A clash between Spain and Holland was a mouth watering prospect – not only are they usually two of the most aesthetically pleasing teams (along with the current crop of Germans), but there was an added mystique lent by the extraordinary statistic that they had never met in the World Cup or European Championships before. But the Dutch decided to ruin the game by employing strongarm Stoke-esque tactics, and were lucky not to be men down much earlier than extra time – Van Bommel and de Jong getting away with two of the worst challenges of the tournament.

At half time, Alan Hansen laid into the Dutch tactics, calling them ‘a step too far’, eerily reminiscent of the same words used by both Cesc and Wenger after Ryan Shawcross had destroyed Aaron Ramsey’s leg. But on that day, Hansen lambasted Wenger, essentially telling Arsenal to grow up and legitimising the tactic due to it being the ‘only way to cope with Arsenal’s superior technique’.

Well, if that statement doesn’t sum up everything that is wrong the British attitude to football, I don’t know what does. Last night was no different to what we’ve seen for years – teams that know they cannot outpass their opposition so resort to thuggery. It is not a valid tactic in any way, it should not be praised and lauded as such, yet Hansen, Lawrenson and co do exactly that week in, week out. To then do a complete 180 and lay into the Dutch was hypocrisy at its rawest. Those following me on Twitter will have seen me spitting fire on the subject at the time.

Don’t get me wrong – the criticism Holland received was entirely justified. Sure, Spain were no angels, but they were the victims of some frankly shocking challenges, the type of which should grace no game. That Van Bommel was guilty of one came as a surprise to no-one.

But once the first day of the Premiership arrives, the viewpoint will revert. As soon as a Wigan, Stoke, Bolton or Blackburn player scythes into a technically superior opponent, he will be praised for ‘letting his opponent know he is there’ and ‘getting stuck in’. And if those are the traits we value above all, is it any surprise England crashed out so early, struggling even to control the football at times?

Imagine being Wenger today – he will be well aware of Hansen’s contrasting views of Holland and Stoke, and if I were in his shoes, I’d be raising that very point early in the season. But Wenger has more class than that, and understands that such a reaction will give the pundits the satisfaction of getting under his skin. He will instead listen patiently as they slate the lack of an end product to all the Arsenal passes, compare the number of goals Arsenal and Spain score, and shrug with an ironic smile.

Spain did not win the World Cup because of their stellar attacking, no matter what the press are telling you. They scored eight goals in seven games, looking toothless much of the time. No, they won it because they did not concede in the knockout rounds. The difference between Spain and Arsenal is not end product, it is that Spain do not give the opposition an idiotic headstart.

But don’t expect to hear those kind of sensibilities on the BBC anytime soon.

I had high hopes for the coverage of the final – having ditched some of the less useful pundits (as soon as African interest ended, so did Adebayor’s television time), the BBC could have given the tournament a great send off. But each of the panel quickly made their desire for Spain to win abundantly clear, which made for a painful listen, especially given their remit of neutrality.

By the end, I couldn’t stomach any more of Hansen celebrating the ‘victory for football’, or using Wenger’s own ‘anti-football’ phrase to describe the Dutch, so I switched off, although not before witnessing the farcical trophy presentation, where the entire Spanish squad was crammed into a tiny holding area. Ridiculous.

All in all, it has been a disappointing summer. I love the World Cup, I really do, but this one hasn’t sparked me in any way. There were few thrillers, no minnows going the distance, no stunning comebacks. Even the best goals were largely down to goalkeeping errors.

But on a positive note, the end of the tournament signals the beginning of the build up to another season. Due to players being away from their clubs, the transfer window has essentially been compressed, and the next few weeks should be very interesting. Hold on to your hats.

Cue painful commentary from Clive ‘Pointless reference to the past’ Tyldesley, analysis from Andy Townsend and Robbie Earle (at least, until he was sacked), and general annoyance from Craig Burley. Adverts that take up more of half time than the programme, endless slow motion replays, and a complete lack of intelligence all round. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t even mind Adrian Chiles.

