Nigel de Jong dumped from Dutch squad.

pokerface_me

I so wish Roy Keane was still playing, no better man to put manners on this De Jong scumbag.

Fuhrer

pokerface_me wrote: »

I so wish Roy Keane was still playing, no better man to put manners on this De Jong scumbag.

It would be funny to watch Xavi call him a mindless thug who only wants to hurt people while talking about how innocent and wonderul De Jong is because he "got the ball"

peabutler

Have we fallen into the old English media ****e.

Shawcross went for the ball (Ramsey tackle) in a similar manner to De Jong, yet by christ was he stood up for here and everywhere else. Yet De Jong is a thug? De Jong has got a reputation that may be deserved but considering Karl Henry made far and away the worst tackle of the weekend I think this whole discusion is pointless.

gosplan

pokerface_me wrote: »

I so wish Roy Keane was still playing, no better man to put manners on this De Jong scumbag.

I don't even know where to start with this.

DOC09UNAM

So because Henry made a worse tackle, we shouldn't discuss why De Jong was dropped from the Dutch team?

Your argument makes no sense at all.

Fuhrer

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

we shouldn't discuss whether De Jong was dropped from the Dutch team?

But why should we discuss whether he was dropped, we know he was...

peabutler

Fuhrer wrote: »

But why should we discuss whether he was dropped, we know he was...

and we know why aswell !

DOC09UNAM

Fuhrer wrote: »

But why should we discuss whether he was dropped, we know he was...

I meant why obviously.

Fuhrer

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

I meant why obviously.

But we know why as well...

DOC09UNAM

Fuhrer wrote: »

But we know why as well...

and what's your point?

We shouldn't discuss things we know happened?

Fuhrer

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

and what's your point?

We shouldn't discuss things we know happened?

Fair enough.


I think he was dropped because his manager didnt like the tackle.


Why do you think he was dropped?

DOC09UNAM

Fuhrer wrote: »

Fair enough.


I think he was dropped because his manager didnt like the tackle.


Why do you think he was dropped?

I think he was dropped because of the tackle, I don't think he should have been, however.

Oh look, we're having a discussion.

peabutler

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

I think he was dropped because of the tackle, I don't think he should have been, however.

Oh look, we're having a discussion.

I agree with that, however I have a sneaking suspicion the tackle may be an excuse to get rid of De Jong for the time being.

Memnoch

I like football because I love the beautiful game not because I want to watch some talentless bully go around kick-boxing other players with the intention of hurting them.

IMO any reckless tackle that results in injury should result in an automatic ban 2x the length it takes the player to recover.

Just because someone is a skilled football player shouldn't give other players carte blanche to kick them around and injure them. These are human beings and their lives and careers are on the line and I'm absolutely sickened by players like De Jong who have no respect for the beauty or integrity of the game.

I know there are countless people who will keep harping on about contact sport and it's okay to rough people up, it's not in my book(okay to rough people up) and never will be. And it's a disgrace that the sport tolerates it, but that's probably to do with fans who care more about their team winning than about fairness or skill.

Ordinary man

Some players are malicious, they cross the line between hard and thuggish.My list of hard players include vidic, essien and ivanisavic

My malicious list includes gerrard, terry, rooney and of course de jong

peabutler

Ordinary man wrote: »

Some players are malicious, they cross the line between hard and thuggish.My list of hard players include vidic, essien and ivanisavic

My malicious list includes gerrard, terry, rooney and of course de jong

Pure and utter rubbish, Terry and Rooney are not malicious footballers by any strecth of the imagination and neither is Gerrard. De Jong, Karl Henry, Roy Keane and MVB there malicious players.

Warper

Prufrock wrote: »

How can you agree with the coach when Van Bommel is still in the team? I remember that game against Uruguay right before the first dutch goal VB could have broken one lads leg(can't remember who it was) with a high foot to the knee! It wasn't even given as a free kick! The wrong guy got booted from the squad.

Ya, I take your point. They are very similar players, if anything Van Bommel is that bit more cynical than De Jong. De Jong is just pure aggression. If the coach has dropped DJ for bad tackles then it does look a bit silly keeping VB in the team. He needs one of them though. I think the fact that it was a broken leg has brought DJ's tackling into a more severe light. People will say if you take away his aggression you take away what makes him what he is. He is a world-class defensive midfielder though he needs to cut out the thuggish tackles without losing his aggression.

DOC09UNAM

Memnoch wrote: »

And it's a disgrace that the sport tolerates it, but that's probably to do with fans who care more about their team winning than about fairness or skill.

I disagree with this regarding City, as when Thatcher hospitalised two people by elbowing them, he was banned for 6 matches, and fined six weeks wages.

