Lawton: Adebayor's moment of madness
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Getty
Emmanuel Adebayor, whose controversial performance in the Arsenal game has raised the ire of Gunners fans
enlarge
Manchester City 4 Arsenal 2: The brittle smile of Mark Hughes after this potentially foundation-stone victory over a member of the English football elite he has been funded to supplant was as easy to understand as the disconsolate features of the beaten Arsène Wenger.
Emmanuel Adebayor, after all, had placed before Hughes the dilemma of every football man who ever put his career in the hands of a player of extraordinary talent but perhaps ungovernable character.
Adebayor was immense in this game, huge and luminous in his natural ability. Unfortunately, this only made his lapse into dangerous and shocking professional irresponsibility all the more dramatic and, for Hughes, disconcerting on a day when he might otherwise have been celebrating a significant and untrammelled step forward in a project that has invited so much scepticism.
The big man from Togo showed us the beauty that lies in his natural gifts and why Hughes parted so enthusiastically with £25m – and then the beast.
He was so caught up in the obsessions created by his view of the world that the consensus belief around football that he will almost certainly receive no less than a four-game ban for his behaviour was a report veering to the side of leniency.
It was hard to know which was least measured in its irrationality, his pitch-long dash to bait the Arsenal fans who had jeered him from his first kick of the ball – or the stamp aimed at Robin van Persie's head which left ugly marks around the Arsenal player's eye.
Hughes' concern about his ability to control his virtuoso player can only be partially reduced by the fact that Adebayor had to run such a gauntlet of disdain from his former club's supporters and that Van Persie, for all the wounded innocence of the statement he issued against his old team-mate on Saturday night, mighty easily have been given a red card for the brutal, two-footed tackle which provoked the flashpoint.
A degree of control will always be one of the key requirements of an outstanding professional and whatever the short-term consequences, Hughes will know well enough now that his most dynamic asset has, to a level not seen before, revealed a skin no thicker than the most faded parchment.
After Adebayor's nationwide television apology, Hughes made his own contribution to the damage control, saying: "He has shown emotion and you should never take emotion out of this sport. But there are obviously various things that will have a negative impact and he has come out very quickly and apologised. He knows he should not have done it.
"When I said we need to cut him some slack it was because of the breakdown in his relationship with the Arsenal fans. That was the sad part for him. He really loved his time at Arsenal, he will tell you that himself, but for whatever reason he wasn't appreciated by his own fans at the end and that is hard to take for a professional footballer.
"Obviously you want to be loved by your own fans because you get enough abuse from the opposition's."
Here, Hughes, for all the tightness of his corner, could not escape the charge of being disingenuous. There is no mystery in the disaffection of the Arsenal fans. Adebayor was liked well enough in his first brilliant season in the wake of Thierry Henry but then, hardly before that affection could be properly cemented, he was flirting most publicly with Milan. It is not the way you underpin your hero's status in modern football.
For Wenger, who at one point must have seen in Adebayor an ability to outstrip the potential of another of his discoveries, Nicolas Anelka, before he defected to Real Madrid at vast profit but leaving an unshakeable sense of betrayed hope, it all seemed to form a great wave of angst.
He was asked if, at the very least of it, Adebayor had shown disrespect. "You can take it as that," said the Arsenal manager. "I don't want to focus on it but it was not enjoyable to see. I was concerned that there could be some reaction from the fans. At Arsenal we tried to treat him well. He came from Metz where he didn't play [and moved on to Monaco] and now he is the player he is. I do not feel we have treated him badly. I have to see the Van Persie incident again, but if he has done it, it is very dangerous."
Even given the frequency in recent years of Arsenal's failure to exploit often exquisite football properly, it was hard to remember Wenger in such a forlorn mood after defeat. Perhaps it was when he lost the 2006 Champions League final to Barcelona. Certainly when he lost to United two weeks ago, after long phases of the control Arsenal also displayed against City, he was relatively sanguine.
Most worrying, no doubt, was the ease with which City were able to counter-attack. Their first goal was largely another embarrassment for Manuel Almunia, and came in their first significant occupation of the Arsenal half, but the other three were all the result of the flimsiness of Arsenal's resistance when their attack was turned.
Tomas Rosicky brought a sharp increase in coherence and drive when he came on as a substitute, but Wenger continues to be concerned by his fragility after a long injury. He must also hope it was the effects of a much shorter lay-off that made Cesc Fabregas so inconsequential, rather than any dwindling of his determination to resist the overtures of Barcelona.
Wenger said: "It is worrying. We have played four games, three away and, unfortunately, we have lost two of those games. I thought we were controlling this game. It is hard to take."