But what really takes the biscuit is ITV Live, supposedly the way to track the games while at work. It seemed such a great idea – streaming the matches online, what could possibly go wrong?

Well, for starters, the ITV stream is usually around three minutes behind, although on one hand I don’t mind that so much – I can hear someone in the office exclaiming at the goal, and then flick up the images and watch it ‘live’. Or at least I would, if the online coverage hadn’t already dropped out.

You see, the stream cuts out approximately every two minutes. Sometimes it comes back thirty seconds later (and now thirty seconds further behind reality than before), and sometimes it just dies entirely. No matter, you might say, just refresh the page, and since the online coverage is a couple of minutes delayed, you’ll probably get the pictures back before the goal goes in.

Well, that’s true – you get pictures back. Unfortunately they aren’t pictures of the match – they are adverts. ITV have come up with the genius idea that instead of attaching you direct to their main coverage (and therefore getting adverts at half time with everyone else), they will force you to sit through three adverts every time you load the service. Even if a penalty shoot out is at a critical juncture. Or if you have the restart the ’service’ every few minutes.

What this means is whenever you hear a yelp to indicate there’s been a goal, you flick to the stream, only to find it has inevitably fallen over. You desperately fumble around to kick it back into life, get the ‘loading’ screen, and sit back relieved. Three infuriating adverts follow, by which time the goal (and all the incessant replays) have been shown. Oh joy.

They have been shambolic from start to finish. Their presenting team is painful, I’ve watched more matches on mute than ever in my life, their online service is crap, and the debacle of missing England’s goal against USA would have sounded ludicrous had they not done the exact same thing in the FA Cup tie between Liverpool and Everton last season.

Not that the BBC get off scot free. While their coverage certainly seems more professional, they still have the infuriating contrast of the monotone Mick McCarthy and the squeaky over-excited Mark Bright. Both come out with complete nonsense – Bright is a master of idiocy, regularly watching a slow motion replay and describing the events wholly wrongly.

McCarthy, meanwhile, was asked why Argentina were so impressive against South Korea, and replied ‘It’s because they play 4-4-2‘. There was a pause, as clarification was awaited, but none came. That was the full analysis, as if the formation was the sole reason for success. Can’t argue with it, after all Messi has been spectacular for Barcelona this season in a 4-….oh.

But with the BBC, there seems to be higher level of professionalism. With Lineker, Hansen, Hodgson, Dixon and Seedorf providing the intelligent points, their analysis is far more insightful, especially for the bigger games, when the hysterical are ditched and the experienced brought in.

The BBC have their flaws. But ITV have an astonishing knack for removing my pre-match excitement just by knowing it is them covering the game. Some feat.

• Shawcross did not mean to break Ramsey’s leg, but that is not the point. 

• Gallas put in a poor challenge on Davies, Vieira and Lauren used to put in hard challenges, and Arsenal are no angels, but that is not the point.

• Wenger was emotional after the game, but that is not the point.

• Shawcross cried, but that is not the point.

• The Stoke fans contained some of the absolute lowest of the low, but that is not the point.

• Ramsey was quick, but that is not the point.

• Shawcross has injured before, has broken legs before, but that is not the point.

• Ramsey has suffered a dreadful setback, and while that deserves more of the focus than any of the above, it is in some ways, also not the point.

No, the point is that we have cultivated a culture in English football in which weaker sides can do more than harry and press, they can close the gap using methods other than the legal approach of working harder, being better organised and coming off the pitch exhausted.

In addition to all of that, it has become accepted to put in sly tackles, flail elbows, and deliberately foul to put your superior opponent off the game. It is even accepted to come out before the match and declare this as your intention. Instead of applauding the workrate of the strugglers, the pundits snigger at the late challenges, the full blooded swipes, irrespective of the danger they cause.

