Tweet
This match report from the Daily Telegraph by a presumably neutral journalist showed that Wenger was not alone in his frustration with Everton's approach:
"There were two brands of football on view at the Emirates Stadium: flowing, adventurous, shot-bristling yet goal-shy on the one hand, and functional, largely negative, unashamedly back-peddling on the other. Everton were disproportionately proud of the latter, and their one point here.
The calculated approach of David Moyes, Everton's manager — admittedly amid a bout of illness in the squad — earned as many admirers beyond Merseyside as they themselves had shots on target in open play. Zero. Their time-wasting was endemic, culminating in Moyes's dismissal from the touchline for histrionic provocation of the referee."
The other Telegraph match report said this:
"It also demonstrated everything that is wrong with the direction the English game is heading. This was a triumph for dull, limited football."
Yet this type of opinion was not reflected by the panel of ex-Liverpool <U>defenders</U> Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson and the presenter Ray Stubbs. In fact, Stubbs seemed amazed that Wenger should have expressed frustration with the Everton spoiling tactics. This was then followed - quite predictably given their general views on football - by Lawrenson and Hansen concurring with Stubbs and giving their blessing to Everton's tactics.
It was dire analysis - the worst I have seen in a long time; so bad that it was funny.
Sure Everton had the right to adopt their tactics and it paid off. But it does not follow that their negativity mentality should be immune from criticism as apparently was the consensus between Stubbs, Hansen and Lawrenson. On the contrary, they are the type of tactics that explain why the general state of English football is sub-standard and reflects why there is a lack of a widespread culture in England of cultivating progressive, technical, attacking football.
The BBC need analysts who can actually be analytical and see the bigger picture. This discussion between Stubbs, Hansen and Lawrenson summed up my opinion that it regularly does not deliver this basic aim.
"There were two brands of football on view at the Emirates Stadium: flowing, adventurous, shot-bristling yet goal-shy on the one hand, and functional, largely negative, unashamedly back-peddling on the other. Everton were disproportionately proud of the latter, and their one point here.
The calculated approach of David Moyes, Everton's manager — admittedly amid a bout of illness in the squad — earned as many admirers beyond Merseyside as they themselves had shots on target in open play. Zero. Their time-wasting was endemic, culminating in Moyes's dismissal from the touchline for histrionic provocation of the referee."
The other Telegraph match report said this:
"It also demonstrated everything that is wrong with the direction the English game is heading. This was a triumph for dull, limited football."
Yet this type of opinion was not reflected by the panel of ex-Liverpool <U>defenders</U> Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson and the presenter Ray Stubbs. In fact, Stubbs seemed amazed that Wenger should have expressed frustration with the Everton spoiling tactics. This was then followed - quite predictably given their general views on football - by Lawrenson and Hansen concurring with Stubbs and giving their blessing to Everton's tactics.
It was dire analysis - the worst I have seen in a long time; so bad that it was funny.
Sure Everton had the right to adopt their tactics and it paid off. But it does not follow that their negativity mentality should be immune from criticism as apparently was the consensus between Stubbs, Hansen and Lawrenson. On the contrary, they are the type of tactics that explain why the general state of English football is sub-standard and reflects why there is a lack of a widespread culture in England of cultivating progressive, technical, attacking football.
The BBC need analysts who can actually be analytical and see the bigger picture. This discussion between Stubbs, Hansen and Lawrenson summed up my opinion that it regularly does not deliver this basic aim.
</DIV><DIV id=maincontent>
Comment