How one manipulative malevolent interview has re-energised the media hatred of Arsenal

 

 

 

By Nitram

Following on from Tony’s previous article Perfidious media link with ManC to launch attacks on all things ArsenalI thought I’d have a look SKY Sports post match interview that I feel has fuelled this latest bought of media hatred towards Arsenal.

It was Patrick Dividson‘s post match interview with John Stones, and as you will read, it was HE that suggested Arsenal were using the Dark Arts. Not Stones. Davidson, was constantly trying to wind Stones up, putting words in his mouth. Stones, unfortunately, allowed himself to be led down this path and give what I felt was a pretty embarrassing interview, but SKY, and it seems every man and his dog in the media has lapped it up. Let’s have a look at what was said, and how Davidson manipulated the whole interview into an assault on Arsenal, and a love-in for Man City

This is the interview:

John Stones:  A difficult afternoon for both teams. How they stop the play. How they use the side of football that not many teams do, make it difficult, slow it down, get the keeper on the floor, so they can get the information on, so we have to control our emotions during those times, I felt that we did and that it was a good battle today. A lot of tackles. Some silly decisions, you know but it’s hard to kind of digest it all straight after the game but we come away with a point. Towards the end of the game it could have been us losing three points or, yeah, well review it. We’ve got a game in two days which is quick and fast. I think how we fought to the end is credit to us.”

So, basically Stones is moaning about a team with ten men trying to control the game by slowing it down. WOW. What on earth did he expect Arsenal to do? Take it to City?

Patrick Davidson SKY interviewer:

“Now, I don’t want to put words in your mouth [but I am going to anyway] but you’re basically saying that Arsenal have mastered the dark arts and it’s very frustrating to deal with that.”

Yet one thing Stones certainly didn’t say was that Arsenal have ‘Mastered The Dark Arts’. Davidson said that. He didn’t even say it was ‘frustrating’ to deal with’, he said they have to “control their emotions”, and yes they do. As do Arsenal when they have a player sent off. It’s what professionals are supposed to do, but the fact Haarland felt the need to throw the ball at Gabriel’s head and Guardiola felt the need to kick his chair suggests their control wasn’t quite as good as Stones is suggesting it was.

But hey, when the officials let those incidents pass without a word (or indeed a card of course) you could get the impression they did.

As I said, Stones said nothing of the sort.  What he said was, “I wouldn’t know if they’ve mastered it. They’ve done it for a few years.”

Done what? Slowed the game down? Is that not allowed then?

Stones then said, “We know to expect that. You can call it clever or dirty, whichever way you want to put it.”

Yes, you can call it clever. In fact it is clever. But I fail to see how under any judgement slowing the game down can be called ‘Dirty’ or ‘whichever way you want to put it’. Okay, maybe genius, unbelievable, too much for City to deal with. But it certainly isn’t ‘dirty’. But of course Davidson lets Stones off with that one.

Stones then continued, “They break up the game. Obviously (it) upsets the rhythm for everyone. They use it to their advantage and I thought that we dealt with it really well. It’s not easy when those things happen and you are trying to gain momentum. You try and get your foot in the game and try and get above them, you know those little stoppages stop that and we controlled our emotions really well.”

So again, Arsenal are doing nothing wrong other than slowing the game down. Yes we had players going down with cramp but apart from the one time when Raya may have gone down ‘tactically’ (a rouse I have seen used by a few teams under the cosh) every other one looked pretty genuine to me, to the point that Calafiori, Timber and Martinelli had to go off.

But Davidson wasn’t finished trying to wind up Stones:

“Last one, you said in your answer before that there were silly decisions.  Meaning from them, from you, from the referee.

Stones replied, “A whole load of things really. Probably what everyone expects watching a big game like this. The drama. And when we’re involved in it you want to be level-headed, not to make silly fouls, take silly yellow cards and I felt we did that.”

City be level headed? Not make silly fouls? In case Stones hadn’t noticed it was us defending for our lives on the edge of the box. It was Arsenal who had to be ‘level headed’ and not make ‘silly fouls’ and ‘take silly cards’, not City.

Stones:  Obviously they made it difficult for us. The majority of the game being so deep. Having so many people around the box. Yeah, it was a day that we’ll have to definitely review, and we’ll take a lot of positives from.”