No other country allows this to happen. Wild tackles are punished no matter what the consequences, but they only come into focus here if they result in a serious injury. Even then, they are defended – how else can the smaller team compete, they ask? The answer is simple – by playing football better than us. The clue’s in the name of the game, you morons.

I get it, you get it, the blogs linked to the right get it. So why do 90% of those paid to analyse the game miss what is the real story here?

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.

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.

Since then, it has become worrying prevalent. We are now in the age of 24 hour news coverage, Sky Sports News running stories on a loop while the written press pick their targets, going after them online and each morning. Phone-ins give voices to those who read the Sun’s agenda-filled stories and wish to emphasise and embellish them, and suddenly fiction becomes fact. A minor incident becomes the disgrace of the century, and an individual finds himself the victim of a bloodthirsty witchhunt. It is all rather unedifying.

Moreover, it is a tough subject for a manager to broach – challenging the power that the media have over the football authorities can and will turn them against you, which only increases the focus on those incidents in which your players could be seen to be in the wrong. For example, any Arsenal fan can tell you that the Daily Mail has become the anti-Arsenal rag, with a constant stream of stories mocking everything that goes on at the Emirates, irrespective of whether there is any shred of truth in the words they print. With every story they twist reality to make us seem like the bad guys.

That isn’t a complaint, incidentally – I’m sure fans of other clubs can find columnists and even entire papers that continually paint them in a bad light. Much like political affiliation, they like to appeal to a subset of the country’s readership by taking a consistent line on the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’. They pick their targets, and stick to them. If their numbers dwindle, they switch. It is classic marketing, but so many are gullible enough to soak in every last word.

Sometimes they even announce their change – witness the Sun’s recent political declaration of support for the Conservative party over Labour, a complete about turn after a decade of allegiance. Now every story comes from the opposite angle. Do all the columnists and reporters back the switch? Of course not – they’re just doing their job. It is the same in sport.

If the media are effectively only doing their job, the same cannot be said of the authorities who should be strong enough to act independently of public furore.

First, of course, we had the Eduardo farce. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I believe it was a dive and I would like to see divers punished. But, and this is a big but, UEFA charged him and found him guilty based entirely on the media outrage sparked by the Scottish FA. FIFA’s rule is clear – if there is any contact it cannot be deemed a dive. UEFA were attempting to pacify the outcry with a scapegoat, but had to back down when they realised the punishment would never stick, and that they were only giving themselves a massive headache going forward.

Had the press not focused on the dive, the charge would never even have been brought. Was FC Zurich’s Alphonse hauled before judge and jury for his dive against Real Madrid on the first day of the group stage? Of course not. It was the first in a string of examples that exposed UEFA’s hypocrisy.

More recently, we had Henry’s handball. More instinctive than a dive, it was blown out of all proportion because of the magnitude of the event, and the timing. No other handball incident (Scharner and Defoe, to name two who transgressed in the weeks after the furore) even got a mention. The hypocrisy is staggering, yet once against the press triumphed, Henry today being forced to attend a disciplinary hearing.

Not only did he face sanction, but he was found guilty before the trial. Sepp Blatter said:

“This is a matter of the disciplinary committee but it was blatant unfair playing and was shown all around the world, but I don’t know what the outcome will be.”

Henry escaped a ban, but it was made abundantly clear that it was due only to a lack of legal options. You can be sure that had laws not been set firmly in stone, FIFA would have found a way to suspend him, effectively giving the press carte blanche to vilify individuals and get them taken to task for offences no worse than we see week in week out.

Worrying times, indeed. But all it takes to fix this problem is for FIFA and UEFA to be strong and communicate. Resist the hype machine, and explain clearly why fair decisions are taken.

But instead, they pander, and show themselves up as weak-minded in the process, presenting the media with an opportunity to influence by carefully selected stories to fit their agendas. They no longer report the news, they create it.

