Stoke City V Arsenal Match Thread. Live SS1

Radharc na Sleibhte

Mr Alan wrote: »

That is totally unacceptable.

You're obviously just trolling now.

Arseblog:
If I can liken to it something else it's speeding. The young guy in his car who goes out, thinking he's Johnny Invincible, until he careers around a corner too fast and mows down a child. He didn't mean to, but he did it, and he is responsible. "I didn't meant to run the kid over" and "He's not that kind of driver" aren't acceptable excuses in a courtroom so spare me the mealy-mouthed crap over Shawcross. He looked distraught but his tears don't matter. What matters is that a talented young footballer has been the victim of a ridiculous tackle and his leg is broken in pieces.

Degag

jasonorr wrote: »

It's not a debate...I've seen it slowed down as much as possible, his leg didn't buckle before the tackle. It's not an opinion, I'm looking at the bloody thing, what don't you understand about that???

Because i saw it too, perhaps not as slowed down as yourself but i saw what i saw.

CHD

Minstrel27 wrote: »

The amount of people using this as an opportunity to snipe at Arsenal players is simply amazing.

Yeah it is pretty stupid. People were having a go because Campbell was going crazy and wanted Shawcross sent off. Of course he did Ramsay just had his leg snapped, Campbell isn't a medic ffs.

I can't even blame Wenger for running his mouth in this case, I understand he is seriously annoyed.

Degag

MikeySligo wrote: »

You're obviously just trolling now.

Arseblog:
If I can liken to it something else it's speeding. The young guy in his car who goes out, thinking he's Johnny Invincible, until he careers around a corner too fast and mows down a child. He didn't mean to, but he did it, and he is responsible. "I didn't meant to run the kid over" and "He's not that kind of driver" aren't acceptable excuses in a courtroom so spare me the mealy-mouthed crap over Shawcross. He looked distraught but his tears don't matter. What matters is that a talented young footballer has been the victim of a ridiculous tackle and his leg is broken in pieces.

Explain to me why it was a ridiculous tackle?

Radharc na Sleibhte

Frisbee wrote: »

He was calling on the FA to ban him for more than three games and insinuating that Shawcross did it on purpose.

You can infer what Wenger was implying all you like, but that is only your opinion.
Song got an incorrect yellow card last and will now miss two games.
Shawcross will miss three.
Ramsay will miss at least 30 or 40 probably.

Some justice.

Mr Alan

That_Guy wrote: »

Do you reckon he could be charged by the FA for comments like that?

I mean, if managers can get charged for having a go at officials then surely it can apply to players too?

I certainly hope so, it's an horrendous slur to make against a player, particular when it was clear to everyone that there was zero malice involved and the young player was seriously upset about wat happened.

L'prof

Degag_ wrote: »

Because i saw it too, perhaps not as slowed down as yourself but i saw what i saw.

Seriously, just leave it...download match of the day, slow it right down and then let me know when you've accepted that you're wrong, that aside, just leave it!

Radharc na Sleibhte

Degag_ wrote: »

Explain to me why it was a ridiculous tackle?

Shawcross could have pulled out. He is still only drawing his leg back as Ramsey nicks the ball away.

He is going to smash at the ball as hard as he can when the other player is going to ground and unguarded. Only a thug does that.

m@cc@

MikeySligo wrote: »

You're obviously just trolling now.

Arseblog:
If I can liken to it something else it's speeding. The young guy in his car who goes out, thinking he's Johnny Invincible, until he careers around a corner too fast and mows down a child. He didn't mean to, but he did it, and he is responsible. "I didn't meant to run the kid over" and "He's not that kind of driver" aren't acceptable excuses in a courtroom so spare me the mealy-mouthed crap over Shawcross. He looked distraught but his tears don't matter. What matters is that a talented young footballer has been the victim of a ridiculous tackle and his leg is broken in pieces.

