We need to talk about Carrick

When the England squad for the Holland match was announced there was much talk about the absence of Frank Lampard, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Rio Ferdinand, plus general confusion at the inclusion of Frasier Campbell over Jermain Defoe, Peter Crouch and Bobby Zamora.

I've heard of Frasier Crane but who is this Campbell guy?

There was even a lot of talk about Paul Scholes being brought back into the mixer for Euros, especially when England manager elect Harry Redknapp suggested it. And this wasn’t just Harry twitching away acquiescing to the common opinion that ‘Scholsey is a twiffik player’, this was a far more direct “You'd love to have Paul Scholes in the Euros... He'd be in your team, he's that good.”

Please someone offer me the England job

It is fair to say Scholes is probably the most talented English midfielder of his generation, and still a master at controlling the tempo of a game with his immaculate close control and one and two-touch passing. However, he hasn’t been the mainstay of Manchester United’s midfield for a long time. That position goes to the widely unheralded Michael Carrick – Carrick has played more games than Scholes in each of the 6 seasons since he joined Manchester United in 2006, averaging over 45 games per season. But amongst all this talk surrounding the England squad, nobody seemed to bat an eyelid at the fact that Carrick once again missed the cut.

If you're good enough you're young enough

Many of you reading this will be thinking "that’s because Carrick isn’t good enough for England". But if this is the case why, with a far wider pool of players to potentially choose from, does Sir Alex Ferguson insist of making him the mainstay of his Manchester United team? Carrick has made over 40 appearances in every season since he signed, winning four Premier League medals and playing in 3 Champions League finals during those 5 seasons. He’s got to be doing something right surely?

The question often asked of Carrick, and even sometimes by Manchester United fans is, “what exactly does he do?” Yes he’s a midfielder, but he’s not a tackler, nor a creator or a goal scorer – all roles that are easy to identify.

Ha ha another trophy and I haven't had to do anything apparently!

The most popular criticism of Carrick is his lack of impact and goals. This is quite unfair given his role in the team and Manchester United style of play. The fact that Carrick doesn’t score many goals or provide many assists is not really important since put simply, it is not his job to do so.

Carrick’s role as a holding midfielder is to break up play when the opposition is in possession and to distribute the ball to more attack minded players. It requires patience, discipline and positional awareness, qualities which are generally underappreciated in the hustle and bustle of Premier League football. 


Additionally he is often accused of making too many sideways passes. This criticism totally ignores the fact the United don’t possess a central advanced playmaker and generally attack focus their attacks through the wings, thus Carrick’s job is often to distribute the ball laterally. And from the deep position he operates in ambitious passes are high risk and can look good without actually being effective, while also often resulting in a turnover of possession. 

Keeping it simple

As Paul Scholes noted about the problems he encountered when playing for England, “You go into the England team and you want to be part of a team that plays well, but there are individuals who are after personal glory. When there is a simple pass of 10 yards, they might try and smack it 80 yards. They will do things to try and get themselves noticed, they get their big move and that is enough for them."

Part of the problem in fully appreciating his contribution is his game consists of performing numerous small tasks, and therefore it’s difficult to notice his impact without concentrating intently on the game. In styles of football where ball retention is considered important, this steady unspectacular player in central midfield who links the defense and attack becomes a crucial figure. Looking at his passing statistics, Carrick has made the 3^rd most passes per game of any Premier League player, behind only Mikel Arteta and Yaya Toure, and this with a pass completion rate of 90.2% (currently 9^th highest in the Premier League).

Best pass completion in the five major leagues? Xavi?
Nope it's Swansea's Leon Britten at 93.3%

Carrick has suffered most from England’s lack of appreciation for possession based midfielders. Spain’s Xabi Alonso’s view on this is unambiguous when reflecting on England's failure at the 2010 World Cup, "England missed a player like Carrick in the midfield, somebody who knows how to be in the right place at the right time... Gerrard gains a lot from having a player like Carrick as a partner, somebody who provides the back-up he needs to be free and bring his power to bear decisively in a game."

If you want to win this then listen to me damn it

As boring and mundane as it seems, like many holding midfielders, Carrick plays a crucial part in making the Manchester United team function properly. As Zinadine Zidane stated about Real Madrid’s decision to sell Claude Makalele to Chelsea and bring in David Beckham that same season, “Why put another layer of gold paint on the Bentley when you are losing the entire engine?”

