Ramsey injury sparks debate

Aaron Ramsey lies in agony after breaking his leg against Stoke

Arsenal FC have confirmed that 19-year-old Welsh midfielder Aaron Ramsey will miss the remainder of the season after fracturing his right fibula and tibia in the Premier League match at Stoke last night.

The injury, which brought back horrible memories of Eduardo’s career-threatening injury at Birmingham two years ago, was caused as a result of Ryan Shawcross’ challenge – an incident that resulted in Shawcross receiving a straight red card. The defender, who was later confirmed in Fabio Capello’s England squad for the friendly against Egypt on Wednesday, left the field in tears at the horror of the injury.

Ramsey is the 3rd Arsenal player to be on the receiving end of dangerous tackles in the last 5 years. Abou Diaby broke his ankle against Sunderland in 2005, before Eduardo’s horrendous leg break in early 2008. It’s something that Arsene Wenger believes is not a coincidence.

"I’m not very happy with the tackle. We know what we are expecting, a battle everywhere, but we have now lost three players on horrendous tackles and I refuse to believe it is always coincidence."

Wenger’s words, understandably said with anger and sadness, has sparked a debate over team’s over-aggressive approach to playing Arsenal. Cesc Fabregas felt that incidents like this have no place in football.

"In five years I’ve seen three of them. Abou (Diaby), Eduardo, and now Aaron. What can I say. It’s difficult. You could say we are not protected enough. We are victims… There are things that are a little too much but three times in five years is a little bit too much."

So are Arsenal victims of their own gameplan? Many pundits have suggested that the pace in which Arsenal play their football is one of the reasons that three horrifying injuries have occurred in a short space of time. People like Martin Taylor (the Birmingham defender responsible for breaking Eduardo’s leg) and Ryan Shawcross are certainly not as quick as their Arsenal counterparts, and this may play a role in the timing of their challenges.

Certainly there was no malice on Shawcross’ part. Tony Pulis claimed that Shawcross “left the field crying his eyes out”, and the pictures clearly prove that. He was distraught, and highly apologetic after the match, and I’m sure will be visiting Aaron Ramsey in hospital in the near future.

Wenger surely has a point though. This can’t be coincidence. It’s been suggested that the only way to stop Arsenal playing their enterprising style of football is to be ultra-physical against them, as they can’t handle a battle. Now this isn’t to say that professional players go out there to deliberately injure fellow professionals, but when a team partakes in a more aggressive style against the Gunners, the risk that someone is going to get seriously hurt is obviously higher. It’s just very unfortunate that Aaron Ramsey has become a victim of such play.

Could referees offer Arsenal more protection? I’m not sure there’s much they can do, apart from send players off for bad challenges, and make sure that they diffuse any potentially dangerous situations. Football is a competitive game, and things like this are always going to happen. Arsenal receive as much protection from officials as any other club in the League, so I’m not sure that Cesc Fabregas has any ground for argument.

It’s obviously a horrible feeling for the players at Arsenal, who have had to witness at least 2 horrendous injuries in recent times. The reaction of both sets of players underlined how much events like this effect players, and one only hopes that it doesn’t happen to them.

Many say that Eduardo’s injury was the turning point in Arsenal’s season back in 2008. They were top of the table, 5 points clear of Manchester United and 3 points at St. Andrews would have made them sure fire favourites to run away with the title. However, the injury to the Croatian international, who is still feeling his way back into the Arsenal first team, had a massive effect on his teammates. William Gallas was resigned to sitting on the pitch at the end of the 2-2 draw, almost in tears, and ended up losing the captaincy over his actions that day. Arsenal never regained their composure, and ended up finishing 3rd, 4 points behind the eventual winners Manchester United.

It seems the experience of the final few months of that season played an important part in last night’s 3-1 victory. For a few minutes after Ramsey was carried off the pitch on a stretcher, very few tackles were made, and there was a certain lull in the game. However, in the last 7 or 8 minutes, Arsenal stepped up a gear and managed to find two goals to put them firmly back in the title race. A Fabregas penalty, and Thomas Vermaelen’s 8th goal of the season sealed a precious 3 points for Arsene Wenger, and gave Arsenal something positive to take to the bedside of Welsh football’s next big thing.

From all of us here at WDKF, we wish Aaron Ramsey a very speedy recovery to full fitness, and we wish to see him back in action as soon as possible.

