The Beautiful Groan

Sometimes you read an article or a newspaper column and nod along, agreeing with the good points being made. Sometimes you don’t agree with the arguments, but understand the point of view.

And sometimes you read a column and wonder how on earth such moronic opinions could ever earn someone a pay packet for writing them. Come on down, Paul Parker.

I’ve long since disagreed with most of his columns, which are generally written to provoke, in the same way that so much of NewsNow is taken up with dramatic and misleading headlines. But this article takes the proverbial biscuit, coming up with ’solutions’ to the England debacle.

Here are his genius ideas:

1. Pick the right man for the job

Couldn’t agree more. We all know McLaren wasn’t the right man, the next choice must be a wise one. So Parker, in his infinite knowledge, makes his choice:

“Alan Shearer may be a 16-1 outsider, but he certainly gets my vote. I appreciate that he is inexperienced in terms of managing a team, but the players he will be working with do not need any more coaching - they are already good enough.”

England need a strong manager, someone who makes tough decisions and says things as he sees them. Shearer, judging from his punditry, has a backside full of splinters from all the fences he sits on. He is dull, uninspiring, and would pander to the media.

As for the notion that the players are ‘already good enough’, Parker must be living in the same deluded world as some of these so-called ’superstars’. Was he not watching on Wednesday night?

2. Limit the number of foreigners in the game

Ah, here we go again. Never mind the fact that these foreigners have added so much to the English game, taught the homegrown players skill and craft, and changed the style with which football in this country is played, Parker and his band of Little Englanders insist on blaming them for the shortcomings of the national team.

This argument is so transparent that it is incredible it is given any credence, yet it is repeated ad nauseatum as if nothing could be more obvious.

There are 355 English players registered with the twenty Premiership clubs. Granted, most of these are reserves, but there are still plenty in and around the respective first teams. It is a much misrepresented fact that foreigners have pushed Englishmen out of our top teams, when in reality, they have mostly replaced the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. When you begin to examine the figures, they show quite clearly that there are still plenty of homegrown players available at the top, not the sharp decline the press would have you believe.

And so what if it is more difficult for a journeyman player to make it in the Premiership? They are not the sort of player England looks to. If the number of English regulars reduces from 100 to 50, how does that matter? Those that miss out are those not good enough, and the top talents still make it, benefiting from playing with the best players from overseas, rather than the inadequate also-rans.

The only way a top club can harm the English national team is by buying the top talent and not playing them. Yet Chelsea, for their treatment of Shaun Wright-Phillips, are vilified far less than Arsenal, whose lack of English players therefore does not affect the national side one iota.

Steven Gerrard’s comments about reducing the number of foreign players in the league are ludicrous when you look at the Liverpool squad, complete with average players from overseas, while xenophobic and lazy opinions such as Parker’s are borne simply of a desperation to blame anyone but our own.

I thought Britain was proud of being multicultural and open?

3. Address the silly money in today’s game

Good luck with that one - football is a massive business. Television companies make extraordinary sums from their coverage, and thus pay top dollar for the privilege. With that money flowing through the game, the players are right to feel, as the product, that they deserve a large cut of it. It is the simple law of supply and demand.

Besides, there is a myth in the country that footballers are the richest sportsmen on the planet. Have you seen the salaries of top baseball and American football players recently?

“Money changes everything and when huge rewards are laid on a plate for players, it is all too easy to become idle”

The gap between the salaries of the top players, and those behind them, is astronomical. So conversely, the financial reward of being at the top is surely a great motivation for getting there?

4. Scrap academies

For his final point, Paul Parker finally and completely loses the plot.

“Scrapping academies can only have a beneficial effect in the future. Kids of 10 or 11 do not want to be forced into playing or training three times a week; they love the game because they love winning and playing with their mates”

Does this not say everything about the character of footballers in this country? His argument that players should not actually be trained to play football, but should lark about with friends and learn next to nothing, is ludicrous. Players from abroad are honing their skills at this crucial early age, learning technique and precision. Ours are running around like headless chickens, being taught to ‘give it 110%’.

If ‘kids of 10 or 11′ want to make it as top class footballers, they have to be willing to train or play three times a week. And if they truly love the game, surely they’ll love getting better at it?

“By forcing them to train at academies in a regimented atmosphere, all the fun is taken out of the game; how then are they supposed to develop into top players?”

How exactly will they turn into top players if the don’t train? And surely a down to earth young footballer wouldn’t lose interest in the game simply because someone was teaching them how to pass the ball along the ground instead of hoofing it up to their tallest friend?

And then, as a coup de grace, Parker concluded as follows:

“I used to train once a week when I was a kid - the likes of Matt Le Tissier did the same, and he turned out alright”

Holding Matt Le Tissier up as an example of a footballer with the right attitude, who reached the peak of his abilities because he never lost enthusiasm for the game?