Don't be silly Claude, of course they'll offer you a new contract...

Once Makalele’s importance was identified and he made a phoenix-like transformation from being one of world football’s most underrated players to one of its most overrated. His legacy was ultimately a new found appreciation of the importance of a good defensive midfielder, but then if this is the case, why isn’t Carrick held in high esteem when playing in this position?

The problem Carrick faces in an English context is that for much of recent football history English teams have been primarily playing a 4-4-2 system where the two midfielders would often consist of one tough-tackling 'destroyer', paired with a more attack minded 'creator'. English supporters are thus used to these two types of central midfielder and the quick direct football that suits this tactical set-up. 


However, with increasing influence of foreign players and managers came an appreciation of a possession based game, and the shift towards playing an extra player in midfield. The destroyer-creator model now had space for an additional ‘passer’, whose primary job is to maintain possession and be the pivot for distribution from a deeper location than the more advanced ‘creator’. We can see in Liverpool’s near title winning midfield of Mascherano (destroyer), Alonso (passer) and Gerrard (creator), or Manchester United’s 2007-08 Champions League winning midfield of Hargreaves (destroyer), Carrick (passer) and Scholes (creator). 

I haven't been the same since you left mate

Unfortunately for Carrick (and Manchester United) severe injury and illness have led to the loss of their two highly influential midfield destroyers, Owen Hargreaves and Darren Fletcher, which has meant Carrick taking on more of the defensive responsibility, and thus carrying the main defensive responsibility in the midfield.

Poor Michael, we've left him to play with Anderson

However, even when playing in this role Carrick has delivered superb performances without gaining very much attention from supporters, including many who frequent Old Trafford. While many can accept his job is to provide simple distribution to his more attacking teammates, they still expect their defensive midfielders to be those tough tackling 'destroyers', in the mould of Makalele or Mascherano. 


While Carrick doesn’t have hard tackling in his game, referees are much stricter on strong challenges, and there has been an increasing numbers of free kicks and yellow cards given for challenges that would have been perfectly acceptable 10 years ago. However, while it often goes unnoticed, Carrick currently ranks equal 10^th for tackles made in the Premier League this season, with 3.1 tackles per game.

Old Skool

Furthermore, the change in attacking tactics, towards short quick passes, means intercepting has become just as important - if not more so - than tackling. It’s not as spectacular or obvious, but intercepting doesn’t risk a booking and if successful gives a higher opportunity to turn over possession and launch a shift counter attack.

The best defensive players are steeped in a tradition that regarded staying in your feet as a virtue and tackling as a necessary last resort. Think of the styles Baresi, Maldini, Nesta, and the reputations of Beckenbauer and Moore. 


As Rio Ferdinand said recently, “Intercepting is far more effective than tackling. It’s not as flashy, so often if goes unnoticed. Michael Carrick hardly ever launches into a slide tackle or gets involved in a physical battle. That lands him some stick. But his stats for interceptions are off the chart.”

Ok I clearly made a typo in the google search...

While not exactly off the chart, Carrick does rank equal 5^th in the Premier League this season for interceptions, with 2.9 per game. And in the Champions League last year he made 48 interceptions, which was equaled only by Schalke’s Benedikt Howedes.

Howedes and Raul celebrate while Vicente Del Bosque watches on

The key to this is of course positioning – knowing where to be and when to be there. This is the key strength of any top quality defensive midfielder, and while Carrick is often accused of an apparent lack of ambition, it would be more appropriately observed that he is never caught too high up the pitch, and is therefore perfectly positioned to break up attacks when required. 

While Anderson and Cleverly provided a very exciting and dynamic combination at the start of the season, United were also very open defensively and allowed more shots on goal than usual. It is no coincidence that Carrick’s return to form has resulted in more defensive stability and helped Manchester United cope with numerous defensive injuries, especially the loss of their talismanic captain Nemanja Vidic.

Ander-son-son-son he's better than Kleberson... but then again who isn't

Of course making the case for Carrick’s place in the England squad based on such arguments leads one to be accused of being a pretentious know-it-all who is over intellectualising a simple game. But I genuinely believe it been a failure of England managers to try and fit as many superstar players into the team without considering a balance that leads to a more effective collective entity. 


