Another game, another opportunity for Tony Pulis to bemoan his side’s luck. In fairness, the decision to award a red card to Robert Huth was wrong, but I think the Stoke boss’ calls for the PFA to intervene are way over the top.
Now I’m a fan of Tony Pulis and his team – he is second only to David Moyes in my mind in terms of resourcefulness. I also have a slight bias towards Stoke thanks to Adrian Durham’s irrational dislike of them and my rational dislike of him.
I have admired the way they have continually progressed since getting to the Premier League and I not only respect the way they do things, but frequently enjoy watching them do it.
But if Pulis is to continue his persistent protestation that his team are being unfairly treated or, as was the case with Sunderland’s David Meyler, he is going to accuse others of cheating, then I feel it only fair to add some balance.
Without meaning to defend Meyler – because I think over-reacting like that is fundamentally pathetic – what he did can, however loosely you may think, be described as ‘gamesmanship’: gaining an advantage for your team to create a better chance of winning. Regardless of how unpalatable it is, can Pulis honestly assert that this form of advantage-gaining is any less favourable than his own brand?
Let me just remind you exactly what that is…
When Stoke came to Goodison Park in December, I noticed that every throw-in, goal-kick, free-kick, corner and substitution took at least one minute more than it should (approx). This was no coincidence, rather it was part of a concerted 95 minute-long effort to waste as much time as possible.
Additionally, nearly every attacking dead-ball opportunity for Everton resulted in what pundits call ‘a bit of manhandling in the box’ – what I call pulling shirts and obstructing runs to prevent goal-scoring opportunities: deliberate fouling. There was even one moment where Marouane Fellaini informed the referee he would be fouled, was duly fouled in plain sight of said referee, and nothing was given.
Speaking to a few Liverpool supporter friends of mine, it was clear that the same sort of gamesmanship (cheating?) had occurred during Stoke’s trip to Anfield, and watching their games more closely since then, well these tactics aren’t specific to Merseyside, let’s put it that way.
Let’s not forget that curious ‘towel-shirt’ that Ryan Shotton has taken to using as well.
Naturally there is the counter-argument I alluded to earlier: resourcefulness. In context, stifling a home crowd and frustrating a home team to create surroundings much more favourable to victory. There is a lot to be said for that, and I do not wish to condemn it – it is an effective strategy that gained Stoke four away points in the games mentioned.
What I would ask though is why does Pulis condemn one form of gamesmanship and not only accept the other but squeeze every painstaking ounce of worth out of it?
Because it suits him and his team, that’s why.
Modern simulation versus good, old-fashioned English oneupmanship, or are they in fact one and the same thing?
Having written that, I sense that I am under the influence of a really good Guillem Balague article I read recently (http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,25212,12087_7460070,00.html) in which he describes the differences between Spanish and English attitudes to football given their natural inclinations.
When I read his response to debate sparked by the article, Balague suggested that a history of authority and law in England has effected a yearning in our game whereby we not only crave but demand the rules to be respected. In Spain on the other hand, where savvy, rebellious characters dominate a much more anarchic folklore, creative players who con officials are sympathised with, and often revered.
The English contempt for divers is matched only by the Spanish displeasure for roughing.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of play-acting, I think it unfortunate that it’s become so “ingrained in the game” to quote Pulis – a phrase often taken to mean ‘commonplace’. A more honest critique would be to admit it is so ‘ingrained’ because no matter how much we may sneer at unfamiliar, dare I suggest foreign forms of gamesmanship, we will gladly accept anything that benefits our team.
There is a universal desire for advantage – that is the nature of competition – so to begin to define ‘fair’ forms of rule-bending and ‘unfair’ ones surely possesses a large risk of hypocrisy.
Using Everton as an example as I am predisposed to do, David Moyes is a manager who prides himself on his honesty and will not tolerate diving amongst his players. In 2005 however when a victory at home to Manchester United would have all-but secured Champions League football, Moyes was happy for the extra balls around the pitch to be collected after a crucial Duncan Ferguson goal, and slowing up the game no end.
As I revelled in this rare kink of fortune, there was a knowing acceptance that it would snap back in my face soon enough. What goes around comes around.
Be that a ridiculous dive, a referee’s failure to award a blatant penalty, or a last-minute winner from a player who should have been sent off, these things happen. They may not ‘even out’ as is often suggested, but they happen often enough for us all to both cheat and be cheated.
I think if you speak to most reasonable fans, there is a tacit acknowledgement of the karmic quality of football.
Which leaves us with Pulis who quite simply can give but not take it.
By Chris Smith
chrissmithfootballblog 