Point deductions & transfer embargos make existence hopeless

Who should the finger of blame be pointed at?

Going into administration is the one thing that owners of Football clubs fear the most. Loss of massive amounts of money, the folding of a professional Football club, and a tarnished reputation that will never be regained. The current financial climate gives Football little hope, emphasising further the pointlessness and lack of sensitivity that the FA show towards clubs at the bottom of the money leagues.

Portsmouth FC and Crystal Palace FC have felt the full force of the FA’s lack of remorse in the situation. Let me put the question to you. How is a Football club, already at the bottom of the Premier League table fighting for survival, supposed to pay off their debts when any slim chance of retaining Premier League status, and thus a substantial sum of money, is whisked away from them by the governing body?

Now this hasn’t happened to Portsmouth yet, but it seems 99% likely that they will go into administration and be deducted the customary 10 points which would ultimately and indefinitely sink them into the Championship next season, unless of course they fold completely and their existence is banished. The scenario is still realistic.
With no chance of survival, and no chance of gaining any money from the Premier League for survival, Portsmouth would have no means of paying off their debt and little chance of retaining their status as a professional Football club. It bewilders me how the Premier League can implement such costly punishments to clubs who are already at the pit of survival, and not offer any support for that club in their battle against ceasing. Surely the last action you would take is to deduct points from that club?

The only way for clubs like Portsmouth to pay off their debt is if they are given the opportunity to retain their Premier League status, which at this stage of the season is still realistic, yet a challenging task. Come the end of the season, should Pompey be relegated, then points can be deducted from the next campaign. At least then, the FA have given Portsmouth a realistic chance to earn some money to pay towards debts.
The situation at Selhurst Park is slightly different to that at Fratton Park. Crystal Palace were riding high in the Championship, sitting just outside the play-off positions before they were sanctioned with a 10 point deduction. Palace now find themselves fighting the drop, and lie in 21st place, a point off safety. How can that be justified?

Palace may well have been promoted this season, meaning they’d receive an influx of money from the FA for their performance in the Championship and for competing in the Premier League the following season. This would mean that the majority of, or perhaps even all, of their debts would be paid off and Palace could concentrate on matters Football. It seems extremely irrational and illogical to strip Palace of any hope they had of reaching the top division in England.

The Football Association should be an organisation which helps Football clubs in times like these, instead of punishing them for matters off the field. As well as point deductions, transfer embargos are sometimes used, although not that often anymore. An inability to draft in new players means that clubs are stuck with players who may not be good enough to keep them in their division, thus costing them more money. If allowed to bring in a few players during the transfer windows, whether on loans or on transfers with money borrowed from the bank, then clubs may have more of a chance of surviving in their division, and therefore claiming a bit of extra cash which would be used to pay back the banks. Should the clubs not stay up despite all that, then punishments can be issued accordingly.

Is that not logical?

There have been developments today on the South Coast with Portsmouth appealing to the Premier League for permission to sell players outside of the transfer window. However, it is understood that the appeal will have to be passed not only by the Premier League, but by the FA and FIFA as well. Portsmouth are desperate to raise £4m to pay this month’s wages, and resolve more cash-flow issues.

Should Portsmouth be allowed to do this, or will this be unfair to other clubs in the Premier League and the rest of Europe?

For me, Pompey need all the help they can get, and if that’s being allowed to sell outside of transfer windows, then so be it. Nobody likes to see Football clubs go under, so help is needed for clubs like Portsmouth to get themselves out of trouble.

Did you know that...

… Lionel Messi could have signed for Como?

Yes, that’s correct. The Barcelona and Argentina star had the opportunity to sign for Italian 3rd-tier side Como back in 2002, but the directors of the club blocked the transfer.

Messi was only 14 years of age at the time, but ex-Como President Enrico Preziosi revealed he was offered the wonderkid for $50,000.

"I was told, ‘you can take him home for $50,000′ but the Directors blocked the operation. At the time every player I signed for Como wasn’t very good. There is a definite regret. If I had only gone with my instinct."

That’s a pretty big miss from the Como club, who were promoted to Serie A for the 2002/03 season but were relegated straight back down. Preziosi is now the President of Serie A side Genoa, after joining them immediately after Como’s relegation.

So what could have been? Messi at a small club like Como seems ridiculous, but it could have been a very different story had he made the small-money move to Italy.

