After last weekends shambolic display against Fulham, Arsenal needed to show some kind of response (beating a side managed by Shteve McLaren didn't count). They certainly did that yesterday, and then some. First things first though - Newcastle, even at full strength, are not a particularly good team, despite what Newcastle fans might think. I may be wrong about this, but as far as I'm aware they haven't beaten a side that finished in the top 10 last season since Keegan's second coming. If you can find a result to disprove that statement then please inform me, because much like the theists of this world, the burden of proof lies on you.
Unfortunately for Newcastle fans however, the team that faced Arsenal was by no means a full strength Newcastle team (whatever that looks like) - proof of which was Ameobi's inclusion in the starting 11 (the extent of his contribution being to block a goal-bound effort from Michael Owen - an effort which was pretty much the extent of Owen's contribution also). Newcastle were missing players like Duff, Martins and Viduka - none of which are world beaters, but all of which are better than Ameobi (he was so bad I've even seen it fit to make fun of him twice in one paragraph).
With the context of this game out of the way, allow me to praise by far and away the best team performance I've seen this season. Though Chelsea's demolition of Portsmouth was ruthless, efficient, and at times very pleasing to the eye, this Arsenal performance had beauty stamped all over it.
I find it hard to believe that this can be the result of the mere introduction of one player - Cesc Fabregas. Does he really make that much of a difference to Arsenal? Surely no one man can transform a team to such a large degree. However, if such men exist, then Cesc Fabregas is surely one of them. He was magnificent yesterday. So magnificent, that he even covered up for another shaky display from Denilson. His passing was crisp and incisive, his tackling was hard, his work rate was exemplary - he was just superb in all aspects of the game. And this, remember, was his first Premier League game of the season. No matter what club you swear by, you really can't help but appreciate the kind of football he plays. To say anything to the contrary would make you a bitter, blinded person in my opinion, and one who doesn't truly love the beautiful game.
There were other star performers of course. Robin van Persie looked sharper in both his passing and his shooting. He really is a class act, and I hope he gets a run of injury-free life to prove as much (mind you, he did his obligatory hobble off the pitch with about 30 minutes to go, though news emenating from the Arsenal camp is that he's okay, which means we've most likely seen the last of Robin van Persie this season). Adebayor was a constant threat also, though I still question his work rate and, um, clinicalness [?]. Eboue was a menace, and surprisingly for a player of his standards, he didn't give the ball away very often. In fact it was proposed to me by a friend that Eboue has been Arsenal's most consistent performer so far this season. Given how bad Arsenal had played before yesterday, it was hard to argue with such a seemingly propostrous statement. For me, I think Nasri has pipped him, but if someone somewhere gave Eboue an 'Arsenal Player of the Month' trophy, I would have few complaints.
Speaking of Nasri, he was once again impressive, without being exhilarating. He kept the ball well, and made some nice cutting passes, but the majority of Arsenal's play came from the other side of the pitch where Cesc Fabregas tends to hover so that left him a little starved of good possession. Nasri did however do one sublime maneuver, when he picked the ball up just outside his own box, fended off a few Newcastle challenges, and advanced with the ball right through the heart of the midfield before laying it off to someone else. A lesser player would have either been dispossessed or just hoofed the ball clear, but Nasri showed great skill and composure, and started an attack from nothing. This bodes very well for the future.
There was a little incident involving Nasri at the very end of the game, which showed that the Zidane comparisons aren't just restricted to purely footballing ability. Having been on the end of a legal but overly physical challenge (in my opinion) from one Joey Barton, Nasri responded by later tripping up Barton as he ran towards goal. It was harmless enough, but deserving of a yellow card nonetheless. However, Keegan gave Nasri a large piece of his mind after the game, which was nothing but built up emotions due to Barton's return in my view, and something wholly uncalled for. Barton went in strong, Nasri responded rather impishly by tripping him up, and that's that. He got his booking, now lets move on. Keegan didn't, and came out saying that Nasri 'sliced' Barton down. Sliced!? He barely even stuck out his leg as he ran across Barton, which hardly constitutes a slice. Keegan was well off with his assessment of this whole situation in my opinion, and I think his verbal attack on Nasri was an example of someone channeling their emotions in the wrong way. Not the first time such a thing could be said about King Kev, though I do admire his passion.
