Aaron Ramsey
- Thread starter Partizan
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Clear delusion from pete.Shawcross' tackle wasn't dangerous in itself, it unfortunately had horrible consequences on Ramsey.There was no intent, shit happens.
I've been watching Shawcross playing since he was sixteen. One of his weakness whilst at United was his lack of aggression, and was seen as soft touch for forwards. I cannot seriously ever remember him making a bad or malicious tackle.
By all accounts he's a lovely kid, and the weekend was just an unfortunate day for both the kids, and laying blame in any direction is pointless and a lack in class.
By all accounts he's a lovely kid, and the weekend was just an unfortunate day for both the kids, and laying blame in any direction is pointless and a lack in class.
I'm sure he loves his mum (so did the Krays by the way) but if he lacked aggression at Man Utd he's making up for it now. Ask Jeffers, Adebayor or Ramsey.
His got both the ball, and his leg. Hardly leg breaking Pete.
Studs up from behind, and the ball was out of play. He clearly wasn't in control of the tackle.
Adebayor and Ramsey tackles are not malicious or worthy of condemnation. I've really seen Jeffers to make an informed opinion.
Of course the studs will be showing since he was coming in from the side. Adebayor was still playing on despite the ball being out, so your point is mute. I don't understand your point he was not in control of the tackle when he clearly got the ball.
Stop trying to over sanitize the game.
Im not over sanitising shit.
How you can justify that is a good tackle is beyond me. Its from behind and he takes the player.
Arsenal in "Tackling should be banned shocker"
You are allowed to tackle from the back if you get the ball, which he clearly succeeded in doing. I've never claimed it's a good tackle.
FIFA.com - FIFA to crack down on tackle from behind
By the result of the tackle i would say that it endangered the safety.
What on earth has Shawcross' challenge on Adebayor got to do with what happened to Ramsey?
Because he made one poorly-judged (at worst) challenge in the past does this mean he set out to injure Ramsey?
On that basis Gallas is a reknowned hatchet man and thug - who will always be presumed guilty until proved innocent - on the basis of his over the top of the ball challenge against Bolton (when in reality he's just a bit of a fanny who is about as far removed from the hard man sterotype as it's possible to be)
Because he made one poorly-judged (at worst) challenge in the past does this mean he set out to injure Ramsey?
On that basis Gallas is a reknowned hatchet man and thug - who will always be presumed guilty until proved innocent - on the basis of his over the top of the ball challenge against Bolton (when in reality he's just a bit of a fanny who is about as far removed from the hard man sterotype as it's possible to be)
So if you only go by results rather than intent, that would mean that you would condemn a sober, sensible driver who happens to be momentarily distracted and drives into someone else far more than a drunk who is weaving all over the road but all other road users manage to avoid him?
Strange, because most other people would condemn the drunk driver.
He's just not that kind of lad is he?
If you drive too fast in a built up area or without due care and attention and total someone no one claims it was intentional but it's still manslaughter.
I actually saw an article which had an example similar to this ill try find it.
It Wasn’t Only Ryan Shawcross Who Put Arsenal Star Aaron Ramsey In Hospital | CaughtOffside.com
Im referring to Sultun suggesting the tackle on adebayor is a fair tackle.
Although you are probably talking more to peterstorey.
The kind who hasn't broken anybody's leg in 10 years in the PL.
Irrelevant because I never said too fast, built up area, due care and attention. I said a sensible, sober driver who was momentarily distracted - maybe a wasp suddenly came in through his open window for example.
I was comparing an unfortunate incident, certainly not premeditated (sober driver who caused an accident, or Shawcross) to something preventable and dangerous that by pure luck didn't cause a major accident (the drunk driver who everyone else avoided, or one of Gallas's victims whose legs were not broken by sheer chance).
Pure chance.
The exact same kind as Michael Brown then. And he really is a despicable cnut.
In other words, that's absurd logic to use to define someone as a footballer.
So basically that article wants to cut out nearly all accidental fouls from the game. Because if we're going to start saying that you'll get severe punishment when you make an honest, genuine attempt to play the ball, and are slightly late, then it's a shambles. It's asking for a faultless, 100% correct judgement from every player, every time they make a tackle. Tackling used to be viewed as a skill, when done correctly. If you make people afraid to tackle, you lose an awful lot from the game.
The sad thing is, these people will probably get their way soon enough, and we'll all be sat around not watching 22 blokes running around, and getting 'technical fouls' when someone nudges into them.
I can't wait.
I would consider shawcross more to be someone who sped to avoid a red light, but was too slow and caused an accident.... but he didn't mean to cause the accident...
The fact you call Gallas wreckless is laughable. Davies lunged in and fairly won the ball but at the cost of receiving a boot meant for the ball in his ankle... if anything he was driving the same way Shawcross was.
