The Beautiful Groan

It has been a telling week in the media. Aaron Ramsey’s dreadful injury, and in particular Shawcross’ tackle, have divided opinions everywhere. More pertinently, the way the story has been presented has differed wildly – while most reasonable writers have noted that it was a terrible and avoidable moment, only some have called for a change of mindset in the English game, while others have shrugged it off as ‘one of those things’.

There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. I maintain that the Shawcross challenge was not in the same league as the Taylor or Smith equivalents from recent seasons. Some disagree with me entirely, and that’s fine. Having the debate in the public domain has kept the issue on the back pages for four days, and that can only be a good thing. It is an issue that requires attention.

But at the same time, the absolute worst type of journalism has reared its ugly head as a result. There are certain parties that, for any major news story, wait to see what the general consensus is, and then go utterly against it to create controversy. It is perfectly deliberate – I don’t think for a second that these writers believe the words they write, as no-one in their right minds could subscribe to such a preposterous view.

That comes with the territory in the blogging world – there are so many that some see controversy as the short cut to being noticed. It matters little that 90% of the comments slate the writer, because all they care about is that there are comments. But you should be able to expect better of columnists paid to write for our national newspapers. Unfortunately, some of the more poisonous of their number would rather write an abysmal piece for attention, than an intelligent one that causes less of a stir.

There was a good piece on Gunnerblog yesterday, exposing a few such examples. The published views included the belief that Wenger should apologise to Shawcross for being angry at the challenge (no mention of Shawcross apologising for the challenge), that he was wrong to condemn the challenge in the first place, and even worse – that Ramsey had somehow ruined Shawcross’ glorious England call-up by having the temerity to have his leg broken on the same day. Classy.

Tim at 7am Kickoff then posted another insightful piece, exposing one of the most poisonous articles I’ve ever read, that of a Stoke columnist claiming that Cesc and Wenger couldn’t care less about Ramsey, they just wanted Shawcross sent off and paid no attention to the stricken Welshman. The entry is so packed full of lies I can’t even begin to go into it here, but it is an embarrassing read for even the most blinkered Potters fan.

The trouble is this – by getting angry with these idiots they get the attention they so desperately crave. They sit on the comments section, shouting back at anyone who criticises them, lapping up the extra hits and their moment of glory. Fifteen minutes of fame and all that.

But as I said, that is understandable in a world stacked with blogs trying to differentiate themselves. But former players who are being paid to spout this offensive nonsense? How do they even get the job? If anything, it shames the editors more than the columnists themselves, that such drivel is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

The easy answer is always to say ‘well, ignore it’. But when you read something that is offensive to that degree, it is almost impossible not to react. The only good news is that one such article destroys the credibility of the author – if Collymore wants to make a point he really believes in next week, is anyone going to take him seriously?

The main problem is that these columns shift the focus away from the rational and constructive talk, giving the authorities an excuse to do nothing. You can already see how this is going to go – the debate will continue for the next few days, only to be replaced by a new argument based on whatever happens this weekend. A few lone voices will continue, trying to force the change, but sooner or later everyone will go back to normal. It has happened before, it will happen again.

The FA certainly won’t make any strong decisions. Instead of making drastic changes or enforcing stiff new penalties, they only ever do one of two things. The first is to change trivial rules, usually a tweak of the offside rule, or a change of procedure when a player is down injured. The second is to announce a strong new rule, but fail hopelessly to enforce it. The recent example of this is their claim that if three or more players hound a referee, they will support multiple sending offs. Seen that happen?

We may, at best, have a couple of weeks grace – if a strong challenge comes in early from a Burnley player this weekend, they might be carded. But it won’t last.

All we can hope is that in a few years, we haven’t gone full circle again to talk about another horrific injury. Because ‘I told you so’ plainly doesn’t work.

Aaron Ramsey’s horrific injury has stirred up emotions everywhere this weekend, and the way it is being reported is dividing the nation. Some are looking into the wider issue of the supposed ‘coincidence’ that the team who opposition are encouraged to ‘get stuck into’ are the ones suffering a series of career-threatening injuries. Then they are those going for publicity with sickeningly controversial stories, defending what is, in my opinion, the indefensible.

