Wilshere right to cry foul
Written by Lewis Wright on Wednesday, September 23, 2009
| Date | Time | C | Opponent | F | A | R | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 Sep | 7:45 PM | LC | West Bromwich Albion (H) | 2 | 0 | Win |  |
Roberto Di Matteo last night criticised Jack Wilshere for his part in Jerome Thomas' dismissal, and in doing so has pointed towards a worrying trend.
Wilshere was repeatedly fouled by West Bromich players, Thomas included, all well before he was pushed in the face by his old team mate. Such deliberate breaking of the rules is intended to stop the flow of better footballers; make them unable to find a rhythm and fluency to their game.
Some teams do it, some a great deal more than others. It's part of football, and more than likely it always will be. Arsenal will be a far greater team the day they accept that and begin to use it as a motivation for victory. That's not to mean that there should be no complaint; instead it should be coupled with a greater desire to prove the Arsenal way is the right way.
Di Matteo's complaint was that Wilshere didn't accept his hand when he'd been fouled once again. This leads to two assumptions of Thomas' behaviour. One is that he wanted to help up Wilshere. To put a player on the floor and then complain when he doesn't get up when demanded is the richest of hypocrisies; as if to steal from a man, and expect gratitude when you show him where to buy a new wallet.
The other assumption is that he wanted to shake Wilshere's hand. A handshake is a sign of respect, of all things forgotten and a willingness to move on, yet Wilshere decided he didn't respect the style of play West Brom forced upon him and so didn't shake hands. Just as footballing sides must come to terms with the fact teams may attempt to stop them playing football the way they want to, so must oppositions that employ such tactics accept that said teams may be unhappy when they find themselves in the middle of what more closely resembles a rugby game.
In the same week that Match of the Day found itself unable to show Eduardo's ankle being shattered due to its graphic content, headlines ran and quotes were taken about how 'honest' a player Martin Taylor is. How 'it's not in his nature to do that sort of thing.' He was painted equally as victim. Something is very wrong with that picture, and yet the two scenarios aren't so very different.
We bemoan the lack of technically gifted English talent; the lack of players who play the game the right way, the continental way, the way football should be played, like Jack Wilshere. Yet all the while when players are deliberately stopped from playing that way, and stopped outside of the rules, the perpetrators are lauded as representing the 'passion' of football, and being 'honest' players.
Eduardo was lucky to return considering the devastating impact of his injury. One can only hope there is a change in the national psyche before such damage to a player is accepted again. A ruined career is far too heavy a price to pay for accepting today's standard of passion and honesty.
User Comments
© 2000-2010 Arsenal Mania. All rights reserved. Site developed by Chongster. Page processed in 0.02 seconds.
