Blackburn Rovers 0 – 2 Arsenal
0 – 1 Toure (36)
0 – 2 Henry (70)
Gilberto Sent Off (14)
Following on from the two demolitions of Liverpool last week, Arsenal proved that those wins were not flukes in terms of performance or result. Reduced to ten men within a quarter of an hour, the team defended as one and showed a clincal nature on the counter-attack that had been missing in a large number of visits to the Northwest over the last eighteen months. No doubt commentators will claim that Rovers were poor and lacked the guile necessary to break Arsenal. That is to deny the truth. Rovers had, I think, four clear chances that should have resulted in goals; Pedersen’s shot was well saved by Lehmann, Derbyshire hit his own leg with the goal gaping, Nonda completely messed up a good headed opportunity and Pantomime Cow, Robbie Savage missed the target entirely with a free header.
They were punished by two superb goals. Toure’s opener was the sort of set-play that has been missing from Arsenal’s game for much of the season. Henry’s freekick was excellently flighted, Toure’s run timed to perfection and his header put the ball where Friedel could not get to it. Indeed, the Rovers keeper did not move as the ball hit the foot of the post on its route to the other side of the goal.
What is worth noting is the sensibilities shown by the rest of the team in that move; only three other Arsenal players were within in spitting distance of the area from memory, the remainder were cautiously placed from level with Henry midway through the Rovers half back to the Halfway line. Whilst the objective was to score, they were determined not to concede as well. OK, Henry taking the kick quickly had something to do with it as well but that stands out as an indicator of the professionalism shown throughout the performance.
The second was a lesson in Counter-Attacking that should become an example in every coaching manual. Rovers had a freekick on their right blocked by Rosicky out towards the corner flag; Clichy picked it up and passed to Rosicky parallel with the left edge of the area. He fed Henry on the left wing who was surrounded by Blue and White shirts. His run took him into the Rovers half where he exchanged passes with Fabregas, Le Captain hit his shot early with Freidel grasping at air as the ball travelled on its path to the back of the net. 2 – 0, game over with twenty minutes to go.
There are several things that impressed me about the performance yesterday. The first cap is doffed in Arsene’s direction. I think it fair to say that most of us expected him to replace van Persie or Rosicky with Flamini when Gilberto received his marching orders. He did not, credit to him for refusing to follow a defensive attitude with seventy five minutes to go. Whilst that no doubt reflected how he perceived his opponents, it showed tremendous faith in Rosicky, Hleb and Fabregas to maintain a wall to protect the defence. It is harsh on the other two to single one player out but Fabregas dealt with his defensive duties extremely well. Henry and van Persie deserve praise as well for the intelligent way that they rotated into midfield, making a foursome whilst leaving one player to occupy the Rovers defence. Had it been one static player, I think Rovers may have coped better but because they were never sure which one would be staying up front, it forced them to think more cautiously than their superior numbers ought to have had to. The team though as a whole deserve considerable praise. The effort that they put into containing and defending was entirely commendable. Rovers obviously had a lot of possession but the stats I have seen this morning put it at 52% – 48%. For a team playing with eleven against ten, surely they should have been looking at having fifteen to twenty more than that?
And so to the incident that sparked this thoroughly professional performance?
The first thing that I will say is that I thought Rob Styles’ punishments were absolutely spot on, no matter how painful that was to the team. Savage’s tackle warranted the yellow it received; Gilberto’s kick was violent conduct and Styles had little option to dismiss him; the reaction can be understood but I feel disappointed that such an experienced pro was drawn in by Savage’s crudeness and lack of guile.
Obviously the Welshman’s reaction had much to do with the dismissal, having dropped to the ground the instant that kick was lashed out, it was no surprise to see him dancing around behind Styles as the card was produced. Savage is very much a Premiership player of his time. A “hard man” who is not; a theatric of the worst type, the sort that had he been a “foreigner” would have brought forward xenophobic chastisement from the media. As it was, he is “one of us” and has escaped the wrath of Fleet Street. That Gilberto will be suspended for the next three games is not lost on Arsene, who has confirmed that the punishment will not be appealed. The three, Manchester United, Tottenham and Bolton are games where the Brazilian’s abilities will be sorely missed.