I missed Saturday’s game as it was the last day of our club’s cricket season, but having listened to it on the radio, and now watched the whole match in retrospect, I finally feel in a position to comment. There is so much to focus on from the match, but let’s start with the actual football first.

United were poor throughout, and we were in complete control of the first half without ever creating all that much. Eventually, seconds after he should have had a penalty for Fletcher’s clattering, Arshavin picked up the ball thirty yards out and smashed it past Foster, who should have done much better. That was how it stood at half time.

The second half improvement from United never came, and only Foster kept them in the game with a stunning save from Van Persie. Soon after, Rooney won a penalty when Almunia caught him – he picked himself up and struck the equaliser home from the spot.

Van Persie then came close to restoring our lead, striking the crossbar with a free kick, before we gifted them the winner, Diaby heading home Giggs’ free kick when under no real pressure. We searched for an equaliser, but didn’t test Foster again until injury time, when Van Persie’s goal was correctly disallowed for offside against Gallas. Wenger was sent to the stands in the aftermath.

Now, you’ll notice I’ve been very factual there, not going into much detail for each of the flashpoints. Doing so would have made the match report an epic. Let’s look at the incidents in turn:

The Fletcher-Arshavin penalty

You won’t see many more clear cut penalties this season. Fletcher scythed into Arshavin in the box, only afterwards taking a piece of the ball before handling it for good measure. Anywhere other than Old Trafford it would be given every week.

Fortunately for Mike Dean, Wenger’s fury, and that of Arshavin, was mitigated moments later when he smashed in the opener. You could argue that this doesn’t make up for the penalty, that the Russian would have done the same later, but it was the same attack, and the goal we deserved came in due course. So although it was a dreadful decision by Dean, I don’t think it affected the result.

Rooney’s dive

Let me preface this by saying – it was a penalty. However, the actions of Eduardo midweek, and Rooney on Saturday, were absolutely 100% identical. Both players charged into the box, reached the ball before the keeper and took a dive to the turf, expecting contact. The only difference was out of their control – Boruc withdrew his hands to make the dive crystal clear, while Almunia was not as savvy or quick in his reactions, and he made contact as Rooney collapsed to the turf.

It is a crucial difference, because it turns a dive into a dive that ends with a foul, and therefore the penalty is given (technically, the dive comes first, but that would be splitting hairs). I don’t have any qualms against the decision whatsoever.

What does wind me up is the polar opposite reaction by the media following the event. You could argue that most didn’t study the pictures closely enough to realise that Rooney was halfway down before reaching Almunia, but that isn’t true for everyone. Andy Gray pointed it out in his post match analysis, but instead of calling a spade a spade (which would be Rooney a diver, Almunia clumsy and daft), he praised the striker, citing it as clever play.

The hypocrisy of that statement is remarkable. And it gets worse – Tim Rich in the Independent of Sunday attempts to defend England’s favourite troll-a-like by hinting that diving is out of character:

“It is not in Rooney’s character to throw himself over a goalkeeper, but Wenger, called Dean’s award “Old Trafford-ish”.”

While suggesting that slights on Rooney’s character would be unfair, it does at least show awareness of his past by claiming it out of character to dive over a keeper. Certainly few will forget his swan dive over Sol Campbell that ended the Invincibles run in this very fixture five years ago. But to be aware of that fact and still to back him is double standards of the extreme kind, especially when you consider the lampooning of Eduardo, a player who really doesn’t have that kind of history.

Diaby’s own goal

I sympathise a little with Diaby here – clearly of the opinion that Rooney was lurking with intent behind him, he was offered no help by Almunia, who could have a) claimed it, or b) communicated the situation. That said, Diaby was certainly not blameless for a woefully misdirected header.

