Shawcross

[Mase]

Whether it was intentional or not, it was only a matter of time before a Stoke player seriously injured a fellow professional.

[Blue Since 76]

horrific injury, but agree with someone else that from the motd still, it looked as if the break had happened before he was kicked.
The challenge itself deserved no more than a booking, but i think when the ref saw his leg, he's assumed it was worse than it was. It looked like shawcross would have had to come off if he hadn't been sent off, as he looked so shaken.

In the post match analysis, wenger looked in shock, so i'd ignore anything he said. But it would be nice if he now came out and cleared the blame.

[Mike J]

i think wenger has a right to be livid. i dont think its a coincidence that some of his players have suffered horrendous injuries. teams are surely asked to go and be more physical than usual with arsenal because not many will beat them by trying to play proper football.

i hope ramsey makes a full recovery, he is certainly a massive talent.

[Alioune DVToure]

From one of the stills that it showed you on MOTD it looked like his leg may have gone before there was any contact from Shawcross (like what happened when Buust got his studs caught in the turf). Don't know what Fabregas was on about with the ref playing on because he stopped the game straight away. As for Wenger wanting further punishment, I didn't even think the red card was warranted. IMHO the ref gave the red because of what had happened to Ramsey. I felt for both players because it wasn't malicious and Ramsey will be out for a long time and Shawcross was clearly affected.

In that same MOTD still the ball was out of shot, yet Shawcross was within two feet of Ramsay with both feet off the ground. There's something wrong with you if you're steaming in like he did in that area of the pitch. One of the guys on the Sunday Supplement said it best yesterday morning: "You can't break someone's leg if you're going in along the turf." The ball had gone and Shawcross was high on the leg, going in with two feet, and late. The clean break was a good eight or nine inches up the kid's leg.

The challenge was, at the very least, idiotic and I really don't understand this outpouring of sympathy for the guilty party. I hope he is upset. Let the cunt reflect on what he's done.

[london blue 2]

Good read

"He's not that kind of player"

As expected the Shawcross 'is not that kind of player' brigade have been out in force since he broke Aaron Ramsey's leg on Saturday evening. He's from a lovely family, apparently, and doesn't have a bad bone in his body (unlike Aaron Ramsey who has two, courtesy of the Stoke player).

Theres no way that was a malicious challenge, Ryan isnt that sort of player.

So spoke Stoke's assistant manager ... in October 2007 when Shawcross broke former Arsenal man Francis Jeffers ankle in a tackle.

When Arsenal played Stoke in November 2008 Shawcross made a challenge on Emmanuel Adebayor which put him out for about three weeks - the challenge was off the pitch, the ball was gone and he deliberately targeted Adebayor's ankle. He walked away, the ref gave nothing, the commentator's risible comment about how he was 'no respecter of big reputations' a perfect example of what I spoke about yesterday. Instead of saying 'That was a bad foul which has no place in the game' he smirked at the young Englishman kicking the foreigner.
Good lad.

And two days ago Shawcross put Ramsey out of the game for a long, long time. Arsene Wenger said at his press conference post Stoke:

Spare me the articles tomorrow about how nice Shawcross is because we had all that with Eduardo.

Let me say again, I don't believe for one second that Shawcross meant to break Ramsey's leg. However, the defence of him being not that kind of player rings hollow when you look at his past. He has a history of hurting other players. He is that kind of player. And his tears on Saturday I'm sure were genuine but they were the tears of a man who knows he has gone too far. You can call him physical, combative, hard ... anything you like. For me the bottom line is he's dirty. Not always, but sometimes, and when at 22 you've already broken two players legs you might need to rethink your approach to the game.

I fully expect his teammates and his manager to stick up for him, that is how football works. We all have our opinion of Ryan Shawcross, for us he will always be the guy who broke Ramsey's leg. I hope, as the England team assemble at our training ground this week, he has a most uncomfortable time. Yet this is not just about Shawcross, it's about the culture of excuse making for dangerous, violent play which is all too prevelant in the media and which is exacerbated by the FA's continual refusal to punish it.