However, that is for future debate; as it is this was an entirely commendable performance by the remainder of the team and one that proves, you do not need to be British to have resolve. And that is something that they made abundantly clear yesterday.























Technically you may be correct about the sending off but it is a perfect example of how daft & unjust the game we love can be.
It was like the Beckham thing with the Argie, the perpetrator,doing far worse, gets away with it while relatively mild retaliation gets off scot free.
Having set out his stall Homer Styles was duty bound to send off Neil, not because he may or may not have denied a goal scoring oportunity,but he deliberately kicked the player. Tugay’s stamp was right under his nose & a straight red in anyone’s book, let’s hope Cesc only has bruising.
The problem is the authorities in trying to get consistency send out these directives that give no sense refs like Homer no option. When will they learn that there should only be consistancy within any 1 game – because every game is different- it wouldn’t be worth watching if it wasn’t.
Of course Mark Hughes & Shearer said it was to our advantage because we could play on the break. What were Blackburn planning then – to do the 10 men at the back like most crap teams do at the Emerates. I thought there was more to Blackburn than that.
I thought Hoyte came of age last night with Cesc absolutely terrific with Hleb making an outstanding contribution, not that any of them didn’t.
By: Flint McCullough on January 14, 2007
at 9:55 am
Flint,
I agree about the tackle being worse but it was not a straight red. Had Savage gone in with both feet, he would have walked as well. Gilberto must have known he was going to get a “warm welcome” because that is the type of player Savage is, and Blackburn are that type of team; physical in their attempt to impose themselves on the game so that they can then try to play football.
You are right about consistency though. If the authorities change their perspective then they may achieve more. No doubt Styles will have a raft of rules to hide behind in justifying why both Neill and Tugay were not sent off.
Whilst the dismissal changed the Game Plan, I am not sure it altered the approach that much. Having scored nine goals in the last two games, playing on the Counter Attack what on earth were people expecting from us. Anything other than a repeat performance was to be polite naive.
I cannot comment on Shearer’s views on last night’s MOTD not having seen it. However, he is typical of today’s pundits; few if any have anything worth hearing and on the whole if they had an original thought, it would die of loneliness.
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 10:07 am
Since Mark Hughes feel that a 10-men team is an advantage, I would advise him to get his own player send off each game, consistantly play with 10 men on the field in every game, and rely on counter attack.
Do you hear me Mark Hughes?
By: HorSinn on January 14, 2007
at 10:17 am
Savage kicked Gilberto twice then thumped him on the neck. How was Gilberto’s flick worse than that. Savage went down as if he was Horseface itself.
If you watch that game again you see will see at least a dozen incidents far worse than that flick.
Are you telling me that Neil did not kick RVP?
However you are right. As it stands common sense is no longer a possibilty for referees who are obliged to consistently ignore snide good old British style foul play & intimidation, whilst penalising goal celebrations,and relatively mild retaliation.
AW is absolutely right we have no problem with a physical approach provided that it is fair but in 9 x out of 10 it isn’t fair, & the refs let them get away with it in the same ratio.
We will see Bolton in the flesh,in a couple of weeks. There will not be 1 challenge they make without a sly push & elbows all over the place.
But then Arsenal, with 3600 reds under AW, are a soft touch. We get no protection.
Homer Styles is a disgrace & so are too many of his colleagues.
I get very bitter with injustice.
By: Flint McCullough on January 14, 2007
at 10:33 am
Get it off your chest, old boy!
The three game ban puts Gilberto into the same category as someone who lamped someone; perhaps retaliation should be graded – I would say that a Gilberto-esque flick is one game; a punch ranging between two to three. Unfortunately, it matters nothing what commonsense should dictate, this is football.
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 10:57 am
i cannot remember well but think it was against bolton when eboue got pushed and fell down holding his head. read somewhere that to be red it had t be on the head.
bit confused there. what exactly do the rules say?