I gave my detailed thoughts in the aftermath of the game, and I’m very glad to see that many of the points I was bringing up have been expressed elsewhere. In fact, the driving analogy has cropped up in a number of places. Having read around what everyone has to say, I wanted to bring you my ten recommended reads on the subject – not all share the same opinion, but all are worth your time.

Below that are some bullet points from me – I don’t really have the energy or inclination to write another mammoth post on what is a very draining subject.

Here are the ten. I hope you like them.

1) Martin Samuel – How can so many broken legs be down to chance

It is rare that I link to a Daily Mail article in a positive way, but this piece is one of the best I’ve read from the mainstream media. He makes excellent points on how the media focus on the wrong things, highlighting the day that Chris Morgan punched Van Persie, with all the focus at the end being on the Dutchman’s refusal to shake his hand.

2) Bob Wilson calling on the FA to act

Bob Wilson tends to make a lot of sense when he talks. He makes especially pertinent points about how the FA and Premier League have bowed to public perception that kicking technically superior teams is a valid approach and should not be punished.

3) Arseblog – The media have blood on their hands and He’s not that kind of player

Moving on to blogs, and I can’t really add a lot to what is said in these two pieces. If you want poignant and insightful, read both. They highlight all the crucial issues, including the root of the ‘kick them’ attitude, one Sam Allardyce.

4) Arsenal FC Blog – A wonderful discussion about the Ramsey incident

In here you’ll find a link to an excellent discussion from the Sunday Supplement, particularly Patrick Barclay. Andy’s blog is also worth looking at for another post – highlighting the superb way in which Cesc lived up to the captain’s responsibility in getting his team past the incident.

5) Another Arsenal Blog – Losing a grip on reality?

Presenting a different angle, the view here is that while Shawcross has sinned in the past, this was not near the level of the Martin Taylor/Dan Smith incidents. There are also some insightful notes on the type of injury Ramsey has suffered.

6) 7am Kickoff – Shawcross breaks Ramsey’s leg and Dear English FA

One of the things I really like about Tim’s blog is that he presents things in such an entertaining and light-hearted way that when he gets serious, it really hits home. Read them, you won’t regret it.

7) Who Ate All The Pies – This One’s For Aaron

Interestingly, not all the emotive columns came from Arsenal blogs – Ollie’s piece on the club-neutral Who Ate All The Pies has a couple of pinpoint lines in it, particularly when highlighting the nation’s attitude to Johnny Foreigner.

8) Gunnerblog – It’s easy to see why it happens. It’s not so easy to forgive

Another blog going down the rational route – quite often GS’s articles come out a few hours after others, but carry the mark of reflective thought. Another good piece on the favouring of the tough-tackling Englishman over the ‘too quick’ opponent.

9) East Lower – Arsenal take strength from Ramsey’s agony

Whilst recognising that Shawcross is not the worst offender in a long list, mention is made here of the wider issue, and also of how previous victims have struggled to return to their previous heights.

10) Official Site – Send in your messages for Aaron Ramsey

The reason for pointing you at the final link is simple – Arsenal are going to create a book of the messages Ramsey receives, to help him get through the next few months. You can help.

Much has been written, much has been spoken, but I have a few more points to make, in addition to those I made yesterday:

• It is extremely worrying that Peter Walton was reportedly not going to send Shawcross off before he saw the extent of Ramsey’s injury. That says a lot about how certain tackles are accepted.

• Those coming out to defend Shawcross as ‘not that type of player’ should bear in mind that at the ripe old age of 22, he has broken the legs of two players – Jeffers and Ramsey. He also put Adebayor out of action with a terrible tackle last season.

• Columnists who are using this as another excuse to attack Wenger should show a great deal more class. Example – Steven Howard in the Sun writes, in response to Wenger’s belief that the string of serious injuries is not a coincidence:

“Even when he has the sympathy vote, Arsene Wenger still succeeds in alienating people. This was not the time for cock-eyed conspiracy theories.”

Utter drivel. Frankly, if you think there is no link between the ‘get stuck to them’ approach taken against Arsenal, and the resultant injuries, then you are a fool.

• You cannot go down the road of suspending offenders for as long as the victims are out – that would cause ridiculous imbalance, where worse offences would go relatively unpunished because the injured party gets lucky and makes a swift recovery. It sounds an easy solution, but it wouldn’t work.