A prime example of this collective philosophy can be seen in the two teams that reached the 2010 World Cup final, Spain and Holland. Both played the majority of the tournament with 2 holding midfielders (Alonso and Busquets for Spain, De Jong and van Bommel for Holland), while leaving 2 of the most talented players in world football (Cesc Fabregas and Rafael van der Vaart) on the bench. 


The case for utilizing a double pivot is even stronger when considering that all England’s full backs are strong attacking threats and therefore extra defensive cover in midfield will help mitigate England's vulnerability to counter attacks when their full backs advance.

The only midfield combination in history where van Bommel was the classier player

So while Scott Parker’s form so far this season has made him a shoe-in for a starting position for England’s opening Euro 2012 game, utilizing a second holding player should also be a potential tactic, especially against stronger opposition. However, even when thinking along these lines Fabio Capello favoured the likes of Gareth Barry, Jack Rodwell or even Phil Jones over Carrick. While Rodwell and Jones are certainly players for the future it is the inclusion of Barry over Carrick that remains the most confusing one. 

Hmm if he's so good why does this Busquets guy keep falling over?

Apart from being a so-called teacher’s pet there seems no logical reason for Barry's inclusion over Carrick, as there is no single part of his game that he has the edge of his Manchester rival. Looking at pure stats, in the Premier League this season, Barry has made less tackles per game than Carrick (2.4 vs 3.1), less interceptions per game (2 vs 2.9), has committed twice as many fouls per game (1.4 vs 0.7), has made less passes per game (62.5 vs 69.3) and with a lower pass completion rate (86.4% vs 90.2%). They both have similar physical attributes, and if anything Carrick is stronger technically, with a wider range of passing.

Rugby tackles don't count

Having said all this, it is important to point out that Carrick does have 2 apparent weakness that should be considered. 


Firstly, like many footballers, he is a confidence player, and because of his style of play, when not on song it can look as if the game is passing him by. Sir Alex Ferguson believes he performs better in the second half of the season and his confidence seems to be on a high currently, so this can only be good news for England going into the Euros. 


Secondly, because of his lack of quick feet in possession he performs better in patient tactical encounters, such as Champions League matches, rather than the high tempo blood-and-thunder affairs you can get in many Premiership games, especially when Manchester United play away from Old Trafford. However, international football is typically played at the lower tempo that suits Carrick’s game, and at summer tournaments played in hot conditions, possession is king, and a player of his skill-set would be highly valuable.


As Sir Alex Ferguson has said, "Michael is one of those unassuming quiet guys, who just goes about his job and never gives the ball away. But his range of passing can win you games. He is a real Manchester United player."

You'd assume he knows a things or two about footballers wouldn't you?

Since we started talking about Paul Scholes, let’s finish with some words from Ginger Prince about his underappreciated teammate:

“I can’t see why people have problems with Michael Carrick… I found him brilliant to play with He is not a flashy person or a flashy player but he has great talent. He has great mental concentration. He reads the game so well. He is a dream for any attacking midfielder to play with. He is like a Rolls Royce.”

Carrick: A Rolls Royce or just a Phantom? You decide...

It's JUST the league cup right? Not for Liverpool...

The League Cup is a competition no one is sure whether to actually care about.

There was a period when it was considered a nuisance to the top teams - especially those who were competing in the Champions League and were concerned about fixture congestion. It doesn't have the history, the romance or the prize money of the FA Cup. And in recent years it has become an accepted policy of these clubs to field weakened teams in the competition to give younger players valuable first team experience, or give squad players some much needed game-time.

A Mickey Mouse trophy?

    

But no matter what spin you put on it, come the latter stages of any competition and the opportunity of a trip to Wembley beckons, there's no denying that supporters of all clubs get excited at the prospect of adding to the trophy cabinet. However, let's be clear, winning the Carling Cup and finishing outside the top 4 in the Premier League will be a failure for Liverpool this season. Well it certainly should be given the stature of the club and the money spent since the Fenway takeover.

You want us to pay how much for Downing?!

The problem with assessing their season is, it wasn't actually acknowledged by anyone at the club at the start of the season what their target was. To be fair this could be a function of not knowing the strength of the competition and wishing to avoid putting pressure on the new players. But given the turmoil at Arsenal and Chelsea this season, with constant speculation over their manager's positions, to finish behind them would be a huge statement of just how little Liverpool would have progressed under Kenny Dalglish.