As I remember it, Le Tissier was one of the most naturally gifted footballers to grace these shores in decades, but never fulfilled his massive potential because, quite honestly, he couldn’t be bothered.

If his is the attitude we want to instill in our young players, we’d better get used to the mediocrity we saw this week.

I’ve listened a lot of people’s opinions on who should become the next England manager, and their reasoning behind their choices, and I’m left to ask one question:

Why is the automatic assumption made that the requirements for club and international management are the same?

Let’s look at a couple of the names that I’ve heard come up.

Harry Redknapp

Various people have suggested Redknapp as a viable candidate, based on his success story with Portsmouth. Now I think he’s doing a tremendous job at Fratton Park - he has turned a struggling Premiership side into one that will probably be playing in Europe next season. Since their great escape in the Premiership 18 months ago, they have only amassed more points than anyone outside the ‘Big Four’.

But what is this success based upon? From what I can see, Redknapp is a master wheeler-dealer, a genius in the transfer market who assembles a powerful and athletic squad, with no small sprinkling of skill, on a relatively modest budget.

But as an international coach, he would be stuck with the players he has. He couldn’t effectively trade them in for bargain models as he does at his club.

Arsene Wenger

Bear with me here, but I don’t think Wenger would be a successful England manager. Firstly, the expectations on him would be huge based upon his record at Arsenal, expectations which would be almost impossible to achieve.

But think about how Wenger operates. He scours the world for a certain type of player - quick, athletic, strong in body and mind, intelligent, articulate - and signs them at an early age. Then, he and his team train them in the Arsenal way, before giving them a chance to prove themselves on the biggest stage. And because his initial judgement is generally so accurate, many of these players become superstars.

But he wouldn’t be able to do any of that for England. He would be unable to find even a couple of teenagers fitting the mould he is after, he would not be with them for long enough to mould them into his way of thinking, and on the most part, those players available to him lack precisely the attributes he values so highly. That’s why there are so few Englishmen around the Arsenal first team.

How many young England stars come across in interviews as intelligent and modest, down to earth and responsible?

And how many put their excessive diamond studs back in their ears for the cameras, struggle to string a sentence together, and then drive home in their Bentleys?

How many of them love possession of the football and are capable of playing the open attractive football Wenger would crave? These English players reach 17-18 with less skill and finesse than most of the 14 year olds Wenger sees at club level, and they’re supposed to be the great hope of the nation?

Wenger would find international management incredibly frustrating in comparison to the free reign he has now, to mould the best players he can find into the footballing dream he strives for. He is wise not to touch the job with a bargepole.

So who would be good?

When choosing an international manager, you are not looking for a man with the ability to spot a cheap diamond in the transfer market. You do not need a man who can sell players at their peak price and replace them for 20% of the cost.

You need a tactician, a motivator, a manager who can react to the game unfolding in front of him with clever substitutions, a man who recognises young talent in the country and introduces them at the right time. A man who instinctively knows how to get the best out of players on an individual basis, and how to construct a team from a bunch of individuals used to opposing each other.

When a manager joins a struggling club, and dramatically improves their fortunes without dipping into the transfer market, they have potential at international level. Such managers are usually at smaller clubs, with success based upon the notion that the team is so much greater than the sum of its parts. Unfortunately, many of those managers, by their very definition, are not working with the sort of ego you get around the England setup.

So what do you need? In essence, a manager who can get the best out of average players, but will not tolerate ego and underachievement. He must be his own man, unafraid to drop the players who, despite their celebrity status, aren’t performing.

In other words, the FA were stupid to turn down Martin O’Neill when he was available and interested.

Today, he ruled himself out of the race. So the search must go abroad, because no matter how much the Daily Mail promote their Little Englander notions, there is simply no-one else with the required attributes anywhere in Britain.

Fabio Capello is interested, experienced and bloody minded. He can cope with egos, having managed the dysfunctional Real Madrid to success, and he wouldn’t flinch at the prospect of axing the famous names.

So in what new and creative way will the FA mess this one up?

It finally happened. MyFootballClub, a website set up to give fans the say in every decision made at a selected football club, has made its move.

On the site, each registered user can pledge £35 per year and gain an equal share in the running of the chosen club. Once there are enough sign ups to buy at least 51% of the club, the move is made. Today, with 20,000 members paid up, they are ready to go.

Of course, lazy journalists have reported that it will be a 700k takeover, without bothering to read the site, which states that £7.50 of each donation will go towards administration of the trust, so the figure is actually more like 550k, but with 40% of the members now paying their fee, the purchase seems more viable than ever before.

The chosen club is Ebbsfleet, formerly Gravesend and Northfleet, who occupy ninth position in the Blue Square Premier, otherwise known as the Conference. The chairman of the club, who will lose practically all his rights but retain his title, and the manager, who becomes nothing more than a coach, are both fully behind the scheme.