Here's an example, from a couple of seasons ago. Kevin Nolan on Everton's Victor Anichebe. Look at the the picture to your left.
Thankfully Anichebe did not have his leg broken. I don't really believe in miracles but when you look at that picture it's hard to imagine how he got away with it. I remember watching Match of the Day afterwards and I'm pretty sure it was Alan Shearer who led the bleating about how Kevin Nolan 'is not that kind of player'.

Shearer was at it again at the weekend about Shawcross, saying he had no history of this kind of thing - WRONG - and they all consistently, maddeningly, miss the point. You don't have to be that kind of player but if you tackle somebody like that then you have to be punished for what is an act of violence that has no place on a football pitch. That is not tackling, that is not trying to win the ball, when you go in with two feet, both of them stamping down on the shin of a fellow player there is only one thing you are trying to do and that is hurt him. It might be a moment of madness, atypical behaviour perhaps, but that's all it takes.

The fact that you've never done it before doesn't excuse it. You don't kill someone in real life and get away with it because 'you're not that kind of person'. Once is enough. Yet the culture that exists in English football is to excuse it time and time again. Nolan got a three match ban for his tackle on Anichebe. Shawcross will miss three games (just one more than Alex Song for cumulative bookings). How is that right? When the punishment does not fit the crime the crimes will continue to happen.

You have idiots like Talksport who are the lowest of the low. I know it's hard for people not to react but they're bottom feeding trolls.
Their whole existence is based on boosting their listenership. Do you do that with sensible comment that might do something positive for the game? Of course not. You get more listeners by being outrageous, by making comments you know will rile people and make them call in. You put halfwits like Alan Brazil and Stan Collymore on air as if their opinions on the game matter in the slightest and you instruct them to wind up the audience. I know it's tough but the easy answer is just to switch off.

Nevertheless I completely understand the reaction of fans from whatever club trying to ring in and reason with these people. We all love the game, they only love the sound of their own voices and the ratings. That is the bottom line. Yet they have a malign influence on football, in my opinion. Look at the furore over Eduardo's dive. One of the nicest guys in the game pilloried relentlessly over a bit of gamesmanship that happens over and over and over in games. We don't want to see diving, I think we all accept that, but a media led witch-hunt against Eduardo lasted weeks. It affected Arsenal to the point where referees were not giving us stonewall penalties in Europe and at home.

The double standards are appalling. Steven Gerrard spent the league game at the Grove against us falling over and diving, because he is as bad as anyone when it comes down to it. I didn't hear Collymore or Brazil or anyone else launch a campaign against him. They focus on the trivia, the diving, shirt pulling, hearsay about people possibly spitting, yet when they have a chance to condemn acts of violence on the pitch their only interest is to wind people up and defend the indefensible.

I imagine the reaction from these sanctimonious hypocrites would be entirely different if Wayne Rooney had his leg smashed to pieces. I hope that never happens but if it did then we might hear something about how certain challenges are not acceptable. The problem of course is that the Talksport culture is ubiquitous and as long as that exists and former players and pundits and presenters continue to make excuses for the likes of Shawcross then we remain no closer to having a positive effect on the game.

The FA too. Spineless at the best of times, we know that, but how long have I said on this blog that their disciplinary system is antiquated and broken? You cannot possibly justify to anyone with a brain Shawcross missing three games while Song misses two for a series of yellow cards and Ramsey misses up to a year, if he comes back at all.
It is obscene. As I've said, no player goes out to break another player's leg, but no driver goes out to kill someone. If the driver speeds and drives recklessly though, he is responsible for what might happen. When you behave in a certain way you must be held accountable for the consequences ... except in football where you can destroy a player, have a massive impact on another team, and get a couple of weeks off (at most), on full pay before coming back as if nothing ever happened. What. The. Fuck?

For me the bottom line is this - those with responsibility are shirking it. The FA with their unwillingness to revamp their disciplinary procedures. Certain sections of the media who see an incident like Aaron Ramsey as a way to boost ratings and make more money. They are parasites on the game of football. Disgusting, reprehensible and dangerous. They excuse thuggery and violence and the effect of that is more thuggery and more violence. They should be ashamed of themselves but to feel shame you have to have a slight understanding of right and wrong and they just don't care. The more outraged Arsenal fans that ring in, the more right they think they are. They are just vile.