By: lase on January 14, 2007
at 11:00 am
I don’t know that Violent Conduct specifies any particular part of the body to be hit. It is generally classed as striking your opponent.
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 11:12 am
It´s also funny if you look at the incident you can see that Gilberto kicks Savage with his right foot in his left but Savage drops down and holds his right leg!! Is that not connig the ref?
By: Sæbjörn on January 14, 2007
at 11:27 am
It is conning a ref but I suspect that the matter will be deemed closed by the FA as the Referee booked Savage and Gilberto was dismissed so therefore the Referee “saw the incident”.
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 11:36 am
If the FA is serious about dealing with cheating, this would be a good opportunity for it to do something… but of course, we all know nothing will be done. Dan Smith’s taking out of Diaby’s ankle last season came to my mind. He got a yellow while Diaby got a 8-month forced vacation. Tell me about justice.
By: gt on January 14, 2007
at 11:51 am
We can bemoan the incident all that we want but at the end of the day, Rob Styles dealt with it under the constraints of the Rules Of The Game as they currently stand.
It is an incident that happens frequently within the modern game and unless it is deemed a problem by the Authorities then nothing is going to change.
That Savage feigned injury is not irrelevant but it does not change the fact that Gilberto did retaliate, did make contact with an opponent and deserved to be sent off.
Perhaps we should take a leaf from Arsene’s book and accept the punishment and move on?
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 12:59 pm
Well that takes us back to that ol’ chestnut – the football authorities.
It is not new that retaliation is treated more seriously than the provocation and that should be changed NOW !!
In this case if you send the retaliator off the original offender, who was actually more violent, must go too. As it was 2 yellows was all that was needed but Styles who is consistenly poor got it wrong.
The real red card should have gone to Tugay for the sort of assult that warrants a 6 match ban.
By: Flint McCullough on January 14, 2007
at 1:12 pm
The problem with sending off the provocateur is that sometimes the reaction is not equivalent to the crime.
Take this scenario: Player A is fouled badly by Player B (but not to the extent that B receives a red card). Player C then fouls Player A (but again it is not meriting a Red Card). However A lashes out at C. In that scenario, A gets a red card and so does C? Is that fair? No because A has probably reacted to the cumulative effect of B + C. Justice is not served because C is unfairly treated.
I do not disagree that Tugay probably merited more than he received. However, we have to accept that Styles saw it so nothing more will happen. He got it wrong but then I am sure that some fans will be able to come up with instances where we have got off lightly in their opinion.
Whilst it does not make the decision correct, I tend to think that these things even themselves out over time. It does appear that Fabregas will be OK for the weekend so the damage may have been limited to yesterday.
The Red Card yesterday is typical of football; for all of Savage’s protestations to the contrary, he intended to provoke Gilberto and with that in mind, knew he would get an opponent sent off. Hardly the Corinthian spirit that we want the game to be played in but then when does that ever count for anything. Even kicking the ball into touch when an opponent is injured looks to be following the path of the ball following the World Cup where FIFA is thinking about issuing a directive that this is no longer necessary because it is being abused by teams under pressure.
A sad state of affairs indeed.
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 1:53 pm
‘Violent conduct’…Gilberto’s flick was nothing more than a natural reflex that anyone in his situation would have done and anyone who ascribes that action with the word ‘violent’ needs to go and look up the word ‘violent’ in a dictionary..surely every incident must dealt with on an individual basis…I don’t think i’ve ever seen a manager respond to the sending off of one of his most defensive players by leaving all his attackers on the pitch away from home at one of the toughest grounds in the country where most teams would require 5 in the middle as opposed to 3 predominantly attacking players… they displayed their wonderful versatility..astonishing
By: Anon 1 on January 14, 2007
at 2:13 pm
Striking your opponent is violent conduct. It matters not whether it is a full blooded right hook / left cross combination, flicking your leg out or a slapping them – under the laws of the game that is what it is. Straight Red, Three Game ban.
Whilst it would be nice to allow the referee the leeway to deal with each incident on an individual basis, we get bent out of shape enough as it is about consistency between officials – that would be tantamount to an open declaration of war!
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 2:39 pm
Under the rule, Savage should have walked as well.
