Three and in – not just another football blog

After Stoke’s game with Fulham, Tony Pulis refused to shake Mark Hughes’ hand.  After the game, Pulis confirmed it was a retaliatory gesture after Hughes refused his hand back in September.:

“He has done it when we played in the League Cup and now I have done it back,” Pulis said. “It’s two Welshmen with a bit of competition. I certainly won’t lose any sleep over it and I’m sure he won’t.”

The childish tit for tat tactics of Pulis are surprising enough, but even more so when you put them in the context of his comments almost exactly a year ago:

“Arsene Wenger has made a decision not to shake Mark Hughes’ hand, whether that is right or wrong you’d have to ask him.

But personally, whether I like or dislike someone, you have a responsibility to show the right spirit of the game.

And whether you disagreed with Mark being outside of his technical area at one stage, in the spirit of the game you should still shake hands.

That’s not only for people in the Premier League or Championship, it is also for young teams and young managers to see.

You should shake hands, you don’t have to go for a drink afterwards with them for a tittle-tattle.”

It seems this mans ethics are a good deal more flexible than his tactics.

Thanks to Zonal Marking for the heads up.

Fulham fans are a tame bunch.  Their reputation for middle-class niceness precedes them.  One half expects them to turn up at games with a picnic hamper under one arm, and an order form for a Wills & Kate Commemorative Plate under the other.  It’s rare to see them embroiled in any sort of nastiness or controversy.  Which is why their actions at the Emirates Stadium on Saturday were so surprising.

Instead of their usual polite clapping and twirling of rattles you thought had vanished from football grounds in the 1950s, every time Andrey Arshavin got on the ball they would join as an unruly chorus to boo him.

Why, you wonder? What had he done to so upset the Fulham fans.

Well, this:

And no, I don’t mean that he composed the electro horror that accompanies the start of the video.  What offended them so much was Arshavin’s speech in the second half of that film, and its assumed impact on Russia’s victory in the 2018 World Cup bid – and England’s subsequent defeat.

It’s just a collection of honest, humble words from a guy who simply wants the best for his country.  It’s not as if he’ll get to play in the World Cup on his home turf.  When asked if he expected to make the squad for 2018, aged 37, Arshavin quipped:

“I have no chance.  Plus, if I can play then it means Russia will have a bad team, so I hope not.”

He’s right.  At times, Arshavin looks as if he won’t last eighty minutes, so another eight years would be a bit ambitious.

Booing Arshavin for England’s failures is a symptom of the same conceit and sense of entitlement that sees English squads perform so badly in tournaments, wherever they’re staged.

What’s more, the Fulham fans are directing their ire at the wrong man.  Arshavin didn’t make the decision himself, and it’s probably fair to say his speech had little impact on the voting.  Those decisions were made long ago, and were probably more influenced by Roubles than Rhetoric.

Today Tony Pulis entered his press conference, unfurled a prepared statement in Benitez-esque fashion, and responded to Danny Murphy’s recent comments about his side’s overt physicality.

Pulis has a history of releasing statements when his club come under fire.  His club are remarkably touchy about criticism.  It’s almost as if the comments are all too often, like the impact of some of Stoke’s tackling, unnervingly close to the bone.

Pulis began his statement by accusing Murphy of discriminating against smaller clubs:

“One challenge on Newcastle’s Hatem Ben Arfa by Nigel de Jong of Manchester City recently led to a broken bone.

Another by Joe Cole, one of our most technically gifted players, resulted in a sending off for one of our most celebrated clubs in the country, Liverpool, who are currently managed by Roy Hodgson, someone I have great respect for.

How ironic it is that Danny Murphy chose not to discuss either challenge or manager in respect of those tackles. How selective can someone be?”

Leaving aside Pulis’ understanding (or lack thereof) of irony, he’s plain wrong on this count.  Like the victim of a Ryan Shawcross tackle, he’s barely got a leg to stand on.  Whilst Cole and De Jong have both made awful challenges, Murphy’s point was that some sides are repeatedly and systematically violent.  Neither Liverpool nor City fall in to that bracket.

Pulis moved on to question Murphy’s motives:

“Maybe Murphy’s pursuit of a new career in the media does not allow him to criticise, or fall out with the Premier League big boys. Instead, in my opinion, he has selected easy targets that are based on his own perception and not facts.”

Ah, perception.  The enemy of football.

The hilarity of accusing Murphy of seeking media-attention, whilst at the same time protecting a kabal of managers led by Sam “I could manage Real Madrid” Allardyce, needs little comment.  You could even call it ‘ironic’.  But that would only confuse Pulis.

