THAT tackle

 

He probably didn't realise the extent of the injury and assumed that the (originally) Brazilian was putting it on. No one could actually be happy with what ended up happening.

 

Independent.co.uk

James Lawton: Reckless tackles leave ugly stain that apologists can no longer wipe away
Tuesday, 26 February 2008


Eduardo da Silva once had exquisitely skilful and very quick feet. It is a statement of fact made no less forlorn by yesterday's optimistic news that we may be able to say that again in roughly nine months' time. Certainly, there is no reassurance in the clamour that says however long he is out of the game it will not be because of the malicious nature of Birmingham City's Martin Taylor.

OK, let's agree Taylor is not a footballing psychopath and that his reaction of horror at the consequences of his tackle on Eduardo was entirely genuine. But then let's agree on something else. It was the kind of X-rated tackle which has become commonplace in the Premier League.

Taylor's foot was in the air, his studs were showing, and, given the hair-trigger dexterity of Eduardo on the ball, the chances of injury ran very high. Some have praised the referee for reaching so promptly for a red card but if you are a traffic cop and someone comes steaming through a red light you don't wait to see how much mayhem has been caused. The truth is, Eduardo's sickening fate was the big accident waiting to happen. Now that it has, maybe, just maybe, a growing problem will be addressed.

The trouble is not, as so many within the game say, that football is a contact sport that would be hopelessly diminished if defenders were not allowed to tackle with some force. Good defence is as much an art as good attack; for confirmation you only have to look at Paolo Maldini or, for that matter, Rio Ferdinand and Ga�l Clichy on one of their better days. What has to be attacked, with new legislation, is the trend which Ars�ne Wenger legitimately criticised while, by his own commendable admission, going completely over the top in his assertion that Taylor should be banned for life.

What should be wiped away is the belief that teams of inferior resources, and thus inferior skills, are somehow justified in reducing the odds against them by blurring the line between honest, and vigorous, defence and tackling that has no place in the game. We are not talking about the old devilry of over-the-top tackling that became a dark cult in the Sixties and Seventies. It was also a deadly skill in possession of some of the most talented players who declared that if they ran the risk of dying by the sword while in full view of unknowing officials they might as well wield one in their own defence.

No, the kind of tackle that Taylor inflicted on Eduardo would have been scoffed at in the old days. It carried the inherent subtlety of a cudgel. However, nowadays whenever one of those crude assaults occurs there is an instant chorus from the broadcasting booth and analysis couches that what we have seen is no more than an excess of zeal and shortage of timing.

Wenger's contention, and it is one that has been loudly voiced this season by the only manager in England who can compete at his level of football skill, Sir Alex Ferguson, is that teams struggling for survival in the top flight too often attempt to kick and intimidate their way out of trouble. This is especially so when they are faced by teams who have got to the top essentially by playing football. It was a matter, for example, of much civic pride in Bolton that the blood of the old Gunners ran cold whenever they entered the Reebok Stadium. It was there, incidentally, that Ferguson was most outraged this season when his team surrendered three points in a storm of ferocious and, some would insist, outrageous tackling by Bolton.

We all know about Ferguson's occasional objectivity bypass � as we do Wenger's � but anyone in Bolton that day had to understand his rage to some serious degree. However, Bolton's new manager, Gary Megson, declared, "I asked them to be aggressive, yes, but I think we only had one bad tackle [fortunately, no one had their ankle broken in two places]. We have to compete and I'm not going to criticise them for competing. There would be a lot more complaints from myself if we did not compete. I know we have a squad to get us out of trouble." Naturally, this barrage of euphemism was warmly saluted in the Match of the Day studio.

Birmingham's manager, Alex McLeish, also stressed his pleasure at the competitive levels achieved by his struggling team against Arsenal. Here, of course, we have the greatest of all the euphemisms. If you don't have a Fabregas or a Hleb or an Eduardo, or a Ronaldo or a Rooney, to be competitive is all. But at what cost to the quality of the game and the safety of those stars who are supposed to represent the finest development of football in these days of super fitness?

If Eduardo does beat the odds and makes a perfect recovery, how confident will he be in his sleight of foot, and lightning speed the first time a big, heedless but famously unmalicious defender comes thundering into the tackle? And if he ducks the challenge, that is such a central part of his play can he really be said to have recovered? Hardly.

Wenger admitted he was wrong to say Taylor's action warranted a life ban. However, he would have been right, utterly, if he had said a three-match automatic suspension was completely inadequate. In this case, and in all others that but for good luck might bring the same horrendous consequences, the punishment should be at least doubled.

A score of witnesses have sworn Taylor doesn't have a bad bone in his body but unfortunately, because of a crude and illegal tackle, his victim now has several. It is a cruel reality that football cannot afford to ignore. Not if it cares a penny for an image that will always be best protected by its most gifted players.

 

He would have realised as soon as he'd stopped moving, he would have heard the bone crack, let alone seen the foot at the wrong angle - he had the best view besides Fabrigas who came along after the incident and could clearly see that it was bad - Taylor knew, was clearly ok with what had happened, and then thought about how it looked and offered the weak apology. 3 game sis not an appropriate punishment for ending someones season/career.

 

OK, fair call. I just don't like to think players can be that heartless. I've had my share of decent lower lim breaks and everytime the opposition has shown genuine concern (except the time the other guys leg was 10 X worse than mine). To me it is human nature to be concerned for another players well being in such situations. It is , after all, just a game.

Lets hope Eduardo can make a full recovery and once agian grace the park with his exceptional skill and pace.