Whether Barton should have been playing or not is another matter. One thing I don't understand is people getting up on their moral high horse, almost as if Barton is the only misbehaving footballer out there. If you want footballers to be pillars of morality then fine by me, but then why are people like Rio Ferdinand, Craig Bellamy, John Terry and Dirk Kuyt playing our game? (Dirk Kuyt isn't a thug as far as I'm aware, but still it must be asked at every opportunity- why is he playing our game?) You can't just let the antics of some footballers slide, or just give them a slap on the wrist, but then come down like a ton of bricks on someone like Barton, just because he's an easy target.
If Barton or others break footballing rules, then they should (and hopefully will) be punished by the letter of the law. With regards matters outside of football however, either you punish all non-football related behaviour by varying degrees (depending on the indiscretion) based on some kind of legislation, or you allow the club to punish non-football related incidents as they see fit.
John Terry and some team mates got drunk the day after 9/11, swore, vomitted and stripped off in front of American tourists staying at a hotel. That's as much a sackable offense as assaulting someone if you ask me. But that's just it - it's not up to me to decide what kind of moral behaviour demands sacking or not. If Newcastle want to keep Barton on their books, then that's their decision, and no one is in any place to say that they're doing the 'wrong thing'. And if they decide to play Barton in a game that he's strictly eligible for -- even though he's got a misconduct hearing in a few days -- then they have every right to do so. Maybe it's not the wisest decision, but it's Newcastle's decision to make.
Objective morality should either permeate every aspect of football, or no aspect. You can't just bring it in when it's convenient to do so. That's not how life works, and it's not how football should work. You either legislate for moral behaviour across the board, or you allow a club to punish someone in their own way. And if you choose the latter, then you are in no position to say a club is 'wrong' for not sacking someone or for playing someone who's available for selection. You can say you think the club is wrong, but that's as far as it can go when no objective standard is in place.
These are just some of my thoughts on the matter, but I'm yet to really think them through so they're a little rough at the moment.
Anyway, the main thrust of this post is that Arsenal were a joy to watch yesterday, though Newcastle's inadequacies should be noted.
Unfortunately for Newcastle fans however, the team that faced Arsenal was by no means a full strength Newcastle team (whatever that looks like) - proof of which was Ameobi's inclusion in the starting 11 (the extent of his contribution being to block a goal-bound effort from Michael Owen - an effort which was pretty much the extent of Owen's contribution also). Newcastle were missing players like Duff, Martins and Viduka - none of which are world beaters, but all of which are better than Ameobi (he was so bad I've even seen it fit to make fun of him twice in one paragraph).
With the context of this game out of the way, allow me to praise by far and away the best team performance I've seen this season. Though Chelsea's demolition of Portsmouth was ruthless, efficient, and at times very pleasing to the eye, this Arsenal performance had beauty stamped all over it.
I find it hard to believe that this can be the result of the mere introduction of one player - Cesc Fabregas. Does he really make that much of a difference to Arsenal? Surely no one man can transform a team to such a large degree. However, if such men exist, then Cesc Fabregas is surely one of them. He was magnificent yesterday. So magnificent, that he even covered up for another shaky display from Denilson. His passing was crisp and incisive, his tackling was hard, his work rate was exemplary - he was just superb in all aspects of the game. And this, remember, was his first Premier League game of the season. No matter what club you swear by, you really can't help but appreciate the kind of football he plays. To say anything to the contrary would make you a bitter, blinded person in my opinion, and one who doesn't truly love the beautiful game.
