May, 2005. Cardiff.
Patrick Vieira steps up for what will prove to be his final kick as an Arsenal player.
He shoots high to Roy Carroll's right, into the corner of the net. Arsenal have won.
Vieira himself, Fabregas, and Gilberto Silva have been outplayed by Roy Keane and company. Comprehensively outplayed. Only a year after Arsenal ended a league season unbeaten, they have been hammered by the worst United team in memory.
Hammered, that is, in all but scoreline.
Luck, United profligacy, and a towering performance by Jens Lehmann have contrived to turn what could have been a mullering into an incredibly goalless draw. And having had one shot on target in one hundred and twenty minutes of football before the shootout, Arsenal have scored five out of five from twelve yards.
Lehmann's save from Scholes is decisive and Arsenal have won the FA Cup.
*********************************************************************************
That should have been a moment of euphoria, but I remember feeling slightly underwhelmed. Arsenal had finished ahead of United in the league (and well behind Mourinho's Chelsea). But they'd lost both of the league encounters with Ferguson's team, both memorably.
At Old Trafford, there was The Ending of the Unbeaten Run, The Diving of the Rooney, The Chucking of the Post-Match Pizza.
At Highbury, there was The Showdown in the Tunnel, The Madness of The Almunia, The Losing of One Of The Great Matches of the Premier League era.
So it was fair to say Arsenal had a point to prove in Cardiff. What we actually saw was that the team had declined very fast, that perhaps some of the old hunger was lacking, and that Wenger wasn't much of the tactician, as his choice of Dennis Bergkamp in the lone striker role helped shape the game in United's favour.
Back then, Arsenal were routinely winning trophies, and doing it in tremendous style, so to see them fluke their way past a United side we all hated and who weren't very good themselves was a bit of a comedown. We could afford to be picky then.
Now, though, what would we give for another lucky FA Cup victory?
Showing posts with label Vieira. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vieira. Show all posts
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
I'll Be The Asshole Saying "I Told You So"
Approaching my 100th post, and still saying the same things as the first one.
I know that this blog is almost always preaching negativity, but I think that a lot of this has proven to be justified negativity. Perhaps the more relevant issue is whether it is misdirected, because much of my ire has been aimed at the manager, who many still seem to see as an untouchable figure. To put him on such a lofty pedestal is foolish. George Graham had almost comparable success (albeit without the nice football) but Arsenal had descended into something of a shambles by the time he was sacked- less than a year after winning the European Cup Winners Cup. So surely it is time to question Wenger, as we look back on five years without a trophy. True, George Graham's Arsenal team were more erratic in the league, with mid-table finishes in 93 and the season in which he was sacked, 95, but back then, third or fourth did not mean Champions League football, and at least they were still winning silverware consistently.
With Wenger, things are admittedly a little more complex. He is the man who has revolutionised the club, on and off the pitch. We have a reputation, which I frankly now believe to be half bullshit, for playing nice football, and for being run the right way. Arsenal now exist as a different entity. Dennis Bergkamp was the starting point, but Arsene Wenger is clearly the most important figure in that. It is tempting to think that if Wenger went, a lot of the French players, Fabregas, and others would follow. For them, he is the club.
But let's rewind thirteen years or so. This club did NOT start with Arsene Wenger. It change into something more attractive for a lot of people, and became more successful, but a winning mentality was already there in the playing staff. While the manager is credited with prolonging the top-flight careers of Adams, Bould, Keown, Dixon and Winterburn, they provided him with the platform for success. Watching Arsenal today, does anyone believe that Arsene Wenger could ever have constructed himself a defence that good?
Some other things to consider. Arsenal reached their only ever European Cup final in 2006 mainly through defensive solidity. In every knockout round before the final, Arsenal failed to score in one leg- at home to Real Madrid, away to Juventus, and away to Villareal, where they barely threatened a shot. They got through because they conceded precisely zero goals in those ties. Martin Keown was at this time a member of the coaching staff. Apparently, Arsene the Autocrat bristles at suggestions that this was of some importance. Arsene the Autocrat this season often stated a Keeganesque belief that Arsenal could triumph through scoring more than the opposition. At the season's depressing end, he is blaming the defence for our lack of success, and absolving the likes of Denilson and Diaby, because they apparently made enough chances at the other end. Do they have no obligation to protect the defence? A defence that had Vermaelen and Gallas, two of our outstanding players?