But it is utterly ludicrous and will not work. You can quote me on that.

Initially, the club is likely to see an upturn in interest. How many people outside the area would be following their progress under normal circumstances? However, if this goes ahead, they’ll have the eyes of the nation on them, all keen to see which direction they go. Attendances may grow, especially at away matches when they play near some of their new benefactors, and if more members sign up, an injection of hundreds of thousands may be made into the club, enormous sums for a side in their division.

But that’s where the positives end. As it stands, twenty thousand people would be voting on every aspect of the club. Let’s look at some of those in turn:

Team selection

Liam Daish, the current Ebbsfleet manager, will step aside to become Head Coach. The team will be selected, by majority vote, by twenty thousand people. That’s right. Each member puts forward their team, and the players are picked based upon the results.

At first glance, this seems workable. People watching the games will form their own opinions of the players, and vote accordingly. But that isn’t enough.

How do these members know who is struggling a little in training, maybe for confidence, maybe fitness? How do they know who is firing on all cylinders in the reserves? How will consistency be managed when a player has a poor game? How, conversely, will a team rotate? If the star striker is exhausted, but has scored fifteen throughout the season, is he really likely to be rested on a majority vote? Of course not.

The person in the best position to make all these calls is someone who attends every training session.

And it goes beyond that. Passionate fans of a football club know which players are best deployed against each type of opponent. But practically none of these members know anything about Ebbsfleet or their players. How can they tell whether the fast wily midfielder or the bruiser is needed for the upcoming game? And how frustrating will it be for the old manager to know that someone who would be perfect for the game is sitting out of the squad because no-one had the knowledge to make the correct call?

And crucially, if the site attempts to persuade the members to pick a certain side and formation by getting the Head Coach’s input, then the opposition can easily register and get all this inside information well ahead of the match. I’m sure each club in their division would consider that £35 well spent.

Preparation

Imagine a typical day at training. It is Wednesday, three days before a league match. The coach has pinpointed a weakness in the opposition - they’re susceptible in the air. Much of the next few days will be spent practicing set pieces, with the big centre back planning the runs he’ll make, ready for the big day.

And then, on Saturday morning, he finds that the centre back hasn’t been picked because he didn’t have a great game the previous week. Never mind that he would’ve been a massive goal threat, he’s out. And with him, all that time spent on the training ground, preparing for the game.

How likely are players and managers to stay working in those kind of conditions?

Transfers

Thankfully members will not be entirely responsible for suggesting potential signings. Imagine if no-one at the club could act until the majority of the members had identified and voted on a target, who may not even be interested in joining - nothing would ever happen.

And given that only half a million has been raised, yet Man Utd and Arsenal are high on the list of clubs suggested as the one to be purchased, the ‘intelligence’ of some of these members is clear. You can only imagine the suggestions that would be made - but surely Wayne Rooney is realistic with a 40k transfer budget?

Fortunately, the system is more subtle than that. Although members can suggest targets, the backroom staff also have that input, and can quietly go about setting up a transfer as they would normally, agreeing the transfer fee and contract details, before putting it to the vote. Members can allow or veto the move.

But imagine the frustration of the coach, who knows he needs a new left back, finds his man, agrees the deal, and then discovers that the members have vetoed it because they want the more glamorous option of a new striker.

Power of the individual

Quite simply, this is removed. I’m sure that each of the 20000 paid up members of MyFootballClub now think they’ll have some influence over Ebbsfleet. Individually, they are wrong. Especially as with the publicity they’ve gained from actually making the move, many more will sign up.

Picture the scene. You, as a paid up member, excitedly vote on team selection, transfers, and so on. You watch as the weeks go by, with the same team picked week in week out, your favoured player sitting on the bench again, and the transfer you thought was crazy going ahead.

Pretty soon you’ll realise that you have no power over the club at all. Not with this many members. Decisions are controlled by the easily influenced and fickle majority. Will you pay up for the second season?

And therein lies the key. There is probably a magic number of members that the Trust will have each year, once it settles down. Too many, and individuals feel that they have no power, and leave. Too few, and buying in becomes attractive for the opposite reason. The point is this - those who actually know what they are doing are in the minority. If they weren’t, being a football coach or manager would be a very low paid job.

And crucially, those intelligent members who have studied the team and the opposition, and figured out exactly what is required, will be shouted down and outvoted by the masses. There is a very good reason why The Sun is the most popular newspaper in Britain, and it isn’t because the majority like well thought out information that has some basis in reality.

Feedback

The Head Coach will report back to the members on players and tactics after each game, complete with match reports. If a player is struggling, and the coach wants to drop them, how exactly does he convey this suggestion without destroying the individual’s confidence?

And given that members come from all over the world, mostly nowhere near Ebbsfleet, it can be expected that the vast majority will not be attending matches. So upon what information will they be making all their decisions?