It's nice this morning to see some articles question the 'He's not that kind of player' excuse, but we need more. Football is a game that most of us love a great deal but it's a game with its priorities wrong. I remember after the Cesc v Phil Brown hullabaloo last season Mark Bright said on the radio, "I'd rather be elbowed or kicked, than spat on". This is the kind of nonsense that makes me very cross indeed. Spitting is horrible but would Mark Bright really prefer an elbow in the face breaking his nose and knocking out his teeth? Would he prefer to be kicked like Aaron Ramsey was kicked? I don't think so.
Wipe it off, it's all over. Not nice, but over. Sadly Aaron Ramsey can't just wipe it off.

I'm not going to try and tell anyone what they can and can't listen to but the best way to hurt idiots like Talksport is to just turn it off.
Ring them full of indignation and they've got exactly what they want.
They'll cut you off, speak over you, make you angrier and it's a vicious circle. I fully understand people's desire to counter the shite that is peddled but it's just perpetuating it. These people are morally bankrupt, you can't change their minds. All we can do is hope that enough people with common sense and a platform to counter it do just that.

I've seen some journalists do that this morning, I hope more follow and the focus when something like this happens again is not on how the perpetrator of violence is not that kind of player, instead it's on the victim, the impact to him and his club and how something can be done about it to stop it happening again.

[Fish111]

I couldn't care less whether he ''isn't that type of player'. What he did was reckless and he should be suspended for the same length of time that Ramsey is out and that goes for any other shit player that decides that they can be over-physical to other players just because they are incapable of matching them man to man skill-wise. We need to stamp out the type of football played by managers like Pulis & Allerdyce and the only way to do this is to suspend players for the same length of time the players they injure are out and maybe they will get the message that you have to try to play football instead of buying low class meatheads to act as butchers in the middle of the pitch.

[Chipster]

Does everything in life need someone to blame? This board is sadly following soceity in respect of the blame culture! It must be someones fault! Stoke don't set the rules but they play by them, unfortunately it will happen from time to time 'its a contact sport' the speed of play is such that on occasion it is unavoidable.

The angle of the boys leg prior to contact suggests the slightest knock would have had serious consequences let alone a whole hearted tackle! The outcome was bad but the intent of Ballack was much worse!

[lythamblue]

Shawcross didn't mean to break his leg and did not intend to cause any harm.

However, there is something to be said for the fact that all Stoke players seem encouraged to knock other teams out of their stride by intimidating them with tough tackles, no nonsense challenges and a generally commited type of play and strategy.

I accept it is their way of getting results against teams who have much better players and it has in fact kept them out of the relegation zone and epitomised their success. The only problem is ...... if you continue to play like that every game, it is surely just a matter of time before you mistime something and cause a serious injury.

Technically, they are inside the laws of the game, but their style of play is an accident waiting to happen.

Unfortunately for them, if they changed style ..... they would not get the results. The injury to Ramsay on Sunday seemed to upset the Stoke players stride more than it did Arsenal. For the last 20 mins, Stoke stopped putting the boot in. Arsenal then controlled the game, played their football and scored two goals.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Shawcross didn't mean to break his leg and did not intend to cause any harm.

However, there is something to be said for the fact that all Stoke players seem encouraged to knock other teams out of their stride by intimidating them with tough tackles, no nonsense challenges and a generally commited type of play and strategy.

I accept it is their way of getting results against teams who have much better players and it has in fact kept them out of the relegation zone and epitomised their success. The only problem is ...... if you continue to play like that every game, it is surely just a matter of time before you mistime something and cause a serious injury.

Technically, they are inside the laws of the game, but their style of play is an accident waiting to happen.

Unfortunately for them, if they changed style ..... they would not get the results. The injury to Ramsay on Sunday seemed to upset the Stoke players stride more than it did Arsenal. For the last 20 mins, Stoke stopped putting the boot in. Arsenal then controlled the game, played their football and scored two goals.

