brady
Active Member
Manchester United 2 Arsenal 0
In the aftermath of all that happened in the game and the silliness in the tunnel, it might perhaps be useful to look at events rather more objectively.
In the light of the righteous noises bleating about Wenger's post-match comments about the United players and Riley, does anyone now remember Ferguson's comments about our mob and how we got away with murder? Is there a statute of limitations on when comments are deemed to have brought the game into disrepute? Would Wenger be taken to task if he made the same comments before the next meeting? Probably. The truth is, Ferguson did more than anyone to stoke the fires and his chosen henchmen did their usual ruthless job, helped not insignificantly by Riley.
There are those who would argue that Riley gave the penalty because he had no choice, seeing that from his perspective it would appear that Campbell had fouled Rooney. That would be so, except for the simple matter of Riley's antecedents at Old Trafford. It is surely a record that is remarkable to all except the most blinkered of Manchester United supporters. And he is the best that England has to offer?
The penalty incident on its own would not stand out, and if Arsenal fans were to be honest, we would hold up our hands and say that Pires did a similar dive against Portsmouth last year. We would even admit that Campbell doth protest too much, and that he should know better than to flick out his leg like that, much as he did trying to hold off Solskaer two seasons ago. And we would also admit that Riley did not give another for Cole's foul on Ronaldo, which was deserved. It would be charitable to say that he probably did not give it to cancel out the earlier decision. I'd draw the line there and rather look upon it as Riley not wanting to push his luck too far. Two penalties against Liverpool is one thing. But two against us would really raise eyebrows. Especially when seen against the whole litany of offences committed by the Neville brothers and of course Van Nistleroy.
But first there is that small matter of Ferdinand's crude lunge into Ljungberg's back. Like the other incidents later, the linesman in question had quite a clear view and yet saw no offence. Were they intimidated by the occasion? Or as is more likely, by the club? How can a linesman standing two feet away from Van Nistleroy not see the foul on Cole? It was a career-ending tackle if Van Nistleroy had learnt the dark arts better from his mentor Keane. Or perhaps he is the real master, being able to disguise his malevolent intent better than Keane ever did. Whatever. To add insult to injury he pulled the same trick again later on Lehmann by stepping on the back of his ankle, again in full view of the officials. There can be no hope for fair play if an offence happens in front of the official's eyes and no action is taken.
But the damage had already been done much earlier. Riley had cunningly taken the moral high ground by supposedly letting the game flow, rather than seizing control by flashing cards early. Nearly all neutrals and of course Manchester United fans bought into it. Again, with all the provocative bombast from Ferguson before the game, there was hardly ever a chance that the game would not degenerate into mayhem if given half the chance. And more than half a chance was given by Riley.
His mantra seemed to be that everyone on the field was to be first given a talking to, no matter that fouls were coming thick and fast and it was clear to all that if he did not produce a card quickly enough, that trouble would soon follow. It was also farcical and inevitable that with the quick succession of bad fouls by the United players that went unpunished, that the first player to be given a card would of course be an Arsenal player. It wasn't rocket science - allow the United players to get away with enough fouls and someone would soon retaliate. It was almost laughable that Cole got a card (he should have known better but one can understand the frustration of the players) for his tackle, when Neville's first ugly lunge on Reyes was far worse and got off scot-free. It was all too reminiscent of the last two encounters at Old Trafford especially the title-winning encounter when Scholes was in a particularly belligerent mood.
Frankly the Arsenal players' restraint during the game was to me, at least, highly commendable and remarkable, never mind the food fight after the game. If Vieira's haranguing of Riley is the only misdemeanour that Ferguson can point to in the game, then we can hold our heads high. It would have been ridiculous to expect a captain to hold his tongue in check in the face of such blatant hacking, and for the referee not to protect the players. The only thing that one cannot understand is Henry's unhappiness with Carroll, surely the most blameless United player on the pitch. Henry might rather be better advised to confine and channel that fury and anger into his play, anonymous as he was in this game. As usual, the expected criticisms of Wenger's whinging have already been levelled, but surely no one can ignore the greater damage that the game has suffered from the terrible injustice that he pointed out.
Has the Premier League gone the way of the Italian and Spanish leagues where Juventus and Real Madrid traditionally get favoured by the referees? It will be interesting to see what action if any, gets taken.