Are there positives?

As already mentioned, Ebbsfleet are now getting publicity that they would not otherwise gain. They may also get a decent cash injection for new players. But is it really worth it?

I find myself wondering whether the club are in financial trouble, and seeing this as the way out. After all, they are doing fairly well in their league, not far from the playoffs, and seemingly well placed for the season. So why make this move? Why hand over the power to the public, taking it from those who know the players, and have the instinct to make the right moves at the right time.

Here’s my prediction - Ebbsfleet will start well, and the MyFootballClub experiment may initially seem a success while the players desperately try to impress the viewing public. But without the forward thinking signings for the future, or the knowledge and ability to progress the club in the right direction, it will be an unmitigated disaster after a couple of seasons.

It may appear a smart idea on the face of it, but this could be the ruining of one football club.

Arsenal and Man Utd. Two teams that haven’t got on since the dawn of time. We had the brawls in 1990, which ended with both teams being deducted points, we had the Van Nistelrooy incident, which saw a cumulative ten match ban for Arsenal players alone, Pizzagate, red cards, fights in the tunnel, the list goes on.

Keane, Vieira, Van Nistelrooy, Keown, Neville, Reyes - all of these had spats with each other. And it does not stop with the players - Wenger and Ferguson have been taking pot shots at each other for years.

But the build up to this match was different. There were compliments, there was respect, in fact there was barely a hint of animosity. Could it last?

The answer was yes, mostly. The game was fiery and competitive, but played in an excellent spirit. Players would commit fully to tackles then help their opponent up, there were pats on the back, nods of appreciation and, at the final whistle, mutual respect shown in the congratulations for both sides. Even Eboue and Ronaldo, well known for their histrionics, behaved impeccably. It was a truly honourable occasion.

Except for two people. Alex Ferguson, and Anderson.

The former started early. After Evra had picked up an early yellow card for a wild challenge, he clearly tripped Eboue right in front of the dugout. For once, the Ivorian made no fuss of the challenge, getting up without complaining, and everyone prepared to carry on. There was no question of a second yellow for Evra, as the foul was entirely innocuous.

But Ferguson went absolutely ballistic on the touchline, as if Eboue had punched Evra, or stamped on him. And it was over absolutely nothing. Experienced observers knew exactly what was going on, however. Ferguson was playing off Eboue’s (deserved) reputation, trying to influence the referee by suggesting that he was making the most of fouls. He wasn’t, but that isn’t the point.

I can’t remember which former player it was that said Ferguson taught them to appeal for every throw in, as if utterly convinced it was yours, even if you knew it wasn’t. He was using the same tactic. He knew he wouldn’t change the referee’s mind - what he was trying to do was allow Evra to get away with a later foul on Eboue by putting doubt in his mind. It is a tried a tested tactic that he uses. And it is utterly infuriating.

But what followed was far worse. Ten of the United players were playing with dignity, but they had an exception in their ranks, Anderson, who on his first Arsenal-United outing, was becoming roughly as popular as Teddy Sheringham.

After debating numerous decisions by the officials, Adebayor committed a foul, and Anderson barged to within an inch of the referee, sending him backwards a few steps (and there was me thinking you couldn’t touch the ref). Worse still, he frantically brandished an imaginary yellow card, pleading for Adebayor to get booked. Which, as you know, is a mandatory yellow card offence. But Howard Webb did nothing.

Then Cesc fouled him. It wasn’t a good challenge, and may have even picked up a yellow anyway, but Anderson took it upon himself to stop, then start on a manic rolling spree, flipping himself over and over again on to his ‘injured’ ankle until the card came out. He then stood up and casually walked away. Cesc’s mocking of him in the aftermath was highly amusing, and I hope this sort of pathetic play acting gets his the reputation he deserves. Simulation is, of course, another yellow card offence.

On the stroke of half time, United took the lead, and Anderson made a point of breaking the huddle, turning to the Arsenal fans, and putting his fingers to his lips. Players have rightly been punished for this before - incitement coming under the hood of ungentlemanly conduct. Which, in case you haven’t got the theme by now, is another yellow card offence.

But back to Ferguson. After the match, he came out with an extraordinary rant, which although it initially deflected attention from the match on to his comments (as was his plan), has since been ridiculed in more than one newspaper, and in fact on MOTD2.

“They got their second goal from pumping the ball into the box. It got a bit of a deflection when they pumped the ball into the box in injury-time and ended up at the back post”

What match was he watching? Clichy made a fantastic run down the left, and whipped in the perfect cross. If Giggs made that cross he’d be purring. Instead, it was ‘pumped in’. Comments like that make you look like a fool, Alex. But it got worse:

“Their second goal came from him not giving a free-kick for a foul on Louis Saha on the far side. It should have been a foul for us.”