Terrible comparison. If that was the case, then players had to be 'safe drivers' there'd never be any sliding challenges. The term 'mis-timed challenge' is used in football all the time but most of the time, there is no injury.

CHD wrote: »

Yeah it is pretty stupid. People were having a go because Campbell was going crazy and wanted Shawcross sent off.

He was still going crazy long after Shawcross was sent off.

Pepe LeFrits

He never said there was malice Alan, that is your inferral.

Radharc na Sleibhte

Mr Alan wrote: »

I certainly hope so, it's an horrendous slur to make against a player, particular when it was clear to everyone that there was zero malice involved and the young player was seriously upset about wat happened.

So what he's visibly upset, whats that got to do with it?

Degag

jasonorr wrote: »

Seriously, just leave it...download match of the day, slow it right down and then let me know when you've accepted that you're wrong, that aside, just leave it!

If i'm wrong, i'm wrong no problem. I have been plenty of times in my life.

MikeySligo wrote: »

Shawcross could have pulled out. He is still only drawing his leg back as Ramsey nicks the ball away.

He is going to smash at the ball as hard as he can when the other player is going to ground and unguarded. Only a thug does that.

I disagree.

The ball was there to be won. A very unfortunate accident, but no more.

KerranJast

There's no way that tackle was ridiculous or deserving of a ref card. It was a 50-50 challenge that happens every week at all levels of the game. Ramsey just nicked the ball away and planted his foot just as Shawcross' foot was in downswing. It's just incredibly unlucky timing. Going on the still from MOTD it also looked like Ramseys standing foot was bent slightly over his ankle which would have exacerbated the injury.
I think Shawcross did have to the line purely because the Arsenal players would have lost the plot if he'd stayed on. Doesn't mean it was right for him to go though.

Mr Alan

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

He never said there was malice Alan, that is your inferral.

Are you saying that wat was quoted from him here doesn't read that he think shawcross did it on purpose?

Radharc na Sleibhte

m@cc@ wrote: »

Terrible comparison. If that was the case, then players had to be 'safe drivers' there'd never be any sliding challenges. The term 'mis-timed challenge' is used in football all the time but most of the time, there is no injury.



He was still going crazy long after Shawcross was sent off.

Yes there would.
Cesc deliberately tripped one of the Stoke lads near the end with a late sliding tackle. He knew what he was doing but yet he didn't have to break the Stoke defenders leg.

m@cc@

MikeySligo wrote: »

Yes there would.
Cesc deliberately tripped one of the Stoke lads near the end with a late sliding tackle. He knew what he was doing but yet he didn't have to break the Stoke defenders leg.

Tripping someone is much easier than winning the ball in a 50/50 tackle, as you would know if you watched/played football.

KittyeeTrix

Mr Alan wrote: »

I certainly hope so, it's an horrendous slur to make against a player, particular when it was clear to everyone that there was zero malice involved and the young player was seriously upset about wat happened.

I have to agree, it is understandable in the heat of the moment to mouth off at the lad and the whole situation. But at some point he must have seen replays and realised it was as some one else referred to earlier " a tackle which was not proportional to the injury incurred"
Surely he must see that and respond appropriately...
It's one thing to be upset but it's another to leave a slur over the lad's career.

As for Campbell, it was obvious to see he was distressed by the injury as was everyone on the pitch, but I do feel he could've dealt with it better. He was like a demented man and tbh if it wasn't for the calmness of his fellow players things could've kicked off:eek:

Radharc na Sleibhte

Degag_ wrote: »

If i'm wrong, i'm wrong no problem. I have been plenty of times in my life.

I disagree.

The ball was there to be won. A very unfortunate accident, but no more.

The ball wasn't there to be won though.
Shawcross could have withdrew his left leg and only bodychecked Ramsey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL3A_J6bOeA

Pepe LeFrits

Mr Alan wrote: »

Are you saying that wat was quoted from him here doesn't read that he think shawcross did it on purpose?

