Three and in – not just another football blog

It would be wrong to say that Arsenal’s defeat to Newcastle was the entirely fault of Lukasz Fabianski. As a team they were poor, they lacked creativity and any kind of attacking spark and never looked like scoring one, let alone matching the four they put past a weaker Newcastle team in the Carling Cup.

However, you can’t ignore the fact that Fabianski came for Barton’s free kick and didn’t get there. Maybe Arsenal could have marked Carroll better, but the bottom line is that if a keeper comes that far he has to get the ball. He was neither positive enough nor strong enough and the goal was his fault. As Newcastle hardly threatened beyond that at the very least he cost Arsenal a point.

It’s his second blunder of the season. The first, in the Carling Cup game against Spurs, was more or less forgotten as Arsenal put four past their local rivals. To his credit he’s put in some decent performances since, the game against Man City stands out, but there’s no escaping the fact he’s error prone. Newcastle knew it and Joey Barton said afterwards:

The plan before the game was to suck the keeper out at free-kicks. It didn’t work the first few times but we knew if we got it right, we would get a goal – and that’s exactly what happened

Or, to put it another way:

The plan before the game was to suck the keeper out at free-kicks. It didn’t work the first few times but we knew if Fabianski got it wrong, we would get a goal – and that’s exactly what happened

We know all keepers make mistakes, to expect flawless performances all the time is just wrong, but between Fabianski and Almunia – who hasn’t been seen since his disastrous day against West Brom – Arsenal’s keepers make more errors than most. Especially those at clubs who have ambitions of winning the league and Champions League.

Wenger persists though, his defence of Fabianski may have been a case of protecting his player publicly, yet it will have done little for the blood pressure of Arsenal fans whose tolerance for such mistakes is low. The only consistency with both Fabianski and Almunia is their inconsistency.

Arsenal have a young goalkeeper of huge potential, Wojciech Szczesny, who is out of contract next summer. Arsene Wenger has spoken about him being a future number 1 at the club but unless he plays regularly he’s not going to sign a new deal.

Perhaps, in the light of another costly Fabianski error and the realisation that Almunia is not going to get any better, the future is now. Is it any more of a gamble than continuing to play goalkeepers who you know are going to mistakes?

As Stewart Regan squirmed his way through a press conference where he was explained the decision the SFA had reached over Tannadicegate (when Celtic were awarded a penalty then referee Dougie McDonald changed his mind) he must have known that he was becoming the Chemical Ali of the Scottish game.

How he could read a statement that said “the post match administration process had not been completed to the required standard” without mentioning that the post match administration contained a lie that was concocted straight after the game by referee Dougie McDonald and his assistant Steven Craven and expect to get away with it is beyond me.

How he could sit there and not lambast the parties involved in the initial lie – a lie that saw the referee supervisor and Neil Lennon lied to plus a match report completed that was false – and the subsequent cover up means that he is already a dead man walking only months into the job.

The match report states and Lennon was told that the penalty was over-turned due to Dougie McDonald being called over by linesman, Steven Craven, who was meant to have shouted: “Dougie, Dougie” to attract the referees attention.

This was the work of fiction. Craven recalls the incident as:

He then ran towards me and said ‘I think I’ve fucked up. Did the keeper get a hand on the ball? I told him I believed the goalie played the ball and that it wasn’t a penalty so he decided it should be a drop ball. To make it clear Dougie approached me, I did not call for him to come over.

Dougie McDonald admits this was the correct version of events.

It’s when the pair return to the referee dressing room things get really dangerous and makes you question how many times things like this have happened. Craven continued:

Dougie said that we should tell the referee supervisor (Jim McBurnie) that I called him over to question the penalty award. He claimed it would give the decision to overturn the spot-kick more credibility. I went along with it because I wanted to be supportive of Dougie and back him up.

McDonald has a slightly different version of events. In numerous interviews after Cravens revelations, in a Sunday newspaper – which claims not to have paid him for the story – he pleaded:

After the match we were in our dressing-room and Stevie pulled out the wire on his communication device before removing my earpiece. Then he asked ‘what are we going to say to the supervisor?’ I just said ‘I don’t fucking care what we say to him. Just say that you called out Dougie! Dougie! and that I came over to you. The supervisor (Jim McBurnie) came in, sat on the edge of the bath and asked what had happened .We told him and later when Neil Lennon came in we told him the same thing.