First Bert Van Marwijk, now Danny Murphy. Men who’ve been prepared to speak about against a growing trend for aggressive, mindless tackling. The difference is that Marwijk makes his comments from the safety of the sidelines. Murphy is very much still in the firing line for the teams he has criticised.

He hasn’t pulled any punches, however:

“The thing I think people miss, is that it’s the managers who dictate what the players do and how they behave.

Look at Stoke, Blackburn and Wolves. You can look at the players and blame them. You can say they’re doing what they can to win the game but the fact is that the managers are sending the players out so pumped up that inevitably there are going to be problems. But every team has a captain and a manager who is in charge.”

The implication is clear. The finger of blame is pointed squarely at messrs Allardyce, Pulis, and McCarthy.  And Murphy, as a Fulham player, can talk about this from a position of authority: under Roy Hodgson, that team regularly topped the Fair Play League.  They’ve had big, physical players – Brede Hangeland, Dickson Etuhu, Bobby Zamora – but never felt the need to turn that to their advantage by breaking either the rules of the legs of opponents.  Having watched team-mate Zamora have his leg twisted under the challenge of Karl Henry, Murphy’s patience has reached the end of its tether.

The key thing here is that this isn’t Johnny Foreigner moaning about a good old-fashioned English challenge.  When Arsene Wenger says there is an issue with physicality in the game, his claims are dismissed as an attempt to protect his diminutive team.  This, however, is an elder statesman of the Premier League, a native no less, who has plied his trade at this level for more than a decade.  He’s seen the game develop from the heat of the battle, in the heart of midfield, and now he feels it’s time to act.  He’s not a recent import, shocked by the pace of the game.  He’s a weathered veteran, who played against the likes of David Batty and Roy Keane.  And yet it is now he feels tackling has got out of hand, and everyone within the game has a responsibility to do something about it.

Every time a manager defends a player who has committed a bad challenge, they exacerbate this problem.  Now that they’ve been essentially ‘outed’ by  Murphy, hopefully the media will pressure the implicated bosses to condemn their players when their tackling becomes dangerous.  If not, then Murphy might find himself a target for their ‘tackles’.

Didier Drogba celebrated his backheeled goal against Arsenal by crossing himself and thanking a higher power.  For Drogba, it was unusually and unnecessarily modest.  Whilst he could never have predicted the ball would cannon in off the post in that fashion, his unconventional flick was the mark of a player instinctive, alert, and opportunistic – all signs of a striker at the very top of his game.

-

Already this season, Wolves have picked up 21 cautions and two red cards.  Unsurprisingly, they’re now starting to worry that they might acquire something of a ‘reputation’.  Kevin Doyle has insisted that any notoriety is misplaced:

“If you were to look at it on paper you’d think we were a dirty team, but if you look back to last year we were one of the fairest sides in the league.”

Which as defences go is pretty weak.  The evidence of Wolves’ physicality is clear.  What did or didn’t happen last year is irrelevant.  If Wolves are, God willing, relegated this season, then they won’t be able to appeal to the Premier League on the grounds that they played much better the year before.  In football, the present is all that really matters.

-

The chief perpetrator of Wolves’ overly-physical approach has been Karl Henry.  Perhaps he’ll be forced to reconsider the manner of his ‘tackling’ having been dismissed so early in their game against Wigan for his latest lunge.  With any luck, a referee will finally step up and apply the same disciplinary sanction to Nigel De Jong, who this weekend did what he had been threatening to do for some time and snapped the leg of Hatem Ben Arfa in two places.  The warning signs were there during the World Cup – De Jong serves little purpose other than to clatter his opponents.  His style of play shows a basic lack of respect for the safety of his fellow professionals, and it’s essential that referees respond accordingly.  If they continue to allow such challenges to go unpunished, then the FA or Premier League will be forced to introduce retrospective action.

-

Mark Hughes looks healthier, happier, and settled in to his new job at Fulham.  He says it’s because he’s put on weight.  Maybe it’s actually because he’s finally found a club whose ambitions are compatible with his love of a level scoreline.  It was a run of seven successive draws that essentially ended his spell at Manchester City.  Six ties from his opening seven games as Fulham manager, however, have seen him heralded as captain of an unbeaten ship.  As a player, Hughes was something of a sharpshooter.  As a manager, it seems he’s still quick on the draw.

-

So Liverpool have slumped to a new nadir.  One question: would a foreign manager be under more pressure from the media than struggling Woy?

—

As ever, your thoughts, observations, and ramblings are welcome.

