DoomMerchant wrote:it didn't help that the Dutch also dropped Nigel as well around the Ben Arfa incident, which poured kerosene on the fire and made it an "international" incident.
Most Americans see Nigel as a dirty, despicable player due to his tackle on Holden, sadly. Again iirc it was his trailing leg, as in the Ben Arfa injury, in that incident but he didn't get the ball. i don't mind that Nigel's got a rep. He doesn't change his game because of it, and i don't really think he's earning cards on his rep alone tbh. It's easy to think it can or will happen, but i haven't seen strong evidence just yet.
Now, if he gets sent off in the next month for a dubious call then i reserve the right to say that i am completely full of shit, and have no idea what i'm talking about in a "Doomy was clueless" shocker. Hold onto your hats.
Comparing Scholes press reaction to NDJ's is kinda hard. i thought the press really took it to Scholes to a degree. I heard some pundits even talking about how this kind of behavior really will taint Scholes legacy to some degree. All in all, the NDJ stuff was just more sensational, so it was harder for it not to be a bigger headline for a few minutes. Realistically, Scholes is 3x the cunt Nigel is. Nigel's worst efforts have at least been "effortful" imho and approaching football play at some level. Scholes history would suggest they are borne out of frustration.
cheers
As an american, I think americans who think that de jong is dirty just because of the holden tackle don't know much about the game. I have many friends (mostly rags sadly) who, along with being american, didn't think there was much in the holden tackle. That's the kind of thing that happens in a game. There was no malice in it whatsoever. In my opinion, de jong got much more flack from americans for the wc final tackle on alonso, which was a bit brutal, but I also think lacking malice. You can say what you want about those tackles, and it's been unfortunate that de jong has been involved in so many injuries, but I don't think there is any malice in him in the slightest. It's his job to be physical and to put himself about, making many more tackle attempts than most players. As a result, he's more likely to be involved in bad ones. I have not seen him go into a tackle with the intent to injure, unlike scholes and other rag players.
It's part of the game ... the risk of injury is a part of any professional sport. People just love to be reactionaries, because there's no one who would dare contradict them in that situation. they can be as nasty as they want, it's a release for a lot of people.
[/center]