I believe the action was taken after he maliciously elbowed Mendes and knocked him out.

KittyeeTrix

What I can't understand is if it was such a horrendous tackle and with such maliciousness as is being proffered by the boards.ie experts why was his team mates not all up in arms about it on the pitch at the time, why was De Jong not sent off and why did play carry on until it was noticed the player was still down???

Again, we are back to the same round about discussion which was ongoing after the Shawcross incident last year which is that a player tackled for a ball and the other guy came off in a bad way. I don't think it was intentional by De jong as I didn't last year when it was Shawcross and if i did think it was a deliberate attempt to cause serious injury I would express the same intense dislike/animosity for him as I have for Keane.....(that said, I have never expressed a desire to see Keane or anyother player have his leg broken by another player as I believe that kind of sentiment is downright wrong and has no place in an internet forum or anywhere for that matter:()

Fuhrer

Warper wrote: »

He is a world-class defensive midfielder though he needs to cut out the thuggish tackles without losing his aggression.

Take out his aggression and his thuggish tackles and hes a bog standard midfielder who can only pass the ball sideways or back.

Fair tackle.

Unfortunate leg break.

inforfun

Rekop dog wrote: »

Crazy decision from the Dutch coach, wouldn't be surprised if it was slightly racially motivated.

Yes... must be it.
That is why Van Bronckhorst was Van Marwijks captain.

adox

I've only seen it from the angle of the video posted on this thread and honestly, I don't think it's a bad tackle.

Horrendous injuries can happen from nothing tackles and nothing injuries can occur from horrendous tackles.

I think it's a bit rich of the Dutch manager singling out De Jong as I got the impression that he had more than a hand to play in the world cup tactics. It was rife throughout the team and was surely encouraged by the manager.

Fuhrer

adox wrote: »

I think it's a bit rich of the Dutch manager singling out De Jong as I got the impression that he had more than a hand to play in the world cup tactics. It was rife throughout the team and was surely encouraged by the manager.

Maybe hes singling out De Jong because its rife throughout the team and wants to stop it.

SantryRed

Absolute bullsh1t. Even the tackle on Holden wasn't a bad tackle.

RasTa

Why is Scholes mentioned 57 times in this thread?

3hn2givr7mx1sc

RasTa wrote: »

Why is Scholes mentioned 57 times in this thread?

Cause he apparently tries to break legs.

DOC09UNAM

RasTa wrote: »

Why is Scholes mentioned 57 times in this thread?

Because Mr Alan felt the need to compare him and De Jong.

kryogen

Scholes is mentioned because some people try to turn every thread into a united/liverpool fiasco

Couldnt compare DJ to Henry/Bowyer/Cattermole hell even Mascherano etc... wouldnt be as interesting to some

Anyways, regarding the tackle

Nothing wrong with it, horrible outcome for Ben Arfa and DJ's usual lack of compassion for his fellow professional hasnt helped his case, but the tackle was ok in my opinion, of course he went in hard, thats what he does. dont like him myself but i am not gonna buy into all the media outrage on this one

EDIT: i wanna add Michael Browns name to the list of guys he could have been compared to besides the ginger magician

****in hate Michael Brown

Mr.Nice Guy

Hilarious to see the City fans who despise Keane now hypocritically defending De Jong and his thuggery. Almost as funny as Scholes being brought into it.

Boskowski

I'm actually amazed at some of the comments. Bet you any money most of the guys calling the foul on the American 'not a bad tackle' and the tackle this weekend 'not even a foul' never played football in their lives.

Watch the foul against Holden again please. It's not like he's coming in from the side and the guy clipped his ankle or something. De Jong comes head-on both players in full flight and the sole of the foot is raised. It's an absolute shocker in my opinion.

Ben Harfa different thing but I don't care how often you say he got the ball - well he did - but he went more or less right through your man. There is a difference between a challenge were contact cannot be avoided say for instance classic sliding tackle and the guy falls spectacularly over the other guys legs and what De Jong did. DJ might have made contact with the ball alright alright but only by clattering right into Ben Harfa legs - again full flight. I find it hilarious to say he got the ball when he went right through the player to do so. The fact that no one complained and tackles like that happen more often than they should doesn't change that one bit.

Van Bommel and Scholes can be nasty little sh1ts but neither of them are in that league. And there's a world of difference again between Van Bommel and Scholes - and I'm a Bayern supporter btw.

I absolutely hate players like him and well done to the bondscoach, thank you

cson

Mr Alan wrote: »

the amount of leg breaks is irrelevant Scholes has caused is irrelevant, simple fact is Scholes does the kinda tackles De Jong did at the weekend, week in week out.

i'll repeat this, the broken leg is irrelevant.