Arsene Wenger is an intelligent, eloquent man who speaks a lot of sense on many of football’s important issues.  Occasionally, however, his views baffle.  In the build-up to last night’s game with Spurs, he said:

“I am personally convinced he is a world-class goalkeeper, potentially, and of course when you have that potential you want to transfer that into competitive games.

I have massive faith in him and I think I have shown this historically. I am convinced he will become a great goalkeeper.”

Surely this is Wenger in spin-doctor mode, attempting to cajole a performance from a player whose confidence has dropped with every mishandled cross.  Whatever it is, it’s a bewildering statement: if genuine, he’s wrong; if attempted man-management, it failed.

Fabianski was his usual nervy self at White Hart Lane, and conspired to let a tame Robbie Keane effort past him.  Despite getting both gloves to the ball, the molecular structure of his hands seemed to dissolve, and they parted for the ball to squeak embarrassingly by.  Arsenal blog Goodplaya makes the point that poor goalkeepers are often defended as being ‘good shot-stoppers’.  You can’t even say that for Fabianski now.

There is, Wenger has suggested, a limit to his patience:

“We live in a world where if you have an opportunity you have to take it. You will get a second one, but you will not get 10 – and that is part of our job.”

If we decide to be facetious and take the manager at his word, then Fabianski can’t be far away from last chance saloon.  This campaign alone, we’ve already witnessed a disastrous display in a pre-season friendly in Warsaw, as well as last night’s blunder.  Last season, there were memorable outings against Blackburn, Wigan, Stoke and Porto.  Wenger continues to insist Fabianski must take his chances, and then persists with him when he fails to do so.  It’s all carrot and no stick.

Supposedly, Wenger’s faith in Fabianski is what prevented him meeting Fulham’s demands over Mark Schwarzer.  He may have dodged a bullet there: the Australian has been in flappy form himself since returning to the Cottagers’ XI.  Perhaps his head’s not right, and his heart no longer in it.  Either way, Arsenal should be grateful for the relatively solid form of Manuel Almunia, who seems to be bringing some stability to the position.

Whilst Almunia is settled as number one, Arsenal should take the opportunity to dispense with Fabianski.  He’s had enough chances.  He’s become a target and a joke.  Perhaps even more crucially, if Arsenal continue to persist with a player so clearly unsuited to elite football, they may lose one of far greater potential. Wojciech Szczęsny, whose form on loan at Brentford last season suggested he has a far better chance of being an Arsenal #1 than Fabianski will ever have, is disgruntled about a lack of first-team opportunities.

The prospect of losing Szczęsny, as well as the errors Fabianski is almost guaranteed to make, make the gamble of playing him simply too costly.  Fabianski has had enough chances.  It’s time for him to go.

… but not really a surprise.

There’s no denying Stoke are a big, physical side and they use that to their advantage. When that physicality is used correctly I don’t think anyone can have any complaints.

Andy Wilkinson’s foul was not physicality used correctly though. It was late, dangerous and deserved a red card. He wasn’t even booked. Mark Hughes complained about how he expected better from a professional at that stage of game – there were just seconds left to play and Stoke had the game won.

I realise the Fulham manager was trying to highlight just how unnecessary the challenge was but we should expect better from a professional at any stage of the game. Whether it’s the first minute or the last that kind of tackle is not acceptable.

What makes it worse is the fact that Stoke’s assistant manager, Dave Kemp, admitted the tackle was unnecessary but then said:

There is no malice in his challenge – it is just over-enthusiasm.

However, a Stoke City fan speaking on a forum after the game, said:

I called this tackle 5 mins before it happened! Dembele made the mistake of squaring up to Wilko while getting up of the floor. I said to my mate, watch them pair, Wilko will have him.

And he did. So no malice then? Or is it just Stoke trying to make excuses for a player who goes out and does what he’s told. The culture of physicality at Stoke is fine, once it’s kept within the rules, but more than once we’ve seen them go over the line and the outcome is serious injury to their opponents.

I’m sure if Dembele is seriously injured – (update: turns out it’s two weeks, good news) – we’ll be treated to the most patronising, poisonous six words in English football as Stoke defend Wilkinson: He’s not that kind of player.

Blackburn’s goal against Fulham should not have been allowed yesterday.

As the ball came in Mark Schwarzer, eyes only on the ball, went to try and get it. El Hadj Diouf ran in, eyes only on the keeper, and barged into him so the Australian was in no-man’s land when it hit Samba’s head. It was as clear and deliberate a foul as you will ever see, and the second time in the game Diouf had done it.

It’s hard to imagine that the referee didn’t see either incident. He looked well placed to do so, especially for the goal. It was poor refereeing by any standards. And before I’m accused of anything untoward he made another serious error when Schwarzer handled the ball outside his area.