Maybe he was always like this. Maybe it is the lack of experience on the pitch that is costing us. I used to think that argument too black-and-white but I'm coming around to it now. If not experience, professionalism. Petit and Vieira were professional enough, and good enough, to transform their games in order to better protect the defence in 97/98. Maybe it's telling that this was not Wenger's idea but the result of a team meeting in which senior players aired their views. Where before Wenger had Vieira as liuetenant, the old back four, Bergkamp, Parlour et al, what does he have now? You may say that Vieira grew up in that Arsenal team, but that's the whole point. He grew up beside Adams, Keown and the rest. Fabregas should still be growing up beside experience, instead, he's being asked to lead. Lead a team of (and forgive me) WANKERS. There, I said it. I have a genuine dislike for a lot of Arsenal's players today. They don't care what shirt they're wearing. That Wigan game was the last straw for me. It was unseemly. Abou Diaby should not be allowed play again. Fabianski should be put out of his misery, and Almunia likewise. Denilson needs a kick up the ass, and nobody's around to swing a leg.
I know that this blog is almost always preaching negativity, but I think that a lot of this has proven to be justified negativity. Perhaps the more relevant issue is whether it is misdirected, because much of my ire has been aimed at the manager, who many still seem to see as an untouchable figure. To put him on such a lofty pedestal is foolish. George Graham had almost comparable success (albeit without the nice football) but Arsenal had descended into something of a shambles by the time he was sacked- less than a year after winning the European Cup Winners Cup. So surely it is time to question Wenger, as we look back on five years without a trophy. True, George Graham's Arsenal team were more erratic in the league, with mid-table finishes in 93 and the season in which he was sacked, 95, but back then, third or fourth did not mean Champions League football, and at least they were still winning silverware consistently.
With Wenger, things are admittedly a little more complex. He is the man who has revolutionised the club, on and off the pitch. We have a reputation, which I frankly now believe to be half bullshit, for playing nice football, and for being run the right way. Arsenal now exist as a different entity. Dennis Bergkamp was the starting point, but Arsene Wenger is clearly the most important figure in that. It is tempting to think that if Wenger went, a lot of the French players, Fabregas, and others would follow. For them, he is the club.
But let's rewind thirteen years or so. This club did NOT start with Arsene Wenger. It change into something more attractive for a lot of people, and became more successful, but a winning mentality was already there in the playing staff. While the manager is credited with prolonging the top-flight careers of Adams, Bould, Keown, Dixon and Winterburn, they provided him with the platform for success. Watching Arsenal today, does anyone believe that Arsene Wenger could ever have constructed himself a defence that good?
Some other things to consider. Arsenal reached their only ever European Cup final in 2006 mainly through defensive solidity. In every knockout round before the final, Arsenal failed to score in one leg- at home to Real Madrid, away to Juventus, and away to Villareal, where they barely threatened a shot. They got through because they conceded precisely zero goals in those ties. Martin Keown was at this time a member of the coaching staff. Apparently, Arsene the Autocrat bristles at suggestions that this was of some importance. Arsene the Autocrat this season often stated a Keeganesque belief that Arsenal could triumph through scoring more than the opposition. At the season's depressing end, he is blaming the defence for our lack of success, and absolving the likes of Denilson and Diaby, because they apparently made enough chances at the other end. Do they have no obligation to protect the defence? A defence that had Vermaelen and Gallas, two of our outstanding players?
