The Beautiful Groan

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.

Do players never realise that continual moaning endears them to precisely no-one?

Case one. Jeremie Aliadiere. For years he’s been a squad player at Arsenal, showing flashes of potential interspersed with a lot of inadequacy. In short, he could look the part, but only once in a while. After many years and many chances, injuries meant he played a large chunk of first team football last season.

It only served to highlight his deficiencies. Even playing alongside the clumsiest Brazilian to ever walk to planet couldn’t help disguise his failings. So, he was shipped off to Middlesbrough, at which point most Gooners wished him luck. He’d always tried, after all, he just didn’t quite cut it.

And then it all went wrong.

Suddenly he started to moan that he didn’t get the chances, that he did fine but never had extended opportunities, etc. Now, if he were English, the media would be running with this, claiming that Wenger refuses to give home grown players a chance. In fact, his moaning puts me in mind of one Jay Bothroyd (remember him?).

Back in 2000, Bothroyd was shepherded out of the door after a combination of his poor performances and even poorer attitude. He had this to say:

“Arsenal want to buy success but Coventry are bringing up the youth.”

“The first team are not interested in youth at Arsenal.”

“The manager’s job is always on the line. He needs success now.”

Wenger now has some of the finest young players at his disposal, and it sometimes even criticised for concentrating on youth. Bothroyd, who claimed his nationality held him back amongst the foreign legion, moved to Coventry, then Perugia, then Blackburn, where he showed his stupid side, then Charlton and finally Wolves.

He has never settled and never regularly scored goals. I wonder if he still thinks he was good enough to make it at Arsenal. And I wonder if Aliadiere will two years from now.

Case two - William Gallas, who is already demanding Wenger brings players in, claiming he will request talks with the boss to find out what’s going on.

Point 1 - There are eight weeks left in the transfer window.

Point 2 - Wenger does not report to Gallas, no matter how much the defender calls himself an uncontested leader.

Gallas is finding himself getting more unpopular with fans, as he hasn’t performed on the field in a way that allows him to be this candid with the media. Henry was getting restless, but through his performances and love for the club had partially earned that right. Gallas has done nothing for Arsenal yet, apart from play far below his best and moan.

I would not be adverse to Wenger making a disciplinary stance and moving him on if he could find a replacement. Yes, Gallas is an excellent centre back at his best, but he is also a major pain in the backside. Chelsea have a siege mentality, how can we have the same if players like Gallas continue to bang on like this?

More than anything, it is disrespectful to the current players. He is essentially saying that they aren’t good enough, and that is absolutely out of order.

Grow up Bill.

1 June, 2005 - Chelsea, Jose Mourinho and Ashley Cole are handed record fines by breaching a variety of Premier League rules.

Chelsea, in particular, are fined 300k and given a suspended three point deduction, for breaking rule K3, which prevents a club from approaching another player held under a contract with at least six months remaining.

25 June, 2005 - Chelsea pay Tottenham a sizeable sum, thought to be around 10m, as compensation for the appointment of Frank Arnesen as sporting director. Tottenham had threatened to report Chelsea for tapping him up after he’d been spotted on Abramovich’s boat.

The compensation satisfied Spurs, but was seen as an admission of guilt by a club with a potential points deduction hanging over them.

28 October, 2006 - Chelsea pay Leeds a settlement for them to drop charges over illegally approaching three of their young players, two of whom subsequently made the move to London.

Chelsea insist they will “rectify any shortcomings… and develop their own code of conduct”

30 June, 2007 - Florent Malouda gives an interview to French newspaper, Le Progres, after it is confirmed that Lyon have rejected a 12 million pound from Chelsea for the winger:

“I have made my choice. I have talked with the coach Jose Mourinho.

“The directors know I want to leave and in these conditions I can’t see me playing for Lyon anymore.”

He has talked with Jose Mourinho? Let’s remind ourselves of that rule again - clubs and managers are both forbidden from approaching a player under contract with another club, unless that player has less than six months left on the deal. Malouda has two years left.

Presumably, since Lyon rejected the offer, they have not given Mourinho or any Chelsea representative permission to speak to their player.

Mourinho cannot claim ignorance to this rule, he did after all get fined a record 200k for his part in tapping up Ashley Cole. At the time, the Premier League said they would not stand for this again. Now, this situation is more complicated, as it is not between two clubs under their jurisdiction, but for how much longer can they get away with this?

Chelsea behave as if they are invincible, as if they don’t have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. The trouble is, they are never punished for it, so in a way they are right. And even a record fine is not a punishment - their deep-pocketed owner is hardly likely to worry about some loose change when his club get the services of the best people (players, youth, staff) in the game.

It has to stop. What’s the point of a governing body that doesn’t act?

Many children have imaginary friends at a young age - it helps them feel secure and wanted at an ever changing stage of their life. The imaginary friend never argues, deceives or annoys them, they never fall out or get teased by them.

Some get so attached to their imaginary friend that their real life gets a little stunted - no real friend ever matches up to the perfect one sitting in their subconscious. Some even get so consumed by the voice in their head that they start confusing the boundaries between fact and fiction. Ever known someone who told a lie so many times they believed it themselves? It’s a very similar concept - there is no distinction between a real conversation and the one that they go to sleep creating.

Some take this so far, that they become journalists for the Sun.

How else do you explain all the ‘friends’ that appear in news stories? Someone who is ‘close friends’ with Wenger has apparently been spilling the beans to the Sun about how disillusioned he is with the financial constraints at Arsenal, and how he is unlikely to renew his contract. How likely is it that this ‘friend’ is in fact the journalist, who met Arsene once, and last night went to sleep imagining how the conversation would go. When the alarm clock went off this morning, he instantly rang his editor with news of a ‘remarkable story’. Split personalities must be useful when a journalist needs quotes. 

Simple rules of the transfer window:

If the story says ‘A close friend said’, it’s not true.

If a story says ‘It is understood that’, it’s not true.

If a story says ‘Sources close to X revealed that’, it’s not true.

If a story says ‘Harry Harris: Exclusive’, it’s not true.

Elsewhere, Sepp Blatter’s making friends again, comparing young African players playing for European clubs to slavery. He claims that the top clubs are signing them up, taking them from their families, and dropping them again if they don’t cut it.

Which is exactly how football works all around the world. It is more than worrying that the president of the world game doesn’t understand such a simple concept.

Is there any continent the FIFA president doesn’t want to alienate? It seems he is trying to recover from his demand that Mali players play for their clubs last weekend, but he’s so transparent its untrue.

Van Persie to go to Bayern?

Yeah, right.

Owen to sign for Arsenal?

Give me a break.

Rio Mavuba to shun an Arsenal move?

Is that a bit like Zokora ’shunning a move’ last summer? Kinda hard to say no to an unasked question, Rio.

Briand being tracked?

As reported by L’Equipe, which talks more tosh that your average politician.

Henry to leave?

I’m getting deja vu….

Honestly, are we going to have to sit through this crap all summer?

Rest of the season review is on the way.

I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of watching John Terry’s behaviour.

Watch any Chelsea game. Not necessarily a grudge game, but any game. I can guarantee you’ll see at least five occurrences of Terry storming up to a referee, shoving anyone out of the way, to give him a piece of his mind.

I don’t buy the excuse that ‘everyone does it’. He puts his hands on officials all the time (a red card offence), and you don’t need a lip reader to figure out that he’s effing and blinding at the ref too (also a red card offence).

I know he’s the captain, but that doesn’t make it his personal responsibility to shove the perpetrator of any foul, when the ref is already dealing with it. It doesn’t mean he has the right to verbally abuse referees, touch them, or yell at them with his face two inches from theirs. Just what quality saw him named England captain over, say, Gerrard? His suspect background and brushes with the law?

There are some that will think this article is harsh, but you know what? If Terry was any nationality other than English, his actions would be scrutinised, he would be panned in the media, and all those who get their opinions from the Sun would hate him.

He isn’t the role model, the ‘wonderful leader’ that he is portrayed as. He is a fantastic driving force of a centre back, but his behaviour is also indicative of so much that is wrong with our game today.

Yes, it’s been a strange few days for Arsenal.

Yes, this leaves us without our chief transfer negotiator.

No, this doesn’t mean we can’t be active in the market.

No, Wenger isn’t happy about Dein going.

No, this does not mean he will leave too - they are not Siamese twins.

Yes, the media are over hyping this by saying there will be a mass exodus - this is not a playground.

No, this is not the end of Arsenal Football Club.

Yes, this story is going to get dull very quickly.

Yes, we should be looking forward to the derby game.

That is all.

Another tough week then. On the pitch the performance against Newcastle was worse than that against West Ham at the weekend, although at least the 0-0 result was an improvement, and with Bolton and Everton cancelling each other out it’s as you were as we head towards the big game at the weekend.

Off the pitch the takeover rumblings continue, with Stan Kroenke’s 9.9% purchase last week sparking all sorts of rumours of his intentions come the summer. Honestly, I don’t know what to think of this situation - he is an adept businessman, no doubt, but does he recognise the tradition? In all reality, I’m not sure he’ll find the takeover an easy operation to carry out, with the existing shareholders keeping their cards very close to their chest. One to talk about in the close season, no doubt.

And then there are the loan players, who inadvertently have found themselves in the spotlight over the past few days. First Bendtner, whose tussle with Barnsley defender Antony Kay sparked a massive brawl at the end of the match. A brawl involving all the players, with tempers flaring and red cards issued - where have we heard that before?

It’ll be interesting to compare the punishments to, say, 100k fines. Over to you, FA, for the predictable inconsistency.

And then there was Song, on loan at Charlton, who was walking a tightrope against Reading the other night, lunging in having already been booked, so Graham Poll, never one to shy away from the spotlight, took it upon himself to ‘advise’ Alan Pardew to take him off. To me, this sets a very dangerous precedent, and is also completely unnecessary - was Pardew not watching the match closely enough to realise the problem himself?

Undoubtedly Poll thought he’d be praised for his communication, but will he do this every week? I doubt it. He’s had an odd career, for years I couldn’t stand his officiating - he didn’t seem to understand the concept of a foul not necessarily resulting in a yellow card. Then, for about three years, he was probably the best referee in the country (he clearly thought so), before his standards reverted again, the nexus of course bring that triple yellow in the World Cup.

But back on topic - we ask for refereeing consistency, and while they can’t get every decision right, they should each have the same approach. Warning a manager in that way is a conscious decision - what part of him thought that this wouldn’t irritate Charlton’s competition?

Poll has been backed by the FA. What a shocker.

Sometimes you have to wonder if the people in charge of running our beautiful game have any common sense. Year after year we have the creation of rules that are either plain stupid, or not enforced by the game’s officials. At times the plans put forward are so transparently daft you wonder how they ever got approved in the first place. More on those ideas later.

Occasionally the powers that be do get it right though, yet the plans still fall flat. Over the past few years, we’ve had the introduction of a mandatory yellow card for shirt pulling, which I fully endorsed at the time, and still do. Let’s make it clear - shirt pulling is not an accidental foul, such as a mistimed tackle, but a deliberate and cynical act of cheating, and should be punished accordingly. Yet how many times do we see a referee indicate a shirt pull and not brandish a card?

We’ve also had the ten yard rule, which gets implemented even more rarely, to the extent that many people believe it has never existed. In reality, the referee has the power and the instruction to move a free kick ten yards further up the field in cases of dissent. Finally, referees were instructed to send players off who harassed them on the field, yet every match we see referees breaking the walking backwards world record while players rush up to them, knowing full well they’ll get away with it. It won’t change unless someone at the top of the hierarchy has some guts and start to justify their salary.

But there are some rules and proposals that you would rather see consigned to the bin, and worrying, some of them come from the newly elected president of UEFA.

Michel Platini

Platini was recently appointed as the head of the European game, quickly reaffirming his ties to the man who can’t keep stupid ideas coming out of his mouth, FIFA president Sepp Blatter (let’s remember, this ‘respected’ head of world football believes all women’s football should be played on a beach in bikinis). The appointment was met with a mixture of dismay and concern by some of the top clubs, as Platini had cleverly aligned himself with the smaller nations, who far outnumber the leading leagues. With each country having one vote each, the canny Frenchman knew that he didn’t necessarily have to keep the big boys happy. But you would’ve thought his ideas would still have to make sense, right? Wrong. Let’s look at some of his proposals.

To reduce the number of teams from the top nations in the Champions League

On the one hand, this makes a lot of sense. The term ‘Champions League’ suggests that the third and fourth clubs from any league should not be participating. In reality, the name is a misnomer, as the old term ‘European Cup’ would be more appropriate.

Currently, some nation’s champions have to play qualifying rounds, and come in before Italy, Spain and England’s third and fourth clubs (who also have to qualify, incidentally). Platini argues:

“I’m not sure that the fourth clubs from Spain, Italy and England are more important than the champions of Poland, the Czech Republic and Denmark.”

If this was the case, then when the fourth placed Italian side played the Czech champions in the qualifying round, they’d lose, and the Czechs would move on to the group stage. That’s the whole point of the qualifying round, to find out who is good enough to continue in the competition and who isn’t. Many national champions get hammered annually in their first match in the tournament. Why give them a bye to the group stage where they get to be beaten an extra couple of times before going home? It weakens the competition, makes the group stages far less exciting, and for absolutely no gain.

What Platini wants to do is force weaker sides to automatically qualify for later stages, while causing big sides to miss out by playing them against each other in the qualifiers. What he needs to understand is that as soon as you start to force the balance towards a weaker team, you make the competition a farce. It is quite simple - if a side is good enough to qualify, they will, without the need for byes. Look at Liverpool - forced to qualify as champions from the first round. They got through without trouble, because they were good enough. Everyone has that chance.

The other point Platini seems to miss is that there is no bias towards any nation. The whole concept of how many teams each country has in the competition, and where they enter, is not fixed. It is based upon the country’s co-efficient, which is a measure of success of the country’s teams over the previous five years. So, if Poland suddenly start producing excellent teams, their representatives will qualify for the group stage, probably go on a run, raise the co-efficient, and their allocation will rise as a result. Similarly, if our clubs all fall early, ours will drop, and we will lose places.

It is a self-modifying system. It is fair to all countries, and goes by the simple rule that if you succeed one year, it directly benefits the country the following year. Lyon are a good example - single-handedly raising the French allocation in European competition with consistent Champions League success. The reverse is also true.

It is an excellent system, Michel, and a format that is working very well. Leave it alone.

To increase the number of officials in a match by two

These two officials would be at either end, watching the penalty area for any infringement. Which begs the question - if we need such an official, what exactly is the referee looking at when play is in the box? The centre circle? The crowd? We already have the referee watching play, why add another official whose opinion can be superceded by him if they disagree in any way.

We already have two referee’s assistants, who do very little that stops them being called ‘linesmen’, and a fourth official whose main job appears to be working out how the electronic board works. What exactly would two more officials add?

Not to mention the fact that we already have a shortage of referees. Taking the matchday number to six would stretch this to breaking point. How many leagues are expected to have the full complement of officials?

To introduce a salary cap

A salary cap based upon a percentage of a club’s turnover sounds like a good idea in theory, as it is designed to stop clubs spending beyond their means, while also curbing the spending power of a club like Chelsea, but it is wholly unworkable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it is practically unenforcable. At what point does a perk become part of a salary? Would we see more contracts with a legal base salary, plenty of bonuses, and a car or house thrown in? Would that all count in the calculation?

And what about a club getting to the Champions League final, giving them a massive turnover, only to flop the following season. They might have 100m in the bank, but still have to sell players as their wage cap is now much lower (their turnover will have taken a big hit). This seems absolutely ridiculous, and leads to the bizarre situation where a bad season can’t lead to squad strengthening, as the turnover is down.

I don’t see how this helps anymore. Chelsea are Chelsea and will still flaunt their money. Everyone else lives by the rules of business, and some of those (Leeds being a prime example) got it badly wrong. They’ve already been punished enough for that.

Lord Mawhinney

Over the past couple of days, however, it has become clear that there is an influential man in football who makes Platini look like he’s got his finger on the pulse of the sport. Mawhinney has been credited with an idea which may actually have been created by a fan survey, but wherever it came from, it should’ve stayed buried.

