Does this make sense to you?
February 12th, 2007 by EoinIt seems Alex Ferguson is miffed with Spurs. Last weekend, when Ronaldo, ehm, won his team a penalty, Spurs replayed the incident at half time. Yes, I know they’re not supposed to do that but Ferguson is saying they were out of order for risking “inflaming the home support during a game.”
Is it not Ronaldo who inflamed the home support with his diving, sorry his winning-ness-ism? Am I wrong?
Here’s the incident for yourselves.
Entries (RSS)
February 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Yes and you’d have a point if you, hand on heart, could say that a Spurs player has never taken a dive. The fact is that it was gamesmanship on Tottenham’s end and it served no purpose other than to inflame home support. Why they shouldn’t be allowed do that, I don’t honestly know but if a player can be booked, or even sent off, for over-celebrating or removing their top…
February 12th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Yes but how can Ferguson complain about the incitement from Spurs as a club without reprimanding his player for his part in the incitement? I can understand that a manager has to back his player but he shouldn’t accuse anyone else of similar actions either then.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
The guy is paid big money to perform and that was a good “performance”. As far as the replay is concerned you’ve got to take a look at Italy at present. When does a replay become an incitement to riot…
February 12th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
The situation in Italy is very different, but I get the point you’re making. As for the performance issue, I don’t like it but it’s part of football. I still Ferguson is being selective in deciding what was inciting the crowd. It’s the original act is the real problem not the replay. For example if Newcastle replayed Bellamy’s goal from Saturday at half time. That would incite some of the Geordie fans but it’s not the replay that would be inciting them it would be the past history between Bellamy and Newcastle.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
But what a player does on the pitch is in the heat of the moment to gain an advantage for his team and not calculated to incite a reaction. When a player does something that is calculated to annoy fans, he is swiftly disciplined. What Spurs did by showing the replay was pre-meditated and was clearly meant to get fans going. Ferguson can also argue that any discipling of Ronaldo can be done internally within Man U. He can’t do that with Spurs behaviour.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
What a player does on the pitch once is in the heat of the moment. Afterwards he decides if that was a good idea or not. Repeat divers like Ronaldo decide before the go on the pitch that they are going to take a dive if the oportunity arises.
What Spurs did wasn’t smart. I do think that they should either replay everything or nothing though. The fans have been at the game and saw what had gone on already. What’s not clear is whether they replayed it as part of the first half highlights or if they just showed the dive.
As for Fergusen, yes he can discipline Ronaldo internally (but hasn’t or he’d have stopped diving by now) and no he can’t do that with Spurs. Why? Because it’s not his place to tell Spurs what is and isn’t right. If he has a problem with it he should take it up with the FA not try to diflect the media off his player by trying to blame Spurs.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
You’ve brought up an interesting point here. Especially since it doesn’t just apply to football. Vis a vis the original act vesus the publicity of that act. The act may be wrong or an injustice, and in this case I agree with you that it was, but it did not cause a riot. The replay on the other hand caused more “emotion” and I would argue that presented in the right way at the right time to the wrong crowd it would cause a disturbance. It’s about spin. And it’s very relevant in these days of irresponsible media ….
The recent Big Brother furore is a case in point. It was an itellectually challenged young lady on a vacuous entertainment program slagging off somebody she did not like in the only way she knew how. It developed to a level where politcians were explaining the situation to their counterpoints in India. Burning effegies on the streets etc. etc. This outrage was manufactured by a media which increasingly creates big stories from small ones by the way they present the facts.
Bloody hell ! whats the line about life death and football…
February 12th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
That’s a very good point Rich and the quote you asked for is another example. It was a line from Bill Shankly that is often quoted as “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.” But what he actually said was “Someone said ‘football is more important than life and death to you’ and I said ‘Listen, it’s more important than that’.”
February 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Yes, Ronaldo knows he will go down if he gets an opportunity but he is doing it to gain an advantage for his team on the field of play - not to wind up opposition supporters. We have referee’s who are supposed to handle these issues. What Tottenham did was all about winding up the supporters. Should home teams fill the half-time interval with a video montage of every dodgy tackle etc from the first 45 minutes. What they did was inflame an already volatile situation. Of course, there’s a certain amount of hypocrisy, nothing new for Fergie there, but I do believe you can detach the two acts. As I believe that if an enraged Spurs supporter subsequently flung a coin and hit a young Man U fans across the head, the blame would lie more with Spurs than Ronaldo.
The next time Didier Zokora takes a dive, do you think will Spurs show that too?
February 12th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I think he was offside.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Not sure why I was even try to follow everything but Frank your bit at the end cleared it all up. –thanks