After the ‘foul’, Arsenal played the ball into touch, United threw back in, Arsenal won the ball back, attacked, and lost possession, giving United a goal kick. Then Arsenal won it back, before losing it once more, until Clichy won it back and embarked on that run.

Following the same logic, any manager can watch his team concede a goal, and then complain about a foul twenty minutes earlier that led up to it. Talk about clutching at straws.

Up to that point, these were just the rants of a frustrated manager, annoyed that his side had lost a three point swing in injury time. But then he took a turn for the sinister.

“I think Howard Webb has a great chance to be the top referee but today was a big game for him and, at times, he favoured Arsenal”

I have no qualms with managers being annoyed with referees after they’ve had a poor game. What infuriates me is hearing a manager question their impartiality, especially after a match in which they have largely performed well. The patronising tone with which he makes this accusation is even worse - the clear message is that Webb did not do enough for United.

Well, here’s the news Alex. Referees are not there to give you everything. They are supposed to call each decision as they see them, and on the most part, he was good on Saturday. All he did wrong was be over officious at times, which affected both sides, and not give Arsenal a penalty for a clear shirt tug on Hleb in the first half. Quite rightly, the FA have asked Ferguson to explain his comments. I imagine he’ll struggle.

And as if that wasn’t enough, his final rant was hypocritical in the extreme.

“On our bench, we were getting terrible abuse from people two or three feet away from us. “

“There is a lack of security here. It is absolutely disgraceful the abuse you and your staff take. All sorts of things are been shouted and screamed at you and there is an absolute danger here.”

A few things. Firstly, I do not condone abusing players or managers to the extent that goes on in most Premiership grounds - some of the chants are shocking. Neither do the stewards, who ejected one such fan during the game on Saturday.

But the most shocking chant I have heard can be heard most prominently at Old Trafford and White Hart Lane, and it is aimed at Arsene Wenger. For Ferguson to complain that he takes abuse at the Emirates, yet sit there smiling at Old Trafford as tens of thousands of ‘fans’ sing about Wenger bring a paedophile, is utterly ridiculous. Pot, meet kettle.

Whether Ferguson was rattled into making stupid comments, I cannot say. But he must take abuse at every ground, not least for angering people with the sly digs and comments he makes in the media leading up to a game. What does he expect when he specialises in winding people up?

If he goes to Old Trafford, and condemns his own fans for the song they sing about Wenger, then he can criticise Arsenal fans who hurl abuse at him. Otherwise, he is a hypocrite of the highest order.

But in an attempt to end on a positive, 21 players and one manager acted impeccably on Saturday, to the surprise of many. Wenger, Eboue, Ronaldo, Rooney - all had the potential to come out of the game somewhat negatively. All behaved with honour.

Such a shame that two had to spoil it.

What more can you say about this man?

First came this incredible naivety:

“The European clubs who open training centres in Africa do it to further their own interests, not to help with the development of African football.”

How dare a business look after its own interests by scouring the continent for talent? They should open training centres and fund them with no interest in reaping the rewards. Of course.

Never mind the fact that no one can deny that the African game has improved and thrived since the opening up of the European leagues to their players. I thought that was a good thing?

Now, Platini takes issuewith Arsene Wenger:

“I do not like the system of Arsene Wenger.

“In France, Italy and Spain it is easy to buy with money the best players at 14, 15 or 16. I don’t like that.”

So, attracting some of the best young players in the world to an environment in which they can thrive, using the best available training facilities and greatest chance of playing top level football, is bad, is it, Michel?

This strikes me as an utterly ludicrous argument. If the scouting network is good enough to find these players, why shouldn’t they move? They will only move if they want to, and who is Platini to insist that they don’t follow their dreams? He goes on:

“If the best clubs buy the best 15 or 16 players that is finished for all the clubs in Europe.”

“If my son is playing at Millwall and at 16 Manchester come in for this player then when will Millwall have a good team?”

When they achieve the rise like everyone else, not by holding back the development of a player who just happens to have been born in the area.

Should you force a player to stay at Millwall when he wants to move to a top club? No. If the player is good enough to make it at the top, he should have the chance. If he isn’t, he’ll find his level before too long.

All players dream of playing at the top. If Platini insists of restricting their possibilities then the game will take a massive backward step.

Think about it this way - a team like Arsenal have an incredible training setup, coaching personnel, and so on. And the biggest stage of a player’s professional development occurs in their teens. Preventing the best players from having the best facilities available to them is ludicrous.

Say Cesc started at a third division Spanish club instead of Barcelona? How late in his development would Platini deem acceptable for him to leave? And how much further back would his career be now?

Blithering idiot.

The days of player power are getting absolutely ridiculous. The headline on this article is:

Rafa clears air with Gerrard.

