Wigan chairman and relegation

thebaz

Wigan chairman said yesterdays McMennamin challenge was not wreckless

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21830721

They deserve to get relegated for such bull**** talk from ther Chairman , twat

That picture looks shocking

Anyone

He's just been on Sky Sports News. SPouting more if not worse. He claims it wasnt even a foul never mind a bad challenge.

Will I Amnt

thebaz wrote: »

Wigan chairman said yesterdays McMennamin challenge was not wreckless

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21830721

They deserve to get relegated for such bull**** talk from ther Chairman , twat

Don't take anything Whelan says seriously. It's not the fault of the Wigan playing and coaching staff that their chairman is nuts.
I hope they stay up as they play a decent style of football. There's many more teams I would rather see go down.

Turtyturd

Any excuse...

http://www.whelansays.co.uk/

Nuri Sahin

roanoke

I hate the way football has become so political. I'm sure Whelan no more believes what he's saying than those who listen to it.

He actually did get the ball first!

M5

rarnes1 wrote: »

He actually did get the ball first!

Check the other angle, it does look like it from that angle but not this

Royal Legend

It was a 50 50 that went wrong, its a booking, not a red imo as he attempted to play the ball, there was no malous in the challenge.

Turtyturd

No matter how many times I see the gif I keep expecting his leg to be broken at the end of the next one.

double GG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn7RoLiUk98

I'd classify this tackle as worse. Just very very lucky he didn't connect. 100% malice. Hours late.

Of course Whelan is going to defend him, he's his player. Whelan is probably one of the best chairmen out there but he is wrong in this case.

The tackle deserved a red card, he deserves his 3 game ban or whatever it is and he'll move on. People calling for 10 game bans etc.... it's ludicrous.

Will I Amnt

Doesn't matter if he got the ball or not. It was studs up, knee height and at pace. About as dangerous as it gets and a miracle he hasn't broken his leg with the way his foot was planted.

Kristopherus

If you look closely at the slow-mo replay, McManaman mad contact with the ball mili-seconds before Haidarra did. His foot is then deflected upwards as Haidarra's foot forces the ball upwards. Mcmanaman's foot then deflects over the ball into Haidarra's knee. Horrific to look at but imho there was no intent. This incident is miles away from the famous Roy Keane one.

I do think he was going for the ball and not the man.

However it was reckless going in that high when another player is that close.

Anyone

double GG wrote: »

I'd classify this tackle as worse. Just very very lucky he didn't connect. 100% malice. Hours late.

Of course Whelan is going to defend him, he's his player. Whelan is probably one of the best chairmen out there but he is wrong in this case.

The tackle deserved a red card, he deserves his 3 game ban or whatever it is and he'll move on. People calling for 10 game bans etc.... it's ludicrous.

Whelan should stick to what he is good at. Telling people he is just back from Barbados. Hopefully him, his club and his half empty rugby stadium gets relegated.

monkey9

Let's not get into a debate whether there was a touch on the ball or not. It's a red card all day long. Just more tripe from Dave Whelan.

LuckyLloyd

Meh, he's going for the ball all day. Nothing particularly wrong with the tackle imo.

Kristopherus

monkey9 wrote: »

Let's not get into a debate whether there was a touch on the ball or not. It's a red card all day long. Just more tripe from Dave Whelan.

Yellow at best. No intent. Two players striking the ball almost simultanously. Honest endeavour by both players.

Gbear

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, he's going for the ball all day. Nothing particularly wrong with the tackle imo.

That's utterly and totally irrelevant.

If you're going to go around making tackles like that you're too dangerous to be left on the field of play, whether it's down to malice or incompetence.

applehunter

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, he's going for the ball all day. Nothing particularly wrong with the tackle imo.

A real mans tackle that men would do in a mans sport?

Vurnon San Benito

Whelan knows well that the challenge was ridiculous but he is just trying to irk his lifelong business for Mike Ashley (NUFC owner) into a reaction.
Only a few months ago Whelan's prized asset JJB Sports was taken over by SportsDirect (Ashley's franchise).

The envy runs deep.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, he's going for the ball all day. Nothing particularly wrong with the tackle imo.

You seem to just love people getting injured just as long as you can appear 'hard'.

LuckyLloyd

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

You seem to just love people getting injured just as long as you can appear 'hard'.

Nope. I just think people should realise that injuries are an unfortunate by product of taking part in high intensity contact sports. The frothing at the mouth that occurs when a player goes for the ball honestly as with this incident leaves me cold.

monkey9

Kristopherus wrote: »

Yellow at best. No intent. Two players striking the ball almost simultanously. Honest endeavour by both players.

No, it's not a yellow at best. It's a red card ffs. That's why he'll probably be getting a three game ban.

NukaCola

After all the red cards we've seen this season, how can anyone say that isn't a straight red.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Nope. I just think people should realise that injuries are an unfortunate by product of taking part in high intensity contact sports. The frothing at the mouth that occurs when a player goes for the ball honestly as with this incident leaves me cold.

That's no excuse for being as reckless or, if you'd prefer, inept as that in going for a ball.

LuckyLloyd

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

That's no excuse for being as reckless or, if you'd prefer, inept as that in going for a ball.

There's every excuse when the game is played at a million miles an hour and pulling out of the challenge isn't an option for a professional footballer. Free against, yellow card maybe, play on.

EdenHazard

Why no mention of Martinez saying the same thing? Because he's seen as a 'likeabl'e manager or something? I'm not getting this vitriol aimed at Wigan. The tackle was bad but it happens.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

EdenHazard wrote: »

Why no mention of Martinez saying the same thing? Because he's seen as a 'likeabl'e manager or something? I'm not getting this vitriol aimed at Wigan. The tackle was bad but it happens.

Martinez did say it was a bad tackle though. Although excused him to an extent saying it was a bit of a strikers tackle.

homerjay2005

its a shocking tackle and its baffling that anybody would defend it. there is a certain code of honour that not only do you look after yourself on the pitch, but you look after your opponents also. its a duty of respect for the game more than anything else.

he didnt do that and he deserves a lengthy ban for it, the tackle is a shocker and one of the worst you can get. his leg did not need to be that high, studs up.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's every excuse when the game is played at a million miles an hour and pulling out of the challenge isn't an option for a professional footballer. Free against, yellow card maybe, play on.

His foot was far too high and you fully know it, but keep banging that drum sure if that's what you prefer.

eagle eye

cambo2008 wrote: »

Doesn't matter if he got the ball or not. It was studs up, knee height and at pace. About as dangerous as it gets and a miracle he hasn't broken his leg with the way his foot was planted.

Just out of interest when it is ok to have your studs up? When is it ok to go flying in?

I ask because I remember you claiming Nani should not have gotten a red in the Madrid game where his his foot was very high and his studs were up.

monkey9

eagle eye wrote: »

Just out of interest when it is ok to have your studs up? When is it ok to go flying in?

I ask because I remember you claiming Nani should not have gotten a red in the Madrid game where his his foot was very high and his studs were up.

They're two completely different situations. Nani's wasn't a tackle, he was just attempting to control the ball as it came down.

McManaman recklessly flew into a tackle where he went over the ball and caught the other player on the knee.

Liam O

eagle eye wrote: »

Just out of interest when it is ok to have your studs up? When is it ok to go flying in?

I ask because I remember you claiming Nani should not have gotten a red in the Madrid game where his his foot was very high and his studs were up.

Ultimately the working rule seems to be if you don't connect then it's grand but if you do then it's a red card. Now this tackle is something that I have some conflicting feelings on. I mean I can see that he is going for the ball whereas I've seen worse tackles not be punished where they've clearly gone out to let someone know that they're there. But this one is terrible technique and if I was biased towards Newcastle I think I might be irate. It's a really dangerous tackle but an honest one and all the vitriol being aimed at a 21 year old striker for it is a bit unfair. If the ref sees it and sends him of then it gets a passing mention I'd say.

Also let's not forget that Whelan himself broke his leg from a dodgy tackle and while he was playing and that they were part of the game back then. To wish them relegated because of what an old school and old ex footballer says is silly.

monkey9

He's back on again live on SSN

blueser

monkey9 wrote: »

He's back on again live on SSN

Just watching it now, and he's convinced it was a fair tackle and that MacManaman got the ball....



He got fcuk all of the ball, until after he nearly snapped the lad's leg in half. And then it was with his standing foot, not the foot that made the tackle.

Will I Amnt

eagle eye wrote: »

Just out of interest when it is ok to have your studs up? When is it ok to go flying in?

I ask because I remember you claiming Nani should not have gotten a red in the Madrid game where his his foot was very high and his studs were up.

As monkey9 said, one was a tackle the other was an attempt to take the ball under control. 2 different situations.

McManaman was also well aware of what was in front of him. Nani had no idea there was a player flying in behind him.

Super-Rush

It was a terribly bad mistimed tackle.

I don't think he would have meant to hurt him.

Over exuberance on his behalf.

Should he be punished? No, because i think he genuinely went for the ball and not for the man.

For me its an awkward looking tackle that went wrong.

blueser

Super-Rush wrote: »

It was a terribly bad mistimed tackle.

I don't think he would have meant to hurt him.

Over exuberance on his behalf.

Should he be punished? No, because i think he genuinely went for the ball and not for the man.

For me its an awkward looking tackle that went wrong.

Let me get this straight; you're saying the Wigan player shouldn't be punished for that tackle? Therefore, if the ref had seen it (he told Pardew he missed it), he shouldn't have punished the player in any way? And by the way; MacManaman has previous for this sort of tackle;

http://mcfcreservesandacademy.co.uk/wigan-homeeds1011/

monkey9

McManaman did get the slightest of touches on the ball, but the touch was with his studs as his foot had already gone over the ball at this stage.

I don't think he intentionally meant to hurt the player. McManaman is a young player breaking into the team, making his first league start for the club. He went for the ball and there was no way he was pulling out of it. It was an overly enthusiastic challenge that turned out to be an horrendous one. I don't think there should a witch hunt on him though.

But I just can't understand how anyone can claim that he deserved anything other than a red card in this instance. It's as blatant a red card tackle as you're likely to see. He certainly deserves to be retrospectively punished for it.

Hopefully, the Newcastle is back playing ASAP.

DM360

blueser wrote: »

Just watching it now, and he's convinced it was a fair tackle and that MacManaman got the ball....



He got fcuk all of the ball, until after he nearly snapped the lad's leg in half. And then it was with his standing foot, not the foot that made the tackle.

He definitely got the ball, albeit a slight touch, with his right foot before contact with Haidara. Can't be denied.

I think he was guilty of recklessness and excessive force. I don't think there was malice, I think it was a very poorly executed attempted clearance. Calls for 10 match bans are extremely harsh I reckon.

I also don't see a major difference in the principles between Nani on Arbeloa and this. Nani wasn't looking to challenge, just to control. McManaman wasn't looking to challenge, just to clear.

Edit: By the way, I completely agree with the red card and accompanying 3 match ban. It's the calls for elongation of the ban I think are harsh

KERSPLAT!

Definite red but as others have said, I don't think there was an intent to injure. 3 match ban IMO is enough

KERSPLAT!

By the way, what's the title all about? Is the thread about the tackle or about Wigan and their relegation battle?

monkey9

I agree he should get a three match ban. He should have been sent off and i have no doubt he would have been if the ref had seen the challenge properly. The problem being with his view was that a Newcastle player was blocking his line of vision.

Any punishment given to McManaman should simply be whatever punishment he'd have received had he been shown a red card in the match and nothing more.

Gbear

DM360 wrote: »

He definitely got the ball, albeit a slight touch, with his right foot before contact with Haidara. Can't be denied.

I think he was guilty of recklessness and excessive force. I don't think there was malice, I think it was a very poorly executed attempted clearance. Calls for 10 match bans are extremely harsh I reckon.

I also don't see a major difference in the principles between Nani on Arbeloa and this. Nani wasn't looking to challenge, just to control. McManaman wasn't looking to challenge, just to clear.

Edit: By the way, I completely agree with the red card and accompanying 3 match ban. It's the calls for elongation of the ban I think are harsh

That he got the ball isn't really relevant. If the tackle is that bad it doesn't come into it.
Even without intent and even if he made perfect contact with the ball it's reckless and extremely dangerous. It's not a ten match ban but it should be a 3 match ban.

Bizarre notion floating around here that you can do whatever you like on the field of play so long as your heart is in the right place. That's bollocks. A tackle like that is a potential season-ender for the victim and a player has a duty to their fellow professionals to not endanger them like that.
If that's the sort of tackle they're going to make then they can't be trusted to make tackles.

blueser

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

By the way, what's the title all about? Is the thread about the tackle or about Wigan and their relegation battle?

The thread title mentions not only relegation, but also the Wigan chairman, and he has come out this afternoon defending his player (to be expected, I suppose) and saying that the tackle was fair. Okay?

monkey9

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

By the way, what's the title all about? Is the thread about the tackle or about Wigan and their relegation battle?

I think the OP is saying that after Whelan's comments, he hopes the club get relegated. Which is harsh. As Cambo said, it's not the manager and players fault that the chairman is a bit loopy.

KERSPLAT!

blueser wrote: »

The thread title mentions not only relegation, but also the Wigan chairman, and he has come out this afternoon defending his player (to be expected, I suppose) and saying that the tackle was fair. Okay?

Yes that is fine, do continue.

thebaz

monkey9 wrote: »

I think the OP is saying that after Whelan's comments, he hopes the club get relegated. Which is harsh.

I stand by what I said - but have received a warning for my post - so best I say no more

Liam O

thebaz wrote: »

I stand by what I said - but have received a warning for my post - so best I say no more

You were warned for calling him a twat, he's just an old rich guy who the media sometimes use as a rent-a-quote when it's been a slow news week.