Messi signed for Barcelona in 2000 from Argentinian club Newell’s Old Boys, and The Catalan giants will be extremely relieved that they didn’t let this one slip through the net.

Calamitous refereeing leaves Wenger fuming

Controversy was the flavour of the night in Lisbon, as Arsenal went down 2-1 to a mediocre Porto side in the Estadio do Dragao. Perhaps fortunate for Arsenal, the match won’t be remembered for the Football but for a series of blunders from both referee Martin Hansen and from Gunners’ goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski.

Fabianski played a major hand in Porto’s opener as he spilled a Varela cross into his net after placing himself in a rather dubious position. However, the lead and Fabianski’s red face didn’t last long, as Sol Campbell headed the equalizer from a corner which was headed back across goal by Tomas Rosicky. 1-1 after 20 minutes.

It was the second half that brought about the most controversial and bizarre moment of the match. On 50 minutes Lukasz Fabianksi picked up a very unnecessary and perhaps not entirely purposeful back-pass from Sol Campbell, and Porto were awarded an indirect free-kick inside the penalty area. In an attempt to hold up play and allow his defenders to get back and form a wall, Fabianski kept hold of the ball whilst protesting with the Swedish referee. However, Fabianski forgot one of the most fundamental rules of being a goalkeeper; get back on your line as quickly as possible.

The Polish International then obliged to the referee’s demands to throw the ball back, before turning to the linesman some 50 yards away on the touchline to partake in yet more protesting. Whilst his back was turned, Ruben Michael took a quick free kick to his teammate Falcao who duly slotted the ball into an open net. 2-1 Porto.

The referee’s performance has been subject to a lot of criticism since the incident last night, the majority of which has come from the mouth of Arsene Wenger, who isn’t shy to voice his displeasures when he feels his side are hard done by.

"What can you do about the second goal? The back-pass was accidental, whenever do you see the defender kick the ball with his toe? The ball hits Sol, it was not on purpose and it has to be intentional to be a free kick. It is difficult to understand how the referee can interpret that."

For me, if the referee sees that Campbell has hit the ball back at Fabianski with any part of his foot, it has to be a back-pass. Campbell’s reaction (pictured) is perhaps a giveaway, as he goes straight to hold his head in his hands before rising to place his hands on his hips as if to say ‘what have I done?’. It’s a clear back-pass in my opinion and the referee got that bit exactly right. Wenger went on to say:

"I have never seen that and I have been in the game a long time. It is difficult to understand. It is completely inappropriate that he allows that in such a situation. When the referee gives the free-kick he has to allow us a chance to defend it, otherwise it is better to give a goal straight away."

Once again, I believe that Wenger is wrong here. It is completely within Porto’s rights to take a quick free kick, and the referee is 100% entitled to allow them to do just that. I’m sure had the incident been given at the other end, and Arsenal had been disallowed a goal because they’d taken a quick free kick, Mr. Wenger would be equally as angry. It’s clever thinking, and quick-minded play from the two Porto players.

The one area of the incident which hasn’t received any coverage, and comes as a surprise to me, is the referee’s position as Porto take the free kick. Mr. Hansen is stood directly in front of Sol Campbell, blocking his attempt to stop the taking of the free kick.  Surely had the referee not been stood blocking Campbell’s way then Campbell would have been able to prevent the goal. He may have been booked for doing that, but Arsenal would not have conceded. Can there be any blame pointed at the referee for that?

Martin Hansen has been involved in his fair share of controversial moments in the last 6 months or so, none more so than Thierry Henry’s infamous handball that knocked Ireland out of the World Cup. But I feel he handled the situation as well as he could have done on this occasion.

Hansen’s performance obviously left Arsene Wenger fuming, but even with a Fabianski own goal and a controversial Falcao goal, Arsenal didn’t deserve to win the match. Their performance was nothing short of woeful, and they were lucky to  lose by just the one goal. Fabregas, Diaby, and Nasri were all way short of top form, and constantly gave possession back to the home side with sloppy short-range passes and a willingness to keep hold of the ball for far too long. The Gunners didn’t look at all threatening in the final 3rd of the pitch either, and it was only when Theo Walcott came on that they started to attack Porto. Even then, they didn’t get the ball to the tricky winger often enough.