There were other star performers of course. Robin van Persie looked sharper in both his passing and his shooting. He really is a class act, and I hope he gets a run of injury-free life to prove as much (mind you, he did his obligatory hobble off the pitch with about 30 minutes to go, though news emenating from the Arsenal camp is that he's okay, which means we've most likely seen the last of Robin van Persie this season). Adebayor was a constant threat also, though I still question his work rate and, um, clinicalness [?]. Eboue was a menace, and surprisingly for a player of his standards, he didn't give the ball away very often. In fact it was proposed to me by a friend that Eboue has been Arsenal's most consistent performer so far this season. Given how bad Arsenal had played before yesterday, it was hard to argue with such a seemingly propostrous statement. For me, I think Nasri has pipped him, but if someone somewhere gave Eboue an 'Arsenal Player of the Month' trophy, I would have few complaints.
Speaking of Nasri, he was once again impressive, without being exhilarating. He kept the ball well, and made some nice cutting passes, but the majority of Arsenal's play came from the other side of the pitch where Cesc Fabregas tends to hover so that left him a little starved of good possession. Nasri did however do one sublime maneuver, when he picked the ball up just outside his own box, fended off a few Newcastle challenges, and advanced with the ball right through the heart of the midfield before laying it off to someone else. A lesser player would have either been dispossessed or just hoofed the ball clear, but Nasri showed great skill and composure, and started an attack from nothing. This bodes very well for the future.
There was a little incident involving Nasri at the very end of the game, which showed that the Zidane comparisons aren't just restricted to purely footballing ability. Having been on the end of a legal but overly physical challenge (in my opinion) from one Joey Barton, Nasri responded by later tripping up Barton as he ran towards goal. It was harmless enough, but deserving of a yellow card nonetheless. However, Keegan gave Nasri a large piece of his mind after the game, which was nothing but built up emotions due to Barton's return in my view, and something wholly uncalled for. Barton went in strong, Nasri responded rather impishly by tripping him up, and that's that. He got his booking, now lets move on. Keegan didn't, and came out saying that Nasri 'sliced' Barton down. Sliced!? He barely even stuck out his leg as he ran across Barton, which hardly constitutes a slice. Keegan was well off with his assessment of this whole situation in my opinion, and I think his verbal attack on Nasri was an example of someone channeling their emotions in the wrong way. Not the first time such a thing could be said about King Kev, though I do admire his passion.
Whether Barton should have been playing or not is another matter. One thing I don't understand is people getting up on their moral high horse, almost as if Barton is the only misbehaving footballer out there. If you want footballers to be pillars of morality then fine by me, but then why are people like Rio Ferdinand, Craig Bellamy, John Terry and Dirk Kuyt playing our game? (Dirk Kuyt isn't a thug as far as I'm aware, but still it must be asked at every opportunity- why is he playing our game?) You can't just let the antics of some footballers slide, or just give them a slap on the wrist, but then come down like a ton of bricks on someone like Barton, just because he's an easy target.
If Barton or others break footballing rules, then they should (and hopefully will) be punished by the letter of the law. With regards matters outside of football however, either you punish all non-football related behaviour by varying degrees (depending on the indiscretion) based on some kind of legislation, or you allow the club to punish non-football related incidents as they see fit.
John Terry and some team mates got drunk the day after 9/11, swore, vomitted and stripped off in front of American tourists staying at a hotel. That's as much a sackable offense as assaulting someone if you ask me. But that's just it - it's not up to me to decide what kind of moral behaviour demands sacking or not. If Newcastle want to keep Barton on their books, then that's their decision, and no one is in any place to say that they're doing the 'wrong thing'. And if they decide to play Barton in a game that he's strictly eligible for -- even though he's got a misconduct hearing in a few days -- then they have every right to do so. Maybe it's not the wisest decision, but it's Newcastle's decision to make.
Objective morality should either permeate every aspect of football, or no aspect. You can't just bring it in when it's convenient to do so. That's not how life works, and it's not how football should work. You either legislate for moral behaviour across the board, or you allow a club to punish someone in their own way. And if you choose the latter, then you are in no position to say a club is 'wrong' for not sacking someone or for playing someone who's available for selection. You can say you think the club is wrong, but that's as far as it can go when no objective standard is in place.