Hughes has, of course, won all of his games. Apart from Adebayor's stunning football – not least one run which Shaun Wright-Phillips should have knocked in and then always remembered it as the gift of the most magnificent assist received in his entire career – he had excellent performances from Craig Bellamy, Gareth Barry and Nigel de Jong.
Yet the smile of victory never reached Hughes' eyes. It said that whatever lies ahead it is not too many sleep-laden nights. Having Adebayor around is not exactly a guarantee of such delights.
Manchester City (4-3-3) Given; Richards, Touré, Lescott, Bridge; Ireland (Petrov, 73), De Jong, Barry; Wright-Phillips, Adebayor, Bellamy. Subsitutes not used: Taylor (gk), Onuoha, Zabaleta, Sylvinho, Vidal, Weiss.
Arsenal (4-3-3): Almunia; Sagna (Eboué, 77), Gallas, Vermaelen, Clichy; Fabregas, Song (Eduardo, 77), Denilson (Rosicky, 52); Bendtner, Van Persie, Diaby. Substitutes not used: Mannone (gk), Ramsey, Silvestre, Gibbs.
Referee M Clattenburg (Tyne and Wear).
Booked: Manchester City Lescott, Adebayor, De Jong; Arsenal Sagna,Song.
Man of the match: Adebayor.
Attendance: 47,339.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
to be fair, Arsenal were happy to tout him around Europe to anyone who had big money, they needed the money and Arsene Wenger guessed he was an over rated liaibility. I hope he does cut it out of his game as without it he is awesome.
In terms of 'originaleskimo's' comment; of course the incident should be looked at in context. I'm under the impression that a free kick was given, however, and if the referee spotted the incident and took what he deemed to be appropriate action (as he evidently did), then that particular aspect of 'context' is a fait accompli.
Your assertions about Van Persie's celebration smack slightly of overstating a point, with poetic interpretations to boot.
As for the stamp, it was obvious and will, and should result in a ban. However, if Van Persie hadn't lunged in from behind with two feet off the ground, he wouldn't have been under Adebayor's feet and vulnerable to retaliation. If either of Adebayor's feet had been planted, Van Persie may well have broken his leg. That tackle was a sending off offence in itself and for Van Persie to issue his Gettysburg address on Arsenal's website claiming to be the blameless beggars belief. Van Persie should face retrospective action for both his goal 'celebration' and his tackle (for the want of a better description) on Adebayor. He should, but I doubt he will. Double standards.
As for the stamp, I am glad you too agree that it deserves a ban. I should clarify I am not an Arsenal fan, neither a Man City fan. Your comment that due to his tackle Van Persie was 'under Adebayor's feet and vulnerable to retaliation' implies that this somewhat lessens the seriousness of the stamp, or makes it understandable. If so, your assertion is ridiculous. On Van Persie's tackle, I point out again that it was a foul and punished as such. If I am not wrong (I can't remember the exact wording), Van Persie includes in his statement a comment on his own imperfection. However, as regards the tackle and the stamp, the former has absolutely no relevance to the latter.
I appreciate your desire to see, in a sense, equal punishment doled out to both Van Persie and Adebayor. However, whilst this is an ethic of equality, the offences are a) completely separate, and b) entirely different. As such they deserve appropriate responses, which in this case would quite rightly include severe implications for Adebayor, but not for Van Persie. If you think that's double standards, perhaps you should spend some time investigating Van Persie's relationships with referees over the years!
I don't try to lessen the seriousness of the stamp. My point was that the situation developed from a reckless and dangerous two footed lunge by Van Persie on Adebayor that could on a different day have put Adebayor out the game for a long time. Adebayor saw the chance to exact immediate revenge, and took it. I disagree that the tackle has no relevance to the stamp; it was the match that lit the fuse. Van Persie's foul was not punished as play continued and was then stopped to treat Van Persie. No free kick was given to City and Van Persie was not carded. He therefore can and should now be dealt with by the FA as well.
For example, you say 'let's not argue over how many yards each player covered'. Of course this sounds reasonable, but you and I both know it obscures the real issue: to what extent the individual went out of their way to act irresponsibly, to antagonise, to rile. In every sphere of life it is not only what is said, but who has said it which makes a difference. Such a diagnosis is deliberately superficial. To a lesser extent, you have done the same thing with the stamp, by pointing out the poor tackle. They are both 'physical' indiscretions, arguably with some intent thrown in. But again, they are also different. One was a legitimate part of the game of football, the other wasn't. The fact that the referee gives or does not give a free kick is irrelevant (he may, for example, be playing advantage): in no circumstance is stamping on a player's face a recognised part of the sport, whereas a misplaced or even terrible tackle is. Even so, there is no way of telling whether the tackle was malicious (as opposed to incompetent), and so again whether the two acts are comparable on a psychological level.