• However, there must be a sliding scale. I’ve said it before, but giving three match bans for all acts of violent conduct or dangerous play is too simplistic. And I say that in full acceptance that under the regulations I would propose, Shawcross would still only be banned for three games. Dan Smith, on the other hand, would be taking a long break.

It has been stated for a long time that Sky and the written media have a great deal of power in the game. Recently I wrote on that exact subject. So in employing pundits who revel in Sam Allardyce’s teams elbowing, kicking and bullying their way to victory, they are responsible for changing the mindset of the nation. It has become accepted fact that to beat superior teams, you have to kick them. Not to press hard, and outrun them, but to simply kick them. Players come out prior to matches and state this as their intention, clear as day.

So why, when the match starts, do the referees allow it to happen? It has become so ingrained in our nation’s psyche that the smaller sides need this advantage that it has become accepted. But going around kicking players off the ball or deliberately taking them down late is not acceptable, and never should be.

There are those that promote these tactics as legitimate, when they are not. They now have a responsibility to change their attitude, their thoughts, and most importantly, their words. Until then, the list of horrific injuries will continue to grow.

It can be tough being a young player at Arsenal. Thrust into the limelight at an earlier age than those at rival clubs, they are subject to instantaneous judgement, to an often brutal degree. Some thrive, able to cope with such a high pressure environment at a young age, maturing quickly and gaining experience unavailable elsewhere. Some find it much tougher.

What other top club, in the current environment, would give the captaincy to a 21 year old? Few would give players the opportunity to play a hundred games by that age, let alone give them the armband. But Cesc is a shining example of what can be achieved by bringing the future into the present.

The danger is assuming every player should be like Cesc, and ripping them to shreds when they fail to reach those unfairly high standards. I don’t spend a lot of time reading blogs of other clubs, but I would hazard a guess that no other set of fans tear into their squad as much as we do ours. And it isn’t just the internet writers, it is the paying supporter, and the journalist reporting for the morning papers. All fall into the trap of lambasting a 20 year old regular while giving a 23 year old elsewhere an easy ride because of their ‘inexperience’.

More recently, there has been a trend of criticising a player because of their mental deficiencies. Fabianski is the most recent example – by all accounts he is nothing short of stunning in training, showing all the promise of a man who has the world at his feet. But a few bad matches and all you see is ‘he doesn’t have the bottle, sell him’, or ‘he’ll never been strong enough to play for Arsenal’.

Utter nonsense. There seems to be a notion that a player cannot improve their mental ability as they can their technical, that if they don’t have the requisite mental strength as a 20 year old (or a 24 year old keeper, which is equivalent) then they never will, which is garbage of the highest order.

Put it this way – I am approaching thirty – do I behave in the same way as I did at eighteen? Do I go about my working day with the same approach? Of course not. At eighteen  I lacked focus and drive, and I certainly didn’t have the confidence in my professional abilities that I now possess. I could never have sat in a meeting of high powered executives and told them bluntly what I felt they were doing wrong. That comes with time.

Had I started a blog at 18, you can be sure I wouldn’t have had the commitment to keep it going three years later. I was something who got halfway through everything.

In short, I have grown up, and the process never ends – in ten years time, I’m sure I’ll be looking back on this period of my life and chuckling at how little I knew. It is the same for everyone.

Football is no different – player mature, they gain mental steel, confidence and an assured calmness that comes with age. If you don’t think they can overcome mental barriers, look no further than Diaby and Song, two players who not so long ago were facing heavy criticism for an apparent laziness on the field. Prior to his Charlton loan spell, you could not find a single fan who believed Song would ever possess either the physical or mental attributes required by a top club. Now look at him. The same is true of Diaby, whose renewed purpose has won over doubting fans.

The list is easy to extend – Eboue was the victim of the most extreme kind of fan reaction before turning it around. But as soon as one figure of ridicule wins us over, we move on to another target. For Song and Diaby of 2008, read Denilson and Bendtner of 2010. And Walcott. And Vela. The list goes on.

I struggle to understand why a player who has all the required technical and physical attributes can still find their fledgling career written off by the media and their own fans because of a lack of nous in their brains. Fabianski is the perfect example – completely devoid of confidence, he is a liability at the moment, as Eboue was during his worst moments as an Arsenal player, but does that mean he should pack up his gloves and find another career?