Yup.

Everyone talks about roughing up Arsenal and now 3 Arsenal players have had their legs broken. That is what he is refering to, imo.

Saying that by calling for the ban to be increased he's implying that it was deliberate is only valid based on the assumption that there has to be intent for a ban to be extended. As has been said, you injure someone accidentally but recklessly, you can still be punished.

Radharc na Sleibhte

m@cc@ wrote: »

Tripping someone is much easier than winning the ball in a 50/50 tackle, as you would know if you watched/played football.

Cop on trying to belittle me.

Mr Alan

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Yup.

Everyone talks about roughing up Arsenal and now 3 Arsenal players have had their legs broken. That is what he is refering to, imo.

Saying that by calling for the ban to be increased he's implying that it was deliberate is only valid based on the assumption that there has to be intent for a ban to be extended. As has been said, you injure someone accidentally but recklessly, you can still be punished.

Do you think Shawcross should have a lengthier ban imposed?

m@cc@

MikeySligo wrote: »

Cop on trying to belittle me you fool.

What are you on about? I was just saying it's obvious that tripping is a much easier 'skill'.

Radharc na Sleibhte

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

As has been said, you injure someone accidentally but recklessly, you can still be punished.

Exactly, it was reckless and deserving of a least the standard red punishment. I won't be holding my breath expecting them to extend it, or for this to make any difference as to how we are treated and allowed to be treated to.

KittyeeTrix

MikeySligo wrote: »

The ball wasn't there to be won though.
Shawcross could have withdrew his left leg and only bodychecked Ramsey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL3A_J6bOeA

First of all, that's a bloody sh1t video of the incident. I watched it repeatedly on Sky+ yesterday because at first I really wasn't sure how it had happened.
It became clear that Shawcross just lashed at the ball as Ramsey came flying in.
No intent
No chance to pull out
No big conspiracy

Radharc na Sleibhte

m@cc@ wrote: »

What are you on about? I was just saying it's obvious that tripping is a much easier 'skill'.

finish your quote......."as I would know if I watched or played football"

Radharc na Sleibhte

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

First of all, that's a bloody sh1t video of the incident. I watched it repeatedly on Sky+ yesterday because at first I really wasn't sure how it had happened.
It became clear that Shawcross just lashed at the ball as Ramsey came flying in.
No intent
No chance to pull out
No big conspiracy

You're wrong.
Who said anything about a conspiracy?

m@cc@

MikeySligo wrote: »

finish your quote......."as I would know if I watched or played football"

Oh grow a pair, would ye. Either counter the point or move on.

Radharc na Sleibhte

You're just trolling now.

KittyeeTrix

MikeySligo wrote: »

You're wrong.
Who said anything about a conspiracy?

. I won't be holding my breath expecting them to extend it, or for this to make any difference as to how we are treated and allowed to be treated to

You did with this type of post!!!!!

PHB

Personally, I think the reason Arsenal have been on the end of these tackles is twofold.

There is an element of Arsenal will fold if you rough them up, so tackles tend to fly in more and more.

However, I don't think Shawcross's tackle was dangerous, more clumsy than anything else. I wouldn't even say reckless. He didn't jump in. He was running, and his foot landed on Ramseys leg. It wasn't even a tackle.

I think another reason for Arsenal being on the ends of these is that they have incredibly quick feet, moreso than any other team. As such, it's very easy to kick them even by mistake because by in large, their feet are quicker than other people and other teams.

m@cc@

MikeySligo wrote: »

You're just trolling now.

PM a mod if you have any issues.

SantryRed

MikeySligo wrote: »

You can infer what Wenger was implying all you like, but that is only your opinion.
Song got an incorrect yellow card last and will now miss two games.
Shawcross will miss three.
Ramsay will miss at least 30 or 40 probably.

Some justice.

If it was fcuking intentional I'd agree with you. But the fact was there was no intent. I'm sensing that you don't play football so tbh I don't think you have a clue.