STOKE 2010 ARE THE SAME AS WIMBLEDON 1985.

I SEE NO DIFFERENCE.

[Socrates]

Does everything in life need someone to blame? This board is sadly following soceity in respect of the blame culture! It must be someones fault! Stoke don't set the rules but they play by them, unfortunately it will happen from time to time 'its a contact sport' the speed of play is such that on occasion it is unavoidable.

The angle of the boys leg prior to contact suggests the slightest knock would have had serious consequences let alone a whole hearted tackle! The outcome was bad but the intent of Ballack was much worse!

Spot on Chip. Same people who are screaming about this incident are the one's who go apeshit if one of our own players doesn't go in for every single 50-50 challenge like a hairbrained lunatic on acid.

[sandman]

Shawcross didn't mean to break his leg and did not intend to cause any harm.

However, there is something to be said for the fact that all Stoke players seem encouraged to knock other teams out of their stride by intimidating them with tough tackles, no nonsense challenges and a generally commited type of play and strategy.

I accept it is their way of getting results against teams who have much better players and it has in fact kept them out of the relegation zone and epitomised their success. The only problem is ...... if you continue to play like that every game, it is surely just a matter of time before you mistime something and cause a serious injury.

Technically, they are inside the laws of the game, but their style of play is an accident waiting to happen.

Unfortunately for them, if they changed style ..... they would not get the results. The injury to Ramsay on Sunday seemed to upset the Stoke players stride more than it did Arsenal. For the last 20 mins, Stoke stopped putting the boot in. Arsenal then controlled the game, played their football and scored two goals.

STOKE 2010 ARE THE SAME AS WIMBLEDON 1985.

I SEE NO DIFFERENCE.

I reckon Wimbledon were much tougher, but I also reckon that physically Stoke 2010 are the same as Arsenal 2004 except with a little less technique.

[branny]

From one of the stills that it showed you on MOTD it looked like his leg may have gone before there was any contact from Shawcross (like what happened when Buust got his studs caught in the turf). Don't know what Fabregas was on about with the ref playing on because he stopped the game straight away. As for Wenger wanting further punishment, I didn't even think the red card was warranted. IMHO the ref gave the red because of what had happened to Ramsey. I felt for both players because it wasn't malicious and Ramsey will be out for a long time and Shawcross was clearly affected.

In that same MOTD still the ball was out of shot, yet Shawcross was within two feet of Ramsay with both feet off the ground. There's something wrong with you if you're steaming in like he did in that area of the pitch. One of the guys on the Sunday Supplement said it best yesterday morning: "You can't break someone's leg if you're going in along the turf." The ball had gone and Shawcross was high on the leg, going in with two feet, and late. The clean break was a good eight or nine inches up the kid's leg.

The challenge was, at the very least, idiotic and I really don't understand this outpouring of sympathy for the guilty party. I hope he is upset. Let the cunt reflect on what he's done.

Sorry mate but i didn't see it as a 2 footed challenge and with regards to the above comment, people can break bones without contact from any other party. Ballacks tackle was far worse because of the intent. The outcome however wasn't but he could have done Tevez some serious damage.

[avoidconfusion]

Shawcross didn't mean to break his leg and did not intend to cause any harm.

However, there is something to be said for the fact that all Stoke players seem encouraged to knock other teams out of their stride by intimidating them with tough tackles, no nonsense challenges and a generally commited type of play and strategy.

I accept it is their way of getting results against teams who have much better players and it has in fact kept them out of the relegation zone and epitomised their success. The only problem is ...... if you continue to play like that every game, it is surely just a matter of time before you mistime something and cause a serious injury.

Technically, they are inside the laws of the game, but their style of play is an accident waiting to happen.

Unfortunately for them, if they changed style ..... they would not get the results. The injury to Ramsay on Sunday seemed to upset the Stoke players stride more than it did Arsenal. For the last 20 mins, Stoke stopped putting the boot in. Arsenal then controlled the game, played their football and scored two goals.

Exactly my thoughts as well. I rest the blame on managers like Pulis and Allardyce and Bruce who let their team play like thugs.