Maybe he was always like this. Maybe it is the lack of experience on the pitch that is costing us. I used to think that argument too black-and-white but I'm coming around to it now. If not experience, professionalism. Petit and Vieira were professional enough, and good enough, to transform their games in order to better protect the defence in 97/98. Maybe it's telling that this was not Wenger's idea but the result of a team meeting in which senior players aired their views. Where before Wenger had Vieira as liuetenant, the old back four, Bergkamp, Parlour et al, what does he have now? You may say that Vieira grew up in that Arsenal team, but that's the whole point. He grew up beside Adams, Keown and the rest. Fabregas should still be growing up beside experience, instead, he's being asked to lead. Lead a team of (and forgive me) WANKERS. There, I said it. I have a genuine dislike for a lot of Arsenal's players today. They don't care what shirt they're wearing. That Wigan game was the last straw for me. It was unseemly. Abou Diaby should not be allowed play again. Fabianski should be put out of his misery, and Almunia likewise. Denilson needs a kick up the ass, and nobody's around to swing a leg.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Premiership Team of the Noughties
I had the misfortune to turn on Talksport one night recently and listen to Stan collymore harp on in a vaguely xenophobic manner about his "team of the decade" in the Premiership. After he dismissed Robert Pires from his rightful position on the left of such a dream team, on the supposed grounds that he LAcKED END PRODUcT, i could take no more.
So here is my riposte to mr. collymore and all of his dumbass callers- especially the guy who suggested Didi Fucking Hamann in central midfield. Admittedly, about half the team will probably be the same as his, but anyway...
1. SHAY GIVEN
I suppose there's still a question mark hanging over Given, and it goes a little something like this: if he's a truly great keeper, isn't it something of an unfortunate coincidence that he seems to always find himself behind a shambolic defence? Does he lack the organisational skills that would render it unnecessary for him to be making five amazing saves every game? Or is it his relative lack of height as a goalkeeper that dissuaded any of the Big Four from ever making a move for him?
Despite these reservations, it remains that Given has been, over the last decade, an unsurpassed shotstopper in the English game. Van Der Sar and perhaps Petr cech could be seen as rivals for this spot but the former always struck me at United as a merely very decent keeper playing behind an exceptional defence, whereas the latter has suffered a crippling loss of form, understandably perhaps, since the Stephen Hunt incident.
2. GARY NEVILLE
consistency wins the day here. He's never been the most pyrotechnic of full-backs, but in terms of longevity and reliability he hasn't had much competition in the past decade. And a shedload of medals doesn't do any harm either. This was probably the easiest choice. Arsenal have had good right backs and Lauren deserves credit for his part in the glories of 02 and 04. Let's hope that in the coming years Bacary Sagna makes himself a shoo-in for the best right back of whatever the next decade is going to be called.
5. JOHN TERRY
I had to think long and hard about this one. I wanted one centre back adept at carrying the ball out, and one big stopper- so it soon became a question of Terry vs campbell. I've had to go for Terry, probably because we haven't had the pleasure of viewing his inevitable decline yet.
6. RIO FERDINAND
This is a poignant choice in a way because there is already a whiff of stagnation about Ferdinand, not just on account of his injury problems but also due to his form. As a ball-playing centre back who sweeps up behind an aggressive partner, he had serious competition from our own Bill Gallas and Ricardo carvalho. But you have to admit that for the last few years especially Ferdinand was imperious and he seemed to have a special place in his pocket reserved for Thierry Henry.
3. ASHLEY cOLE
Moving swiftly on...
11. cRISTIANO RONALDO
So far this team is populated almost exclusively by players I have an intense hatred for. What an awful decade. Here it was a battle between Beckham and the Portuguese ponce. If you gave Ronaldo Beckham's delivery, it would be frightening, but as it is Ronaldo is superior in every other department. And, apart from the ability to score a whopping forty goals in one season- comprising tap-ins, solo goals, twenty-yard thunderbolts, free kicks, penalties, and salmon-leap headers- it's his searing pace that really seals the deal and makes Beckham look a little one-dimensional.
