Home
North London giants are in a far better place than the media will have you believe
Date: 10th July 2012 at 6:58 pm
Written by James McManus
The tabloid media are known to deal in knee-jerk reactions and wildly over
the top hyperbole like it’s going out of fashion, but this summer’s
activity at both managerial and player level has taken this to new heights. The media-led campaign to paint new Tottenham boss Andre Villas-Boas as underqualified and Arsenal as a club in crisis simply because Robin van Persie has decided he wants to leave are both ridiculously presumptuous.
Let’s first take a look at Tottenham appointing former Chelsea
boss Andre Villas-Boas and the general short-sightedness on show. It’s
true that he was sacked at Stamford Bridge after six months, with the
common held belief that he tried to change too much, too quickly, after
being given a mandate for change by chairman Roman Abramovich. Everyone
with an ounce of sense knows that he was sacked far too quickly by the
club and that he was merely given his marching orders for doing the job
that he was brought in to do.
The moving on of the old guard at the club is still an issue of
paramount importance that needs addressing, perhaps even more so in the
aftermath of their Champions League and FA Cup triumphs.
By employing a yes-man unwilling to rock the boat and keep the status
quo in Roberto Di Matteo, Abramovich has chosen short-term gain over
long-term pain, but the club would have been better off sticking with
someone of Villas-Boas’s ilk in the long-run.
It’s clear that the 34 year-old Portuguese manager can be an
irascible chap at times, he doesn’t particularly like the media all that
much and it comes across in his interviews where he often takes umbrage
at the most benign of questions. However, this has resorted in several
journalists close to sacked former manager Harry Redknapp turning out
column after column of faux-outrage aimed at chairman Daniel Levy,
labelling the move to appoint a manager that has won trophies of more
importance in one season than Redknapp has in his entire career a
massive gamble, whilst simultaneously trying to create tension where
there is none.
John Cross had this to say: “I
think it’s a massive gamble, I really do. Levy has hired a manager who
was in charge of a team that actually finished below Spurs last season.
You have to accept that Levy is hoping and praying that he gets the
manager who left Porto as a treble winner, rather than the guy who
completely cracked under the pressure last season at Stamford Bridge.”
There were legitimate footballing
reasons to get rid of Redknapp, I’ve yet to meet a Spurs fan saddened
by his departure, but the support base is apparently up in arms about it
– the perfect tabloid cover-up, invent and purport to speak on behalf
of a group of people that don’t really exist for a campaign that you
yourself have created – it’s quite frankly bizarre, cult-like behaviour.
Another baffling reason used by several so far is that Villas-Boas
won’t be welcomed by Spurs fans due to his past affiliation with
Chelsea, therefore completely ignoring the fact that Gus Poyet, Jimmy
Greaves, Glenn Hoddle, Eidur Gudjohnsen, Carlo Cudicini, Scott Parker and William Gallas
have moved seamlessly between the two sides without any hint of
animosity. It’s attempting to create a hostile, tense atmosphere where
there is none.
Arsenal are the latest club to be painted as in crisis after Robin van Persie
indicated that he wasn’t going to extend his contract to stay at the
club, with it running out at the end of next season. It appears to be
the latest trend with tabloids of late, painting a big club as in crisis
as everyone is on the look-out for the next Leeds. Last season during
various junctures it was Tottenham and Arsenal at the beginning of the
season, Chelsea around Christmas, Liverpool after February and Manchester City briefly in late March, before they found their form again and went on to win the title.
This had led to various talking heads and former Arsenal players such as Nigel Winterburn and Sol Campbell
claiming the club need to spend upwards of £100m to keep Van Persie.
That’s right, just get rid of a sound financial policy that has seen
them become one of the most economically stable clubs in world football,
all on a gamble that one player may decide to stay for a bit longer as
he enters his thirties. The sheer lack of perspective is astounding, and
it’s little more than scaremongering at its very worst.