Big trouble in little Chelsea...

Remember Liverpool finished 6th last season, even after a disastrous start under Roy Hodgson, so would another 5th or 6th place finish really be good enough again after so many additions to the playing squad? Under any other manager than King Kenny serious questions would surely be asked. But as anyone who knows the average Liverpool fan will tell you, their views of the club (when expressed in public at least) generally do not reflect the views of the wider football community.

This lot are putting me to sleep...

Liverpool's presence in this weekend's Carling Cup highlight this divergence in views. While fans of other 'big' clubs will suggest the Carling Cup is a worthless and meaningless trophy, Liverpool fans are on the whole excited by their first appearance at the new Wembley and potentially their first silverware since 2006. Of course any supporter thinks the Carling Cup is small fry if their team isn't competing, and strong performances in the League Cup are very much part of Liverpool's illustrious history.

No Hanson, that's a plastic cup not the trophy

But Sunday's final holds more significance outside the microcosm of the Carling Cup. While the stature of the trophy is debatable, it's significance to the club's season, and their progress from here is not. Jose Mourinho first trophy in England was the 2005 Carling Cup and it gave his Chelsea team the confidence and momentum to take the Premier League that year. Manchester United's triumph in 2006 prevented a double of barren years and formed the platform for them to regain their Premier League title the following season. Arsenal's own trophy-less spell has lasted far longer, and they were desperate to end it in last season's Carling Cup. The emotional impact of losing to Birmingham resulted in them only winning 2 of their final Premiership matches, and crashing out of the Champion's League and FA Cup in quick succession.

You can't win anything with kids...

Winning a trophy gives a side a psychological boost that nothing else can. It also lifts the mood of supporters and takes away any pressure from the manager if league results are not meeting expectations. Sir Alex Ferguson's job was famously saved by winning the FA Cup in 1990 and we all know what happened from there.

The first of many boss

And Liverpool's season certainly does need a boost. While their performances haven't been disastrous, they have only scored 29 goals in 25 Premier League games. To put that into context that's the same number as Alex McLeish's Aston Villa and Roy Hodgson's West Brom sides. While Liverpool fans will claim they are playing more attractive football that during the Hodgson reign, this seems a poor return for their mammoth spending since his departure from the club. 

Zzzzz...

For all the money spent what have the club actually got? Andy Carroll's troubles have been well documented and his performances have been as weak as his goal return. Charlie Adam's lack of mobility and consistency have been exposed at times. Stuart Downing is a solid support player but one who seems to be have had problem adjusting to playing at a 'big' club and lacking in confidence. Jordan Henderson clearly has a lot of talent but he is very much a work in progress. And Luis Suarez, well can be said about him that hasn't already been splashed across every football column in every newspaper in every country apart from North Korea, where manipulation of the media has probably resulted in them reporting that they are currently world champions of everything including pre-match hand shaking.

Dalglish: Haha his corners are worth 10m alone, Adam: Hmm that means the rest of my game is worth -3m

There are many sad things about the Suarez affair. Firstly, racism is still an issue, but we always knew that anyway. Secondly, the defense that racist terms are are an acceptable part of the culture in other societies confirms something we already had a feeling about, but it is no doubt a saddening truth given the progress made in recent years. As Gus Poyet stated in his defense of Suarez, "England needs to understand how the rest of the world lives... you are not racist when you go against one, but you are if you go against the whole world of different colour and nationalities. That is being racist, not saying one word in one moment."

See I'm not racist

The same view of the incident was shared by Sepp Blatter who said in a CNN interview, "'I would deny it. There is no racism, there is maybe one of the players towards another... He should say that this is a game, we are in a game, and at the end of the game, we shake hands, and this can happen."

Ooops did I really say that?

Enough has been said about the incident and after an very thorough investigation the FA found Suarez guilty and banned him for 8 matches. What has been more worrying is the club's stance on the matter, especially once Suarez had been found guilty. There has been unequivocal support for Suarez from Dalglish and because of this stance the Liverpool fans have been quick to paint Suarez as the victim and Evra as the criminal for bringing up the issue in the first place.

Ok Luis, let's practice that handshake

Beyond the Suarez situation, a lot of Liverpool's problems, however, can be traced back to Dalglish, and any other manager without the emotional ties he has with the club would have had far more scrutiny placed on his position.