 

I'm impressed by your new attitude to trolling Arsenal

 

Though to be fair you do seem to have resisited the urge of late.

 

Very good points raised by an educated Toffee fan. Photos pick up single moments in time. Faces go through many changes during incidents like this and to say a smirk is the look he had to the whole event is very harsh. It was also possible/likely his face on is way to a grimice at what he had just done. If you practise a grimace in the mirror you'll see your mouth is actually smiling and you eyes are angry. He screwed up in the tackle and I think he knows it.

 

and to think that early today you were telling people to get on with their work 

Taylor makes the tackle and looks up at the referee and shrugs, then looks at eduardo rolling around with his foot around the wrong way screaming, has no reaction and then turns to the referee and smiles (not a happy smile, but a smile) at him.  theh when he gets the red card he seeme more worried about that than the fact that he had just mutilated a player.

 

the arsenal players look at eduardo for half of a second and cover their eyes, Taylor looks at him for a good two seconds and then turns to the ref with a i didnt mean to smile.

 

all that birmingham have done is make excuses, "oh he didnt mean to" and "Taylor feels bad", what they havent done is acknowledged that their player has quite possibly ruined anothers career (depending on how the ligaments etc heal) and accepted any responsibility. 

they havent issued any statements accepting that their player made a mistake and they would like to apologize for the damage they caused to eduardo and the club

 

all that they have done is make excuses, 'he didnt mean to'  'he isnt like that', 'arsenal overreacted'

they should accept that their player f**ked up and at least apologize...

 

agreed this sucks first klasnic and now eduardo

 

1. I think the tackle was a shoker, I do not defend it per se.

2. I think the card was deserved, as with the suspension, which was within the rules of the game. Wherther or not the suspension should have been longer is another matter

3. The above is irrespective of what team I support

4. I am very dissapointed for Eduardo, the pain of the injury alone must have been devastating, let alone the effect it will have on his career

 

HOWEVER,

 

1. I deplore the comments directed at Taylor's character and wild assumptions about his intent, which we simply cannot know.

2. I am disappointed that the fact I support Tottenham has been used as ammunition against my arguments - this is ad hominum and fallicious. Why does this matter to anyone? I've not made any disparaging comments about Arsernal fans, or their team in this thread, becasue this does not add anything valuable to the discussion. This sort of comment from Fancsernal "being a tottenham fan you probably saw the injury or read about it and found it the best news you've had in a while", is pure speculation. Once more, this "anyone that is calling the tackle an attempt to get the ball is f*cking stupid." from Pride_of_London l is evidence that this dicussion has denegrated to the point where it's almost not worth continuing. . . .

 

For those that want to have a reasonable discussion then please read this before posting: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to quote myself but it would appear measured and thought out responses seem to be rare especially the media in the UK and Croatia. In the UK they are all trying to spin this against Gallas, Wenger and Arsenal because the name "Arsenal" in the headline will get 10x more hits to your site than "Birmingham". And the Croatian media are just as sensationalist and are trying to hype it up to sell more copy.

 

Hope Eduardo recovers soon.

hold up..you said:

 

"I think the tackle is clumsy, but not intentionally malicious."

yet you also said that you agreed with ubergunner when the first thing he said was:

"the tackle was intentional". 

 you agree it was intentional, so he tried to foul him but not break his leg?

no one is claiming that he went out to break his leg, thats a tad over the top.

but you agree with the fact it was an intentional foul. this is an immediate red, and if you go out to foul a player to "let them know you're there"  then that in itself warrants personal vilification.

 

you also say:

"As for the apparent 'smirk' or 'not looking sorry', well is anyone surprised? At the time immediately post this tackle, Taylor has no idea of the consequence for Eduardo yet, it's not until much after that he realises how serious it is"

 

this is the same thing. Taylor is very smug when he knows he has caught eduardo and stopped play, but then when he realises he has completely f**ked eduardo up he acts remorseful.

and i say acts remorseful because he doesnt even react on the pitch, he holds out his hands in an appeal against the red card 3 times. while the arsenal players yell at the ref for even doing the card stuff and not calling for the stretcher. 

i think taylor needs to sort out his priorites, surely he would've heard/felt the whole ripping eduardos ankle from its socket thing and yet he cares more about the red card.

 

this tells me taylor is ok with fouling eduardo and hurting him because he was smiling when he originally got up before he saw what hed done. this defenitely shows intent and malice and i dont think people who think like this should be allowed to play. he intended to foul and stop eduardo and thats what he did.

 

birmingham have now come out and said he couldnt play on etc..which i think is a load of crap. Taylor doesnt even look phased by it on the field, to him all he did was what he was trying to do but just did it a little too well, and lets face it, had he not done that arsenal would have probably won the game.

 

Now i hear Taylor is back in training!

if i had done that to anyone  i dont think i would be able to play for a long long time. yet he is back in training as if everything is normal. he obviously isnt as remorseful as the club claims.

 

and whether or not you acknowledge it or not phil_style the teams we support affect our thoughts on this by exponential amounts.

we arsenal fans feel personally violated. while there are probably tottenham fans out there who now idolise martin taylor for doing this.

im not saying that you're one of these but you probably started in the neutral territory on this point.  we arsenal fans feel we have been personally attacked so we start with a very strong belief on this point.

 

and you are being changed slowly phil,  note how you originally said the challenge was clumsy now you say it was a shocker. and originally you said yellow maybe red and in the last post you said  it was a defenite red card or something along those lines.  you're coming to the dark side...haha

 

 

fact one foot studs up red card