McDonald claims that because he didn’t initiate the conversation about the incident the idea to lie about it came from the linesman. There seems to be a detachment from his stated fact that he came up and went along with the lie.

He has arrogantly stated that it was only a ‘white lie’ and like telling children about Santa. This guy really does live in self absorbed bubble. Like most of the press in Scotland he seems to believe that because he didn’t cheat on the field of play then this should be swept under the carpet.

The authorities have already tried to do that with a whitewashed investigation and have only been forced to reveal all after one of their own blew the lid on what had happened and claimed that head of referees, Hugh Dallas, tried to cover up the lie.

Dallas and McDonald claim that they set the record straight the following day and that Hugh Dallas’s integrity should not be questioned. Dallas said of the incident the day after it happened:

Dougie, after having given the decision, then received information from the assistant referee that the goalkeeper had played the ball from the better position that the assistant referee was in.

At this point all parties involved agree that Dallas knew that Lennon and the referee supervisor had been lied to and a falsified report submitted. The above comment puts the full blame on the reversal of the decision on the linesman.

But wasn’t this a perfect time to clear up the whole incident rather than not mention what really had gone on? After Steven Craven resigned the SFA only called an investigation.

Before the investigation was complete the SFA had leaked to the press that Steven Craven had resigned after the incident (see last weeks blog) due to threats to his family and that he had a long standing injury, which meant he was going to resign at Christmas.

Craven states that the reason he resigned was due to him being made the scapegoat for the decision, he does admit that his son got some school ground banter over the incident and that he had suffered bullying and harassment at the hands of Dallas and his cronies.

Dallas denies all allegations and may be seeking legal advice. No word yet if it’s from Tommy Sheridan.

There was some football played……but whos’s interested in that?

—

The Lord of the Wing can be found at the Celtic Blog and not bullying officials children on their way home from school.

There’s no doubt Nani’s goal on Saturday was farcical but as much as Harry Redknapp wants to complain about Mark Clattenburg he really ought to have a stern word with his goalkeeper.

It’s the 84th minute, Spurs are 1-0 down and Gomes has the ball in his hands while Nani is throwing a tantrum on the turf behind him. Why stop? Why delay? Get on with the game as quickly as possible. If he hasn’t heard the whistle for a free kick then chances are the referee hasn’t given a free kick.

Even then he let the ball sit there watching Clattenburg gesture that it was in play. Nani reacted quickest, played to the whistle (or lack of it) and wrapped up the game for United.

Harry Redknapp, in his ever more risible Sun column, claimed:

I don’t care what anybody says, it wasn’t right in the spirit of the law.

He seems to have rather mixed his metaphors there. There might be a spirit of the game, conventions such as giving the ball back when you’ve put it out for an injury break, but the laws of the game are not open to spirit. Clattenburg gave Spurs an advantage, a chance to continue play with one of United’s players out of action having a strop about not getting a penalty.

Gomes is an experienced player who should have made the most of it. Instead he blundered and handed the advantage to Nani instead. I’m no fan of Clatteburg in general but fingers should be pointed at the goalkeeper, not the ref.

Much was made this week about how no British players were nominated for the Ballon d’Or. It was hardly a surprise, in fairness, the only obvious candidate was Wayne Rooney and I suspect it was a combination of his plummeting form and FIFA deciding his off-field antics were too distasteful which saw him miss out.

England’s dismal World Cup didn’t help, the star names like Lampard, Terry, Gerrard and co did nothing much to enhance their reputations, yet you have to wonder if the culture of the English game is still a factor.

This week, Man City manager Roberto Mancini, gave his players a day off after the defeat to Arsenal. The next day pictures and video emerged of Adam Johnson, Shay Given, Gareth Barry and Joe Hart enjoying a late night drinking session with students in Scotland. Roberto Mancini said afterwards:

I don’t understand this. The video was on Monday, and Monday was a day off. Some players can do what they want, but I don’t understand why. I told the players my opinion about getting into these situations 10 days ago.

I think this problem is not only for us, it is for many players. For British players, it is part of the culture.