Surely it is in our interest to believe that as our players mature, those mental frailties will fall by the wayside, and their technical proficiency will shine through. We have seen it in Song, Diaby and Eboue – why not Fabianski, Vela, Walcott and Bendtner? We’ve seen the flashes of brilliance from them all, we know they are capable.

The law of averages suggests that they won’t all make it. Phillippe Senderos was unable to overcome his inability to deal with setbacks, and was moved on. He won’t be the last.

But equally, Song will not be the last to prove us wrong. Cesc may only be 22 himself, but he is a truly exceptional case – you cannot realistically expect a player to be the finished article by that age. Don’t let the success of a few taint the abilities of the rest.

Give them a chance, let them prove us wrong. After all, that’s what we want, isn’t it?

Bored at the weekend, I was flicking around the sports channels and came across Sunday Supplement. For those of you who don’t know, the concept of the programme is to take a group of newspaper columnists, and let them debate football issues from the morning papers. What it invariably turns into is a series of increasingly outlandish statements and predictions as they try to outdo each other.

One of the topics they were discussing was whether the title was a two or three horse race, and they came to the conclusion that since United are only two points ahead of us with a tougher run in, then you can’t claim them to be in the hunt while excluding us. On the flip side, they all agreed that were we to pip our two rivals and lift the trophy, we would be the most undeserving Premiership champions in history. Granted, columnists do like their hyperbole, but it got me thinking.

Their entire basis for the claim was our record against the big teams. Five of our six losses have come against the two Manchester clubs and Chelsea, and for that reason they insisted we could only win the league by chance – we aren’t as good as them. But our record against the traditional Big Four is Played 6, Won 2, Lost 4, whereas United’s title charge last season came off the back of the record Played 6, Won 1, Drawn 1, Lost 4.

Yes, that’s right. They had a worse record against the big teams than we do this campaign – it passed unnoticed because their defeats weren’t back to back. How many times did you hear United labelled as undeserving champions?

The reason they lifted the trophy last season was their remarkable ability to destroy the weaker sides in the league. While everyone else dropped points here and there, they relentlessly and routinely took all three. In fact, their record against the bottom half of the league was a frankly astonishing Played 20, Won 19, Drawn 1, the only blip being a draw with Newcastle on the opening day.

It didn’t matter that they couldn’t beat the elite, because they were more consistent than them. So it is strange to hear criticisms of our team going the same way – by playing so expansively we have found the knack of winning the so-called ’smaller’ games, and a lot more efficiently than our supposed superiors.

To put it in perspective, here are everyone’s records against teams from outside the current top five:

Arsenal: Played 21, Won 16, Drawn 4, Lost 1, Points 52

Chelsea: Played 22, Won 15, Drawn 4, Lost 3, Points 49

United: Played 22, Won 14, Drawn 3, Lost 5, Points 45

Against those fifteen opponents, we have played a game less than both our rivals, yet have a far superior record. Given that our remaining matches are more of this type of fixture, and not the sort we have been losing, we can realistically expect to stay in contention.

This easily unnoticed record is the reason we have a genuine chance this season – the mark of champions has long been the ability to be consistent, and we are precisely that, more so than our rivals. It matters little that we lost to United and Chelsea when both were beaten at Goodison Park, a fixture we scored six in.

We have failed in matches against the top two, but United did the same last year, lifting the trophy anyway. There is no reason why we cannot do the same, and if they deserved it, so will we.

Two years ago, the Premier League proposed one of the most ludicrous ideas I’ve ever heard – the expansion of the Premiership to thirty nine games, with the extra game being played at random locations around the world. The aim was to promote the Premiership brand far and wide, woefully ignoring the harm it would do the league.

For starters, we already play plenty of league games – more than many European nations – and given that the extra game would be the third time certain teams meet, there would always be an element of unfairness, which would soon lead to controversy as the season ended. Imagine if a team were relegated by a point after losing to Chelsea three times, while their surviving rival picked up easy points in their extra game. The whole point of a round robin league is that everyone plays each other an equal number of times.