Radharc na Sleibhte

The news seems to be as good as it can be so far I suppose.
I wonder when we'll know?

Eduardo has been the same since, truth be told.
God knows how an injury like this will affect a midfielder.

amacachi

SantryRed wrote: »

If it was fcuking intentional I'd agree with you. But the fact was there was no intent. I'm sensing that you don't play football so tbh I don't think you have a clue.

It wasn't intentional, but when you have players who are clumsy and can't keep up with the ball still jumping in hard, there's going to be consequences.

L'prof

MikeySligo wrote: »

The news seems to be as good as it can be so far I suppose.
I wonder when we'll know?

Eduardo has been the same since, truth be told.
God knows how an injury like this will affect a midfielder.

Diaby is better than ever now, here's hoping!

Radharc na Sleibhte

SantryRed wrote: »

If it was fcuking intentional I'd agree with you. But the fact was there was no intent. I'm sensing that you don't play football so tbh I don't think you have a clue.

Good man.
I'm sensing you dislike Arsenal as is obvious with your posts.
You would also be sensing wrong about whether I play football or not but sure you can say what you like TBH.

KittyeeTrix

SantryRed wrote: »

If it was fcuking intentional I'd agree with you. But the fact was there was no intent. I'm sensing that you don't play football so tbh I don't think you have a clue.

I don't play football but anyone with 2 eyes in their head could see that the "tackle" for want of a better word was definitely not deliberate!!!

Radharc na Sleibhte

m@cc@ wrote: »

PM a mod if you have any issues.

No prob.

Radharc na Sleibhte

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

I don't play football but anyone with 2 eyes in their head could see that the "tackle" for want of a better word was definitely not deliberate!!!

Not deliberate to break his leg, I don't think anyone on this thread has said that, but it was reckless and entirely deserving of a red card at least.

There was people on here saying it didn't warrant a red, which really beggars belief.

Suppose people let their dislike of Arsenal make up their mind on this issue.

SantryRed

MikeySligo wrote: »

Good man.
I'm sensing you dislike Arsenal as is obvious with your posts.
You would also be sensing wrong about whether I play football or not but sure you can say what you like TBH.

What? How do I dislike Arsenal? I'm actually a big fan of Arsenal's football and I enjoy watching them. The fact is you have your Arsenal tinted glasses on when you say Shawcross should be banned more. It wasn't intentional in the slightest. I dont even think it was reckless tbh. He didn't go in studs up or anything of the likes ala Martin Taylor with Eduardo.

Radharc na Sleibhte

PHB wrote: »

Personally, I think the reason Arsenal have been on the end of these tackles is twofold.

There is an element of Arsenal will fold if you rough them up, so tackles tend to fly in more and more.

However, I don't think Shawcross's tackle was dangerous, more clumsy than anything else. I wouldn't even say reckless. He didn't jump in. He was running, and his foot landed on Ramseys leg. It wasn't even a tackle.

I think another reason for Arsenal being on the ends of these is that they have incredibly quick feet, moreso than any other team. As such, it's very easy to kick them even by mistake because by in large, their feet are quicker than other people and other teams.

I think the way we play has an element to do with it alright.
Nasri, Rosicky, Diaby, Ramsey, Fabregas.
They are all quick, nimble, light on their feet players.

We play a lot of on the ground possession football so if you add all this up the chances do increase that something like this will happen us.

The tackle was still reckless in my opinion.

KerranJast

MikeySligo wrote: »

There was people on here saying it didn't warrant a red, which really beggars belief.

it was a 50-50 tackle and very rarely ends up in such a bad result.

Radharc na Sleibhte

SantryRed wrote: »

What? How do I dislike Arsenal? I'm actually a big fan of Arsenal's football and I enjoy watching them. The fact is you have your Arsenal tinted glasses on when you say Shawcross should be banned more. It wasn't intentional in the slightest. I dont even think it was reckless tbh. He didn't go in studs up or anything of the likes ala Martin Taylor with Eduardo.