I'd imagine the broken leg is fairly relevant to Ben Arfa. You know, the whole being out for 8 months or so.

everdead.ie

Just saw this hope this isn't off topic

kryogen

cson wrote: »

I'd imagine the broken leg is fairly relevant to Ben Arfa. You know, the whole being out for 8 months or so.

results based thinking ftw

the outcome of the tackle was horrible, and unfortunate, but the tackle itself is ok imo

same as Shawcross/Taylor etc... this stuff happens in football

demonise him all you want for the assault on Xabi Alonso, but get a bit of perspective when it comes to a tackle where he won the ball lads

Mr Alan

cson wrote: »

I'd imagine the broken leg is fairly relevant to Ben Arfa. You know, the whole being out for 8 months or so.

its not relevant when discussing whether or not it was a nasty tackle.

its unfortunate he has broken his leg, but **** happens.

DOC09UNAM

Mr Alan wrote: »

its not relevant when discussing whether or not it was a nasty tackle.

its unfortunate he has broken his leg, but **** happens.

So the result of the tackle isn't important when discussing whether it was a bad tackle?

Interesting logic you use.

kryogen

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

So the result of the tackle isn't important when discussing whether it was a bad tackle?

Interesting logic you use.

the result of the tackle was that De Jong won the ball

It was not a horrible tackle

One more time, it is unfortunate for Ben Arfa that he has been unlucky in the situation, but thats all it was. Bad luck

If De Jong had gone in knee high and broke the lads leg, it would be a bad tackle

De Jong came from the front, won the ball - see a difference?

DOC09UNAM

kryogen wrote: »

the result of the tackle was that De Jong won the ball

It was not a horrible tackle

One more time, it is unfortunate for Ben Arfa that he has been unlucky in the situation, but thats all it was. Bad luck

If De Jong had gone in knee high and broke the lads leg, it would be a bad tackle

De Jong came from the front, won the ball - see a difference?

Wow, then it's a very strange coincidence that people seem to get unlucky after De Jong tackles them.

That's two people in six months that have gotten unlucky after he tackled them.

Coincidence, I think not.

kryogen

Doesnt really matter what you think tbh, facts are facts.

Sarcasm rarely wins a debate either so your best to leave it out

Was Shawcross tackle that broke a leg last year bad/nasty/horrendous/worst atrocity to hit the world since yada yada..... you get the picture also in your opinion?

this will determine how i respond to you in future on this subject

Panthro

Poor aul De Jong won't be able to fart now without be accused of trying to cause an injury to someone.
The world cup tackle will live with him, every tackle he makes will be watched twice as closely as any other tackle made by any other player.
Didn't think the tackle was overly bad, the outcome was very unfortunate though.

DOC09UNAM

kryogen wrote: »

Doesnt really matter what you think tbh, facts are facts.

Sarcasm rarely wins a debate either so your best to leave it out

Was Shawcross tackle that broke a leg last year bad/nasty/horrendous/worst atrocity to hit the world since yada yada..... you get the picture also in your opinion?

this will determine how i respond to you in future on this subject

No, it wasn't, because Shawcross doesn't have a history of bad tackles.

De Jong goes out to tackle people hard and hurt them.

Boskowski

Nobody is saying he gets up in the morning set out to break someone's leg. But he's reckless, negligent and obviously doesn't consider his opponents health at all in his actions. Most players never have such s nasty incident in their entire career. The fact he's had three shockers in 6 months is 'bad luck' is it?

kryogen

Shawcross does actually have a history of tackling hard, nothing wrong with that mind you

De Jong is a dirty player, imo. but this tackle is not a reason to get up in a heap about

Xavi6

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

De Jong goes out to tackle people hard and hurt them.

He told you this did he?

He record points to one mistimed tackle v the USA and one count of violent conduct v Spain. In about 8 years worth of football.

Again, he has no red cards for City in 64 games. You can't get lucky that often if you're a kicker.

DOC09UNAM

kryogen wrote: »

Shawcross does actually have a history of tackling hard, nothing wrong with that mind you

De Jong is a dirty player, imo. but this tackle is not a reason to get up in a heap about

Yeah, hard tackles, not bad tackles.

I am not getting up in a heap about this tackle, I am not getting up in a heap at all.

I just think it was a bad tackle, I think the Alonso one was a bad tackle, and I think the Holden one, was a bad tackle.

That is all I am saying.

RandolphEsq

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Yeah, hard tackles, not bad tackles.

I am not getting up in a heap about this tackle, I am not getting up in a heap at all.