Leaving aside Given’s Irishness he is a player who has grown up in ‘British’ football, who has been part of it for years. And so we have a situation where despite being expressly told by their manager not to get involved in such things, these players ignored that, ignored good sense, ignored the requirements of top level sportsmen, and went on the piss.

This isn’t a criticism of these Man City players – that’s for Mancini and for City fans to take care of – but merely an illustration of how pervasive the drinking culture still is in the English game. And no matter what anyone might say about players being human and needing to let their hair down, it can only ever negatively affect their performances and abilities as footballers.

These guys retire in their early-mid 30s, made up for life, millions in the bank, and they can drink to their hearts content then. Necking from the bottle while being egged on and filmed by students … it’s pretty shameful really.

To be among the best requires dedication, hard work, commitment to a healthy lifestyle and plain old common sense. The City players this week showed everyone why it should be no surprise the Ballon d’Or was free of British players. When nobody bats at eyelid at Rooney, the best English player of his generation, pissing in the streets after late night smoking and drinking sessions then that tells its own story.

They consider the lifestyle more important than the sport itself and they are indulged because it’s considered part and parcel of the game. And that means the award will always go to someone else.

Still, they can always drown their sorrows with a few pints.

Maybe it’s just me, and most times when I say that it is just me, but don’t footballers celebrate goals rather too much? I don’t mean the extravagant routines some of them foist upon us, nor the ludicrous dancing, but very often they goals they’re celebrating aren’t important or it’s too early in a game to gauge whether they’re important or not.

If you score an absolute beauty then fair enough, I can understand you going a bit mental, but a simple tap-in in the opening stages of a game should not result in the kind of celebration that makes people think you’ve just scored the winner in the World Cup final. There’s still so much time left for the opposition to stick five past you.

I believe a new law should be passed which would require anyone scoring in the first half of a game to simply give a clenched fist of subdued happiness before making his way purposefully back to his own half. He would be allowed to shake hands, firmly but not extravagantly, with his teammates who may, in turn, slap him on the back to express their satisfaction with the situation.

Any kind of jumping, dancing, hugging, kissing, rocking an invisible baby, piling on, shirt lifting (you heard me), whooping, high pitched yelping or gestures such as asking people to ‘shhhh’ or suggesting to people that you can no longer hear them as you cup your hand to your ear would be punishable by a yellow card.

Only when the game has gone past the hour mark should there be any tolerance of the more flamboyant celebrations. At that stage the goals become more important and so the players should be able to do some on-pitch carousing. Last minute winners should grant the player the right to celebrate however they see fit, up to, and including, french kissing the referee with joy.

It’s time football got its house in order and until someone takes a stand against these premature celebrators we’re going nowhere fast.

via @EricisSuperTed

Context … unbelievable, unintentionally hilarious context.

Hysterical media reaction to things is very much the norm nowadays, yet Wayne Rooney saying he doesn’t have an ankle injury has become a big fight with his manager. According to the press he’s on his way to Real Madrid because of such comments.

From the press:

No, I’ve had no ankle problem all season.” Then when asked “Why did Alex Ferguson say you had?”, Rooney laughed and replied: “I don’t know.”

Yet it’s obvious. On October 1st Ferguson said:

He has been playing a few weeks with his niggling ankle injury and he’s kept it to himself, so it comes to a point where it suffers. He thinks he’s fit because he always thinks he’s fit. That’s the problem with the lad.

So, Rooney always thinks he’s fit and tells reporters he’s fit but according to his manager he always thinks he’s fit even when he’s injured.

Rooney saying he’s got no injury will be no surprise to the United manager … so where’s the fight? Where do the stories about Rooney wanting to go to Madrid come from? Then you remember it’s been a slow week with internationals and the real stuff starts again on Saturday. Create a story before the pre-game press conferences – that’s assuming United have one – and off you go.

The bottom line is Rooney either has an injury or he doesn’t but even if he did he wouldn’t know about it. And we know this because Ferguson told us.

A total non-story.

Like many I wasn’t at all surprised that Nigel de Jong caused serious injury to another player. The Dutchman has crossed the line far too often without reprimand. There’s the Stuart Holden tackle, the Xabi Alonso karate kick in the final, Ben Arfa’s broken leg,  it’s been coming.