In the aftermath of all that happened in the game and the silliness in the tunnel, it might perhaps be useful to look at events rather more objectively.
In the light of the righteous noises bleating about Wenger's post-match comments about the United players and Riley, does anyone now remember Ferguson's comments about our mob and how we got away with murder? Is there a statute of limitations on when comments are deemed to have brought the game into disrepute? Would Wenger be taken to task if he made the same comments before the next meeting? Probably. The truth is, Ferguson did more than anyone to stoke the fires and his chosen henchmen did their usual ruthless job, helped not insignificantly by Riley.
There are those who would argue that Riley gave the penalty because he had no choice, seeing that from his perspective it would appear that Campbell had fouled Rooney. That would be so, except for the simple matter of Riley's antecedents at Old Trafford. It is surely a record that is remarkable to all except the most blinkered of Manchester United supporters. And he is the best that England has to offer?
The penalty incident on its own would not stand out, and if Arsenal fans were to be honest, we would hold up our hands and say that Pires did a similar dive against Portsmouth last year. We would even admit that Campbell doth protest too much, and that he should know better than to flick out his leg like that, much as he did trying to hold off Solskaer two seasons ago. And we would also admit that Riley did not give another for Cole's foul on Ronaldo, which was deserved. It would be charitable to say that he probably did not give it to cancel out the earlier decision. I'd draw the line there and rather look upon it as Riley not wanting to push his luck too far. Two penalties against Liverpool is one thing. But two against us would really raise eyebrows. Especially when seen against the whole litany of offences committed by the Neville brothers and of course Van Nistleroy.
But first there is that small matter of Ferdinand's crude lunge into Ljungberg's back. Like the other incidents later, the linesman in question had quite a clear view and yet saw no offence. Were they intimidated by the occasion? Or as is more likely, by the club? How can a linesman standing two feet away from Van Nistleroy not see the foul on Cole? It was a career-ending tackle if Van Nistleroy had learnt the dark arts better from his mentor Keane. Or perhaps he is the real master, being able to disguise his malevolent intent better than Keane ever did. Whatever. To add insult to injury he pulled the same trick again later on Lehmann by stepping on the back of his ankle, again in full view of the officials. There can be no hope for fair play if an offence happens in front of the official's eyes and no action is taken.
But the damage had already been done much earlier. Riley had cunningly taken the moral high ground by supposedly letting the game flow, rather than seizing control by flashing cards early. Nearly all neutrals and of course Manchester United fans bought into it. Again, with all the provocative bombast from Ferguson before the game, there was hardly ever a chance that the game would not degenerate into mayhem if given half the chance. And more than half a chance was given by Riley.
His mantra seemed to be that everyone on the field was to be first given a talking to, no matter that fouls were coming thick and fast and it was clear to all that if he did not produce a card quickly enough, that trouble would soon follow. It was also farcical and inevitable that with the quick succession of bad fouls by the United players that went unpunished, that the first player to be given a card would of course be an Arsenal player. It wasn't rocket science - allow the United players to get away with enough fouls and someone would soon retaliate. It was almost laughable that Cole got a card (he should have known better but one can understand the frustration of the players) for his tackle, when Neville's first ugly lunge on Reyes was far worse and got off scot-free. It was all too reminiscent of the last two encounters at Old Trafford especially the title-winning encounter when Scholes was in a particularly belligerent mood.
Frankly the Arsenal players' restraint during the game was to me, at least, highly commendable and remarkable, never mind the food fight after the game. If Vieira's haranguing of Riley is the only misdemeanour that Ferguson can point to in the game, then we can hold our heads high. It would have been ridiculous to expect a captain to hold his tongue in check in the face of such blatant hacking, and for the referee not to protect the players. The only thing that one cannot understand is Henry's unhappiness with Carroll, surely the most blameless United player on the pitch. Henry might rather be better advised to confine and channel that fury and anger into his play, anonymous as he was in this game. As usual, the expected criticisms of Wenger's whinging have already been levelled, but surely no one can ignore the greater damage that the game has suffered from the terrible injustice that he pointed out.
Has the Premier League gone the way of the Italian and Spanish leagues where Juventus and Real Madrid traditionally get favoured by the referees? It will be interesting to see what action if any, gets taken.