I just think it was a bad tackle, I think the Alonso one was a bad tackle, and I think the Holden one, was a bad tackle.

That is all I am saying.

Understatement! That 'tackle' was the equivalent of a 'tackle' made by Jerry 'Thug' Flannery last season. There is no defending De Jong's record. He goes in hard i.e. not focusing wholly on the ball and hopes to impact upon the other man. This is not on in the modern game. 'Tough tackling' might be the adjective used to sugar coat de Jong's style of play but how he carries out his defence duties is not on. Let Michael Essien and him go for a 50/50 ball and we'll see how de Jong likes getting a taste of his own medicine give to him with the psychoticness of the butcher that is Essien

jesus_thats_gre

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Wow, then it's a very strange coincidence that people seem to get unlucky after De Jong tackles them.

That's two people in six months that have gotten unlucky after he tackled them.

Coincidence, I think not.

Yeah but two occurrences isn't exactly a mind blowing amount, is it?

The number is that small that it was easily be dismissed as being rotten luck.

Then again, you could also consider the fact that as a defensive midfielder, he is involved in more tackles. Straight away, the chances that he will be involved in a tackle with this type of outcome is a lot higher. He could also be stronger or faster than most players and this could result what would be considered a normal tackle by him resulting in a higher than average force being exerted on the opposing player.

You logic is just far too simple and the number of occurrences is far too low to draw any conclusions.

What really is the difference between say Shawcross doing something like this once and De Jong doing it twice? Is doing it once few enough times to dismiss it as an accident but doing it twice automatically means that you are doing so intentionally? Please!


The tackles shown aren't malicious in the slightest. The Alonso one in particular has been blown way way way out of proportion. Watch it at normal speed from non close up shots and it is a complete accident.

There is a whole load of nonsense being made out of two accidents.

Warper

Fuhrer wrote: »

Take out his aggression and his thuggish tackles and hes a bog standard midfielder who can only pass the ball sideways or back.

He is employed as a defensive midfielder and he would be one of the best defensive midfielders in the PL. I'll tell you one thing players facing him now are suddenly thinking twice about going into a 50-50 tackle with him. That said, he needs to sort out his dark side or he will end someone's career.

Charlie

Can we clarify one thing here, winning the ball is not the be all and end all of whether the tackle was acceptable. There's nothing in the laws of the games which legislate for this foolish myth.

Debunking Footballs greatest myth

There are few things in football that really winds me up more than pundits and commentators who have no clue when it comes to the rules of the game.


One of the most pervasive myths in English football is the “he got the ball first, so it’s not a foul” nonsense I keep hearing in every single football game I watch.

The tackle which lead to Walcott’s 3 month lay-off is a prime example of the ignorance of the English football fraternity.

The laws of the game state that;
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be
careless, reckless or using excessive force:

kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
trips or attempts to trip an opponent
jumps at an opponent
charges an opponent
strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
pushes an opponent
tackles an opponent

Notice that there is no mention of winning the ball or not, as long as a tackle is careless, reckless or using excessive force, then it’s a foul. So it is down to the referee to determine what is careless, if in his opinion it wasn’t at least careless then it’s no foul.

So how do you define “careless”, well the referees handbook defines careless as follows.

“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or
consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless
Ask yourself if Ridgewell acted with consideration or precaution in that challenge then let me know if it wasn’t a foul.

Now that we agree it was a foul did it warrant a card? Again going by the referees’ guidelines it was at least a yellow.

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the
danger to, or consequences for, his opponent

A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned.
It is clear that the tackle fits with FIFA’s description of Reckless perfectly. There was a blatant and obvious disregard for the consequencies of the tackle, so yes it was reckless.

Surely Ridgewell may have deserved a yellow, but no more. Again you may be wrong on this point, and again it comes down to ignorance of the rules.

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary
use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.

A player who uses excessive force must be sent off.

It can be argued that there wasn’t “excessive force” in this case, another player might not have been hurt by the same tackle.

However there was no need to go in with this amount of force in the first place, at the velocity and angle Ridgewell came in there was always going to be one outcome, taking out the ball and the man.

A slightly different angle could have seen Ridgewell win the ball cleanly, but that wouldn’t have been the Birmingham way, would it?

Boskowski

Look this is getting ridiculous. Is this City speaking or why are people in denial over this?

I play football for 25+ years and I know the type. This guy has a history and was on a warning. There's no bad liuck about this and if it happens again - and I'm convinced it will - he should be given a rather lengthy break.

People are rather nonchalant about a legbreak totally talking out of their holes. It's not just a six months break. It's a serious fvckin trauma and there's a good chance you will never be the same player again if not physically but mentally. Players need to be protected from thugs like him.