I had by Arsenal tinted glasses on last night, fair enough.
I don't really think he should be banned more, just pointing out the obvious that Song is gone for two for an incorrect yellow and Ramsay is gone for 30.

It was still reckless and late.

You see it one way, I see it differently and we're not gonna change our minds.....!

Pro. F

SantryRed wrote: »

It wasn't intentional in the slightest. I dont even think it was reckless tbh. He didn't go in studs up or anything of the likes ala Martin Taylor with Eduardo.

You can't judge it on whether he went in studs up or not, that's not the only aspect to judge a tackle on.

Iago

As far as I'm concerned it was a 50/50 challenge, and I've watched it repeatedly to gauge whether or not Shawcross could have avoided it. I honestly don't think he could have, and had he reached the ball half a second earlier it could have been him that ended up with a broken leg...

...with all that said I think there are a couple of points to be made.

Firstly it could be argued that with the speed and force Shawcross was applying to the challenge he was never going to be in control of the ball and therefore he was attempting to "rough up" the Arsenal player. imho he could have gone into the challenge with less force but still protected himself and won the ball.

Which brings me to the second point, protecting yourself in a 50/50. As anyone who has ever played football at any type of competitive level will tell you, going into a 50/50 or even 60/40 in your favour with anything other than full commitment will more often than not lead to you getting injured, and in some cases very badly injured. So you go in fully commited and aiming to avoid injury yourself, not that it always works out that way.

I've had a couple of bad breaks and a dislocation injruy from similar challenges over the years and I know that had the timing been reversed by a split second it would have been my opponent leaving the field in an ambulance. No intent on either part, but just one of those things.

The third point, which is around the coincidence/conspiracy around Arsenal players getting injured. Arsenal are a very particular case in that there are three things coming together that in my view make them more likely to pick up siginificant injuries than other teams.
1) They have far more possession of the ball than their opponents in the majority of their games.
2) They have players that like to run with the ball and who have very quick feet and sharpness of movement
3) They have built a squad of very small, very light, very quick players. Players who are outmuscled and outweighted by the vast majority of teams in the premier league

The combination of these things means that Arsenal players are on the receiving end of tackles more often than most, have moved the ball from where their opponents are tackling more often than most, and haven't got the bulk to absorb the impact of the tackles that they are on the receiving end of. That's not an excuse, or a justification, but it is my personal opinion on why they received more bad injuries than most.

I don't think Shawcross should receive more than a 3 game ban for the foul, ultimately it was a 50/50 challenge that but for a split second in either direction would have led to nothing other than a free kick and a yellow card.

I wish Ramsey all the best on his recovery, from experience I know how hard it is to come back not just physically but psychologically which can be a lot harder. He'll have the best medical care and professionals around to help him recover and hopefully that'll make it at least somewhat easier.

Radharc na Sleibhte

Pro. F wrote: »

You can't judge it on whether he went in studs up or not, that's not the only aspect to judge a tackle on.

Yeah, but its one thing you can say about it, at least it wasn't studs up.
Jesus had it been I'd say his leg would have been in the Seddon Stand.

gosplan

People are really clouding this issue.

Firstly, no-one sets out to injure someone that badly. In any case being clumsy as opposed to intentionally violent is not really a defence.

From what people are saying here, you'd assume that once your studs aren't up and you're in some way going for the ball (however far you miss by or what you connect with), you shouldn't even be booked for it.

Commitment in tackling and recklessness in tackling are very hard to separate.

Also, as I mentioned earlier in this thread. The last away premiership match in Stoke resulted in Walcott, Sagna and Adebayor getting injured by tough tackles. After the match Sorensen gave an interview trotting out the usual 'Arsenal don't like it rough' stuff and here we are.