I found the majority of the article a bit cringing i agree, but the part i quoted is correct.
I thought you lot were saying he was too slow which caused the accident. So he's too fast and too slow. I wish you'd agree a common "reason" for the condemnation as your arguments may look a bit more consistent.
However, considering Gallas has gone into 1000s of tackles too high and too slow (or too fast??? - you choose) please let us hear your thoughts on him. Surely you must think he is totally despicable if you think Shawcross is so bad for getting one wrong.
Edit: I see you've added a comment about Gallas onto the post I'm quoting. So if it's not Gallas's fault for being second to the ball but the victim then surely you are saying that Ramsey is at fault for trying to foul Shawcross. Which is frankly bizarre.
I think what you mean is that if an Arsenal player is first to the ball and is fouled by an opponent - then the opponent is wrong, but if the opponent is first to the ball and is fouled by an Arsenal player then the opponent is still wrong. No wonder your arguments are so confused.
Basically, you believe that no opposing player should be allowed to touch the ball if Arsenal are on the pitch.
1000s of tackles.. what the feck are you on about man.
If you could actually read you would see that my metaphor he tried to skip the red light by speeding, or tried to get to the ball without thinking of ramifications, missed the light, or missed the ball, and had an accident which he is at fault for even if he didn't mean for it to happen, or broke a kids leg.
The bit about the driving offence is, the bit about not being able to explain the foul by saying the player got it before you isn't, IMO.
How can we start suggesting that a player who goes in for a 50-50 ball, and gets beaten to it as Shawcross was, is guilty on the same level as the bloke who goes in studs up, mid-leg height? The problem is, when the player goes to make the tackle, he believes he will get it. You only need to look at Shawcross and way he swept his leg to try clear the ball to see that.
If the rules put him in a postion where he doesn't feel he can go for a ball that he believes he can win-and which should be a fair contest between two players-for fear of the other player being a split-second quicker to it than he genuinely believed, then we are on the road to punishing anoyone who leaves their feet to make a tackle. 50-50 challenges will be a thing of the past. I don't want that, personally.
If Shawcross didn't get the ball then he is at fault. Good defenders know when they will get the ball.
Swap "Davies" for "Ramsey" and you've got an accurate summary of what happened at the weekend. Almost identical sequence of events, with different outcomes.
You don't get football do you?
Shawcross barely deserved a yellow. Even the ref said he wouldn't have booked him if it wasn't for the injury.
You honestly can't believe the challenge was malicious, I mean that would be a stretch considering it was not even dangerous, just extremely unlucky.
This thread is getting more and more surreal.
Are you really going down the road of demonising every tackle in which someone tries but fails to make contact with the ball?
Now it's an issue of being good or not?
So Vermaelen never accidentally fouls anyone? Because I presume you rate him. Ditto Gallas? Sometimes a player gets to the ball before you, despite you thinking you can win it. If you don't believe that then there's no point in us discussing this, as there's no chance of us agreeing on it.
If you could read, even what you've written yourself, you would realise how confused your posts are - first he's too slow, then he's too fast. First it's the player coming in second who's wrong, then it's the player coming in first. An unintentional accident is wicked, but one way over the top (e.g. Gallas) is fine and acceptable.
This thread is getting more and more surreal.
Are you really going down the road of demonising every tackle in which someone tries but fails to make contact with the ball?
The amount of force used by shawcross was wreckless, you can tell not by what happens to Ramsey but by what happens to Shawcross. It was wreckless of him to go in for it that way.
You mean you have no better answer because you realise your self-contradictions are making you look totally stupid. Unfortunately for you, I understand your words better than you do yourself.If, as it seems, PL managers have collectively decided that the best tactic against Arsenal is to 'rough them up' then it seems obvious to me that the average number of injuries sustained by Arsenal over any given period in the league is going to be higher than that of other teams. That goes for serious injuries too so I, for one, am not surprised that they've suffered these 3 injuries in 5 years.
I don't think Shawcross did it on purpose - of course he didn't - but these injuries would seem to undeniably be a side effect of the general approach used to play Arsenal. Watching United/Arsenal games, it's perfectly obvious that we adopt a similarly 'physical' approach.
To deny this is pretty senseless in my opinion. I also have a lot of sympathy for Wenger - he's only pointing out what I have above which seems perfectly fair to me.
I don't think Shawcross did it on purpose - of course he didn't - but these injuries would seem to undeniably be a side effect of the general approach used to play Arsenal. Watching United/Arsenal games, it's perfectly obvious that we adopt a similarly 'physical' approach.
To deny this is pretty senseless in my opinion. I also have a lot of sympathy for Wenger - he's only pointing out what I have above which seems perfectly fair to me.