The problem with football analysis, tackling and many more things
So I recently got into a very mature online debate about a red card incident in the FA cup involving Rory Delap. I am very much of the opinion that this was a firm but fair challenge and didn’t warrant a free kick let alone red.
The chap I was arguing with, again in a very mature and grown up manner which did at no point resort to me telling him to go blow a goat, suggested that despite the ball being won, had the Crawley player nicked the ball away and had his foot been planted it could have resulted in a serious injury.
Whilst it is true that had this alternative reality scenario taken place the Crawley player could have been injured the fact is he didn’t. The ball was played and no-one was hurt and Rory Delap was sent off.
Now this little pre-amble leads me to a few points of concern. The first problem is the state of tackling in football today. My understanding of the game from a very early age was that it was a highly skilful but also highly physical affair, where contact is not only allowed but encouraged. A tough tackle was as celebrated as much as a clever through pass. A game where the pace, power and “getting stuck in” were the key attributes. Until now.
Now it seems the referee and FA and imaginary space chimp who has a vendetta against Liverpool FC have conspired to punish anyone committing a tackle which is deemed “reckless”, regardless of weather the ball was won or anyone was hurt, if you go in recklessly then you are off. This makes sense except for one important problem - just what is a “reckless” tackle?
Now I am not saying that a De Jong-esque karate kick shouldn’t result in an early bath and a short spell behind bars but what I am saying is a tackle like the one by Delap is anything but reckless. Committed - yes, but reckless? I’m not so sure. The problem here is the line between what’s acceptable and what’s dangerous has been blurred by inconsistent referring and bizarre retrospective bans or lack of from the FA. But this is just a small part of the problem.
Harping back to the original friendly discussion with a certain goat blowing moron this assertion that “Had X happened then Y could have happened therefore it’s justified” is simply wrong. It’s a lazy argument propagated by lazy analysis from pundits and journalists alike. Every debatable red card the whole “in todays game” and “you go in like that you run the risk” cliches are totted out as if it justifies the wimpification of the closest thing to manly activity I’ll ever get close to.
This type of argument can be lumped in with the “If it wasn’t for the keeper it would have been 10!” strand of rhetoric. What do you mean “if it wasn’t for the keeper”? You mean if one team just decided to play 11 outfield players and no goalie? Of course it would have been 10 if it wasn’t for the keeper you absolute cretin, the whole reason the keeper is there in the first place is to stop goals going in!
Anyways this rant has run its course and the goat blowing jerk is still trying to argue his idiotic and obviously wrong case so I should get back.
I’ll leave you with this thought friends.
If it wasn’t for my lack of skill, commitment and talent I’d be a professional footbller.
So close
x.