4. and 8. PATRIcK VIEIRA and ROY KEANE
At first I was thinking of picking one of these guys, and a more obviously attack-minded player like Lampard or Gerrard to partner. But here is my logic for picking these two. Firstly, I'm playing a 4-4-2, and Gerrard and Lampard have in my view always been at their impressive best playing in a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 with two other central players to aid them with the workload and allow them to roam forward quite freely. I'm not convinced that either have proven themselves as true midfield generals in the mold of Vieira and Keane in their pomp. Perhaps this is indicative of one big change in the last few years of top-level football. Whereas a decade or so ago, we had players who played from box to box and could dominate games almost single-handedly, now midfield play is more specialist. Neither Vieira or Keane were simply holding players. Both were terrific ball-winners but could also be termed playmakers- witness Keane's famous performance in Turin in '99 where his hypnotic passing provided the platform for United's great comeback. But with the now widespread use of Makalele-style water carriers, it is usually possible to call a midfielder either attacking or defensive, and most teams have one player or even two focussed on shielding the back four. Illustrative of my point is the problem that England had with pairing Lampard and Gerrard in a 4-4-2, with neither really capable of curbing their offensive instincts. Vieira and Keane would never have had that problem. Both could drive forward to devastating effect at different times, with one always willing to drop back and add stability and solidity.
All that being said, there are still players of that ilk today. The fantastic Michael Essien could easily play in a 4-4-2, rampaging from box to box. It is an impossible fantasy of mine to see him in tandem with Fabregas, although both are now playing those aforementioned specialist roles in three or four-man midfields.
Anyway, sorry for banging on, what I really just wanted to say was, Keane and Vieira in tandem, early part of the last decade- when you were done shitting your pants, what would you do to beat that?
7. ROBERT PIRES
Despite Ryan Giggs' recent renaissance, there was only one winner of the left-wing spot. Football Writers Player of the year in 2002 after an astonishing season of roaming creativity from the wing, Pires reinvented himself subtly after a knee injury as a goalscoring midfielder who scored peaches and poached goals in equal number. He had a wonderful understanding with my team's left back, not to mention its two strikers....
10. DENNIS BERGKAMP
I've got to admit this is a sentimental choice in a way, as he is my favourite footballer of all time. But I want my team to be a work of art, not an ungainly battering ram, so there's no better man to drop into the hole and provide the ammo for Pires, Ronaldo and....
9. THIERRY HENRY
I was a bit harsh on him after that handball. He is a bit of a poser but it would be ungrateful to disregard just how staggeringly good this guy was for pretty much eight years on end. Probably, in terms of keeping up an amazing standard for a very long stretch of time, the Premiership's player of the decade. And nearly ever goal was a thing of beauty...
So here is my riposte to mr. collymore and all of his dumbass callers- especially the guy who suggested Didi Fucking Hamann in central midfield. Admittedly, about half the team will probably be the same as his, but anyway...
1. SHAY GIVEN
I suppose there's still a question mark hanging over Given, and it goes a little something like this: if he's a truly great keeper, isn't it something of an unfortunate coincidence that he seems to always find himself behind a shambolic defence? Does he lack the organisational skills that would render it unnecessary for him to be making five amazing saves every game? Or is it his relative lack of height as a goalkeeper that dissuaded any of the Big Four from ever making a move for him?
Despite these reservations, it remains that Given has been, over the last decade, an unsurpassed shotstopper in the English game. Van Der Sar and perhaps Petr cech could be seen as rivals for this spot but the former always struck me at United as a merely very decent keeper playing behind an exceptional defence, whereas the latter has suffered a crippling loss of form, understandably perhaps, since the Stephen Hunt incident.
2. GARY NEVILLE
consistency wins the day here. He's never been the most pyrotechnic of full-backs, but in terms of longevity and reliability he hasn't had much competition in the past decade. And a shedload of medals doesn't do any harm either. This was probably the easiest choice. Arsenal have had good right backs and Lauren deserves credit for his part in the glories of 02 and 04. Let's hope that in the coming years Bacary Sagna makes himself a shoo-in for the best right back of whatever the next decade is going to be called.