….  And what positives are they Stones? That you struggled to break 10 men down? That you kept your heads just because a team slowed the game down and defended well against you. Well done.

But Davidson still wasn’t finished trying to wind up Stones:  “Do you think that today was the first time we saw a bit of needle introduced into this rivalry?

Stones: “I think for the past few years we’ve had a rivalry that’s been growing. One that we thrive off.”

And excuse me for saying but endless whinging about Arsenal slowing the game down and accusations of ‘Dark Arts’ hardly suggest it’s something you ‘thrive on’ [the phrase is actually “thive on” not “thirve off” does it? Quite the opposite in fact.

Stones:   “…..and one that we always want to come out on top. So, to sit here with a point is difficult, especially at home. We always want to come away with three. But as I said before. How we managed the game, and how we came away with a vital point in the later stages of the game is something that we should be proud of.

—————-

And there we have it. Whinging and whining as if they are the ‘victims’ in all this, and just because they haven’t recently come out on top, and they didn’t like it.

As the headline suggests, I believe it is that manipulative and malevolent interview that has triggered off yet another wave of media criticism and hatred of Arsenal. If any other team had performed as heroically as our boys did they would be praised to the rafters.

It is a disgrace and shameful what is happening today, but it proves one thing I think we already knew. The media’s love of City, and their desire to support them in every way they can, knows no bounds.

7 Replies to “How one manipulative malevolent interview has re-energised the media hatred of Arsenal”

  1. I watched the interview and thought that Stones was out of his depth, Davidson on the other hand was manipulative and determined to get Stones to make a statement. I’m not sure that media hatred was re-energised, it’s never been anything other than hatred and disdain. I hope at the end of the season we will be hated more and reasons given on how we cheated our way to the title. By which time City 115 will be exonerated or picked upon depending on the outcome!

  2. I posted this earlier on another site but I believe it pertains to this post .
    The brown envelope hangs heavy over Oliver’s head. Every decision he makes in a City match is subject to scrutiny against it . What appals me is that the media know about it , the players know it , the supporters know about it and so do the PGMOL and yet they still appoint him to the most contentious games featuring City.
    If they really wanted to stifle the murmurings of conspiracy and corruption they would not let him referee City’s games but they blindly and arrogantly carry on because they can.
    By picking on Arsenal as one team to address these rules they ensure that fans of other teams will not wake up and complain. All of my Spurs , Wham and Chelsea supporter friends think it’s all good fun and are taking the moral high ground and they are our neighbours , any team north of Watford treat us as public enemy number one anyway so PGMOL know that if they ride things out for a couple of weeks it will pass and they can just carry on without any real recrimination.
    By the very letter of the law Trossard should not have given Oliver his big chance but at the time I commented that he might have thought it was the half time whistle . Back in the day a referee would have used common sense and called the half over and diffused the situation but was this payback for the envelope ?
    We will never know and even if it creeps out later it’s too late and the damage is done , All Arteta can do is think about how to make the players think about their actions because if you don’t give them the chance , they can’t do it.

    The interviews after the game were conducted in a totally adverserial manner toward Arsenal in fact the interviewer was trying to put words into Arteta’s mouth but he was too canny to fall for it . It would be nice if he could have interviewed Oliver as well but that would never be allowed.

  3. porter

    “All Arteta can do is think about how to make the players think about their actions because if you don’t give them the chance , they can’t do it.”

    This is not only very true but very very sad that the PL is so bent that it has come to this.

    And of course another thing to bear in mind porter, is that Arteta has already had to change our play to a non tackling style, or at least keeping tackling to a minimum, in an attempt to reduce our card count in that department.

    But as Tony has pointed out, now we have done that, all that has happened is that the PiGMOb have started throwing cards at us like confetti for transgressions that they laughingly call ‘other’.

    Other being such a vague concept that they can pretty much send you off for looking at them.

    I honestly don’t know what we can do when not only is it so obvious that we get treated far more harshly than anyone else in that department, but the media are in full support of them, and fans of other teams are either so tribal they cant or wont see it, or else they just find it funny.

