Exactly - Vermaelen gets kicked on the ankle by a player had no chance of winning the ball in a game that was already dead and he's the tit because he didnt shake his hand straight away?
Are you having a laugh? I want to stop my opponent scoring in football (a free flowing very fast sport with limited time to think in a situation like this) so I will go for the ball and like I said - accidents happen. I half agree with what you're saying (about going for it if you have a chance of winning it) but it can't always happen like that .
Why did you say no before that statement? You are still saying I'm talking bollocks just because I disagree with you.
No it cant and doesn't always happen like that - but if players injure opponents going for the ball recklessly it is no accident. It is dangerous and reckless play and they knew eactly what they were doing and the possible outcome. Back to Parker - what he did was dangerous and reckless at a point in the game where it was already over. I would have told him to **** off if he had offered me his hand. I think TV showed great restraint.
Sorry mate, my mistake. I think words like reckless and savage are way over the top in This context. It was a tired, badly mistimed tackle by a player who had worked his socks off all game ( probably trying to make up for the lack of effort and commitment of too many others)
So you accept that these challenges happen all the time? Excellent, that's all you needed. Since you did continue, you can't stop fouls in football all you can do is punish them and I'm not sure why you think Parker's tackle was so excessive.
The "no" means" no I am not saying you are talking bollox because you disagree with me, I am saying it because of what you wrote about Vermaelen. Are you spoiling for a fight bloke ?
Fine line between brilliant driving and dangerous driving too. If I killed someone whilst speeding could I claim it to be an accident? Maybe I could offer to shake the had of the parents?
There's a big difference between possession and meaningful possession. The overall possession stats were roughly 56% to Arsenal and 44% to Spurs, which is wildly misleading as to how the game was played.
i sense a bit of wengeritis creeping into this parker/tv business. arsene has long since baited refs to try and outlaw every and all tackles on arsenal players making a shoulder shrugging joker of himself on the touch line every single time one of our guys is remotely touched let alone hacked down. lets remember TA, Bould, Viera petit and Keown could certainly "tackle an opponent" ... im not saying a foul is not a foul and should not be punished .. im saying that not all fouls on our players are designed to break legs.... the fact we breed weak bodied players has affected our thinking ... i think parker wanted to foul tv and meant it, he did not want to hurt him (badly) and he did not hurt him badly.. he got a card for it and thats the way the game is played ... if we go with messers platinini and wenger and outlaw all contact then our ground would be as empty as spurs seats by 70mins .. no one would watch non contact football for more then 2 games .. imo of course
Parker didn't look to intentionally hurt Vermaelen, he was late, but it was the sort of tackle that isn't really going to do much damage. Shawcross probably didn't try to hurt Ramsey but his tackle was late and from the side, these tackles mostly cause damage. There is a massive difference between the 2. I have no idea why this is even being discussed, I had no problem with Parker's tackle .... oo'er.
Its an analogy. So lets make it more simple. A player with virtually no chance of winning the ball (lets say he is 10 yards away and his opponent is about to pass), goes steaming in studs up in a desperate attempt to get the ball, catches his opponent late and breaks his leg. Lets say this player has already broken an opponents leg in the same curcumstances and knows full well what might happen. An accident? Shake hands and all's ok?
Hitting you on the break, as I'd already stated was the point of Redknapp's tactical decisions, which you dispute existed.