5. JOHN TERRY
I had to think long and hard about this one. I wanted one centre back adept at carrying the ball out, and one big stopper- so it soon became a question of Terry vs campbell. I've had to go for Terry, probably because we haven't had the pleasure of viewing his inevitable decline yet.
6. RIO FERDINAND
This is a poignant choice in a way because there is already a whiff of stagnation about Ferdinand, not just on account of his injury problems but also due to his form. As a ball-playing centre back who sweeps up behind an aggressive partner, he had serious competition from our own Bill Gallas and Ricardo carvalho. But you have to admit that for the last few years especially Ferdinand was imperious and he seemed to have a special place in his pocket reserved for Thierry Henry.
3. ASHLEY cOLE
Moving swiftly on...
11. cRISTIANO RONALDO
So far this team is populated almost exclusively by players I have an intense hatred for. What an awful decade. Here it was a battle between Beckham and the Portuguese ponce. If you gave Ronaldo Beckham's delivery, it would be frightening, but as it is Ronaldo is superior in every other department. And, apart from the ability to score a whopping forty goals in one season- comprising tap-ins, solo goals, twenty-yard thunderbolts, free kicks, penalties, and salmon-leap headers- it's his searing pace that really seals the deal and makes Beckham look a little one-dimensional.
4. and 8. PATRIcK VIEIRA and ROY KEANE
At first I was thinking of picking one of these guys, and a more obviously attack-minded player like Lampard or Gerrard to partner. But here is my logic for picking these two. Firstly, I'm playing a 4-4-2, and Gerrard and Lampard have in my view always been at their impressive best playing in a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 with two other central players to aid them with the workload and allow them to roam forward quite freely. I'm not convinced that either have proven themselves as true midfield generals in the mold of Vieira and Keane in their pomp. Perhaps this is indicative of one big change in the last few years of top-level football. Whereas a decade or so ago, we had players who played from box to box and could dominate games almost single-handedly, now midfield play is more specialist. Neither Vieira or Keane were simply holding players. Both were terrific ball-winners but could also be termed playmakers- witness Keane's famous performance in Turin in '99 where his hypnotic passing provided the platform for United's great comeback. But with the now widespread use of Makalele-style water carriers, it is usually possible to call a midfielder either attacking or defensive, and most teams have one player or even two focussed on shielding the back four. Illustrative of my point is the problem that England had with pairing Lampard and Gerrard in a 4-4-2, with neither really capable of curbing their offensive instincts. Vieira and Keane would never have had that problem. Both could drive forward to devastating effect at different times, with one always willing to drop back and add stability and solidity.
All that being said, there are still players of that ilk today. The fantastic Michael Essien could easily play in a 4-4-2, rampaging from box to box. It is an impossible fantasy of mine to see him in tandem with Fabregas, although both are now playing those aforementioned specialist roles in three or four-man midfields.
Anyway, sorry for banging on, what I really just wanted to say was, Keane and Vieira in tandem, early part of the last decade- when you were done shitting your pants, what would you do to beat that?
7. ROBERT PIRES
Despite Ryan Giggs' recent renaissance, there was only one winner of the left-wing spot. Football Writers Player of the year in 2002 after an astonishing season of roaming creativity from the wing, Pires reinvented himself subtly after a knee injury as a goalscoring midfielder who scored peaches and poached goals in equal number. He had a wonderful understanding with my team's left back, not to mention its two strikers....
10. DENNIS BERGKAMP
I've got to admit this is a sentimental choice in a way, as he is my favourite footballer of all time. But I want my team to be a work of art, not an ungainly battering ram, so there's no better man to drop into the hole and provide the ammo for Pires, Ronaldo and....
9. THIERRY HENRY
I was a bit harsh on him after that handball. He is a bit of a poser but it would be ungrateful to disregard just how staggeringly good this guy was for pretty much eight years on end. Probably, in terms of keeping up an amazing standard for a very long stretch of time, the Premiership's player of the decade. And nearly ever goal was a thing of beauty...
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Thoughts on "the Travesty of Paris" Part 1
It was tempting to see the France - Ireland play off as a head to head between a limited group of players under a shrewd and decorated coach against a group of potential world-beaters under a comically inept one.