Sol Campbell looked unfit and nervy at the back and Denilson was an ineffective foil in front of the back four. As for the goalkeeper’s performance, this will be a match that Lukasz Fabianski will want to forget rapidly. Arsene Wenger refused to criticise the Pole, however:

"I do not want to come out individually on Lukasz’s performance, and judge him in front of everybody. You have to accept you lose as a team and win as a team. Any individual performance is not to be analysed publicly."

So after such a poor performance and result for Arsenal, it can only get better at the Emirates in 3 weeks time. The one positive they can take is they have the vital away goal heading into the second leg. They may even have Andrey Arshavin, Alex Song, and Manuel Almunia all fit again, leaving them with a thin silver lining to a thick cloud from Lisbon.

Ancelotti hails Rooney as world's best, and he may just be right

24 years of age and still improving by the day. Wayne Rooney has fast made a name for himself since making a storming introduction to English Football back in 2002, announcing himself as England’s brightest young talent with a fantastic strike against Arsenal at Goodison Park. Then just 16 years old, he was tipped to become one of England’s best, and now it’s time to question that prediction as he finds himself in the best form of his career.

Chelsea manager Carlo Ancelotti has come out and made the bold statement that Rooney is currently the best player on the planet. That’s some praise. Pele, Maradona, Best, Ronaldo, Henry, Ronaldinho, Messi… The list of players who have received such accalades goes on, and one gets the feeling that Rooney isn’t about to stop here.

The Manchester United number 10 has scored 17 goals in the Premier League this campaign, including 4 against Hull City at Old Trafford, and has played a major part in United’s battle for the title. For Ancelotti, there’s none better:

At this moment he is the best in the world. Manchester are using Rooney very well right now. He improves his quality with every game and I am surprised his level never drops. Instead he always improves his performance.

Many have said that Rooney is the ‘complete’ player, and the stats suggest that may be true. 86 goals in 181 Manchester United games, to go with 15 for Everton, and a ratio of almost a goal every 2 games for the National side make him the most lethal marksman in English Football right now, and potentially the world. So what about Messi and co? Is Rooney really better than Barcelona’s most precious asset?

Messi is two years younger than Rooney, so there’s an argument to say that Messi has more time to improve than Rooney. Messi’s goal per game ratio is better than Rooney’s, as is his assists per game ratio. But Messi has never played in England, and for me that could be the deciding factor. Could Messi adjust to the vastly different style of the Premier League, and would Rooney be as affective, if not more in the Spanish League? Those are all things that we may not ever get to witness, and can only speculate about.

Perhaps Ancelotti’s statement is a little too premature, but at this moment in time you would have to agree that Rooney is right up there with the best. The key for him is to stay fit and consistent, and with so much time left in his fledgling career, there’s plenty more of Wayne Rooney to watch. One thing is for certain, best player in the world or not, he will be an influential figure at this year’s world cup, and the catalyst for any success Manchester United experience in the next 10 years or so, providing he stays at Old Trafford.

Euro 2012 draw throws up England v Wales

England have been drawn in Group G for the Euro 2012 qualifiers alongside Switzerland, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and most notably Wales. The two sides last faced each other in the World Cup 2006 qualifiers, with England emerging victorious on both occasions.

The group has been described as one of the two toughest groups in the draw, with Group A also being predicted to be extremely tight.

Fabio Capello shared the view that Groups A and G would be the toughest.

I think the worst groups were Group A and Group G and we got Group G. It’s a tough group because each game will be strong games to play.

Other British interest saw Scotland drawn alongside defending champions Spain in Group I, while Republic of Ireland will face trips to Russia and Slovakia as part of Group B, and Northern Ireland will come up against world champions Italy in Group C.

Euro 2012 qualifiers draw;

Group A
Germany
Turkey
Austria
Belgium
Kazakhstan
Azerbaijan

Group B
Russia
Slovakia
Republic of Ireland
FYR Macedonia
Armenia
Andorra

Group C
Italy
Serbia
Northern Ireland
Slovenia
Estonia
Faroe Islands

Group D
France
Romania
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Belarus
Albania
Luxembourg

Group E
Netherlands
Sweden
Finland
Hungary
Moldova
San Marino

Group F
Croatia
Greece
Israel
Latvia
Georgia
Malta

Group G
England
Switzerland
Bulgaria
Wales
Montenegro

Group H
Portugal
Denmark
Norway
Cyprus
Iceland

Group I
Spain
Czech Republic
Scotland
Lithuania
Liechtenstein