First yellow card for the initial tackle, second yellow card for the attempt to knee his opponent when the opponent is on the ground (it could also be a direct red for violent conduct), third yellow for dissent (pretending to be seriously injured before raising from the dead when told by one of your team mate to get up and stop pretending).
The referee wanted to be seen as following the rule, but in the same time he displayed his prejudice against the fancy-dan foreigners player.
Provocation, dissent, deliberatly kicking the ball away are not part of the game and are punishable by cards.
The same with Lucas Neil who by deliberatly commiting a violent foul when the last defender deserved to be sent off. Regarding Brad Friedel kick onto Van Persie, it also warranted at least a yellow card.
By: Valentin on January 14, 2007
at 2:50 pm
Sorry a bit late on this one. I am with Flint all the way on this. Seems to me though that with the rules as they are, having retaliated Gilberto may as well have made sure that Savage could not play again for the reast of the season…probably the same punishment. After all that is what Tugay intended when he went for Fabregas.
By: Frank on January 14, 2007
at 3:44 pm
Yogi your talking nonsense..there is no consistency with the officials at the moment and I think allowing the referees to assess each case on an individual basis would give the laws a welcome flexibility..if Gilberto’s reflex was violent conduct then every challenge thats ever been made in the history of the game is violent conduct
By: Anon 1 on January 14, 2007
at 4:23 pm
Yogi is not talking nonsense but a change is needed im the authorities’ thinking to understand what is going on.
Styles did play by the rules- but the rules are stupid & unjust.
You send someone off for what Gilberto did then you have to equally punish any other act of violent behaviour equal to or above.
Savage kicked Gilberto from behind, kneed him when he was on the ground & stuck his forearm in his neck- then feined injury.
Neil quite deliberately KICKED,not just tripped, RVP to the ground then insinuated that RVP had dived.
Friedle – I give the benefit of the doubt to him.
Tugay – a yellow for that?
There were numerous other incidents that I now can’t now remember.
This has been going on for years & sometimes we have been guilty too but I would love to know the %age of our reds that have resulted from retaliation.
By: Flint McCullough on January 14, 2007
at 5:42 pm
Anon1 – you have missed the sarcasm in the comment: the reason we are bent out of shape is that there is no consistency between officials. Some cannot even manage consistency with themselves.
Gilberto’s reaction was Violent Conduct. He made a retaliatory strike at an opponent; if you do not believe me, go to TheFA.com or FIFA.com and read their definition of it.
Frank – I don’t disagree in general with what Flint says but the rules are the rules and until IFAB decide otherwise, thats it.
What Tugay did should have received a red but it didn’t and under their own rules, unless Rob Styles says I got it wrong, there is absolutely Jack that the FA can do.
Introducing freedom to interpret rules is going to increase inconsistency; officials need to be given better education in spotting offences and the intent involved. Savage intended to provoke and Styles could not see it. A fourth official with video access would have.
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 5:45 pm
If Styles saw the retaliation he must have seen the provacation. He gave the foul.
We are told that it was the clubs asking
for consistency, which is why the rigid interpretation of the rules has turned referees into automatons unable to take any given situation into account. That is why good refs,who have a good understanding of the game, don’t get to top whilst crap refs like Poll & Mother Riley do. The situation is actually marginally since that arch prat Philip Don was pensioned off.
The authorities over recent years have found so many ways to send a player off,for relatively minor offences. Do they not realise that we pay a lot of money to see a game only for it to be spoiled.
Handbags by Gilberto, sent off & misses 3 games at a crucial time. Tugay vicious assult right under the ref’s nose – a booking.
All this & we have not been giving enough praise to the remaining 10 who gave an excellent performance.
By: Flint McCullough on January 14, 2007
at 6:08 pm
Flint
I believe Styles was behind Savage so he would not have seen the full incident.
You are right – this incident is overshadowing one of the best team performances during AW’s reign.
Would that he had been so bold in Paris?