Arsenal will suffer from the sale of Van Persie, he’s a world-class
player. Accusations that the side are a selling club are nothing new,
they have been for the majority of Wenger’s time at the helm, just think
back to Nicolas Anelka
being flogged to Real Madrid in 1999. However, some context needs to be
applied here for it has been sorely lacking in the debate over the
club’s future for the most part.
The club in crisis talk is all done on the basis that Arsenal decide to
sell Van Persie this summer, which by this point is not a given and he
may be made to stay and see out his final year.
Last term the Dutch striker
made 38 league appearances in an injury-free season, but this was the
first time in his entire career that he’s avoided the treatment table in
such consistent fashion, and it was the first time he’d ever broken
through the 30+ league game ceiling, failing to in his previous 10
seasons as a professional footballer – so with regards to his fitness, last term is the exception rather than the rule at present.
Wenger has at least planned ahead to an extent this summer with the
moves for both Giroud and Podolski, so we’re unlikely to see the
trolley-dash on August 31st like we did last summer where he was caught
short for seemingly believing that one of, if not both, Nasri and
Fabregas would stay. Giroud and Podolski won’t win you the title, they
may not be able to even replicate the 30 or so goals Van Persie may get
you if he stays fit, and there’s a significant amount of pressure on
them both now in their first full season’s in England, but there’s at
least some strength in depth to the squad that wasn’t there last year.
Tottenham have done a good deal to bring in one of Europe’s youngest
and brightest managers in Villas-Boas, while Arsenal are far from the
club in crisis they are being portrayed as simply because Van Persie may
be about to leave – they’ve survived similar before and they’ll adapt
as they always do. There is no real tension, only hope of a new era at
White Hart Lane, while at the Emirates, life will go on without their
star striker – if you solely digested your information from the
newspapers, from the various convulted and biased diatribes on offer,
you’d think both clubs were in danger of falling into the sea, sadly for
fans of outrageous copy, both look in pretty decent shape.
Let me know your thoughts on Twitter @JamesMcManus1
Date: 10th July 2012 at 6:58 pm
Written by James McManus
The tabloid media are known to deal in knee-jerk reactions and wildly over
the top hyperbole like it’s going out of fashion, but this summer’s
activity at both managerial and player level has taken this to new heights. The media-led campaign to paint new Tottenham boss Andre Villas-Boas as underqualified and Arsenal as a club in crisis simply because Robin van Persie has decided he wants to leave are both ridiculously presumptuous.
Let’s first take a look at Tottenham appointing former Chelsea
boss Andre Villas-Boas and the general short-sightedness on show. It’s
true that he was sacked at Stamford Bridge after six months, with the
common held belief that he tried to change too much, too quickly, after
being given a mandate for change by chairman Roman Abramovich. Everyone
with an ounce of sense knows that he was sacked far too quickly by the
club and that he was merely given his marching orders for doing the job
that he was brought in to do.
The moving on of the old guard at the club is still an issue of
paramount importance that needs addressing, perhaps even more so in the
aftermath of their Champions League and FA Cup triumphs.
By employing a yes-man unwilling to rock the boat and keep the status
quo in Roberto Di Matteo, Abramovich has chosen short-term gain over
long-term pain, but the club would have been better off sticking with
someone of Villas-Boas’s ilk in the long-run.
It’s clear that the 34 year-old Portuguese manager can be an
irascible chap at times, he doesn’t particularly like the media all that
much and it comes across in his interviews where he often takes umbrage
at the most benign of questions. However, this has resorted in several
journalists close to sacked former manager Harry Redknapp turning out
column after column of faux-outrage aimed at chairman Daniel Levy,
labelling the move to appoint a manager that has won trophies of more
importance in one season than Redknapp has in his entire career a
massive gamble, whilst simultaneously trying to create tension where
there is none.
John Cross had this to say: “I
think it’s a massive gamble, I really do. Levy has hired a manager who
was in charge of a team that actually finished below Spurs last season.
You have to accept that Levy is hoping and praying that he gets the
manager who left Porto as a treble winner, rather than the guy who
completely cracked under the pressure last season at Stamford Bridge.”