On the whole I suspect we more or less agree on the principles: my contention is that it is not simply the 'area of offence' (physical/antagonism/what have you) which makes a difference. It is the extent and context as well. That's why we have tougher sentences for homicide than for manslaughter, why a stamp is worse than a bad tackle, and why running the length of the pitch is worse than running a few yards.
What I find disappointing is the self-righteous indignation of Van Persie and Arsenal when he was also culpable on the day. Kolo Toure has since spoken of his disgust at Adebayors treatment from Arsenal players and it looks to me that there was a concerted effort to get at him from the start. He certainly had to take some heavy challenges and Van Persie's was more of the same. Little wonder that by the second half, Adebayor was pumped up. I have seen posts inciting Arsenal 'fans' to get on to the pitch at the Emirates next April. I look forward to the match in April, to Adebayor adding to his goal tally and to Arsenal's home support showing a good deal more restraint and decoum than the away fans managed at City.
I have been to some pretty tasty Manchester derbies at Maine Road and Eastlands over the years but I have not seen anything from United's support to compare to the disgusting performance of Arsenal's last weekend and all because a player has left and signed for another club, taking a verbal swipe at the support for the abuse he received last season. In over 30 years of suuporting City, I can only remember Leeds, Birmingham City and Millwall supporters getting anywhere close to behaviour comparable to Arsenal's support last weekend. Not good company to be keeping in my opinion.
In the meantime, I very much understand your position on Van Persie's holier-than-thou attitude, although again I find the idea that an assertion can only be made if the person asserting has never been guilty of a similar offence, rather strange. Van Persie's terrible past disciplinary record does not suggest that he is a 'clean' player (although there is a difference between a player who plays with integrity - 'class' - and one who is simply a cheat), but it does not make his comments about Adebayor untrue. These should and do stand on their own merit. Your dislike of the accuser may make the accusation feel unpalatable, but as an impartial individual in this drama, I see that as neither here nor there.
In the meantime, I do agree with your comments condemning attitudes towards Adebayor, and whether these came from team-mates or predominantly from fans, this is to be highlighted and rejected. Toure may have commented on just such treatment (I have not seen or heard this), but notably he was able to keep his composure, play his game and retain his own dignity and integrity, as someone in the same position. Hundreds of players have made the transition to different teams, many of them arch-rivals, and have endured on- and off-pitch abuse which is extremely disappointing. However, almost none react in the way Adebayor has. I don't remember Sol Campbell doing it (Tottenham to Arsenal), Figo (Barcelona to Real Madrid) or Mo Johnston (Celtic to Rangers via Nantes). I shall await with baited breath to see if Tevez or Barry or Lescott, enduring remarkably acrimonious departures and/or relationships with their former employers, show anything like the actions or reactions of Ade.
Your defence of him risks highlighting the selective reasoning of a team and club which, with its new money, will have to turn to a Mourinhesque self-denial to convince itself of its innocence, or that of its players. Please don't become the new Chelsea.
As for Wenger, do you remember this from October 2002;
"Arsene Wenger has insisted Dennis Bergkamp "is not a dirty player" after the FA announced they would investigate his stamp on Blackburn's Nils-Eric Johansson on Saturday.
Instead, Wenger claimed Bergkamp's actions were due to a "nervous reaction" and said his striker would never deliberately go out to hurt an opponent.
"I haven't seen it," Wenger said. "This is the first time I have faced questions about it today. I have not had a special look at the incident."
Bergkamp tangled with Johansson in the second half of Saturday's 2-1 defeat at Highbury when he lost possession and appeared to stamp on his opponent's hip as he tumbled in front of him.
This from a manager who this week castigated Mark Hughes and Adebayor. I seem to remember another Bergkamp stamp involving Jamie Carragher. The holier than thou nonsense from Arsenal, including that statement on their website seen in this light is pathetic.
Kolo Toure did conduct himself differently on Saturday, but then he wasn't subject to vile and racist abuse all afternoon was he?
But again, you fail to hear my point. I am not disagreeing about the behaviour of other players (including Vane Persie in the past) at all! I am not saying that Arsenal smell of roses and that it is not a human reaction to stamp on somebody's face (although I wouldn't have thought you'd do it!). I am, however, saying that these things are not relevant to whether or not Adebayor's actions - both in violent conduct and improper conduct - were acceptable or not. Understandable? Yes. Acceptable? No.
Your allegations of racist abuse - as if Micah Richards has never suffered at the hands of home fans (I remember that well enough!) - or if Adebayor was singled out (again, nothing else has been mentioned of this other than your sudden mention of it) are again outrageous, but don't take away from the severity of the instances. If Manchester City want to take that seriously, they should be ejecting supporters: as they did at Blackburn a couple of seasons back!