So, the powers that be have moved on. Aware that fourth spot is one of the league’s prize positions  (and in fact, the main target for those outside the Big Four), they are putting together a proposal to end the season with a playoff competition which would determine who takes the fourth and final Champions League spot.

The format is yet to be decided, but the likely approach would be similar to the promotion playoffs in the lower leagues – 4th v 7th and 5th v 6th over two legs, for a place in the playoff final.

Arsenal are refusing to back the deal, as are Chelsea, United and Liverpool. No surprise there, you might say, but you will also be less than shocked to hear that Martin O’Neill is all for the idea, and David Moyes considers it worth investigating.

Here is my problem with it – leagues are not cups, and in my opinion, should not ‘jazz themselves up’ by incorporating elements of cup competitions. Some sports decide title winners by means of a playoff – I hate that, as it can eradicate the achievement of going the entire season unbeaten. The best teams rise to the top of the league, but the best do not win cups.

That is why we have the Carling Cup and the FA Cup. The league is the league.

You might argue that the lower league promotion playoff system works, and I would agree with you. But it is different there – they are 24 team leagues with 2-3 automatic promotion spots and 3-4 relegation spots. So that means 16-18 clubs in the middle could have little to play for come the end of the season, were such a system not in place.

That is plainly not the case in the Premiership. In the final games, typically only those sitting 10th-13th have nothing to play for. The smaller league ensures that mid table is only safe when there are a couple of games to go, while the two tier European system means that there are Europa League spots available for those slightly higher up.

The second major flaw in the plan is that of logistics. The league season ends on May 9, with the FA Cup final the following weekend. The Champions League final occurs on the 22nd May. Where do you put the three extra matches? Teams near the top of the league are the likeliest to be featuring in the FA Cup final, and it is in no-one’s interest to force clubs to prioritise a Champions League playoff over that showpiece event. That is precisely why there are gaps in May – teams should be rested.

So do you cram the season even tighter, finishing the campaign in April? Or do you push the playoff end date back into June, where the World Cup belongs? Both options contradict the FA’s position of giving England the best chance in international tournaments – I doubt the media would deem the playoffs such a brilliant idea if a key player got injured.

The Premier League’s responsibility is not to attempt to determine who finishes where, and who gets what prizes. But that is precisely what they are trying to do – unhappy with the same four clubs repeatedly claiming the Champions League positions, they are trying to arbitrarily shake things up. But it is a false economy – would they be happy if Liverpool came sixth in the first season the plan came in, but then won the playoffs? I doubt it.

Football is a cyclical beast. In the early days of the Premier League, the likes of Leeds, Newcastle and Blackburn were finishing in the top four. Even Norwich and Crystal Palace had their moments. Chelsea were nowhere to be seen, and Arsenal also had seasons in mid table obscurity.

Given time, the same will happen again. A lot comes down to money, but Man City are surely going to break through at some point, while the more debt-ridden Liverpool are among the vulnerable. If the Premier League is patient, their vision will be realised by natural means, without having to resort to methods aimed at moving clubs around artificially.

The other reason why the Big Four are seen as such an issue is that the disparity of prizes on offer for fourth and fifth is huge. The Champions League is the top table, but the Europa League is almost embarrassingly brushed aside – witness Everton’s early evening kick off tonight, placed there to ensure it is ‘out of the way’ before the big boys get to play.

UEFA have created a ridiculous situation by having such a stark contrast in the value of their two competitions. By attempting to bloat the Champions League year on year, they have destroyed their secondary tournament.

If they really want to rescue it, they could halve the number of teams in the Champions League, resulting in the Europa League growing in size but becoming purely a knockout competition. And do away with teams dropping down from one competition to the other after the group stage – nothing devalues the Europa League more than featuring sides that have already played and lost six games in the Champions League (dropping down after the qualifying round makes sense though).

That way, both competitions would feature high profile teams, and qualification for either becomes a genuine reward. Teams finishing seventh in the Premiership might still play Milan or Bayern, and when the big boys fail to make the Champions League, it is not a foregone conclusion that they will wipe the floor with the Europa League.

It would create a fascinating mix of matches not seen for a very long time. It would give smaller teams the chance of a glorious day. And it would mean the Premiership could be left as a league.

In short, it sounds like a good plan. Which means it won’t happen.