There were legitimate footballing
reasons to get rid of Redknapp, I’ve yet to meet a Spurs fan saddened
by his departure, but the support base is apparently up in arms about it
– the perfect tabloid cover-up, invent and purport to speak on behalf
of a group of people that don’t really exist for a campaign that you
yourself have created – it’s quite frankly bizarre, cult-like behaviour.
Another baffling reason used by several so far is that Villas-Boas
won’t be welcomed by Spurs fans due to his past affiliation with
Chelsea, therefore completely ignoring the fact that Gus Poyet, Jimmy
Greaves, Glenn Hoddle, Eidur Gudjohnsen, Carlo Cudicini, Scott Parker and William Gallas
have moved seamlessly between the two sides without any hint of
animosity. It’s attempting to create a hostile, tense atmosphere where
there is none.
Arsenal are the latest club to be painted as in crisis after Robin van Persie
indicated that he wasn’t going to extend his contract to stay at the
club, with it running out at the end of next season. It appears to be
the latest trend with tabloids of late, painting a big club as in crisis
as everyone is on the look-out for the next Leeds. Last season during
various junctures it was Tottenham and Arsenal at the beginning of the
season, Chelsea around Christmas, Liverpool after February and Manchester City briefly in late March, before they found their form again and went on to win the title.
This had led to various talking heads and former Arsenal players such as Nigel Winterburn and Sol Campbell
claiming the club need to spend upwards of £100m to keep Van Persie.
That’s right, just get rid of a sound financial policy that has seen
them become one of the most economically stable clubs in world football,
all on a gamble that one player may decide to stay for a bit longer as
he enters his thirties. The sheer lack of perspective is astounding, and
it’s little more than scaremongering at its very worst.
Arsenal will suffer from the sale of Van Persie, he’s a world-class
player. Accusations that the side are a selling club are nothing new,
they have been for the majority of Wenger’s time at the helm, just think
back to Nicolas Anelka
being flogged to Real Madrid in 1999. However, some context needs to be
applied here for it has been sorely lacking in the debate over the
club’s future for the most part.
The club in crisis talk is all done on the basis that Arsenal decide to
sell Van Persie this summer, which by this point is not a given and he
may be made to stay and see out his final year.
Last term the Dutch striker
made 38 league appearances in an injury-free season, but this was the
first time in his entire career that he’s avoided the treatment table in
such consistent fashion, and it was the first time he’d ever broken
through the 30+ league game ceiling, failing to in his previous 10
seasons as a professional footballer – so with regards to his fitness, last term is the exception rather than the rule at present.
Wenger has at least planned ahead to an extent this summer with the
moves for both Giroud and Podolski, so we’re unlikely to see the
trolley-dash on August 31st like we did last summer where he was caught
short for seemingly believing that one of, if not both, Nasri and
Fabregas would stay. Giroud and Podolski won’t win you the title, they
may not be able to even replicate the 30 or so goals Van Persie may get
you if he stays fit, and there’s a significant amount of pressure on
them both now in their first full season’s in England, but there’s at
least some strength in depth to the squad that wasn’t there last year.
Tottenham have done a good deal to bring in one of Europe’s youngest
and brightest managers in Villas-Boas, while Arsenal are far from the
club in crisis they are being portrayed as simply because Van Persie may
be about to leave – they’ve survived similar before and they’ll adapt
as they always do. There is no real tension, only hope of a new era at
White Hart Lane, while at the Emirates, life will go on without their
star striker – if you solely digested your information from the
newspapers, from the various convulted and biased diatribes on offer,
you’d think both clubs were in danger of falling into the sea, sadly for
fans of outrageous copy, both look in pretty decent shape.
Let me know your thoughts on Twitter @JamesMcManus1
» Sky Sports News Links
» Hello....the site is still alive!
» 17 million deal for Musacchio
» How to Block Adverts on this Site !
» This is Our Season
» 'appy New Season
» Time to say goodbye
» Crouchinio