One of the most appalling things about the Ryan Shawcross tackle on Aaron Ramsey that broke the latter's leg has been the biased and slanted way in which the media has covered the whole affair. I felt this should be highlighted in bold before this weekend's encounter.
The facts of the matter are that Shawcross was late and dangerous with his tackle, this recklessness and out of control force resulted directly in a horrendous and potentially career ending injury. Shawcross has not apologised for the tackle and has not even acknowledged that it was a bad tackle:
"Whenever I play for Stoke I am 100% committed and that will be the same as ever when I next play. Hopefully, when I am back from suspension, I can do well again. The fans and a lot of people around me have been fantastic in their support over the past few days."
"There was absolutely no malice in the challenge. I would never, ever go out to hurt a fellow professional."
Firstly the media reacted as if Arsene Wenger was out of line to criticise a reckless tackle that left one of his best young players needing emergency surgery in hospital, utterly ridiculous. There was minimal focus on the violence of the challenge and Shawcross escaped with only a three game ban thanks to the FA's useless disciplinary system.
Since the incident Shawcross has regularly and repeatedly been portrayed as the innocent and unfortunate victim. 'Shawcross is just a victim...', 'He's a committed player, but he's never going to go into a challenge looking to hurt someone', 'He's a lovely kid and he's been exemplary since he's been at this football club. It was breaking his heart coming off the pitch' and on and on.
Frankly I don't care whether Ryan Shawcross is Mother Theresa in his spare time, he is most definitely not the victim in this story, he is the perpetrator, the aggressor, the man who flew out of control into a tackle in which he knew he had little chance of getting anyway near the ball. Since the incident he has clearly not reflected on events and realised the error of his ways, he has simply said he will carry on being overly aggressive and violent. This chap does not deserve our sympathy or empathy.
The painting of Shawcross as a victim, much in the same way that Martin Taylor was painted as an innocent victim after he had crumpled Eduardo's ankle, shows just how biased and far from objective many so called 'journalists' are in our media. The most recent example of this is the coverage of 'Shawcross getting over the incident', what utter tripe, get over what? Recklessly breaking another player's leg and potentially ending their career while you escape with a three match ban and your legs fully healthy?
Shawcross has had nothing to get over, the media focus here is all wrong. At least some in the media have said things how they are, I would urge you all to read this excellent Guardian piece which does precisely this, sadly it is a minority of the coverage that hits the nail on the head in this manner.
Oh you make me laugh!
Bentdner pulls him back which makes him off balance trying to get the ball, aaron breaks his leg. get over it you muppet!
Arsenal fans are never happier than when trying to play the victims, grow up
It's easy to play the victims when a bunch of terrorists are trying to kill you.
In other words, Anonymous at 18:39, you are a goddamned idiot. Not just for being wrong, but for laughing at a "football player" who already had a history of thuggish behavior on the pitch purposely breaking a man's leg.
Apart from anything else - being English - he's just not that type of player...
...until he goes into a tackle, of course, as many of his fellow professionals will testify.
Amusingly, it the English reverence of talentless, macho-style thugs like Shawcross, which has resulted in our country nurturing a style of coaching and football and winning nothing but mockery over the past 50 years on the international stage.
you sir are a challenged individual
your lame comments which spin bendtner as being to blame and putting ramsey as the subject 'breaking his leg' show just how deluded you are
the point that you have igorantly missed is that shawcross has been painted as a victim for making a bad tackle and this is nonsense
come up with a comment that isnt utter drivel or take your codswallop elsewhere
It's interesting that you claim Shawcross has not apologised. He tried on several occasions to contact Ramsey and was ignored at every attempt - a little fact to your ranting would be advisable. Mattface
Actually he has not apologised.
He may have tried to contact ramsey but it is pure baseless speculation to claim that he would have apologised for making a dangerous tackle.
It is clear from all shawcross' comments since that he has never acknowledged that he did anything wrong. This is clear.
If he wanted he could have easily done this in the media. He has not and his failure to do so speaks volumes.
@ anon 2010 19:54
who gives a @uck if that bastard shawc@unt or whatever its name is tried to say sorry? so what? i could go out a mow down a bus stop full of people because of my reckless driving. do you think saying sorry will make anyone forgive me? of course not. that bastard was reckless and he has a history leg breaks behind him. WORDS ARE CHEAP, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER. SHAWC@NT IS SCUM AND SO IS ANYONE WHO TRIES TO DEFEND HIM.
Balanced and reasoned argument mr Anon 21:18. Given that Mr Wenger stated after a particularly nasty Cesc challenge against Wolves that it was all okay because he had apologised. Keep up. PS in cyberspace no one can hear you wailing. Mattface
"The English reverence of talentless, macho-style thugs... "
In 1966, England won the World Cup. I don't recall seeing (on the film decades after the fact) Bobby Moore or Jack Charlton defending that way.
In 1990, England came the closest it's come since 1966, taking the Semifinal to penalty kicks before falling. I don't recall Stuart Pearce or Terry Butcher (whatever we think of them now) being dirty. Certainly, the man whose absence from that England team might have made a huge difference, Tony Adams (if only he'd called a cab), wasn't a dirty defender. Mean, maybe, but not dirty.
Today, it's a different story. So far, it doesn't have a happy ending.
IT'S STOKE WHO CONSTANTLY PLAY THE VICTIM.
It's STOKE and Pulis who constantly go on about Arsenal to the press - they're so thin skinned that they whinge to the FA about nasty things Wenger said about them (AW said exactly ONE comment about Stoke and that gets translated into AW "always" moaning about Stoke).
Pulis ROUTINELY insults Wenger personally to the press yet Wenger NEVER says anything about Pulis. Stoke have a massive chip on their shoulders and love playing the victim of bad press.
Stoke are the most oversensitive crybabies in the PL - posing as macho men while constantly playing the victim of the big bad press and big bad Arsenal.
Mattface seems completely ignorant of this fact, it is Stoke that keep trying to play the hard done by victims when there is sod all to support this view apart from Pulis' whining.
At least Cesc had the balls to apologise and own up to a bad tackle, same went for Wilshere recently.
Shawcross has not even admitted it was a bad tackle, let alone apologised, you are defending the completely indefensible.
Sad stuff really.
That in no way was a sliding tackle, Shawcross' foot and leg were 2 feet of the effin ground before he even reached Ramseys leg, and THIS WAS AFTER THE BALL HAD GONE FROM SHAWCROSS LINE OF VISION! I see tackles in the Premier league all the time and all of them are made when the tacklers leg and feet are positioned ON THE GROUND not TWO FEET ABOVE. Not even the balls height measures up to how high Shawcross' foot was. I can believe how the media have twisted the truth
just watched the tackle, it wasnt even with studs i dont know what arsenal are complaining about, it was shin to shin. Ramsey must of got his studs caught and not drank enough milk as a kid cause his bone must be soft.
Shawcross and ramsey both had a chance of gettin hurt just shawcross didnt, leave the boy alone!
I can also see a cler tug by bendtner leading upto it
If you can't see what was wrong with the tackle then you are more backwards than your words make out.
Sad, a bit like a boy breast feeding at the of ten, a bad up bringing combined with some dodgy genetics.
Post a Comment