In the early days of this site I wrote about Holland’s game with Denmark in the World Cup:

I can’t believe referees didn’t see de Jong’s atrocious foul on Denmark’s Martin Jorgensen in the first game and mark his card in subsequent matches.

I’ve tried to find video of it, but I’ve had no joy. If my memory serves me right he jumped in two-footed and a little late.  He was lucky not to be sent off but he wasn’t even booked. The foul on Alonso in the final was the act of a man out of control, who believed he could get away with anything. And he was right. He got away with that. Afterwards Howard Webb said he should have sent him off.

Still, while it’s obvious de Jong is a player whose reputation is tarnished by his actions, it would entirely wrong to focus on him alone. Yes, there’s been some chatter about Karl Henry but I didn’t hear Ian Wright calling for the Wolves man to be given a lengthy ban for his tackle on Jordi Gomez. It was just as dangerous and reckless as de Jong’s but it’s too easy to trot out the tired suggestion that a player should be banned for the length of time the victim of his tackle is injured.

The disciplinary system needs a big change, as discussed in today’s Arseblog, but isn’t the issue that we need to address the act and not just the consequence? A terrible challenge can put a player out of action for months or the player can be lucky enough to walk away with just a few bumps and bruises. That doesn’t mean the challenge was any worse or that the punishment for it should be any less. Of course there’ll be more focus when a player is injured but it doesn’t mean that the challenges from which players walk away are any better.

Roberto Mancini has asked for referees to evaluate de Jong ‘objectively’, which I understand. The unfortunate thing for the Dutchman is that he has now become the face of bad tackling and referees will take that into account when looking at what he does on the pitch. That’s human nature.

Yet there are plenty of players out there who tread on, and often cross, the same line de Jong does. Scapegoating is easy. I’m no fan of the Dutchman but let’s not kid ourselves that dealing with, or focussing on, him comes close to solving the problem.

Maybe it seems trite to call him that, given the fact he’s just a football manager, but the Dutchman has taken a courageous stance and one that is, for most part, unprecedented in modern football.

When Nigel de Jong broke Hatem Ben Arfa’s leg with what was clearly a reckless and dangerous tackle the pundits on ESPN brushed it off as ‘one of those things’. Nicky Butt and Kevin Keegan were the men in question and once again it’s a demonstration of a lack of understanding in the English game when it comes to violent play.

Neither of them could see any reason to condemn de Jong because they simply don’t understand that what he did was dangerous. To them it was just a good old fashioned challenge and Ben Arfa’s injury was just an unfortunate and unavoidable consequence of that. They couldn’t be more wrong. De Jong can’t tackle, he thinks any genuine attempt to get the ball or man is ok, but it’s not. Ask Stuart Holden, the US international whose leg he broke earlier this year. Ask Xabi Alonso who got de Jong’s studs in his chest in the World Cup final.

It was inevitable that he would cause somebody a serious injury in the Premier League and so it was yesterday. And he got away with it. No card, yellow or red, and the so-called ‘experts’ couldn’t see anything wrong with what he did. The rest of us weren’t so easily fooled, nor was the Holland manager who promptly dropped de Jong from his squad, saying:

I’ve seen the pictures back. It was a wild and unnecessary offence. He went in much too hard. It is unfortunate, especially since he does not need to do it. The funny thing is that the referee did not even show a yellow card for it. Apparently, there are other standards. But I have a problem with the way Nigel needlessly looks to push the limit. I am going to speak to him.

Stand up and give that man a round of applause. Managers are far too quick to excuse their own players failings. Even as Mick McCarthy said he had no complaints about Karl Henry’s latest horror tackle he tried to dimiss the reaction of the player who had been poleaxed as theatrical. And how vomit-inducing was it to hear the pundits on Match of the Day tut-tut at his sending off against Wigan when just a few weeks ago they were chuckling to themselves at his treatment of Joey Barton. They were complicit in his latest assault.

Perhaps Van Marwijk’s decision is the start of something positive. Perhaps he won’t be ridiculed or accused of trying to ‘do away’ with tackling. Perhaps he’ll be seen as someone who took a stand against the kind of player nobody should condone but which far too many do.

Fingers crossed.