By: Yogi's Warrior on January 14, 2007
at 6:24 pm
I see that Butt retaliated when a Spurs player went for him in the game today. Result – yellow card for both players. I agree with your points YW but the inconsistency gives the lie to the FA abd referees positons. If Styles had gone over to Gilberto and Savage and said ‘any more of that you guys and you are off’ I don’t suppose the FA or anyone else would have bothered. After all he was willing to give Tugay the benefit of the doubt in a deliberate potentially career ending assault.
By: Frank on January 14, 2007
at 6:46 pm
you missed the sarcasm in my comment…ofcourse I know why Gilberto was sent off..it is the FA’s definition of violent conduct that needs reviewing
By: Anon 1 on January 14, 2007
at 6:54 pm
Talking about consistency and refeeing by the book. Away to Bolton earler in the season there was an incident between Eboue and Kevin Davis. Davis shoved Eboue and that should have been a red but the ref only gave a yellow. So what is a retaliation? When you kick,when you head butt or what? And also this joke about a videopanel. If the ref. acts on a foul(like Tugay yesterday) the panel can do nothing but if not, a player can(often rightly ) get a severe punishment. What if a ref. sees a foul and gives a yellow card but he realy was in a bad position and the foul was much worse then from the refs angle(comes to mind a foul on Vieira in the FA cup some years ago against Carlisle i think). Vieira was very lucky not to break his leg and the foul was nothing but a red card. But there was nothing the videopanel could do because the ref gave a yellow card. I think the FA needs to do something about this inconsistency and start to punish those who are trying to kill the game of football and protect the players that ARE willing to play this beutiful game.
By: Sæbjörn on January 14, 2007
at 6:59 pm
Well said Sæbjörn!
Does anyone think Styles would have sent Gilberto off at the Emerates?
I don’t think that these kind of things do even themselves out like penalties etc. might.
Aggresive teams that overstep the mark inevitable get away with more misdemeaners than they are actually punished for.
By: Flint McCullough on January 14, 2007
at 8:14 pm
do it arsenal!!!
http://mbcpoetry.wordpress.com
By: Marcus Cheney on January 14, 2007
at 9:40 pm
After Gilberto was sent off, I was thinking Arsenal was just cursed from winning a couple of matches in a row but at the end lads showed a true gunner carachter by winning and controlling the match in a most comfortable manner with 10 men.
Bravo ragazzi, italians would say
By: amiripz on January 15, 2007
at 10:12 am
It was a cold and rainy day in the northwest of England, a region where Arsenal has a historically poor record. Wenger, early in the week, approached the questions about that poor record with his characteristic rationality, characteristic of his countryman Montaigne, by pointing out that “certain” clubs in England took the field to play well and others took the field to spoil the opposing team’s effort. He then broke out this season’s facts and figures on fouls, showing Arsenal at the very low end of the spectrum and letting the press draw their own conclusions about Blackburn Rovers, who are right up near the top of the table when it comes to kicking people down.
Only ten minutes into the game, which began as fast-paced and ugly as Rovers would have wanted, and an incident took place that highlighted Wenger’s point in a way he could not have wanted. Gilberto had the ball with his back to the defense right around the middle circle. Robbie Savage, Blackburn’s long-haired, spirited, English defensive midfielder ran up Gilberto’s back roughly. As Gilberto fell forward with the impact, Savage continued to kick, presumable he would say at the ball, at the back of Gilberto’s legs, raking them with his cleats. He then stood over the fallen player as if to send a message. Gilberto, pissed off at this point, kicked out his leg at Savage as he was getting up. It wasn’t a hard kick, but it was an obvious one. Savage fell over as if he’d been felled by an axe and started writhing around on the ground in mortal agony. Nobody likes diving, or the new theater of international soccer fouls. I understand where it came from and how it can be strategic. But this was complete horseshit. A rough and tumble Englishman like Savage playing up Gilberto’s reaction to the tune of the roaring Blackburn faithful, and in addition to the 4,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire, add one big asshole by the name of Robbie. The ref, misinterpreting the situation gave Gilberto a red card and Arsenal were facing a long, cold rainy night in a hostile place with 10 men to their name… read more at http://www.gowesting.com/blog/blog/oh-henry.html
By: Go Westing! on January 15, 2007
at 10:04 pm