Firstly, he has constantly tinkered with Liverpool's systems, sometimes playing 3 at the back,  sometimes two upfront, sometimes with width and sometimes without. While variation gives opponents problems to solve, it also doesn't help a new group of players who are trying to gel. The problem is exacerbated by players also having to constantly playing in different positions or roles. Kuyt is sometimes used as a striker rather than his more effective wide right position, Henderson has played on the right and in the centre, Downing has playing on both wings and the centre, Adam and Gerrard while generally playing central are sometimes played deeper and sometimes more advanced. Craig Bellamy has been extremely effective as a striker but has also been played from wide areas, Carroll is in and out of the team and Suarez is leading the line in one match and then playing off Carroll in another.

Hmm, what formation are we playing today? 4-something-something... I think

All this variation seems to be confusing the Liverpool players as much as any opposition they face. It is fair to say that the loss of Lucus, who is one of the best holding midfielders in the Premier League, has been a massive blow both in terms of lost quality and also tactically. But Dalglish clearly hasn't found a formula that works for the players he has at his disposal, or at least he hasn't tried to establish one and stick to it. While Liverpool's players are certainly not top class, it is important that the manager sets the up in a way that brings the best out of their respective talents and allows them to know their role in the team and what is required of them to bring victories.

While victory in the Carling Cup would be a good achievement for the club and would be well celebrated on Merseyside, Liverpool should have bigger ambitions and should have a plan to achieve them. The Suarez affair has tainted the reputation of one of sport's greatest institutions and this is an opportunity for the club to draw a line under the affair and focus on a positive run-in, success in the FA Cup and achieving that coveted top four spot. Whether Dalglish has a plan to deliver all this is the real question and one we will find out the answers too in the months ahead.

Death of the tackle?

 "In 30 years I have never seen a sending off for a tackle like this... I can't understand it. Vinnie took the ball; he did nothing.” – Roberto Mancini

The sending off of Vincent Kompany in the FA Cup 3^rd Round caused a huge debate given the importance of the match, but it is just one of a number of controversial refereeing decisions this season. There has been an inevitable chorus of former footballers who have groaned that “football is in danger of becoming a non-contact sport”. Robbie Savage complained in his column in the Daily Mirror that, “they are trying to take tackling out of the game and it saddens me. What happened to Vincent Kompany on Sunday at Eastlands was outrageous. A hard but fair tackle in which he maintained control was rewarded with a red card.”

Look at my tackle...

Tackling is to many supporters the greatest expression of their conception of the game. It encompasses qualities so admired in English football such as passion, strength and bravery. 

The issue of tackling was also fundamental in the initial formalisation of the game. It is commonly known that a disagreement about whether a player should be allowed to carry the ball was one of the reasons for the split between football and rugby. Less known is that a conflict over the level of physical contact allowed that was also a key to the split. 


In earlier drafts of the original FA rules rule 10 stated that, “If any player shall run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal, any player on the opposite side shall be at liberty to charge, hold, trip or hack him, or to wrest the ball from him.” Most of delegates involved in forming those first rules agreed that carrying the ball and hacking should be outlawed, but the FA’s first treasurer F.W. Campbell objected saying, “hacking is the true football.” Campbell withdrew his club, Blackheath, from the FA, and Association Football began its life with a clear philosophical distinction from Rugby Football. 


The idea that physical contact should have clear limitations was a fundamental component of original laws of the game, and not a more recent innovation from FIFA.

Ah the good old days

Rules do change over time however and many have been introduced to benefit attacking football. Take the offside rule. Originally forward passes weren’t even permitted, a rule that remains in rugby to this day. They become permitted in 1866, but only if three defensive were between the receiver and goal at the time of the pass. In 1925 this limitation was reduced to 2 players to promote attacking football, which resulted in a rise from 4,700 goals in the 1924-25 Football League season to 6,373 the following year. Continuing in the desire to open up the game, the rule was liberalised further in 1990, by allowing the attacking player to be level with the second-to-last opponent. Finally, in 2003, FIFA issued new guidelines stating the attacking player is only offside if they are “active”.

If only it was this simple...