Can someone enlighten me as to why a manager would ever feel the need to ‘clear the air’ and ‘hold talks’ with a player, after substituting him?

It’s not like Gerrard was axed from the squad for a few weeks, or dragged off embarrassingly after a quarter of an hour. He wasn’t even in that humiliating position where he was subbed off after being subbed on. He was taken off with twenty minutes to play, not an unusual time for a change, because Benitez wanted to alter the way his team were playing.

It was an entirely ordinary substitution, except of course for the fact that Gerrard seems to be bigger than Liverpool these days. So, when he talks in an interview about being hurt by the change, it actually gets newspaper columns as if it was a story.

The only story is the notion that Benitez should have to explain himself to Gerrard, the media, or anyone else.

And it is frankly ludicrous.

I get so angry at newspapers sometimes.

It has been a wonderful start to the season, and the press want to find out exactly why things have gone so well. Some briefly focus on the form of Cesc, Adebayor, Van Persie, Flamini, Clichy etc, but before long the subject of Thierry Henry comes up. Over and over again.

Practically every interview at the moment makes some reference to the team being better without TH14, and the players always respectfully answer in the same way, that Henry was fantastic, but this season the team dynamic has changed and the new approach is working well so far.

But headlines like ‘Players learn to adapt to life after Henry’ don’t sell half as well as ‘Cesc says Henry was bad for Arsenal! EXCLUSIVE!!!’. So every word is twisted to make the enigmatic Frenchman sound like an absolute burden.

And I’m fed up of it. Henry was a leader by example (not in the captain sense, but the inspirational one), he is and always will be a legend at the club, a player who worked his socks off, became the club’s record scorer, surely must be close to the record assister as well, while playing in a style loved by true football fans the world over.

And contrary to what the same press say, he did turn up in the big games. Witness the glorious hattricks against Roma and Liverpool, the winner in the Bernabeu, stunning strikes against United, goals against Chelsea - what more could he do? It was always a bizarre perception brought out purely by his own genius - people began to expect miracles in every match. No player can reach those heights. But he got closer than most.

He was not a captain. And for the last year, he wasn’t particularly happy either. But when he played, he still gave his all, no matter how sulky he may have looked. As for the big games, an FA Cup game at Anfield must count, surely? And yet a patently half fit Henry scored a blinder, going on to score an impressive number of goals given the length of time he was injured for.

He was not a burden, he never was. Of course he affected the style of play - when you have a player that talented, it is easy to give him the ball and let him weave his magic. Without that, you have to find new ways, and that enables you to grow as a player. Does that mean it is sometimes wise, therefore, to jettison the star? Yes. Is that the star’s fault? Absolutely not - he is a victim of his own ability.

Similarly - is it now wrong for our defence to pass the ball forward to Cesc just because he’s on fire? Or is that the most ridiculous notion you’ve heard since Robbie Savage became an international footballer?

I am sick to death of seeing players and the manager explain this quite clearly, and make it crystal clear that Henry as a player and a man is missed, only for the press to warp the comments into a false headline. I’d go as far as to say the headlines are deliberate and misleading lies. As journalists, they know that what they are printing is false, but as shown with all the crisis talk in the summer, once the media decide to go down one road, no amount of contradictory statements will stop them.

It is propaganda of the most blatant form. And it works - I know far too many people now who think of Henry’s time with Arsenal as a burden on the club. How utterly disrespectful. How ridiculously fickle.

TH14 was an awesome servant of this football club. He spent the best eight years of his career playing magical football for us, and left when we were still able to make a profit on his transfer fee.

Some burden.

Welcome to the first of Groan’s rants, a regular vent at those stupid little things that wind us all up when watching the beautiful game, be it the actions of a player, an official, a manager or an authoritarian figure. It could be something really small, or a burning issue that has had us infuriated for years.

The first such rant has nothing to do with the actual 22 players we all watch. Believe me, they will be the subject in the future. But not today. There are plenty of onlookers who infuriate me on a regular basis, and this particular piece concerns either their utter idiocy or their inability to see exactly what is in front of them. Shall we begin?

Analysts

We all watch a lot of football on television, and there is no doubt that you, like me, prefer some commentators and analysts to others. Whether it is David Pleat’s complete failure to pronounce foreign names correctly, Jamie Redknapp’s desperate attempt to compliment Chelsea in every sentence, even if they aren’t even playing, in some blatant ‘employ me’ plea, or Steve Claridge’s complete nonsense, I have no doubt that you find yourself as irritated with them as I do at times.

But what really annoys me is when they cannot see what is clearly in front of them. How many times do you see a foul given, and a slow motion replay shows either contact or no contact, yet the ‘expert commentator’ claims the complete opposite of what the footage shows? Are they even watching the same pictures?

