Arsenal v Birmingham - EPL | 17-10-09 | 3pm |

[Stevo the Villan]

It's not from the back to be fair. If it was I'd be agreeing with you.

At the end of the day the laws of the game say that was a fair challenge.

 

[tam1886]

Sorry but I'm not having that going through the back of Walcott argument. The picture above shows he clearly comes in from the side, and by that point above he's won the ball and it's gone clear of the challenge. The follow through was the problem not the tackle itself, but given Ridgewell's position relative to Walcott, I think he was entitled to go for it.

I think Invincible's comment above was laced with a huge dose of sarcasm, but in any case Walcott's touch allowed Ridgewell to make the challenge. It wasn't a bad touch, if anything it was too good because he took it right into his stride which was the only reason Ridgewell could see it. And that's not to say it's Walcott's fault in anyway, just that the ball was in a position where Ridgewell was well within his rights to go for it.

I think it's more an unfortunate challenge given the outcome of it, but not necessarily a bad tackle.

 

[Alfonso]

It was a nasty challenge. So what? These things happen in football. We cant cry over every nasty challenge. Sometimes you have to accept it and move on. In 2008 we made too much out of the Eduardo challenge which ultimately cost us the league in my opinion (Wenger turning adversty into more adversty).

 

[Klaus Daimler]

Sorry but I'm not having that going through the back of Walcott argument. The picture above shows he clearly comes in from the side

No it doesn't. That's just a still image from the moment the collison happened. If it was allowed I'd link to the clip that is up on 101greatgoals, but I can't. Just go over there and have a look at it though. The only reason it appears as if he approached from the side is because Walcott was turning. He had his back against Ridgewell the whole time and as he turned he got clipped. He had no idea that the defender was coming at him with a sliding scissor challenge, let alone at that speed.

Which, of course, is the whole point of penalising tackles from behind: it's not that they're done behind your back per se that is the matter but that they're coming at you from an angle where you don't even have a chance to avoid them. Walcott had no chance to avoid Ridgewell because he couldn't see him until the ****er clipped him. Just look at the high speed with which he threw himself into the challenge.

 

[Webdesignlab]

I think Klaus is right for what it's worth. Too much emphasis on 'a good scrap' in English football. That's why Man U will always be seen as the best team and not Arsenal no matter what we achieve. Remember that **** of a Hansen saying that we needed a 'Darren Fletcher'?

About time that 'technical' won over 'guts'. Of course this is one of the greatest attributes that Wenger has given the game here. Good on him for that.

 

[True Gooner]

It was a nasty challenge. So what? These things happen in football. We cant cry over every nasty challenge. Sometimes you have to accept it and move on. In 2008 we made too much out of the Eduardo challenge which ultimately cost us the league in my opinion (Wenger turning adversty into more adversty).

I see where your coming from but that was potentially a career ending tackle and if I'm being honest I don't think enough has been made nor has anyone learnt from that - literally 10 months later Kevin Nolan took out Victor Anichebe with a tackle that was just as bad - another mistake but the willingness to make those sort of challenges stems from the belief that anything that is 'hard' and 'robust' is actually good. I do realise that I'm being a bit of a hypocritic seeing as Vieira was just as bad(or good) as anyone else but I think it's high time people realised that the English league is one of the best leagues in the world despite that fact that players tend to make stupid, wild and reckless tackles not because of it.

Unfortunately until and unless something like that hurts England i.e. happens to Gerrard or Rooney (I'm not wishing ill on them, obviously) people just won't get it.

I do agree that Walcott getting clattered was inevitable - I'm pretty sure Ridgewell would have been willing to take a yellow card there just to stop Walcott.

 

[ultradoc]

I dont know if anyone else feels the same but everytime walcott gets the ball in close space or has to run past palyers, I get worried. He seems to get too close to the opposite player. It obviously warrants a tackle from the opposite player,as he is not that great a dribbler either. And you have to be aware of your surroundings, play and run into spaces clear off players, not just be blindsighted and make dashes-very exciting when they come off, but also vulnerable to challenges and awkward and dangerous falls. like walcott does. He needs to refine that part of his game. Of course the tackle was hard and robust, but y...you know.. one feels ,, if walcott didn't just try to turn and run his way out of there...

Well, this argument of walcott having no idea a player was coming at him to get the ball just doesn't make sense anyways.

 

[number_0]

I personally felt it was a fair challenge, Ridgewell felt the same aswell, thats why he didnt pull back after he won the ball. He knew he wasnt going to get penalized.

 

[Iloveyouarsenewenger]

I, missed out the match due to no telecast, but finally saw the replay some time ago. My first reaction about the tackle(Although, I haven't seen may replays) was that it was hard but fair.

In fact, there was a tackle that Keiran Gibbs made that was studs up and was also potentially dangerous had it gone wrong.

