terrible, isn’t it. The youth of today and their superfluous fashion accessories.

What Ince doesn’t say is that in his day, he himself was guilty of carrying about a superfluous accessory that was otherwise thought to be a brand new addition to the footballer’s kitbag: the air rifle.

Perhaps Ashley Cole should consider offering his snoodlessness at defence.  And hope against hope that Paul Ince is on the jury.