As for Micah Richards, if 'home' fans means City fans, I'd like you to back that up. I have never heard or seen in print any suggestion that Richards has suffered racial abuse at the hands of City fans, or indeed any other English supporters. The only racial abuse I am Aware of has come from Spanish, German and Russian 'fans' whilst he was on England duty. Indeed, Richards is one of the more popular players on City's books and has not to my knowledge suffered any crowd abuse at all. If you mean Richard Edghill, he was unpopular with the crowd (for not being very good) but none of the abuse was racial. There were no chants aimed at his colour, no monkey noses, no bananas etc etc. If Edghill tried to put a racial slant on it, and I don't remember him doing so, then that's for him to explain. Whether to heckle or jeer a player is right or wrong is a matter of opinion but if a player has to be immune from criticism because of the colour of his skin, that is not acceptable.
If you have any evidence or news clips of racial abuse suffered by Richards at the hands of City fans then let me know. I would be as disgusted as the next man.
The other points you raise are absolutely right to raise, although there may be disagreement. Whether someone should be immune from abuse (it is not 'criticism' from the terraces) because of the colour of their skin is one question, but then whether one should receive abuse for any reason is a more pertinent question. An employee who was heckled by his manager, colleagues or customers as a result of doing something in his job wrong, would quite rightly have recourse and a legitimate expectation to be treated respectfully. This, however, is another can of worms and probably not one we want to get into here, or now!
Good luck this season.
All the best to you.
Adebayor will be banned for the stamp but the wider picture should be looked at and Van Persie dealt with as well.
This being the case, they cannot 'upgrade' the incident to a red and cannot ban him for any matches on the basis of that incident alone?
I seem to remember Chris Morgan fracturing a players skull and escaping further punishment for exactly the same reason.
I know that this is an inflammatory incident, and I don't condone any of the unsavoury moments in the game at Eastlands, but I do feel that the journalists are missing out on the bigger picture which is the behaviour of the FA and the reasoning behind what they do and when they choose to do it. Why can't we retrospectively deal with this? And if we can, then why couldn't we do it before? Are only major incidents being dealt with? Are the FA or UEFA going to investigate any other dives committed this weekend? If not, why not? Did any club have 3 or more players surround the referee this weekend, is anyone even monitoring this anymore? Can referees explain their actions? 13 minutes of extra time were given to Chelsea at the weekend, would the referee care to show us his long-division?
I'm a football fan, first and foremost. It doesn't matter what team I support, it really doesn't, but I'm sick and tired of the sport I know and love being ruined by the authorities and nobody, NOBODY looking into it. Who regulates the regulators?
RvP's behaviour was just as confrontational, yet there was no violence.
The Arsenal fans spent all the game directing vile chants at Adebayor and responded to his scoring a goal
by knocking a steward unconscious.
London clubs are dragging English football back thirty years.
Arsenal had to miss out on chances for European glory in the early 1990s thanks to "the worst supporters in the world" and the ban on English clubs playing in Europe.
Adebayor is completely at fault here, but it's not a surprise to Arsenal fans. He is a man with no class, no loyalty to a team that gave him a big chance, and he may well end up being the dressing-room nightmare that derails Man City's season.
Compare and contrast with Kolo Toure - a consummate professional, who would not dream of doing what the crass Adebayor did. I wish Toure all the best at Manchester City. I wish Adebayor a swift exit from the English league, perhaps to his beloved Milan.
Like the spineless thug cowards they are, they can dish it out but they can't take it.
Not one of your comparison examples holds water though - Fowler never played for United, Mourinho had never managed United.
It was a clear case of inciting the crowd to misbehave, and he is as guilty as they are. He deserves a harsh punishment for his reckless, childish immaturity.
Arsenal's fan behaviour record is excellent. I travel all throughout europe with them without problem.
I was saddened by the few idiotic reactions, but immei=diately thought, lucky it wasn't Tottenham, MAn U, or Chelsea for example
RIP Eugene..
Adebayor was not blameless in this matter, but his retaliation against what was a potentially leg breaking, two footed tackle from Van Persie was understandable.
Couldn't find where else to put this - but just wanted to give you the chance to correct your previous rantings about Eduardo being the worse case of a diver since the last cheating foreigner from arsenal.....
Of course, we all know that yesterday's news is tomorrow's fish 'n chip papers, so I probably shouldn't have bothered.
Thanks all the same.
Tootlepip!
Paul
(Myopic arse fan)
have you not seen manwho vs everton???? allow me toclear thing up. red card for kick on van persie, yes. as for the reaction to the fans. arsenal fans should have been arrested. whatch the replay. they acted like the idiots who trampled fans a few decades ago. arrest an entire bus load. because my friend; show me in the rule book where a player cannot run a certain distance or stop in a certain area of the pitch to slide and open his arms to opp. fans. get your head out of your racist orifice and you will see more clearly