  4. Football and the Media. It was all right there in the interview, the media’s complicity in the PGMOL bias and anti-Arsenal bias.That wasn’t an interview, it was an essay. My friends, Chelsea and ManU supporters, respectively, were blowing up my phone during the match. Both said Oliver was appalling but thought Arsenal got away with a few challenges and of course the Arsenal quick restart catching out Walker. But they both agreed the 2nd yellow and sending off of Trossard was a joke and obvious decision to punish Arsenal. These are not Arsenal supporters saying this. I don’t know what fantasy land match Davidson and Stones saw.

    Here’s the reality:
    Despite City and Oliver’s best efforts, Arsenal were ahead 1-2 at halftime. Yes Arsenal got a break on the quick restart leading to the first goal. Perhaps Oliver was making amends with the Trossard sending off?
    Arsenal played the entire 2nd half with 10. They basically retreated to the 18 yard line and said ‘try to score if you can’. And they couldn’t. The line of nine wove back and forth in front of net, confounding City and reducing them to feeble attempts by their back line from outside the box. It was masterful. After a bit I relaxed and just enjoyed it. Arsenal were so stout and resolute even the yellows just seemed silly. But when the allotted 7 minutes added were done, City were still losing. Oliver to the rescue. Just keep the clock running until they score. They did, on a rebound.
    City with Home advantage, man advantage for half the match, 12th man advantage the entire match, and the advantage of added time (Pep time?) still couldn’t beat Arsenal after 116 minutes, 1 minute more than the charges against the Cheaters! Up the Gunners!

  5. FA have concluded that there is np case to charge Haaland for chucking the ball at the back of Gabriel’s head – Surprise surprise!

    If it had been the other way round, I would expect Gabriel to be charged and the media and pundits demanding a severe sentence.

  6. This from Ref Chat discussing an amateur league incident as described by the first poster:

    Oct 24, 2020

    Hi. Bit rusty, as 3rd game of the season this morning, after not reffing last season much at all.

    Ball goes through to goalkeeper, striker chasing, goalkeeper catches, minor collision due to momentum but keeper has the ball. Didn’t have the best view if I’m honest but seemed minor happens all the time. Keeper still has the ball. Gets up, throws the ball at players head from 3 or 4 yards hard and connects, this is all inside penalty area. I blow whistle straight away. Send keeper off for violent conduct. Feel like I may have made a mistake at this point (I know you could say may have made mistake with not giving free kick to keeper prior to this also) I then gave indirect freekick to the team who had the player who had ball thrown at him. Should this have actually been a penalty as the ball was ‘live’? Felt a bit ott for a daft act of madness from keeper for both and actually both teams were fine with the idfk. Feel in hindsight probably should have been a pen.

    –So, his initial reaction is to send off the goalkeeper for violent conduct. But thenhe second guesses himself and ends up not knowing if he’s coming or going, hence asking for guidance on this ref chat blog. As as you will see, almost to a man they say it is violent conduct and worthy of a red card.

    These are the edited replies from other referees (full versions available in the link):

    It can’t have been IFK whatever way you look at it. In your case it will be red card to keeper. I understand you didn’t want to give a pen because the initial charge. Why not give the DFK to the keeper’s team.

    So, RED CARD TO KEEPER

    And this:

    “Gotta disagree on the play as described. In the OP, the GK threw the ball at the head of an opponent from close by. There are times to keep the cards in the pocket, butt hat isn’t one of them. That has to be a send off.”

    So, RED CARD TO KEEPER

    And this:

    “One of those YHYBT things. If he’s just flicked it at his head it’s very different (yellow) than if he’s launched it into his face as hard as he can (red).

    So, RED CARD TOKEEPER

    And this:

    “I’ve had a similar thing in a match before. I gave the foul against the defender for the collision and sent the GK off for violence conduct. The decision was not contested.”

    So, RED CARD TO KEEPER

    And this:

    “I assume the last word of your penultimate sentence was supposed to be “sending off”? (The previous guy made a typo that he correct after seeing this) If so, I agree 100% with this approach

    So, RED CARD TOKEEPER

    —-These are all amateur refs but pretty much to a man they agree that it is ‘VIOLENT CONDUCT’ resulting in a red card. But of course being amateurs they know the rules, unlike our professional mob that just make them up as they go along.

    Shameful and embarrasing.

    https://refchat.co.uk/threads/goalkeeper-throws-ball-at-oppositon-player.15859/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *