Hatem Ben Arfa suffers broken leg, Newcastle confirm

[Waffiman]

The most amusing thing about this thread is spastic trying so hard to join in the argument somehow and be among, but apart from a few words directed his way, all the debaters are completely ignoring him!

Acrually the argument has gone away from the point I was debating. So I took my leave. Which is fair. But if you pay attention to the threads I am on, very few ever challenge me on the facts. Coz I brink it like I know it. Sometimes when the force of someones intelligence befuddles you, you are best served side stepping. You Can check out my position on thread after thread, regardong issue after issue,very few challenge my position. Instead they feel more comfortable fighting weaker battles.

It is a sign of respect

I do, and I show, you are not about fact but spin.

Your De Jong spin is just hilarious.

[spastic]

The most amusing thing about this thread is spastic trying so hard to join in the argument somehow and be among, but apart from a few words directed his way, all the debaters are completely ignoring him!

Acrually the argument has gone away from the point I was debating. So I took my leave. Which is fair. But if you pay attention to the threads I am on, very few ever challenge me on the facts. Coz I brink it like I know it. Sometimes when the force of someones intelligence befuddles you, you are best served side stepping. You Can check out my position on thread after thread, regardong issue after issue,very few challenge my position. Instead they feel more comfortable fighting weaker battles.

It is a sign of respect

I do, and I show, you are not about fact but spin.

Your De Jong spin is just hilarious.

Perhaps! Even though you often misrepresent my position. With you it is not your intelligence that is in question, but your Arsenal bias. Always whinning about the big boys taking your lunch money

For example, here is an article I wholey agree with. And notice how it does not absolve De Jong And neither do I

The Dutch midfielder is this week angrily considering international retirement after Holland coach Bert van Marwijk dropped him for his leg-breaking tackle on Hatem Ben Arfa.

The Frenchman's tibia and fibula were both snapped during a clash between Newcastle and Manchester City a fortnight ago. It was an awful moment, and the richly talented Ben Arfa may not make a full recovery. De Jong has been told, via Newcastle officials, that he is not welcome to visit Ben Arfa in hospital.

But despite the righteous ire of the English media and Van Marwijk, De Jong's challenge was not unduly rough. He did not hit Ben Arfa's thigh with his studs, but with his trailing knee. A foul wasn't even awarded by referee Martin Atkinson, and at first glance he had no reason to do so. Thousands of similarly full-blooded tackles happen every weekend without any injury resulting. Ben Arfa was just appallingly unlucky.

Conversely, De Jong wasn't unlucky to be vilified for this freak incident. His reputation for rough play has been well earned - not least with that notorious boot to the chest of Xabi Alonso in the World Cup final. De Jong also broke US midfielder Stuart Holden's leg with a studs-up challenge in a friendly in March.

De Jong must cool his boots, and Van Marwijk was within his rights to drop him on the strength of his rotten record, having already warned him after the Holden challenge.

But English football must also cool its boots. De Jong has thrived at City because the Premier League's lax officials tolerate his excessive force. And he's far from the only beneficiary. Nearly all the smaller clubs are allowed to rely on physical intimidation to counter the superior skill of the division's superstars.

English managers and media are often unconsciously or dishonestly tolerant of their compatriots' excesses. "Crunching" tackles are lauded as evidence of the English game's traditional virtues of honesty and commitment. And even the most brutal assaults by homegrown players are excused as innocent clumsiness. When Birmingham City's Martin Taylor broke Eduardo's leg, and when Stoke City's Ryan Shawcross did likewise to Aaron Ramsey, both offenders were described as being "not that kind of player" - a tendentious and meaningless defence.

The implication is that you should only be held accountable for a criminally reckless tackle if you're widely known to be an evil human being.

Wolves' Karl Henry is probably a pleasant bloke, but he's the worst tackler in the league: already this season he has broken Bobby Zamora's leg, assaulted Joey Barton (!) - and Jordi Gomez.

It has taken the intervention of De Jong - one of few non-English players in the bully brigade - to skrik the Premier League into accepting it has a problem.

The recent spate of leg breaks may have physical causes. Players are bigger and faster than ever before, so impacts are greater. It may also be a factor that the blades on the soles of modern boots root a player's standing leg into the turf much more securely than studs used to - thus bracing the shin or ankle in vulnerable rigidity when a tackler's boot strikes it.

But the crux is that the Premier League is a giant collision between football cultures. Technically limited old-school defenders like Shawcross and Henry are confronting the darting speed and anticipation of many of the world's finest players. Some late tackles are thus inevitable - but too many tacklers are happy to be late. They relish hurting the "fancy Dans".

Needless to say, this backward mentality prolongs the miseries of the England national team, because it makes pure skill a liability.

[spastic]

The most amusing thing about this thread is spastic trying so hard to join in the argument somehow and be among, but apart from a few words directed his way, all the debaters are completely ignoring him!

Acrually the argument has gone away from the point I was debating. So I took my leave. Which is fair. But if you pay attention to the threads I am on, very few ever challenge me on the facts. Coz I brink it like I know it. Sometimes when the force of someones intelligence befuddles you, you are best served side stepping. You Can check out my position on thread after thread, regardong issue after issue,very few challenge my position. Instead they feel more comfortable fighting weaker battles.

It is a sign of respect

What an arrogant piece of crap to say I apologize in advance for my drunken blabber

[Coach]

My sentiments exact. A bad tackle shouldn't be deemed deliberate because of a player's previous exertions. Football is a contact sport, there are those who revel in the flair and flamboyance and others who thrive on its many duels. The latter, those who profess to being "old school", will put in their challenges, taking no prisoners on the way. Sportts psychology brethrens. In attendance at a Mashufa class, freestyle African martial arts, we were encouraged to exploit the mind state of one's opponent. Be loud, exaggerate one's physique, eye contact. In combat, the psychological advantage may prove the deciding factor. In an interview, years after being knocked out by Mike Tyson, Spinks said something along the lines of, not wanting to leave the dressing room, there was something ominous about Tyson's cold facial expression, piercing eye contact. Spinks was knocked out shortly after stepping into the ring. Mentally he was gone and physically, he had resigned himself to losing. Point of significance, just or unjust, the old brigade of players tosh their tough tackles around to coerce the fancy Dan's into forfeiting the contest. Again, this not in justification of the above, but to explain the rationale behind the good old English tackle, that remains ever present in the English game.

[txj]

Let me repeat: your logic collapses at the foot of 'intent'...

Whether it be intent or deliberate is of little consequence. Serial bad tackling is not synonymous with combativeness, because you can be combative, play the mind game and all, without maiming limbs. Consistent good tackling is evidence of technical skills.

I remember a friendly match in 1984 following the world cup b/w france and england, at the end of which the english forwards spoke about being intimidated by the technical skills of Batiston and Bosis. Point is u do not need to be a brute to achive these things...

My sentiments exact. A bad tackle shouldn't be deemed deliberate because of a player's previous exertions. Football is a contact sport, there are those who revel in the flair and flamboyance and others who thrive on its many duels. The latter, those who profess to being "old school", will put in their challenges, taking no prisoners on the way. Sportts psychology brethrens. In attendance at a Mashufa class, freestyle African martial arts, we were encouraged to exploit the mind state of one's opponent. Be loud, exaggerate one's physique, eye contact. In combat, the psychological advantage may prove the deciding factor. In an interview, years after being knocked out by Mike Tyson, Spinks said something along the lines of, not wanting to leave the dressing room, there was something ominous about Tyson's cold facial expression, piercing eye contact. Spinks was knocked out shortly after stepping into the ring. Mentally he was gone and physically, he had resigned himself to losing. Point of significance, just or unjust, the old brigade of players tosh their tough tackles around to coerce the fancy Dan's into forfeiting the contest. Again, this not in justification of the above, but to explain the rationale behind the good old English tackle, that remains ever present in the English game.

[spastic]

I sincerely doubt the veracity of this claim INTIMIDATED BY TECHNICAL SKILL!!! Come on now, I might have been born in the day time, but it wasn't yesterday. We will need eveidential proof to swallow this one I have heard "impressed" "suprised" "baffled" "hoodwinked" but "intimidated?"... Txj, easy dawg

On by the way, wassup with those books? You don get them

Let me repeat: your logic collapses at the foot of 'intent'...

Whether it be intent or deliberate is of little consequence. Serial bad tackling is not synonymous with combativeness, because you can be combative, play the mind game and all, without maiming limbs. Consistent good tackling is evidence of technical skills.

I remember a friendly match in 1984 following the world cup b/w france and england, at the end of which the english forwards spoke about being intimidated by the technical skills of Batiston and Bosis. Point is u do not need to be a brute to achive these things...

My sentiments exact. A bad tackle shouldn't be deemed deliberate because of a player's previous exertions. Football is a contact sport, there are those who revel in the flair and flamboyance and others who thrive on its many duels. The latter, those who profess to being "old school", will put in their challenges, taking no prisoners on the way. Sportts psychology brethrens. In attendance at a Mashufa class, freestyle African martial arts, we were encouraged to exploit the mind state of one's opponent. Be loud, exaggerate one's physique, eye contact. In combat, the psychological advantage may prove the deciding factor. In an interview, years after being knocked out by Mike Tyson, Spinks said something along the lines of, not wanting to leave the dressing room, there was something ominous about Tyson's cold facial expression, piercing eye contact. Spinks was knocked out shortly after stepping into the ring. Mentally he was gone and physically, he had resigned himself to losing. Point of significance, just or unjust, the old brigade of players tosh their tough tackles around to coerce the fancy Dan's into forfeiting the contest. Again, this not in justification of the above, but to explain the rationale behind the good old English tackle, that remains ever present in the English game.

[txj]

And speaking about old brigades, Franco Baressi was one, as was Guiseppe Bergomi, Daniel Pasarella, Ruggeri and Oscar, as well as englishment Moore and Butcher, Adams and Bould...

My sentiments exact. A bad tackle shouldn't be deemed deliberate because of a player's previous exertions. Football is a contact sport, there are those who revel in the flair and flamboyance and others who thrive on its many duels. The latter, those who profess to being "old school", will put in their challenges, taking no prisoners on the way. Sportts psychology brethrens. In attendance at a Mashufa class, freestyle African martial arts, we were encouraged to exploit the mind state of one's opponent. Be loud, exaggerate one's physique, eye contact. In combat, the psychological advantage may prove the deciding factor. In an interview, years after being knocked out by Mike Tyson, Spinks said something along the lines of, not wanting to leave the dressing room, there was something ominous about Tyson's cold facial expression, piercing eye contact. Spinks was knocked out shortly after stepping into the ring. Mentally he was gone and physically, he had resigned himself to losing. Point of significance, just or unjust, the old brigade of players tosh their tough tackles around to coerce the fancy Dan's into forfeiting the contest. Again, this not in justification of the above, but to explain the rationale behind the good old English tackle, that remains ever present in the English game.

[Waffiman]

He is spot on. I remember the talented Didier Six coming to England and playing for Aston Villa and how he was lauded like some god. but he was no Platini. The talented players were not trusted because they were seen as lazy and many were destroyed by violence. Six had a temper and he gave as good as he got, he was soon kicked out of England because racism and xenophobia meant he was an easy target for cowardly Refs and players. The game has always been backward in England, with so many talented players forced out of the game. This is why England have not done a thing since they got lucky in 1966. What gets to me is Wenger will change the game here and its effects will win them another major trophy since 1966.

I sincerely doubt the veracity of this claim INTIMIDATED BY TECHNICAL SKILL!!! Come on now, I might have been born in the day time, but it wasn't yesterday. We will need eveidential proof to swallow this one I have heard "impressed" "suprised" "baffled" "hoodwinked" but "intimidated?"... Txj, easy dawg

On by the way, wassup with those books? You don get them

Let me repeat: your logic collapses at the foot of 'intent'...

Whether it be intent or deliberate is of little consequence. Serial bad tackling is not synonymous with combativeness, because you can be combative, play the mind game and all, without maiming limbs. Consistent good tackling is evidence of technical skills.

I remember a friendly match in 1984 following the world cup b/w france and england, at the end of which the english forwards spoke about being intimidated by the technical skills of Batiston and Bosis. Point is u do not need to be a brute to achive these things...

My sentiments exact. A bad tackle shouldn't be deemed deliberate because of a player's previous exertions. Football is a contact sport, there are those who revel in the flair and flamboyance and others who thrive on its many duels. The latter, those who profess to being "old school", will put in their challenges, taking no prisoners on the way. Sportts psychology brethrens. In attendance at a Mashufa class, freestyle African martial arts, we were encouraged to exploit the mind state of one's opponent. Be loud, exaggerate one's physique, eye contact. In combat, the psychological advantage may prove the deciding factor. In an interview, years after being knocked out by Mike Tyson, Spinks said something along the lines of, not wanting to leave the dressing room, there was something ominous about Tyson's cold facial expression, piercing eye contact. Spinks was knocked out shortly after stepping into the ring. Mentally he was gone and physically, he had resigned himself to losing. Point of significance, just or unjust, the old brigade of players tosh their tough tackles around to coerce the fancy Dan's into forfeiting the contest. Again, this not in justification of the above, but to explain the rationale behind the good old English tackle, that remains ever present in the English game.

[Coach]

Having evangelised his gospel of thuggery and condemned the rationale and logic of all other arguments, could it be said of Txj's theory that: Previous exertions are of little significance in the making of a thug; 'intent' is immaterial, deliberate or accidental, a thuggish tackle is a thuggish tackle. And what constitues the latter is a tackle which is primarily unfair, affords more contact to the player than the ball, brandishes its studs prior to arrival and renders its recipient a collapsed heap on the terra cotta.

...On saturday, in attendance at a theatre where ingenuity was worthy of Shakespeare's Globe, one trained his eyes on Jack Wilshere. 80 odd minutes in, conclusion, 'the boy is special'. And then, in the blink of an eye, a moment that begs for Txj's explanation. The intended tackle was as late as a primi gravida's period. In terms of winnable tackles, it was unwinnable, the ball had strayed far from his foot, had rolled beyond the breeches of 50-50, with advantage solely at the feet of Nikola Zigic. The body was propelled into the challlenge, added force to optimise the outcome? To balance the scales? Feet off the ground, studs raised, for added...ermmm. The media have poured forth to declare Jack 'not that sort of player', but what weight does that hold in argument? Jf Zigic's leg collapsed underneath him, would you be branding Wilshere 'a thug'? Or do 'intent', 'previous' and 'style of play', bias the assessment in this regard? (Though we've already been told they hold no groound in court. Or have we misunderstood the teachings?)

...If De Jong made that same tackle, he'd be sentenced to solitary confinement on Shutter Island, but it wasn't De Jong, it was Jack The Lad, the great bright hope for English football and, as we've already been told, 'he's not that sort of player'. And how have the various sections of the media reached that conclusion? Could it be that they have afforded significance to style of play, previous and intent, in his defence.

...Arsenalist one may be, as undying, emotional as any other. This isn't about Arsenal, its about the labelling of 'certain' players. Txj, one would be grateful for your assessment of the Wilshere tackle and conclusions reached by your theory.

[spastic]

Having evangelised his gospel of thuggery and condemned the rationale and logic of all other arguments, could it be said of Txj's theory that: Previous exertions are of little significance in the making of a thug; 'intent' is immaterial, deliberate or accidental, a thuggish tackle is a thuggish tackle. And what constitues the latter is a tackle which is primarily unfair, affords more contact to the player than the ball, brandishes its studs prior to arrival and renders its recipient a collapsed heap on the terra cotta.

...On saturday, in attendance at a theatre where ingenuity was worthy of Shakespeare's Globe, one trained his eyes on Jack Wilshere. 80 odd minutes in, conclusion, 'the boy is special'. And then, in the blink of an eye, a moment that begs for Txj's explanation. The intended tackle was as late as a primi gravida's period. In terms of winnable tackles, it was unwinnable, the ball had strayed far from his foot, had rolled beyond the breeches of 50-50, with advantage solely at the feet of Nikola Zigic. The body was propelled into the challlenge, added force to optimise the outcome? To balance the scales? Feet off the ground, studs raised, for added...ermmm. The media have poured forth to declare Jack 'not that sort of player', but what weight does that hold in argument? Jf Zigic's leg collapsed underneath him, would you be branding Wilshere 'a thug'? Or do 'intent', 'previous' and 'style of play', bias the assessment in this regard? (Though we've already been told they hold no groound in court. Or have we misunderstood the teachings?)

...If De Jong made that same tackle, he'd be sentenced to solitary confinement on Shutter Island, but it wasn't De Jong, it was Jack The Lad, the great bright hope for English football and, as we've already been told, 'he's not that sort of player'. And how have the various sections of the media reached that conclusion? Could it be that they have afforded significance to style of play, previous and intent, in his defence.

...Arsenalist one may be, as undying, emotional as any other. This isn't about Arsenal, its about the labelling of 'certain' players. Txj, one would be grateful for your assessment of the Wilshere tackle and conclusions reached by your theory.

Here was what I said on the De Jong Axed thread

THE TACKLE- specifically, the slide tackle SHOULD BE condemned and banned. Wait till its Fabregas, or Messi or Xavi that breaks someones leg. Then folks will start seeing the truth. Cos I have een Fabregas put in a harder tackle than the De Jong tackle. I have seen Arsenals new kid, who by the way favors the slide tackle alot, put in similar hard tackles sliding. I guess when the broken leg is caused by a non defensive player, we will re-visit this discussion

The only question now is this, should we revisit the issue now, or does Waffi want to wait till Golden boy actually breaks a leg

In that Arsenal game alone, I counted 6 more ferocious tackles, including a Song slide tackle that was picture perfect similar to Dejong's (Same area of the field, first foot attacking the ball, other foot bent backwards, and getting the ball ) only difference being that the Birmiingham striker jumped out of the way. Guess what play went on and the commentator commended his read on the play

And like clock work Golden Boy went rogue and got himself sent off. This is after Eboue put in a late (Sciccors). I wonder if we are to conclude, Wenger is the one fueling all this

The stupidity of scapegoating is so obvious it is baffling that most can't see it

[txj]

That was a brutal, and yes 'thuggish' tackle in the very same class as a De Jong or Karl Henry tackle. What however seperates Wilshire from the aforementioned duo is history- the history of their tackling. If Wilshire continues in this same track he would've clearly established a body of evidence which would in turn locate him amongst the class of thugs.

Like I said b/4, Wilshire's intent is between him and the Almighty. To quote WS, 'there is no art to tell the mind's construction on the face'. I thus look instead in the direction of outcome, a series of outcomes which then constitute a body of evidence...

Having evangelised his gospel of thuggery and condemned the rationale and logic of all other arguments, could it be said of Txj's theory that: Previous exertions are of little significance in the making of a thug; 'intent' is immaterial, deliberate or accidental, a thuggish tackle is a thuggish tackle. And what constitues the latter is a tackle which is primarily unfair, affords more contact to the player than the ball, brandishes its studs prior to arrival and renders its recipient a collapsed heap on the terra cotta.

...On saturday, in attendance at a theatre where ingenuity was worthy of Shakespeare's Globe, one trained his eyes on Jack Wilshere. 80 odd minutes in, conclusion, 'the boy is special'. And then, in the blink of an eye, a moment that begs for Txj's explanation. The intended tackle was as late as a primi gravida's period. In terms of winnable tackles, it was unwinnable, the ball had strayed far from his foot, had rolled beyond the breeches of 50-50, with advantage solely at the feet of Nikola Zigic. The body was propelled into the challlenge, added force to optimise the outcome? To balance the scales? Feet off the ground, studs raised, for added...ermmm. The media have poured forth to declare Jack 'not that sort of player', but what weight does that hold in argument? Jf Zigic's leg collapsed underneath him, would you be branding Wilshere 'a thug'? Or do 'intent', 'previous' and 'style of play', bias the assessment in this regard? (Though we've already been told they hold no groound in court. Or have we misunderstood the teachings?)

...If De Jong made that same tackle, he'd be sentenced to solitary confinement on Shutter Island, but it wasn't De Jong, it was Jack The Lad, the great bright hope for English football and, as we've already been told, 'he's not that sort of player'. And how have the various sections of the media reached that conclusion? Could it be that they have afforded significance to style of play, previous and intent, in his defence.

...Arsenalist one may be, as undying, emotional as any other. This isn't about Arsenal, its about the labelling of 'certain' players. Txj, one would be grateful for your assessment of the Wilshere tackle and conclusions reached by your theory.

[Waffiman]

The most amusing thing about this thread is spastic trying so hard to join in the argument somehow and be among, but apart from a few words directed his way, all the debaters are completely ignoring him!

Acrually the argument has gone away from the point I was debating. So I took my leave. Which is fair. But if you pay attention to the threads I am on, very few ever challenge me on the facts. Coz I brink it like I know it. Sometimes when the force of someones intelligence befuddles you, you are best served side stepping. You Can check out my position on thread after thread, regardong issue after issue,very few challenge my position. Instead they feel more comfortable fighting weaker battles.

It is a sign of respect

I do, and I show, you are not about fact but spin.

Your De Jong spin is just hilarious.

Perhaps! Even though you often misrepresent my position. With you it is not your intelligence that is in question, but your Arsenal bias. Always whinning about the big boys taking your lunch money

I could have said the same thing about you with the Arsenal bit, Man City.

[Waffiman]

Wilshere was reckless and stupid, but he is no serial offender. He has apologised and promised to learn from the experience. With about a minute to go, Wilshere had a poor first touch, in a desperate attempt to retain possession, he lunges dangerously and recklessly. I cannot condone Wilshere tackle in any way but to excuse the fact that he is a kid still learning his trade. Yes! all game, the Birmingham players wound him up, before his lung, Zigic had a go and really should have been booked. Wilshere will learn and to be fair, the player has issued a statement apologising and making it clear he deserved his card. Shame, really because he was the best player on the park by a million miles.

That was a brutal, and yes 'thuggish' tackle in the very same class as a De Jong or Karl Henry tackle. What however seperates Wilshire from the aforementioned duo is history- the history of their tackling. If Wilshire continues in this same track he would've clearly established a body of evidence which would in turn locate him amongst the class of thugs.

Like I said b/4, Wilshire's intent is between him and the Almighty. To quote WS, 'there is no art to tell the mind's construction on the face'. I thus look instead in the direction of outcome, a series of outcomes which then constitute a body of evidence...

Having evangelised his gospel of thuggery and condemned the rationale and logic of all other arguments, could it be said of Txj's theory that: Previous exertions are of little significance in the making of a thug; 'intent' is immaterial, deliberate or accidental, a thuggish tackle is a thuggish tackle. And what constitues the latter is a tackle which is primarily unfair, affords more contact to the player than the ball, brandishes its studs prior to arrival and renders its recipient a collapsed heap on the terra cotta.

...On saturday, in attendance at a theatre where ingenuity was worthy of Shakespeare's Globe, one trained his eyes on Jack Wilshere. 80 odd minutes in, conclusion, 'the boy is special'. And then, in the blink of an eye, a moment that begs for Txj's explanation. The intended tackle was as late as a primi gravida's period. In terms of winnable tackles, it was unwinnable, the ball had strayed far from his foot, had rolled beyond the breeches of 50-50, with advantage solely at the feet of Nikola Zigic. The body was propelled into the challlenge, added force to optimise the outcome? To balance the scales? Feet off the ground, studs raised, for added...ermmm. The media have poured forth to declare Jack 'not that sort of player', but what weight does that hold in argument? Jf Zigic's leg collapsed underneath him, would you be branding Wilshere 'a thug'? Or do 'intent', 'previous' and 'style of play', bias the assessment in this regard? (Though we've already been told they hold no groound in court. Or have we misunderstood the teachings?)

...If De Jong made that same tackle, he'd be sentenced to solitary confinement on Shutter Island, but it wasn't De Jong, it was Jack The Lad, the great bright hope for English football and, as we've already been told, 'he's not that sort of player'. And how have the various sections of the media reached that conclusion? Could it be that they have afforded significance to style of play, previous and intent, in his defence.

...Arsenalist one may be, as undying, emotional as any other. This isn't about Arsenal, its about the labelling of 'certain' players. Txj, one would be grateful for your assessment of the Wilshere tackle and conclusions reached by your theory.

[maceo4]

Waffi, what about Eboue's own? Your players need to watch it o!!!

[toyin133]

Wilshere was reckless and stupid, but he is no serial offender. He has apologised and promised to learn from the experience. With about a minute to go, Wilshere had a poor first touch, in a desperate attempt to retain possession, he lunges dangerously and recklessly. I cannot condone Wilshere tackle in any way but to excuse the fact that he is a kid still learning his trade. Yes! all game, the Birmingham players wound him up, before his lung, Zigic had a go and really should have been booked. Wilshere will learn and to be fair, the player has issued a statement apologising and making it clear he deserved his card. Shame, really because he was the best player on the park by a million miles.

[/quote]

But Martin Taylor also apologised and admitted that he deserved the card but you insisted that he should be shot dead and wished you had a gun so you could do the shooting yourself.

[Waffiman]

Wilshere was reckless and stupid, but he is no serial offender. He has apologised and promised to learn from the experience. With about a minute to go, Wilshere had a poor first touch, in a desperate attempt to retain possession, he lunges dangerously and recklessly. I cannot condone Wilshere tackle in any way but to excuse the fact that he is a kid still learning his trade. Yes! all game, the Birmingham players wound him up, before his lung, Zigic had a go and really should have been booked. Wilshere will learn and to be fair, the player has issued a statement apologising and making it clear he deserved his card. Shame, really because he was the best player on the park by a million miles.

But Martin Taylor also apologised and admitted that he deserved the card but you insisted that he should be shot dead and wished you had a gun so you could do the shooting yourself.[/quote]

Rubbish.

Taylor did not apologise. His Manager did not apologise, his club did not apologise. Instead he was defended by all and sundry like they still do to his day. Saying he is not that type of player. Taylor claims he went to see Eduardo in hospital but Eduardo says he did not see him.

Have a look at both tackles. Note, I have not tried to defend Wilshere.

[Waffiman]

Waffi, what about Eboue's own? Your players need to watch it o!!!

I saw Eboue's tackle later on on TV, it was a bad scissor challenge. To be fair, that was Eboue retribution for the elbow on Chamakh. It was a physical feisty contest with the Arsenal facing off the bullies from Birmingham. Nasri too was luckly to be on the pitch. The fact is the Ref lost control of the game and both sides could easily have had 2 players sent off.

[Coach]

@Txj, so 'previous' is of significance, as the branding 'thug' be concerned.

[txj]

'previous' or serial brutal tackling constitutes a valid body of evidence in branding a player a 'thug', as opposed to 'thuggish tackling'. That has always being my point.

@Txj, so 'previous' is of significance, as the branding 'thug' be concerned.

[Coach]

Mine eyes have seen upon the field, Wilshere lunge with fullest commitment more than just once this season. How many lunges constitute a body of evidence, or is more about the breaks? Again, Arsenalist one may be, the argument is about the bias that exists in the appraisal of select individuals. Had De Jong made Wilshere's tackle, he'd be hung, drawn and quartered. Yet Jack's recklessness can be laughed away as the innocence of youth. 'He's not that sort of player'. But he is amassing a mini catalogue of full-bloodied tackles. Yet, he remains protected by the suggestion that 'he is not that sort of player'. Txj, one is certain you have seen some of the rash challenges Wilshere has afforded his opponents this season and last, your appraisal would be very welcome.

[txj]

There are reckless tackles then there are brutal tackles. Wilshere's was brutal in this case, but he has had instances of reckless tackles, as does Scholes or Mascherano. But these guys are clearly in a different category. There is a world of difference between a 'full-blooded', 'reckless' tackle and tackling a la De Jong or Karl Henry which is the product of a tactic designed to intimidate, or as they say- 'get in their faces'. There are far more effective ways of getting in the head of a player without bodily harm. I cannot help u if u do not understand the difference..

Mine eyes have seen upon the field, Wilshere lunge with fullest commitment more than just once this season. How many lunges constitute a body of evidence, or is more about the breaks? Again, Arsenalist one may be, the argument is about the bias that exists in the appraisal of select individuals. Had De Jong made Wilshere's tackle, he'd be hung, drawn and quartered. Yet Jack's recklessness can be laughed away as the innocence of youth. 'He's not that sort of player'. But he is amassing a mini catalogue of full-bloodied tackles. Yet, he remains protected by the suggestion that 'he is not that sort of player'. Txj, one is certain you have seen some of the rash challenges Wilshere has afforded his opponents this season and last, your appraisal would be very welcome.

[Coach]

@Txj, but what if those full-blooded, reckless challenges broke a leg on each occassion, would they still just be reckless sans deliberate intent? What is the significance of the broken bone? More importantly perhaps, what role does one's position on the field play in this defining a 'thug'? Were Wilshere a holding midfielder making these very tackles, would he be looked on less favourably?

[txj]

Its about consistency; thats what provides a pattern which in turns explains the conclusion.

No, a players position on the field is unimportatnt. For instance, Duncan Ferguson was a thug!

@Txj, but what if those full-blooded, reckless challenges broke a leg on each occassion, would they still just be reckless sans deliberate intent? What is the significance of the broken bone? More importantly perhaps, what role does one's position on the field play in this defining a 'thug'? Were Wilshere a holding midfielder making these very tackles, would he be looked on less favourably?