Mike Dean

Irony of the day was the fact that Radio 5 were praising his performance throughout the match. Having seen the whole game, that statement is guff beyond imagination. He had a really really poor day. Cautioning six Arsenal players was incredible bearing in mind that I can barely remember a poor challenge, and it could hardly be for persistent fouling as United committed comfortably more offences (Fletcher six by himself, not including the penalty that wasn’t, and he escaped without a card).

Song and Gallas are the only two bad fould I can remember offhand – Van Persie seemed especially hard done by given that his challenge was almost identical to Fletcher’s on Arshavin.

And then there was the farcical scenes of the final moments that I’ll come on to shortly.

That said, despite his poor officialdom, I don’t believe he affected the result. The reason we lost was not the referee, it was that we capitulated from a poor position, handing United two goals they barely deserved. We have no-one to blame but ourselves.

The Wenger sending off

The most ridiculous event of the match was saved for last – following Van Persie’s disallowed goal, Wenger kicked an empty water bottle a few feet up the touchline and was duly sent to the stands by Dean, on the advice of fourth official Lee Probert.

Never mind the fact that dissent (for that is the worst it could be deemed as – had Wenger kicked the bottle at someone, it would have been a different story) carries only a yellow card for a player, it was enough for him to be dismissed by an official who knew exactly what the consequences would be.

There was nowhere for Wenger to go – Probert will have heard the disgusting chants he had to endure the entire match (the ‘Sit down you paedophile’ song has been a favourite with United fans for a decade now, for those who don’t know), but still thought it a smart idea to give the baying masses their target of hate. To his eternal credit, Wenger has never raised this chant as an issue, presumably because he knows it would ensure it would be sung at every ground, and he went and stood behind the dugout, surrounded by those same individuals, not batting an eyelid.

Eventually he was ushered down the tunnel, but the farcical nature of the situation has not gone unnoticed. Keith Hackett will by now have apologised to Wenger as promised, with Probert particularly chastised in the aftermath. Richard Bevan, LMA chief, says:

“Lee Probert totally failed to manage the situation and created a needless pressure point taking the focus away from the pitch in a big event with only a minute to go.”

Quite.

However, the bigger issue is the horrendous nature of the chant itself. The FA has a core value of making football in this country a family friendly affair, and is justifiably proud of its record of stamping out racist nonsense. But it turns a blind eye to possibly the most vile song I’ve ever heard at any stadium. And these aren’t the actions of a mindless few – there are literally thousands belting out the song.

It isn’t like it has gone unnoticed – watch the live Sky coverage of Wenger being sent to the stands, and then watch the Match of the Day highlights of the same incident. The pictures are the same, but the sound isn’t – the BBC have deliberately tried to muffle the singing, presumably aware of how hideous it is.

So why is no-one acting? Until they do, the FA have their priorities hideously mixed up.

That is not necessarily their fault. Many know nothing but a world of instant gratification, immediate news stories and wild opinions, and soak up the insanity, believing every word. Like it or not, they are the future fanbase of the game.

It is the reason I find blogs so fascinating. No matter the opinion, it has to be rationally backed up to give the writer any credence. There are no shouting matches and no ROTFLOLs, just the honest opinion of the individual behind it. That sets it apart even from mainstream media, complete with editors and worst of all, agendas.

One of those agendas became painfully apparent on the radio station of our most trusted news source, the ‘impartial’ BBC, who aired an interview between David Davies, former acting chief executive and executive director of the FA (and a man who knows a great deal about spin given his political background), and Farhad Moshiri, the erstwhile silent business partner of one Alisher Usmanov.

On first listen, it seemed that Usmanov had managed to get his London-based and somewhat less unpopular colleague on to an edition of Sportsweek, and was therefore free to spout his wild opinion like anyone else (and his opinion was…pointed to say the least). But one source tore the interview and its motivations apart more completely and succinctly that I certainly could.

So this is, to coin a phrase from another site, a re-tweet. Yes, I know what one of those is – I’m not that old.