These are just some of my thoughts on the matter, but I'm yet to really think them through so they're a little rough at the moment.
Anyway, the main thrust of this post is that Arsenal were a joy to watch yesterday, though Newcastle's inadequacies should be noted.
10 comments:
Tell ya what, Gael Clichy held hands with Samir Nasri as they both went down a peg or two in my estimation. Nasri for what he did and Clichy for singing the boy-wonder's praises.
Clichy shouldn't have supported it, but I don't think Nasri doing what he did should 'send him down a peg or two'. Thats just the Newcastle fan in you saying that. I mean what do you expect from footballers? Perfect conduct? No reactions?
Barton's challenge, though legal, was unnecessarily physical, as was his smirk (well, his smirk was just unnecessary). Nasri didn't like it, and let him know as much. If Steven Taylor received a hard challenge from Adebayor, and then gave him a little trip afterwards, he wouldn't go down in your estimation, nor would he go down in anyone elses. Like Keegan, I think you're blowing things out of proportion.
I don't know. I think you have it the wrong way around. If it was Taylor in Nasri's position he wouldn't go down in my estimation because the bias would kick in. It's not about whether it happened to a Newcastle player or not. But what Nasri did was silly and petty, it was not as bad as Keegan said but still enough to knock him down a in my estimation as it would be if he'd done it against a Wigan player. It was cheap and as Wenger rightly said, you need to control yourself. At the end of it all, Barton, by the letter of the law had done nothing wrong, Nasri showed whatever level of immaturity he has to allow someone of Barton's ilk to rile him up. And that knocks him down.
Whereas Clichy, now there's an idiot. At least Nasri can explain himself in a 'heat of the moment' kind of thing, but Clichy having time to consider his opinion of the situation and publicly saying that not only does he dislike Barton but others do too AND that he condones snide and underhanded fouling of said disliked players, that is moronic.
I think your moral estimation of footballers is WAY to high to begin with!
I think your moral estimation of footballers is WAY to high to begin with!
says you who blasts ronaldo almost solely on his morals....
Um I do blast Ronaldo for his morals, but i dont think he should be sacked because of them. I just think he's a plonker because of them. And there is a world of difference between someone who trips up someone else who dug their elbow into his thigh, and someone who shouts at his own team mates for not passing the ball properly. The former should be expected, the latter shouldnt.
If you read the post above this one, Ive made reference to the fact that Ronaldo doesnt have a good football brain, which has nothing to do with his morals.
So while i do blast his morals, i dont blast him "almost solely on his morals". In fact I very rarely attack his character. This blog has only really mentioned him once in depth (nothing to do with his morals) and any emails Ive written to F365 are generally directed at people who think he's gods gift to football, when he just isnt. Like I said, he's Theo Walcott+, not a genius.
did u just compare ronaldo to theo walcott?????
are u serious????
ronaldo may not be the best player in the world but he is so so so much better than walcott!!!
You're missing the point (Im assuming this is Aine, although maybe Im wrong). Im saying that Ronaldo is an improved version of Walcott. Im comparing Ronaldo to Walcott, but Im not saying they're equivalent (by the way, since when did comparing players become so shocking?! Surely its OK to compare Zidane and Nicky Butt, just so long as you come to the conclusion that Zidane is a little bit better). Ronaldo is a REALLY effective Theo Walcott. That doesnt make him a genius, but it makes him a huge threat.
By the way, as a matter of interest, does compare actually mean to liken? Maybe it does, but I didn't think so. Anyway, apologies if it does. I just figured it means to put two things side by side and see how they measure up against each other.
sorry i meant to use liken...
what i'm saying anyway is u will NEVER see theo wlacott do any of the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD4wmLt2kV8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1xSM2LvQyI
i'd give you more but i have to go to work!!!
Post a Comment