What idea? Simply, that we should abolish draws in league matches. The proposal is to have a penalty shoot out to give one side a bonus point (for a total of two, to the loser’s one).

This is absurd. Aside from the lottery feel that this brings to a league (more on that later), it reverses one of the best changes made to the league format.

Many years ago, there only used to be two points for a win, with one for a draw. The mantra of championship winning sides was ‘win your home games, draw your away games’. Then, the points for winning a game were increased to three. Suddenly, away wins were extremely valuable, and now, you can’t win leagues without them. It made winning much more desirable than settling for a draw, thus promoting an attacking brand of football.

Quite often, you see two teams level towards the end of a game, both going for a win, as they’ve decided one point isn’t enough. But if they knew that they were a penalty shoot out away from two points, they’d take it. This could potentially lead to horribly dull and defensive games, as many teams take their chances with the lottery rather than trying to win the game.

And make no mistake about it, a lottery it would be. Let’s look at one of many examples from last season:

League One

Swansea came sixth, eleven points behind the champions Southend, yet the right results in their seventeen shoot outs could win them the league in the proposed system. On the other hand, the wrong results could see them come below 17th placed Bournemouth.

Let’s make this clear - with the right results in luck-based penalty shoot-outs, they could’ve won the league. With the wrong results, they could’ve come 17th. And all based on the same match results.

This scheme it utterly ridiculous, and is based on the notion that a draw isn’t a valid result anymore. This isn’t the US, there is nothing wrong with a draw here. It is an achievement for the smaller side, or the one coming back from a two goal deficit. It isn’t an anti-climax.

Which brings us back to common sense. Do the people that matter have any?

I’ve officially had enough of the offside debate. Week after week we hear complaints from various managers, including our own, about goals being given when the striker was millimetres offside. We have analysts examining the footage frame by frame to conclude that the linesman (sorry, referee’s assistant) should’ve flagged.

Nine times out of ten, they shouldn’t have.

Law 11 covers the offside rule quite clearly, and the additional guideline is given that if the linesman is unsure, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the attacking team. To put it another way, as it seems certain ‘experts’ miss this crucial point, if there is any doubt in the linesman’s mind that the striker is offside, then he must keep his flag down.

Barcelona scored a fractionally offside goal in the Champions League final. Chelsea scored a fractionally offside goal in the Carling Cup final. You’ll never hear me complain about either goal. Both were crucial decisions, and the match analysts said the linesmen made mistakes on both occasions. Those analysts are wrong.

Often, an offside call is made when a striker is bending his run towards goal, while the defender quickly steps out in the opposite direction. In a split second, the striker will be metres offside, and the linesman has the impossible task of judging where the two were in relation to each other at the exact moment the ball was played. To make matters worse, if the pass was from distance, chances are he’ll spend that split second turning his head towards the pair, to see the striker running away and the defender’s arm in the air.

Now let’s remind ourselves of that rule. If the linesman isn’t sure, he must not flag offside. Now common sense dictates that a judgement call has to be made here. If the striker is, in the mind of the linesman, too far ahead to have not been offside, he’ll flag, and rightly so. But it’s the close calls that irritate me. I am fed up of seeing Jamie Redknapp on Sky using frame by frame technology to tell us that the striker was 27cm offside (about 0.05 seconds of play if the defender is stepping out), and therefore that the flag should’ve gone up.

Jamie Redknapp. Andy Gray. You are part of the problem. Read the rules.

In those circumstances, there is no way that a linesman can know whether the player was offside. So they should keep the flag down.

Offside goals are hard to accept for any fan or manager. But when analysts are examining these minute details and concluding that the officials got it wrong, they are not helping anyone. I am convinced that these analyses are causing the flag to go up too often, because there ‘might be an offside’. Unwittingly, the benefit of the doubt is going back to the defender, even though the rules state the opposite.

I don’t want to see any measurements of a player being centimetres offside. It is even worse when they can’t agree on whether the offside should’ve been given (“I think his left leg might be offside”). Let’s take a reality check. Unless the linesman is sure, the flag should stay down, the so-called experts at Sky should accept that he wasn’t sure, so made the correct call, and we can all move on.

I won’t be holding my breath.