In the recent United-Chelsea game, Mikel was (somewhat harshly) sent off for a dangerous tackle. After the match, Jamie Redknapp spoke over the pictures, claiming that he didn’t think the referee thought it was two-footed. At the exact moment he was saying those words, you could easily tell, without lip-reading expertise, that Mike Dean was saying ‘Two feet. Two feet’ to the Chelsea players by way of explanation. The two-handed gesture he was using made it even clearer. But apparently not clear enough to Redknapp.

On Tuesday, in our game against Steaua, there was a curious incident where Cesc (I believe) was fouled by Ovidiu Petre, while seconds earlier Van Persie had been flattened, off the ball, by Ionut Rada. The referee blew for a foul, and instantly ran up to Rada and booked him.

The commentators were adamant for ages that he’d booked the wrong man. Even live, I could see what had happened, with the replays making it clearer, the cameraman even focusing on Van Persie being taken out. Nonetheless, they banged on about the ref booking the wrong man, saying that Petre should’ve been sent off for a second yellow. The fact that Petre hadn’t even picked up a first yellow also seemed to have slipped their notice.

Sometimes I really wonder whether they’re watching the same game we are.

Managers

If the analysts are bad, then the managers are even worse. You wouldn’t think it’d be beyond a professional, top flight manager to actually know the rules of the game, would you?

Tell that to Mark Hughes and Alan Curbishley.

In the Blackburn-Chelsea game, the latter had a goal disallowed for offside, despite the cross being played while Kalou was a good two yards behind the action. Coming from behind the pass, there is no way Kalou could’ve been offside, as clearly defined in the rules. It wasn’t even a close call.

But after the match, and after watching replays, Hughes proceeded to make himself look exceptionally ignorant:

“The goal was offside. He was only about half a yard or so, but he was offside. Obviously Chelsea won’t be too happy with that but if you watch it again, I think you will see it is offside.”

No Mark, if you watch it again you’ll see that it was clearly onside. I suggest your bedtime reading should be a little book that tells you all about the game you profess to work in.

Hughes isn’t the only one. After Ljungberg had a goal disallowed against us at the weekend (again wrongly, in my opinion), Curbishley started on the familiar old sentence of there not being ‘daylight’ between the two men.

“There’s no clear daylight between Freddie and the defender”

But, as Left Back correctly pointed out after the weekend, this phantom ‘daylight rule’ doesn’t exist. Never has. Yet managers and analysts harp on about it as if it’s the ruling these days. It never has been. Get over it.

Referees

Now before I have too much of a go at referees, let it be understood that I recognise theirs to be an extremely difficult and thankless task. In fact, I have no problem with them making mistakes, after all, I watched Alex Hleb all last season and forgave him so I’d be a hypocrite to moan about snap decisions being wrong.

But it’s a whole different kettle of fish when they don’t even apply the rules properly, especially when those rules are there to protect them or the game itself.

Let’s start with a topical one. It is, as it has been for many years, a red card offence to lay hands on a referee. I remember years ago, Emmanuel Petit got sent off for putting his hands on Paul Durkin’s shoulders. And you know what? Durkin was absolutely right to give him his marching orders.

But have you noticed how often it happens now? It has been going on for two to three years, and while such a gradual build up makes it difficult to suddenly enforce the rules, there are times when the line is so flagrantly crossed, that action must be taken. I’m talking to you, John Terry, you utter disgrace. In case you are unaware of the reference, when Mikel was sent off in the incident I described earlier, Terry saw Mike Dean pull the red card from his pocket and grabbed his hand in a pathetic attempt to stop the sending off from occurring. That’s right, John Terry physically tried to restrain an official. How was he not sent off? And how have the FA decided that he has no case to answer?

He should’ve been ordered off, and vilified. Imagine if Patrick Vieira had done the same thing a few years ago - would there have been uproar? Absolutely. The man is not fit to lead England, with this kind of behaviour, and his constant hounding of match officials.

But it is not just red card offences that are routinely ignored, oh no. In case you need reminding, it is an automatic booking to pull an opponent’s shirt, or to dive. I support both rules, because both are cheating actions, not accidental fouls. You intend to cheat when you pull a shirt, you intend to cheat when you dive. So both should be bookings.

So why do we see, week in week out, incidents when referees indicate a shirt pull or a dive, and don’t produce a yellow card? I saw Mike Riley doing the generally accepted ‘he dived’ action with his hands a couple of weeks ago, but no card was produced. When Pompey got a penalty against Liverpool for a blatant shirt pull a fortnight ago, the referee walked around, explaining the decision with hand gestures, but booked no-one.

Why not? What is the point of bringing in these rules if they aren’t enforced? The rules are there to stop this sort of thing happening, so why when the refs see these incidents occur, do they not act properly? They haven’t misread the situation, they’ve seen exactly what has happened, but simply decided not to enforce the rules.

