That's a naughty manc fib. You caught me in the middle of a screaming rant at a **** who used to go in the Bridge Bar and wind me up. One of your lot and a cripple to boot. Not his fault being crippled, but the rest is. he really is a ****ing nasty piece of work.
Bit confused Swarbs, how does the fact that Rogers has been guilty of the same approach make it correct or acceptable? There is a difference between supporting a player, seeing him through a mistake etc and actively lying in an attempt to cover a mistake/bad behaviour. I pointed to it before, if you have to answer a question about an inccident involving your player : do the Wenger "I didn't see it". Or "I'd have to look at it again on Monday" etc This OP might have used the very recent Martinez example but he started with "managers" in general. This wasn't a your managers worse than ours post so why try and sidetrack it as such?, it's whether the practice of defending the indefensible is wrong.
Not saying its correct or acceptable, I'm just pointing out that it is standard practice. Also responding to kph's comment that he'd hope Rodgers would respond differently in the same situation by pointing out that he already hasn't. Ultimately, my argument is that managers will never condemn their player for making a tackle, even a bad one. And fans will in general only speak out about this kind of thing when it happens to their own player. I doubt there were many Liverpool fans vocally demanding the same sort of condemnation for Suarez when he took out Distin last year, or Gerrard on Carrick a couple of years back etc etc, same way that no Utd fan would demand Moyes condemn Rooney or Januzaj. We may like to think it's a general issue, but it turns out to be as tribal as most of these things.
He condemned Neville's dive when at Everton and the blue fans applauded him saying more managers should speak out when their players cheat.
Fair point if Rodgers has also been guilty of the same sin (which tackle was it by the way?) but I still stand by my point that managers should not defend what is blatantly obvious to everyone else. It just makes them look really stupid. I didn't start the thread to rubbish Martinez (who I've already stated is a decent bloke) or Moyes but the situation in general. If it was in a law court they would be in real trouble. And we all know that if it had been Suarez.......!
Aye, but that's again the same for every manager - Rodgers condemned Suarez for his diving, SAF did it to Ronaldo and Young, Moyes did it to Young and Neville. I think that's partly cos diving is seen as overtly dishonest, whereas bad tackles are more associated with commitment and 'rush of blood', and that the diving was so blatant that, like the biting, there's a limit to how far you can actually defend the player. Suarez stamp on Distin. I agree that from a moral and ethical point of view they shouldn't, but I'm not sure it's a stupid thing to do. A manager would look more stupid if they condemned their player and then had them ask to leave or start sulking. And I completely agree that in an ideal world managers would be honest and ethical and truthfully condemn players who are out of line and putting others at risk. But I just don't think it will happen as long as players are so sensitive, and fan reactions are fairly muted. After all, I reckon any fan could name the diving incidents with Young, Suarez and Neville, but you can't remember Rodgers defending the indefensible around 12 months ago, and I doubt any Utd fan, or fans in general, will remember Moyes defending Rooney in another few months.
You make some fair points. One thing's certain, most managers have double standards when it comes to speaking out about dangerous tackles, they love condemning other team's players but defend their own.
They should say nothing then. I don't see the point in a manager saying what everyone knows to be lies and bullshit. I don't know a single person who's said that Rooney didn't blatantly kick out - although there's indecision as to whether it's a yellow or not - so to say that he didn't and the lad ran across his path is bollocks. It makes him look stupid rather than a manager defending his player.
I don't understand why the interviewer doesn't say 'no David he's clearly kicked out at him, why do you think that was?'
What managers say in public is fairly irrelevant really. Its what they say when the cameras aren't rolling that matters.
It is frustrating when you get interviewers asking vague questions that managers can give a vague answers to. As you say would be nice for them to say something direct like that but don't think they can or they will be seen to be biased. On defending the indefensible, would still be nice if a ref came out after and answered a few questions. think they'd get a lot more respect even if they came out and said, I didn't quite see the incident which is why action wasn't taken and I will review afterwards
No argument there! Hypocrisy seems to be the most consistent quality in any manager, particularly the best ones. Guess it's part of the problem of a managerial system that by and large only values success. Keegan was arguably one of the most honest and ethical managers around, and he ended up getting mentally destroyed twice, once by SAF and once by the media as England manager. But nowadays no one remembers his honesty, all they remember is 'I would luv it" and his admission he wasn't up to the task of being England manager. Or they'll get ****ty monosyllabic interviews in future. Plenty of managers and players will give journos short shrift, or avoid certain interviewers like the plague, if they know they're likely to be trapped by leading questions. That, and most interviewers try to avoid leading questions as it creates accusations of bias and isn't really their job. It's the pundits in the studio who are supposed to analyse the incident, and the comments from the interview - the interviewer is just there to get the comments from the interviewee.