The same trend has been seen in the laws for tackling and the changes have been equally beneficially for the game. The greatest players of all times suffered at the hands of opponents using brutal tactics to force them out of the game. Pele was famously kicked out of the 1966 World Cup by Joao Morais and Maradona was fouled 23 times by Claudio Gentile in one 1982 World Cup match, after which Gentile famously quipped “football is not for ballerinas.” 

Police arrest that man!

In an attempt to reduce injuries, such at the one that forced Marco Van Basten to retire prematurely at 28, FIFA outlawed the tackle from behind in 1998. This trend has continued, the intention being to reduce injuries and favour attacking football. UEFA president Michel Platini has made the point that it was hard to compare the play of current world player of the year Leo Messi with previous greats since today, “he can play football and express his talent… before talented players had to think first to avoid blows.”

The true golden balls but the best ever?

The current laws of the game set out which challenges constitute a sending off offense – “Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.” The referee thus has a simple decision to make – is the tackle dangerous to the point of endangering the opponent. 


All the debate surrounding Kompany's tackle concerning over whether he won the ball, how high he was off the ground when contact was made, and whether Nani complained about the challenge becomes rather irrelevant in this light. 

Hmm... I'm sure it's supposed to be one of these

Tackling is a skill that is learned in the same way passing or shooting is. It has to be acknowledged, however, that when the tackler goes to win the ball, the risk of injury is very much weighted in the person he is challenging. Most players, managers and fans love a good clean hard tackle, and will accept in some situations mistakes are unintentionally made and injuries occur.

A two-footed tackle, however, is a very deliberate action. It is not in the same bracket as a 'late' one-footed challenge, which can also be dangerous if mistimed and excessively forceful. Making a two-footed tackle requires a specific technique and body movement – it is inherently aggressive and by its nature, dangerous.

The mass hysteria regarding Kompany’s challenge and the ‘death of the tackle’ is bemusing. Week after week in the Premiership superb tackles are made with players going to ground to make challenges and well timed sliding challenges are an enjoyable and essential part of the game. If tackling was been outlawed, would it be possible to England captain John Terry and Manchester United skipper Nemanja Vidic to be considered two of the best defenders in world football, when their game is based on their physical presence and strong tackling? Even the most graceful defenders of all time, such as Paulo Maldini, Franco Baresi, Bobby Moore and Franz Beckenbauer, have needed to produce sliding challenges on numerous occasions, but their technique meant it was rarely reckless.

One word... legend

Of course it’s would be ridiculous to expect every defender to have the grace of Baresi or Moore. But Kompany’s challenge was not a sliding challenge in any sense of the term. He was in mid-air from the moment he launched himself at Nani, and therefore, unlike in a genuine sliding challenge,  at no point is his weight supported by the ground. His entire body weight is directed at Nani’s ankles. 

Is it a bird, is it a plane...

Luckily for Kompany (and more pertinently, luckily for Nani), Nani saw Kompany flying directly at him and decided to pull out from challenging for the ball and jump over Kompany's oncoming studs.

Ok you can have the ball and I'll keep my legs thanks

If Nani had not seen Kompany coming there would have been a huge danger of a repeat of the shocking injuries to seen to Aaron Ramsey and Eduardo in recent seasons. Sadly if Nani had been seriously injured it is likely the debate over Kompany's challenge would be less vociferous, but really should it take a player to get seriously injured before a challenge is deemed to be dangerous and reckless? Not according to the laws of the game, and not according to fair minded observers.

Hard but fair... are you sure Vincent?

The physical side of the game is integral to football, and it is a perfectly legitimate tactic to use physical attributes to compensate for a lack of technical qualities. But even in extreme contact sports such as rugby or boxing, there are rules in place to prevent the physicality from being potentially dangerous. In rugby, for example, the spear tackle is punishable by an automatic red card, as Welsh captain Sam Warburton found out to his cost in the 2011 Rugby World Cup semi-final. It was thought to be harsh by many commentators at the time, but even in a sport based around physicality player welfare is considered an imperative.

That's more like a Rugby tackle... oh yeah it is

The same thinking underpins FIFA’s attitude to two-footed tackles. There is no legitimate sporting justification to making such a challenge and they have rightly been outlawed. Once Kompany jumped at Nani with both feet off the ground, whether he made contact with his opponent, injured him or won the ball are irrelevant. As Lee Dixon pointed out in a recently BBC blog on the subject, “players have a responsibility to not make tackles like that… I was a tough tackling full-back and in the past I've made some strong tackles from behind and the side, but in 22 years of playing I never made a two-footed tackle. I don't understand the need to jump in with both feet.”