 

[kamikaze80]

great tackle, strong and perfectly-timed. toure and lauren used to do that all the time, and if vermaelen did that against cronaldo, we'd all be wanking in front of our computers.

yes, if he'd been a tenth of a second late and missed the ball and got only walcott, it should be a red card per my previous posts in the witsel thread. those are the fine margins at the top level. you can't eliminate injury from sport, ffs.

 

[Illusion]

It's a dangerous tackle, there is no other way to categorise it.

He played the ball so he got away with it, but it's still a dangerous tackle and we should not have to deal with so many of them, nor should they be so widely accepted or even praised.

We all love a good tackle, but to me a good tackle is one that is executed perfectly rather than one that is 'strong'. A strong tackle is not always a good tackle, but a well executed tackle is always a good tackle.

Playing the ball should not absolve you of performing a dangerous tackle. You could be laying on the floor with the ball near your head and I come along and attempt to kick the ball at full pelt, take the ball clean away but also collide with your head.. is that acceptable because I played the ball?

Ridgewell knew what he was doing, I am sure they were told in the dressing room before the game to go in hard and kick players like Walcott about to try and keep them quiet.

I don't mind teams wanting to defend, but do it through quality defending, great organisation and knowledge of the game, not intimidating thuggery because you are afraid of a superior players talents.

 

[ultradoc]

great tackle, strong and perfectly-timed. Touré and lauren used to do that all the time, and if vermaelen did that against cronaldo, we'd all be wanking in front of our computers.

yes, if he'd been a tenth of a second late and missed the ball and got only walcott, it should be a red card per my previous posts in the witsel thread. those are the fine margins at the top level. you can't eliminate injury from sport, ffs.

precisely. it's on our boys to grow some tough meat on their bones.

 

[Arsegum]

A good tackle is always the one you go for the ball and the ball only, causing minimum damage to the opposite player. Look at how Rozza slide tackles, even if he was behind the ball carrier he would only go for one leg to hook the ball back. That's how you win the ball fair and square. Not to aim to just to get a piece of the ball while you take your man out.

 

[AnthonyG]

great tackle, strong and perfectly-timed. Touré and lauren used to do that all the time, and if vermaelen did that against cronaldo, we'd all be wanking in front of our computers.

yes, if he'd been a tenth of a second late and missed the ball and got only walcott, it should be a red card per my previous posts in the witsel thread. those are the fine margins at the top level. you can't eliminate injury from sport, ffs.

precisely. it's on our boys to grow some tough meat on their bones.

You mean like Ridgewell when Mackie broke his leg? Our boys are plenty tough.

 

[entropy13]

It was a nasty challenge. So what? These things happen in football. We cant cry over every nasty challenge. Sometimes you have to accept it and move on. In 2008 we made too much out of the Eduardo challenge which ultimately cost us the league in my opinion (Wenger turning adversty into more adversty).

These things happen in English football, but not in football GENERALLY, and everywhere.

When I play football, we're hardly world-class tacklers I admit, but we don't go do nasty slide tackles like that because we're not "taking a gamble" in that situation, or "going in strong", "making a mark on the opposition" or "letting them know your presence" etc. but then these tackles happen with PROFESSIONAL players! For the almost 4 years of playing amateur football I've haven't seen tackles like that.

 

[Gurgen]

I fail to see how anyone who is not English (and brainwashed) cannot see that the tackle is a yellow. But enough moaning about this, we're giving ****s like Ridgewell far too much attention here.

 

[Kraig]

<a class="postlink-local" href="https://arsenal-mania.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=45741" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=2&t=45741</a>

 

[celestis]

The tackle was a foul , doesn't matter if he got the ball , its the recklesness of it . Anyway two ex premier leahgue refs reckon its a foul so I don't see what we are arguing about .

 

[Stevo the Villan]

The tackle was a foul , doesn't matter if he got the ball , its the recklesness of it . Anyway two ex premier leahgue refs reckon its a foul so I don't see what we are arguing about .

Clearly one current premier league ref thought it wasn't a foul.


And what's all this "Anyone who isn't english could see that's a foul" bollocks?

For fans of an english team playing an english game in an english league under english rules, you lot sure are anti-english!!!

 

[progman07]

The tackle was a foul , doesn't matter if he got the ball , its the recklesness of it . Anyway two ex premier leahgue refs reckon its a foul so I don't see what we are arguing about .

Clearly one current premier league ref thought it wasn't a foul.


And what's all this "Anyone who isn't english could see that's a foul" bollocks?

For fans of an english team playing an english game in an english league under english rules, you lot sure are anti-english!!!

Arsenal have a reputation of being "less English than other teams", so when we get tackled, we can't complain, otherwise "we complain about the English football", and "we want to completely end up the contact part of the game".

Personally, I hate that bias. Especially as Liverpool, Man Utd and Chelsea don't have too many Englishmen playing every game either...