*Official* English Football Season 2011-12

[Woodster]

It's funny how the "good tackling is going out of the game" line is only ever trotted out in response to the most technically atrocious tackles.

As the atrocious tackles are indicative of a poor tackling technique.

 

[sledger]

Bit touchy that, think you get my point, it is a soft sport these days, these big hulks of men are throwing themselves around, it's embarrassing.

Yes, like I said, I can understand you calling it soft. I just wondered what this had to do with girls.

Consistency is the main issue, the lack of it is what frustrates everyone. Lunging in with two feet is not a good tackle, so no, it doesn't improve the chances of making of a good tackle. My point earlier was because tackling is being gradually taken out of the game, the players are losing the ability to tackle properly, two footed lunges are not proper tackles. Paul Scholes is a prime example of someone not benig able to tackle, hence the number of red cards he's received in his career.

Then if you agree two footed lunges have no place in the game, what exactly is it you are alluding to when you say "tackling is being gradually taken out of the game"? Similarly do you have any tangible evidence of players "losing the ability to tackle?", to attempt to validate this claim with the example of Paul Scholes is like saying the quality of finishing is on the decline by saying how Nemanja Vidic hasn't scored any goals recently. In any case, Paul Scholes has averaged less than 1 red card a season for his entire playing career, and several of the red cards he has picked up have been for incidents which have nothing to do with bad tackling, so I'm not sure how he's a prime example of what you're suggesting.

 

[sledger]

As the atrocious tackles are indicative of a poor tackling technique.

Yeah, bad tackles never existed back in the "good old days".

 

[Jarquis]

Nasri was hopeless last season. Total minnow basher.

Hmm, as an Arsenal fan surely you can appreciate the fact that for ages we used to slip up against the 'lesser sides' so to have somebody who helped put them away was no bad thing.
There's also the fact he wasn't the only player guilty of disappearing in big games, we've had a shocking record against the rest of the top 4 for a while now.
But besides that, had a good game against United as has been mentioned and also was quite good in the CL for us I though.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah, bad tackles never existed back in the "good old days".

Yeah this, the frequency of bad/needlessly dangerous tackles in the current is the lowest it has been for a good few years I imagine.

Whilst I understand that Woodster is saying one causes another, I find it difficult to believe that football now is concurrently "softer" than it was in the past and yet home to more dangerous tackles.

 

[sledger]

Hmm, as an Arsenal fan surely you can appreciate the fact that for ages we used to slip up against the 'lesser sides' so to have somebody who helped put them away was no bad thing.
There's also the fact he wasn't the only player guilty of disappearing in big games, we've had a shocking record against the rest of the top 4 for a while now.
But besides that, had a good game against United as has been mentioned and also was quite good in the CL for us I though.

Problem is Arsenal still had regular slip ups against 'lesser sides' when he was in the team as well.

All in all I quite like Nasri as a player, would happily have him back at Arsenal if it meant getting rid of Arshavin. Obviously a better player than Walcott as well.

Having said that though, one does get the feeling that he is a bit of a Cinderella player and flatters to deceive somewhat. Still has time to turn that around in his career I suppose, but I imagine he'll end up being remembered as a decent player rather than a great one.

 

[Woodster]

Yeah this, the frequency of bad/needlessly dangerous tackles in the current is the lowest it has been for a good few years I imagine.

Whilst I understand that Woodster is saying one causes another, I find it difficult to believe that football now is concurrently "softer" than it was in the past and yet home to more dangerous tackles.

If you see what players are getting red cards for these days, surely you can see why football is now much 'softer' than in years gone by. Also, if you see how much contact is now required to knock a player off his feet, you must appreciate football is now much 'softer'.

 

[sledger]

If you see what players are getting red cards for these days, surely you can see why football is now much 'softer' than in years gone by. Also, if you see how much contact is now required to knock a player off his feet, you must appreciate football is now much 'softer'.

So what is it that players are getting red cards for these days that you find so objectionable? In the majority of cases, I really can't think of many intances in which there are decisions I would deem to be incredibly poor. Or soft. Most red cards are given for professional fouls or second bookable offences. The amount of genuinely "soft" sending offs, as you term them, are in the minority.

 

[Uppercut]

There's been a few, Jack Rodwell in the Merseyside derby comes to mind. The fact that you can now execute a textbook slide tackle perfectly and see red for it probably will drive the skill out of the game, which is a shame because it's the most fun part of football for those of us who can't score amazing goals very often.

But football loses nothing when players go off for challenges like Kompany's or Johnson's. Sometimes a red can be a bit harsh but if you don't like it, learn to tackle properly. It's like being given out lbw padding up to a ball that was nowhere near the stumps.

 

[sledger]

There's been a few, Jack Rodwell in the Merseyside derby comes to mind. The fact that you can now execute a textbook slide tackle perfectly and see red for it probably will drive the skill out of the game, which is a shame because it's the most fun part of football for those of us who can't score amazing goals very often.

But football loses nothing when players go off for challenges like Kompany's or Johnson's. Sometimes a red can be a bit harsh but if you don't like it, learn to tackle properly. It's like being given out lbw padding up to a ball that was nowhere near the stumps.