So I urge you all to read this piece, over on Goonerholic, where the somewhat suspect and staged nature of the interview is brought to light. I don’t think ‘holic will mind me saying that he isn’t one of the teenagers I referred to earlier, and if you don’t already read what he has to say, I would recommend starting about now. Ever positive where reasonable, his is a voice of calm in a Newsnow-fuelled world of instinctive and reactionary words. If you want considered writing, check it out.

I have nothing to add to the excellent work already done in that article. Great work ‘holic.

Before last night, ITV must have be quietly chuckling to themselves – showing the first leg of the theoretically weaker half of the draw meant that they got to screen a potentially classic Bayern-Barca match, and the showdown between Chelsea and Liverpool at Stamford Bridge. After all, history suggested that the two English sides would cancel each other out in a cagey first match, leaving everything open.

Right? Wrong. Now, their poor presenters are forced to inject some life into two ties that are, essentially, already over. It is a good thing they have a short build-up programme – Sky, with their two hour pre-show, would really struggle to cope.

Liverpool travel to Chelsea needing to score at least three to have even a sniff of a chance, so I’d give it two minutes into the programme before the pundits, clutching at straws, mention their Istanbul comeback for the millionth time, trying desperately to suggest that history might repeat itself. Or raise hope from their win at Stamford Bridge early in the season, a notion that is plainly ridiculous given that Liverpool scored just once that day, a lucky deflected goal at that. It isn’t likely to strike fear into Chelsea hearts.

Over on ITV4, a channel so familiar to us Arsenal fans who expect to see a match between us and Barca there because United’s big game against PAOK Salonika is so much more critical to terrestrial viewers, Bayern have an even bigger challenge – four goals to take the tie to extra time, and all the while knowing that the Barcelona attack that destroyed them last night need only score once to require the Germans to hit six. Not likely, really, and even their chairman admits the tie is over. But don’t expect that to stop ITV mentioning the twelve goals Bayern put past Sporting in the previous round, as if Barcelona are somehow likely to roll over as poorly as the Portuguese did.

Quietly, however, ITV must be fuming, in the knowledge that the anticipated drama of next week is now going to be exclusively on Sky. Will ITV even put ‘in the case of extra time, programmes may run late‘ into their planners?

Sky, meanwhile, have two ties that have their favourites, but could swing in an instant. We may be in the driving seat right now, but if Villareal hit us with an early away goal, the tide turns completely – we would be in the same situation that Liverpool were against us last season when Diaby scored early, knowing they had to chase the game while being aware that a second away goal could kill the tie.

In the other match up, Porto are in a great position, but United are perfectly capable of going out there and winning, and the requirement to attack sets the game up beautifully.

Sky, not for the first time, must be laughing their heads off. ITV, though, are seeing their football season go from bad to worse.

They begin the article with a graph, showing how the number of English starters has changed over the last eight years. Here it is:

Looks pretty dramatic, doesn’t it? Except when you look closely, you’ll notice that there only appears to be a big drop because of the scale used, with the number of players only ranging from 160 to 208 on the axis. I distinctly remember being taught at school that graphs should not be exaggerated in this way.

But let’s look at the numbers. Five years ago, the number of English starters was 179. This season, 170. Hardly a dramatic drop, nine players in five years. In fact, this year’s drop comes off the back of four years of climbing, despite what the Daily Mail would tell you about ‘forriners taking ah jobs’.

All this completely misses the point. 170 English players is plenty, Capello needs a small fraction of those. It doesn’t matter if there used to be 500 (there never were, incidentally), it isn’t the best players that are missing out, it is those that were never good enough to get near the national side anyway. Those that remain should benefit from playing with quality rather than substandard leftovers.

For England to be successful, the top twenty or so need to be of a high quality, and performing as a team. The former is aptly demonstrated by the fact that there were ten English players in the Champions League final, and the latter is Capello’s job.

There are no excuses. If England fail, it is not the fault of the clubs, it is the fault of the players (who are good enough), and the management team. No-one else.