On the basis of the two games, the only part of that statement that is unarguably true is that Raymond Domenech is indeed a clown- he is threatening to turn France into also-rans before a ball is even kicked this Summer. As for those other assumptions: well, Trapattoni has undeniably had a very successful career at the highest level of the game over the last few decades, but the nagging, infuriating doubt remains over whether he maximised this team's potential in these World cup qualifiers. It seems churlish to say that, what with the apparent shambles he inherited, but Dunphy and Giles have talked throughout the campaign about the ability that we have, that the Italian hadn't seemed to elicit from the players because of his suffocating tactics. Many laughed as Dunphy overstated his point, talking about how half our team could apparently walk into better sides, but last night those players proved him half right. They'll never be Brazil, we all know that, but they can play when let off the leash.
France on the other hand were deplorable in most departments. Having an inadequate manager is one thing, but when your team is such a character-free zone that Thierry Henry is made captain you're really in trouble, something Arsenal fans know all about. While Domenech certainly makes it difficult for his players with strange selections, such as leaving out Benzema, and a clearly ineffective formation, it's not unheard of for a team of big characters to negotiate such obstacles. When they still had Zidane and Vieira, even while both seemed in decline, they should have won the last World cup despite having the idiot on the sideline. Not many in football have a great deal of respect for Luis Aragones, but his Spain side had the talent and the character to comfortably win the last European championships. And the man who was dubbed "Average Grant" by his own players very nearly presided over chelsea's first European cup win, only for luck to intervene on Man United's side. In all these cases, you would trust the players involved to deliver even if the man in official charge was not up to it. That's not the case with the current France crop.
Highly-rated players were made to look ordinary by their supposedly ordinary counterparts. This suggests that some- Lassana Diarra and Gourcuff in particular spring to mind- need a strong guiding hand and perhaps an odd kick up the hole. Others- Alou Diarra, Gignac- just aren't particularly good. And then there's the Henrys, the Anelkas, the guys who will never be remembered in the very top bracket of world class talent because they don't apply themselves well enough, often enough, and particularly not on the big occasions. Anelkas' been getting rave reviews lately and over the two legs he was the danger man but that danger was never frightening, as illustrated by his lucky goal in the first leg. He'd never before been to a World cup; to me, he didn't look that bothered on a night where surely hunger should have been there for all to see. So, he's languid, or lazy, depending on your personal view of the guy. With Henry, the problem is mental. We shouldn't deny it as Arsenal fans, the guy is a big game bottler. By my reckoning, he's played in eight major finals, had great chances in most of them, and not scored once.
My most bitter memory as an Arsenal fan is of the champions League final in 06, which we should have won with 10 men. Henry had the chance to seal it not long before Barca's equaliser, but bottled a one-on-one with Valdes that he would have buried in a low-stakes situation. He let out his usually hidden darkside in a risible post-match rant where he hit out at everyone- Puyol, Eto'o, Ronaldinho, the ref- but himself. I was devastated myself but even then I felt embarrassed for the guy- what a sore loser. Lastnight, in the same stadium, maybe Henry felt he was exorcising some demons but what he really did was show his weak character again.
The Irish reaction has been a little over the top maybe. He's hardly the first player to act in that manner. But that don't make it right and he's always been the type of poser who'd have you believe he would never try such a thing. He had an opportunity to break new ground in football, to be admired as no player ever before, if he held his cheating hands up and helped the referee out. Maybe that's overly idealistic, I'm sorry, Dunphy inspired me last night. There is something rotten in the state of football and lastnight was a chance to kickstart the game's redemption but it was always going to be too much to ask of Thierry the hypocrite Henry. He's always been a poser, always projected a facade. In the Highbury tunnel in 2005, Roy Keane berated Patrick Vieira for "pretending you're a nice guy". Sometimes I think he picked the wrong target.
One final thought for tonight. Human beings will always be fallible- the players in their actions, and the officials in their split-second perceptions of those actions- but surely the introduction of video technology in some form can't be far away.