Yeah, I wouldn't claim that this sort of thing never happens. There are various examples one could cite. But poor refereeing decisions aren't really a new problem.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If you see what players are getting red cards for these days, surely you can see why football is now much 'softer' than in years gone by. Also, if you see how much contact is now required to knock a player off his feet, you must appreciate football is now much 'softer'.

That's to do with referees, not the actual playing of the game though.

Diving isn't a new phenomenon either. To my knowledge it's been talked about since at least the late 60s, possibly earlier.

 

[sledger]

All arguments over this sort of thing seem to be based on some romantic notion that the game was somehow far better at some point in the past which is never specifically identified. Most of these arguments are made by people who are around the same age as me as well, I never come across people who actually watched football in the 50s, 60s and 70s actually say these things. Kind of leads me to the conclusion that these sort of arguments are not all that persuasive.

 

[grecian]

Personally didn't think Kompany's was a sending-off, seemed to be in total control in every way, Johnson was reckless though.

 

[Nate]

Trying really hard to analyse the two challenges.

Firstly, Johnson's is a lot worse on viewing the replay. Jumping into the challenge with two feet raised - yuck.

However, he does get the ball before Lescott even touches it, which rules it out as a tackle. The contact made with Lescott is also minimal, his boots may not have even touched JL, and only caught him with the back of his leg/his behind.

I can't find a video of Kompany's anywhere, but from what I remember, Nani had clear possession when Kompany lunged in.

In summary, I think Johnson was spared as his was an interception rather than a tackle. However, the intent of both of them is the same, as is the nature of how they get the ball.

In terms of punishment, if any, I'm still not sure. I'd probably prefer it if neither of them were sent off, but I'd understand it if they were.

 

[sledger]

Trying really hard to analyse the two challenges.

Firstly, Johnson's is a lot worse on viewing the replay. Jumping into the challenge with two feet raised - yuck.

However, he does get the ball before Lescott even touches it, which rules it out as a tackle. The contact made with Lescott is also minimal, his boots may not have even touched JL, and only caught him with the back of his leg/his behind.

I can't find a video of Kompany's anywhere, but from what I remember, Nani had clear possession when Kompany lunged in.

In summary, I think Johnson was spared as his was an interception rather than a tackle. However, the intent of both of them is the same, as is the nature of how they get the ball.

In terms of punishment, if any, I'm still not sure. I'd probably prefer it if neither of them were sent off, but I'd understand it if they were.

Whether it's a tackle or an interception doesn't really matter though. The offence is going in with two feet.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the boldened bit, never heard that definition before.

 

[Nate]

Whether it's a tackle or an interception doesn't really matter though. The offence is going in with two feet.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the boldened bit, never heard that definition before.

Surely it's a tackle when a player has possession of the ball, and an interception if you collect/clear a pass before it reaches the intended player?

Nani has clear possession of the ball when Kompany challenges. Johnson beats Lescott to the ball.

I understand the offence, and I referenced in my post.

EDIT: In no way am I trying to advocate a definite stance on one instance being okay and the other not. Just trying to establish the difference between the two.

 

[sledger]

Surely it's a tackle when a player has possession of the ball, and an interception if you collect/clear a pass before it reaches the intended player?

Nani has clear possession of the ball when Kompany challenges. Johnson beats Lescott to the ball.

I understand the offence, and I referenced in my post.

EDIT: In no way am I trying to advocate a definite stance on one instance being okay and the other not. Just trying to establish the difference between the two.

It's all semantics really. Much of a muchness and so on. I don't think the rules make a definition between the two because it would create a huge grey area, and lead to stupid moanings along the lines of "it wasn't a tackle, it was an interception, so you can't book me for it" etc...

In my eyes, if two players in such an instance are in close enough proximity getting to the ball and/or making contact with each other I would term it a tackle 9 times out of 10. Can't really make a definitive statement either way when just talking about these things generally though, need specific examples. For mine both Kompany's and Johnson's were definitely tackles though.

 

[Uppercut]

I understand Nath's distinction, you can dive two-footed towards the ball to intercept it if there's no one anywhere near you. However, in Johnson's case I think the only reason he didn't make contact was because Lescott very wisely got out of the way.

 

[sledger]

Obviously there are cases when something is an interception and not a tackle. But when it's something even remotely close to a 50/50 chance to win the ball when neither of the players involved can be said to have possession over it, I would term this a tackle. Perhaps it would be better to refer to such things as challenges, I suppose.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

What makes me laugh is the fact that Hibbert made a reckless dangerous tackle in the same derby that Rodwell was sent off in and wasn't even booked. The inconsistency of refs is what annoys you most, you can accept poor decisions now and then but when the same ref is totally crap in the same game with poor decisions either way it really is annoying.

The QPR v Chelsea game is another that gets flagged up for poor refereeing, Didier Dogbreath deserved his red as did the defender for the last man offence so i can't understand why that match is called about.

One thing, the game would be a lot duller if every decision was correct as fans would have nothing to whinge about.

Also, if you think the standard is bad in the Prem you should take a look at the refs in league 2/ non league football. Shocking.