That doesn’t alter the fact that Blackburn constantly, deliberately and tactically foul goalkeepers all the time. Arsene Wenger compared Stoke’s treatment of Gomes to rugby, well Diouf’s blocking off of Schwarzer belongs in American Football, not real football.

The incident was highlighted on Match of the Day and they were critical of the ref, rightly enough, but why not also be critical of a team who plays like that? Why not be critical of a manager who sends his team out with those kind of instructions? The same manager who reckons he’s good enough to take charge of teams like Real Madrid or Man United, by the way. Let’s face it, even if by some miracle that happened, the fans wouldn’t take kindly to his industrial, clogging football.

It’s been a poor start to the season for referees, there have been too many bad decisions and too many teams have gotten away with things that have no place on a football pitch, from bad fouls to the kind of thing Diouf was doing yesterday against Fulham.

You can only hope that lessons will be learned. From now on if there’s a challenge on an opposition keeper in a Blackburn game they need to give the benefit of the doubt to the man with the gloves – and Allardyce’s men will only have themselves to blame.

With just 24 hours left in the transfer window, Manchester City may have dealt rivals Arsenal a major blow.

All summer long, Arsenal have chased Fulham’s Aussie shot-stopper Mark Schwarzer.  The bid has been delayed by many factors: a disagreement over the fee, Fulham’s change of manager, and an injury to Schwarzer.  With his impressive deputy David Stockdale also now sidelined, any potential move was dependent on Fulham securing a replacement.  The number one target was City’s Shay Given – disillusioned after being replaced by Joe Hart, Given was seeking first-team football.  A reunion with Hughes made perfect sense.  It seemed inevitable.

According to The Guardian, however, City have now convinced Given to stay and fight for his place.  It’s a double-victory for Roberto Mancini: not only does it give him significant squad depth between the sticks, but they also may have prevented a competitor from strengthening.

It was perhaps naive to expect anything else to happen.  City would never have loaned Given to Arsenal, and allowing him to go to Fulham could have jeopardised their title challenges by strengthening Arsenal indirectly.

It’s bad news for Arsenal, who seem to have put all their eggs in that Aussie basket.  They’ve been stung this way before, pursuing Xabi Alonso, strung along by Liverpool, only for the Anfield club to pull the plug on deadline day.

At least on this occasion Arsenal still have 24 hours to try and find an alternative solution.  I wonder how drunk you’d have to get Mark Hughes to persuade him to agree to a Schwarzer/Fabianski swap…?

In his time at Manchester City, Mark Hughes didn’t exactly earn himself a reputation as a wheeler-dealer extraordinaire.  This is the man who paid £24m for Joleon Lescott, and £17.5m for Roque Santa Cruz.  Since joining Fulham, however, circumstances have changed.  His spending power has been significantly reduced, and he now has to lower his sights to the discount bin.  From Christie’s to Bargain Hunt, in a matter of months.

However, it seems Hughes has adapted remarkably quickly to the tighter purse-strings at Craven Cottage..  Having already nabbed highly-rated Belgian forward Moussa Dembele, he could be about to upgrade his options at full-back.  Roy Hodgson, Hughes’ predecessor and the current Liverpool boss, is pursuing left-back Paul Konchesky – he obviously signed no Benitez-style agreement with his former club.  Unperturbed, Hughes has moved for PSV’s Mexican defender Carlos Salcido.

Konchesky is a solid Premier League full-back.  Salcido, however, is one of the stars of the Mexican national team.  His performances in the World Cup cemented his reputation as a quick, intelligent, versatile defender, who also offers an attacking threat.  Hughes looks set to secure a superior player to Konchesky, and probably turn a profit too.

If I were in Hodgson’s shoes, this is the point where I’d go: “Oh, Salcido is available? You can keep Konchesky in that case, we’ll have the Mexican lad instead”.  But after missing out on Luke Young, Hodgson seems determined to get his quota of average English full-backs in place.

Hughes might not stop there.  With Arsenal still interested in Mark Schwarzer, there are some suggestions that Hughes will be able to persuade City to lend him Shay Given as a possible replacement.  Given represents a younger, more celebrated, more agile alternative to the Aussie, but Arsenal know their Northern rivals wouldn’t contemplate selling them a potential key player.  Fulham, however, are just about distant enough to permit such a deal.

Konchesky and Schwarzer out, Salcido and Given in would represent some extraordinary business, and a more significant upgrade than when I swapped my ancient Nokia for an iPhone.  If only Hughes had spent his money as carefully at City, he might still be in the job.  Perhaps he’s learnt his lesson.