Source: Man_City
De Jong furore stinks
| Submit Comments| Comments (78)| Printable Version1/1Play SlideshowClose MapThe stench of hype and hypocrisy surrounding Nigel de Jong is almost as sickening as a leg-breaking tackle. The player has been chucked out of the national squad and turned into a virtual pariah in his own country for his challenge on Hatem Ben Arfa in Sunday?s game against Newcastle. The Dutch football authorities needed a scapegoat for the shame of their team?s World Cup final performance, and the City man was a handy target. The blather and hysteria began in Holland, even though referee Martin Atkinson rightly did not see de Jong?s challenge as worthy of a free kick, never mind a red card. And now de Jong is public enemy number one in the land which invented clogs, but has suddenly become holier-than-thou about cloggers. De Jong has been punished by the Dutch FA for a supposed offence which took place outside their jurisdiction, in itself a breathtaking precedent. There has even been talk of criminal prosecution of the player ? for a challenge which our own FA was content to leave to the referee on the day. One Dutch journalist said there hasn?t been such a furore against a footballer since Patrick Kluivert was found guilty of manslaughter in 1997 for killing a man through dangerous driving. Rot That should have alarm bells ringing, alone. Kluivert killed a man, de Jong broke someone?s leg with a tackle which had no malice, and yet both receive the same treatment. But the rot, like Dutch elm disease, has soon spread across the Channel. Ben Arfa?s manager Chris Hughton refused to condemn the tackle, his assistant Colin Calderwood went further and said he didn?t want to see such challenges outlawed from the game, and suggested the synthetic weave on the Eastlands pitch might be more of a culprit than de Jong. Hughton and Calderwood were good honest professionals as players, yet now their club are demanding FA action against the City man. Their original sober, sensible words have been submerged in a deluge of nonsense. De Jong?s tackle was committed, but not malicious. It was hard and fast, but it was aimed entirely at the ball. And it caused an injury, but not with any intent. People can talk about two-footed tackles all day, but I have yet to see any footballer able to make a wholly one-footed challenge. Maybe Long John Silver and Heather Mills McCartney could do it, but I doubt even Liverpool would think of signing that midfield duo. There has been a tendency of late for tackles to be judged on the severity of the injury, rather than the intentions of the tackler. We saw it last season when Stoke defender Ryan Shawcross went into a challenge with young Arsenal starlet Aaron Ramsey with a challenge which was clumsy, at the very worst. Terrible Ramsey suffered a terrible, horrible injury and Shawcross was a distraught young man, but that did not stop the critics from laying into the lad. They refused to look at the evidence, seeing only the awful images of Ramsey?s mangled leg, and the implication it might have for the kid?s future. The same is true of de Jong?s challenge. At root, maybe there is a cultural difference involved. We celebrate tackling in England ? it is part and parcel of our football, from Sunday mornings on Hough End to Nobby Stiles in the World Cup final. The Dutch, no doubt conscious of their tarnished reputation as cultured technicians, have tended to frown on hard challenges as well as nasty ones. But with their reputation in tatters after the World Cup final, they needed to find someone to blame, and de Jong was that someone. National coach Bert van Marwijk was quick to lay into de Jong. Yet he was the man who sent his players out against Spain, in Johannesburg, with the instruction to get amongst them and disrupt their rhythm. Nonsense De Jong?s challenge in that match on Xabi Alonso was clearly outrageous, and should have been red-carded. But no-one was hurt, and that X-rated tackle is now history. To draw some parallel between that and what happened at Eastlands on Sunday is nonsense. De Jong had been warned in the past. He broke Stuart Holden?s leg in a friendly ahead of the World Cup, and was warned by the Dutch FA for typically uncompromising challenges in games with Japan and Holland. Anyone can see the tackles on Holden and Yuto Nagatomo on the internet. Neither would raise an eyebrow in the Premier League ? in fact the challenge on Nagatomo would be applauded for its fairness as well as its ferocity. The referee booked de Jong for that, and the Dutch FA cited it as an example of his recklessness. But Nagatomo simply got up, without even a grimace, and got on with the game, to his great credit. There is talk that de Jong will not be welcomed back into Dutch football, that he could be hounded out, as was former Wigan winger Rachid Bouaouzan for a challenge on Niels Kokmeijer which ended the player?s career.Well, I?m sure that has made a mess of any plans de Jong might have had for a January move to Heerenveen. The fact is that de Jong and his attitude are welcomed in English football. His own assistant manager Brian Kidd made the point that there is no malice in de Jong ? that is true on the field and off it. He is a decent, intelligent man away from the pitch, and no doubt he will be as sorry for what happened to Ben Arfa as anyone. The Dutch have banned him, and City are trying to secure him on a new three-year deal. De Jong knows where he is appreciated, in a game which will lose its soul if it outlaws hard tackling. De Jong and Dutch football may be finished. That is Holland?s loss and a gain for City, and for English football.