However, their reluctance to book people for these acts makes it more surprising and gratifying to see them do it from time to time. Witness Daniel Alves in the recent Arsenal-Seville match. Clichy fouled him in a nothing challenge, and the Brazilian begged the referee to produce a yellow card. The refs response was to book Alves. I cheered. It reminded me of another European game from a few years back, where Lauren picked up a yellow the same way, and later got a second. I still think he deserved it, and applaud referees who stamp out this nonsense. It is the only way.

A good rant can improve health. 

Until next time.

That, in case you hadn’t guessed, was sarcasm.

Michel Platini, our erstwhile UEFA president, elected by gaining votes from smaller nations thanks to his intention of stripping the top leagues of so many European spots, is, as predicted, having to change his plans.

Having had his proposal rejcted to cut the number of teams England, Spain and Italy have in the Champions League to three, he has a genius new plan. Allow the FA Cup winners the fourth spot, not the fourth place team in the league.

Fabulous. So now there’s a new way into the top club competition, should freshen things up, right? Wrong.

Predictably, if the FA Cup winners come in the top three, and have therefore qualified anyway, their place is taken by the fourth team in the league. And if the fourth team win the cup, they obviously qualify.

So, it only makes a difference if the FA Cup winners come from outside the top four, i.e. there aren’t called Chelsea, United, Arsenal or Liverpool.

So, let’s have a look at those winners, starting at last season and moving backwards through time.

2007. Chelsea. Big whoop.

2006. Liverpool. Still top 4.

2005. Arsenal. Yep.

2004. Man Utd. Yawn.

2003. Arsenal. Yes, us again.

2002. Arsenal. And again.

2001. Liverpool. Oh, the novelty.

2000. Chelsea. Getting the point yet?

1999. Man Utd. Those pesky top four teams are good, no?

1998. Arsenal. Just for a change.

1997. Chelsea. Would this really help, Michel?

1996. Man Utd. I didn’t think so, either.

1995. Everton! Hurrah! Finally a team from outside the top four break the monopoly. But of course, they did this two years ago by finishing fourth in the league, too, a whole ten years after the cup win, so that’s not really such a massive issue. Platini wants a shock team in there. Everton aren’t that team.

1994. Man Utd, Here we go again.

1993. Arsenal. Lovely.

1992. Liverpool. Wake me up when this is over.

1991. Spurs! Ooo, another non-top four team (whatever they’ll have you believe).

1990. Man Utd. What a shocker.

1989. Liverpool.

So, none of the last twelve FA Cups have been won by a team outside the current top four, and only two of the last nineteen. This genius new plan would have about as much effect as firing a water pistol at a burning down house.

So, tell me, just how is Platini justifying his salary?

When teams come to kick Arsenal, they are praised for their hard-working efforts and their willingness to fight for every ball.

When Arsenal respond by refusing to be bullied and stand up to the physical game, they are deemed dirty.

Despite the fact that Arsenal are the victims of more challenges that receive red cards than anyone else in the Premiership, those opposition tactics are still praised, even when the referee agrees it has gone overboard.

Every time Arsenal receive a red card, a reminder is made of how many we’ve had under Wenger.

When Pires made sure he caught Stefanovic’s leg in an attempt to win a penalty a few years back, he was vilified. In fact, the reputation stuck with him for years, despite the fact he wasn’t even the worst diver in the Arsenal team.

When Robbie Savage throws his leg into Kolo Toure, it is written that he ‘appeared to be brought down‘. At least there are some journalists in the world who seem to see sense though, the Times labelling Savage a disgrace.

When Arsenal dominated sides for the second half of last season, but couldn’t score with Henry and Van Persie injured, they were a bunch of fancy-dans more interested in scoring the perfect goal.

Now that Man Utd have started the season dominating teams but not scoring, it is purely because Rooney and Ronaldo are out (despite the fact that both have actually played this season).

When Wenger says that his team are innocent, the media claim he is myopic and wrong.

When Mourinho claims he has ‘no divers and no cheats’ in his team, he is……called an idiot. Okay, so at least they see sense there.

When Henry is challenged in the World Cup and goes down clutching his face when there was no contact there, he is criticised for months.

When Savage goes down clutching his face after no contact, dives later in the game, commits eights fouls, and attempts an amateur dramatics rant repeatedly, his passion is applauded and his histrionics ignored by media and pundits alike.

I realise this may come across as sour grapes, but that’s fine. I think it’s partly because we like to support the underdog in this country so much that so many tactics they use are accepted, no matter how related they are to anti-football. But those that dish it out can’t seem to take it. To hear Mark Hughes bleating about Van Persie’s challenge (which wasn’t even that bad) is laughable.

So I’m happy. I’m glad that Arsenal of this season seem willing to give back what they’ve taken for the past few years. It is refreshing.

But you can guarantee that the first time a red card is dished out, the team will be slated again, by the same media who currently label them as weak.