Are you sure Dixon?

A large reason for the frustration regarding refereeing this season has been the lack of consistency. We have seen Yohan Cabaye and Frank Lampard, amongst others, getting away with leg-breaking-type tackles, while Nedad Milijas was sent off for a far less dangerous offense. The inconsistencies were highlighted further when in Manchester City’s next game, Liverpool’s Glen Johnson committed what appeared to be an equally dangerous tackle to Kompany’s, but referee Lee Mason didn’t even give a free kick for the challenge.

Anything Kompany can do, I can do better

Sir Alex Ferguson commented on the problem of inconsistencies after Peter Walton only awarded Zat Knight a yellow card when fouling Danny Welbeck in what was a clear goal scoring opportunity, and therefore should have been an automatic red card offense. "Mike Riley needs to give his referees some direction on these matters," the United manager said. "The present situation is unacceptable, inconsistency from referees is confusing everyone… He should be making it clear to referees that it is not acceptable if they change their minds or don't follow the same set of rules. We've had enough debate on two-footed tackles and the like recently, now something needs to happen."

Now lads, I'm not telling you how to do your job but...

Consistency needs to be brought in if referees are to be given the respect they request and deserve. The fact is, however, more proscriptive instructions are the only way to produce more consistency in decision making between games. While consistency within a match is expected, it seems more accepted that referees will differ in their philosophy and thus have a different interpretation on the same event. FIFA have become more and more proscriptive with the referees in order to try and get consistency, saying that if X happens the referee should do Y. 

Many complain that this doesn’t allow for ‘common sense’ and referees have to go against their better judgment. They complain referees are being assessed from the stands by some Sepp-Blatter-loving crony who’s aim in life it is to turn all referees into mindless robots. While it is important that referees use their intelligence, their primary job is not to 'manage' the game and support the spectacle, but to apply the laws in a fair and consistent manner. 

While I appreciate your suggestions... I'm not listening

Another large complaint from pundits and players has been over the FA appeals process, which typically upholds the decisions made by the referee. While it might be frustrating, the panel can only make amends for serious and obvious errors, such as Jack Rodwell’s dismissal in the Merseyside derby. The ability to appeal red cards is actually unique amoug the major European leagues, and something that FIFA are very much against. In both FIFA and UEFA competitions red cards will only ever be rescinded in the case of mistaken identity, hence why Darren Fletcher missed the 2009 Champions League final, even though he was sent off for a perfectly clean challenge in the semi-final against Arsenal. They believe the referee should be supported at all times and the FA therefore have to be very careful in overturning decisions given the friction over this matter. 

Oh no, now we're going to have to play with Anderson in the final

Unfortunately, while the higher echelons of the football pyramid are doing much to promote fair play and reduce dangerous play, their campaigns on respecting referees have led them to be in denial that there is a problem with the standard and consistency of decision-making. There are continuous debates over the merits of goal-line technology, video technology and extra officials but the consistent tone from FIFA and UEFA suggests the problem is exaggerated and there are no solutions beyond better refereeing. 


Bizarrely Platini also suggested the debate caused by controversial refereeing decisions was also beneficial to the popularity of the game - ‘Football has also based its popularity on injustice You can remember them and talk about them in the bars. You can talk about 1982, France-Germany, it was an injustice like the hand of Maradona or that of Henry. The notoriety also comes from negative things in football.’ 


He steadfastly refuses to entertain the idea of using technology to improve decision making, believing extra officials behind the goal-lines are the solution to all the problems. The reality has shown they have had minimal impact on the decision making process and have so far been well paid spectators. 

I think human eyes are better than those of a hawk

No problem can be solved before the problem itself is acknowledged to exist. While FIFA have recognized the problem of dangerous tackles and put measures in place to protect players, they have yet to acknowledge the inconsistencies and injustices that occur on a weekly basis. While Chris Foy rightfully dismissed Kompany for his dangerous challenge, Lee Mason also got it wrong in missing Glen Johnson’s two-footed lunge three days later. Kompany is currently serving a four game ban, while Johnson will go unpunished. Whetever your feelings about tackling and red cards, that’s a situation everyone can agree is a true injustice and needs a solution.