On the basis of the two games, the only part of that statement that is unarguably true is that Raymond Domenech is indeed a clown- he is threatening to turn France into also-rans before a ball is even kicked this Summer. As for those other assumptions: well, Trapattoni has undeniably had a very successful career at the highest level of the game over the last few decades, but the nagging, infuriating doubt remains over whether he maximised this team's potential in these World cup qualifiers. It seems churlish to say that, what with the apparent shambles he inherited, but Dunphy and Giles have talked throughout the campaign about the ability that we have, that the Italian hadn't seemed to elicit from the players because of his suffocating tactics. Many laughed as Dunphy overstated his point, talking about how half our team could apparently walk into better sides, but last night those players proved him half right. They'll never be Brazil, we all know that, but they can play when let off the leash.
France on the other hand were deplorable in most departments. Having an inadequate manager is one thing, but when your team is such a character-free zone that Thierry Henry is made captain you're really in trouble, something Arsenal fans know all about. While Domenech certainly makes it difficult for his players with strange selections, such as leaving out Benzema, and a clearly ineffective formation, it's not unheard of for a team of big characters to negotiate such obstacles. When they still had Zidane and Vieira, even while both seemed in decline, they should have won the last World cup despite having the idiot on the sideline. Not many in football have a great deal of respect for Luis Aragones, but his Spain side had the talent and the character to comfortably win the last European championships. And the man who was dubbed "Average Grant" by his own players very nearly presided over chelsea's first European cup win, only for luck to intervene on Man United's side. In all these cases, you would trust the players involved to deliver even if the man in official charge was not up to it. That's not the case with the current France crop.
Highly-rated players were made to look ordinary by their supposedly ordinary counterparts. This suggests that some- Lassana Diarra and Gourcuff in particular spring to mind- need a strong guiding hand and perhaps an odd kick up the hole. Others- Alou Diarra, Gignac- just aren't particularly good. And then there's the Henrys, the Anelkas, the guys who will never be remembered in the very top bracket of world class talent because they don't apply themselves well enough, often enough, and particularly not on the big occasions. Anelkas' been getting rave reviews lately and over the two legs he was the danger man but that danger was never frightening, as illustrated by his lucky goal in the first leg. He'd never before been to a World cup; to me, he didn't look that bothered on a night where surely hunger should have been there for all to see. So, he's languid, or lazy, depending on your personal view of the guy. With Henry, the problem is mental. We shouldn't deny it as Arsenal fans, the guy is a big game bottler. By my reckoning, he's played in eight major finals, had great chances in most of them, and not scored once.
My most bitter memory as an Arsenal fan is of the champions League final in 06, which we should have won with 10 men. Henry had the chance to seal it not long before Barca's equaliser, but bottled a one-on-one with Valdes that he would have buried in a low-stakes situation. He let out his usually hidden darkside in a risible post-match rant where he hit out at everyone- Puyol, Eto'o, Ronaldinho, the ref- but himself. I was devastated myself but even then I felt embarrassed for the guy- what a sore loser. Lastnight, in the same stadium, maybe Henry felt he was exorcising some demons but what he really did was show his weak character again.
The Irish reaction has been a little over the top maybe. He's hardly the first player to act in that manner. But that don't make it right and he's always been the type of poser who'd have you believe he would never try such a thing. He had an opportunity to break new ground in football, to be admired as no player ever before, if he held his cheating hands up and helped the referee out. Maybe that's overly idealistic, I'm sorry, Dunphy inspired me last night. There is something rotten in the state of football and lastnight was a chance to kickstart the game's redemption but it was always going to be too much to ask of Thierry the hypocrite Henry. He's always been a poser, always projected a facade. In the Highbury tunnel in 2005, Roy Keane berated Patrick Vieira for "pretending you're a nice guy". Sometimes I think he picked the wrong target.
One final thought for tonight. Human beings will always be fallible- the players in their actions, and the officials in their split-second perceptions of those actions- but surely the introduction of video technology in some form can't be far away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)