Again, I don't think it even has much to do with a moment of petulance. He's just a thug, pure and simple. He ENJOYS the violence and hurting other players...
Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Again, I don't think it even has much to do with a moment of petulance. He's just a thug, pure and simple. He ENJOYS the violence and hurting other players...
Yeah, I meant from a Stoke perspective. He didn't need to do it, it was risking valuable points if he'd been spotted and there was really no benefit to it. We all know he did it because he's a violent **** but Stoke will see it different.
Why did the FA not add an extra game to the ban? Also Adam clearly meant it, he is a coward and probably thought he could get away with it if he did not look directly at Giroud, but he knew what he was doing, because he is 'that sort of player'.
I don't think they ever add an extra game, 3 games seems to cover everything from a petulent kick out with little force all the way up to going in knee high with both feet of the ground and then it jumps up to 10 games for biting.
I was expecting 4 games too though as you get an extra one added automatically for every previous suspension you've served in a season. Shockingly this is the first time he's actually been suspended this season.
he's a violent **** but Stoke will see it different......
Yes, the cynicism and hypocrisy is almost breathtaking, isn't it?....
Yes, the cynicism and hypocrisy is almost breathtaking, isn't it?....
Incidents should be judged on each incident, you can't have a system where you judge a player based on "hes that sort of player", nor can you go easy on a players who apparently are saints yet do something stupid.
PleaseNotPoll:6175520 said:
I'm amazed you see it like that. It was nasty and premeditated. Not the worst he has done by a long chalk but a ban all the same
I think Hansen was accurate with his opinion on motd at the weekend. He siad that although the camera shows Adam looking away...means nothing, he knew Giroud was thereabouts, they'd just had a coming together, Adam used the opportunity to make it look that way. Its what cute thugs do.
Yeah absolutely, to be honest I've done similar to what Adam done when I played Sunday League, the guy I done it too had not long prior kicked out at my team's captain forcing him off, not long after he went sliding in on a challenge on me and I managed to jump the challenge and landed on his knee and then "lost balance
" falling elbow first onto his chest. Managed to make it look a complete accident and no fail was given, play just continued 
Its because the current system means players like Toure or any other so called "good guy", the type of player coaches say "he isn't that sort of player"...get away with lashing out.
Adams may well be a dirty player, but I don't see why others should be allowed to commit dirty fouls just because of who they are, the club they play for or if its their first offence.
I think that what most of us are trying to say is that Adam is recognised by everybody ( save the FA until now!) as a nasty thug who goes out to cause injury to to other players. If you persist in that kind of behaviour, you will inevitably become a player marked as " that sort of player" I never had any doubt that what Adam did to Giroud was 100% intentional. Some other players, you may well harbour some small doubt about any intent, but Adam? No way!..he's brought that view of him as a player on himself.
Toure's made a number of very poor tackles this season, though. His one on Dembele in the game at WHL was appalling.
He did Giroud in the 6-3 at the Etihad and he's got away with at least a couple more.
It's overlooked because he's a good player in a very good side.
He did Giroud in the 6-3 at the Etihad and he's got away with at least a couple more.
It's overlooked because he's a good player in a very good side.
I respectfully disagree. A good league should figure out a way to weed out bad actors like Adam. What can motivate them isn't that it's the right thing to do, its that you can't have a player who hardly matters to the league's income destroying the career of a big star like Bale, which he very nearly did. The league would also work better if it were clear that simply going out and trying to hurt people for fun means no paycheck.
I count it as the second piece of good news Arsenal have had, along with Ramsey returning. The only thing which might help them more is losing Ozil.
I honestly think Wilshire and Ozil (ATM--he was good earlier this year) are the two players who don't earn their place. Not only do they hurt the team by being on the field instead of a better choice, they bring down the atmosphere by calling into question Wenger's fairness.
That would make a good response on a light hearted football show but in reality it's not realistic. This league has had dirtier players then Adams, I've seen tackles virtually end careers like the tackle on David Hirst from a Gooner so I find it a bit rich they are act like everyone is out to get them.
Then Utd had Roy Keane.
Adams is a dirty player but it's mainly because fans perceive him as being a waste of space, a crap player who resorts to dirty tactics. I don't believe Adams gets any enjoyment out of his reputation, he simply has a problem where he reacts and does dirty tackles. But as mentioned the same tackles or dirty tactics from top players don't receive the same punishment and that needs to be looked at.
Agreed. Wilshire is one of the most over-rated players in the PL and Arsenal are more likely to improve without him imo.