Radharc na Sleibhte

Iago wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned it was a 50/50 challenge, and I've watched it repeatedly to gauge whether or not Shawcross could have avoided it. I honestly don't think he could have, and had he reached the ball half a second earlier it could have been him that ended up with a broken leg...

...with all that said I think there are a couple of points to be made.

Firstly it could be argued that with the speed and force Shawcross was applying to the challenge he was never going to be in control of the ball and therefore he was attempting to "rough up" the Arsenal player. imho he could have gone into the challenge with less force but still protected himself and won the ball.

Which brings me to the second point, protecting yourself in a 50/50. As anyone who has ever played football at any type of competitive level will tell you, going into a 50/50 or even 60/40 in your favour with anything other than full commitment will more often than not lead to you getting injured, and in some cases very badly injured. So you go in fully commited and aiming to avoid injury yourself, not that it always works out that way.

I've had a couple of bad breaks and a dislocation injruy from similar challenges over the years and I know that had the timing been reversed by a split second it would have been my opponent leaving the field in an ambulance. No intent on either part, but just one of those things.

The third point, which is around the coincidence/conspiracy around Arsenal players getting injured. Arsenal are a very particular case in that there are three things coming together that in my view make them more likely to pick up siginificant injuries than other teams.
1) They have far more possession of the ball than their opponents in the majority of their games.
2) They have players that like to run with the ball and who have very quick feet and sharpness of movement
3) They have built a squad of very small, very light, very quick players. Players who are outmuscled and outweighted by the vast majority of teams in the premier league

The combination of these things means that Arsenal players are on the receiving end of tackles more often than most, have moved the ball from where their opponents are tackling more often than most, and haven't got the bulk to absorb the impact of the tackles that they are on the receiving end of. That's not an excuse, or a justification, but it is my personal opinion on why they received more bad injuries than most.

I don't think Shawcross should receive more than a 3 game ban for the foul, ultimately it was a 50/50 challenge that but for a split second in either direction would have led to nothing other than a free kick and a yellow card.

I wish Ramsey all the best on his recovery, from experience I know how hard it is to come back not just physically but psychologically which can be a lot harder. He'll have the best medical care and professionals around to help him recover and hopefully that'll make it at least somewhat easier.

Can only agree with the vast majority of your post.
Had Ramsey gone to ground he'd probably be fine now.

Had Shawcross got to the ball first he would've been bodychecked by Ramsey who had stayed on his feet, but he didn't get to the ball first and was nowhere near getting to it first.

The crux of it was, ala Eduardo, that the studs were planted in the ground and all his weight was on that leg

SDTimeout

Dear rest of preimer league.

I am sorry, i really am that arsenal play the best football in the league. I am especially sorry that this football is our fault and the reason our players get their legs broken.

As of next week we will change to seeing who can kick the ball further from the defence up to our lone striker.

We are sorry for this terrible inconvenience we have caused YOU at the expense of one of our most promising midfielders breaking his leg.

I will talk to Mr Wenger about it first thing tomorrow.

-SD

KittyeeTrix

SDTimeout wrote: »

Dear rest of preimer league.

I am sorry, i really am that arsenal play the best football in the league. I am especially sorry that this football is our fault and the reason our players get their legs broken.

As of next week we will change to seeing who can kick the ball further from the defence up to our lone striker.

We are sorry for this terrible inconvenience we have caused YOU at the expense of one of our most promising midfielders breaking his leg.

I will talk to Mr Wenger about it first thing tomorrow.

-SD

Jeez, if you had any idea how childish that comes across you wouldn't do it!!!

I can only comment on what i saw yesterday and Wenger's handling of it.
Two guys go for a ball and 1 gets leg broken, no surprise there!!! It's a contact sport.
Arsenal are not the only team to suffer broken legs and won't be the last.
Wenger must by now realise there was no intent in it but hasn't said which is no surprise. He has always struck me as a petty little man, but again, only my opinion. No need to cry about it!