Artur V says – I’ll still ban BCFC’s Martin Taylor for life

I was sure stumped when I read that Arsene Wenger has retracted his comments to rally for support to ban of Martin Taylor from the beautiful game. I’m certain that Monsieur Wenger has his own reasons, whether politically correct or what not; but it’s like gamely toying with the idea then tossing the whole lot into the washing machine like a soggy sock. But if Wenger has taken back what he has flamed, I’m sure not doing it the way he did.

Martin Taylor, for threatening the career of a fellow professional has to be subjected to the same circumstances and be told to bag groceries in Iceland and get drunk at night for no good reason other than he’s a big man (6′ 4” frame) with no cojones.

You could be influenced by the media for reporting that his former boss, Steve Bruce who has risen to the defence of the chicken known as "Tiny" as "the biggest, gentlest man. There will be nobody more upset and sickened by him." Bruce continued that "there is not a bad bone in his body" and finished with "he would never, ever do anything malicious." Rising to the defence of former players is great but it’s clear that the former Man Ure player is overdoing his testimony to Taylor with these words of support and is having a counter-effect which reeks of exaggeration. Right Bruce, just keep the lid on with those overzealous comments. It’s not that we’re asking for a witness statement to defend Martin Taylor in the courts right now.

Another player, Stephen Kelly (not really bothered why he’s got something to add because whatever he says doesn’t carry water and weight at all now) also claims that Tiny Chicken hasn’t got a malicious bone in his body. Suddenly, we’re talking about bad bones and malicious bones and I’m sure, its adverse-character good bones and benevolent bones. Good work, you English footballers – thanks for the useful biology lessons on bones which comes just at the time when you’ve just broken a fellow professional’s. It also dawned on me that most footballers just love being equivocal in their defence of their teammates and falling over themselves in the process (i.e so-and-so not malicious at all; never harmed an ant in his life; etc…). Would that the same be had in a proper trial at the courts. And whether malicious or not, how can you ever know? Like George Washington once offered: "Be courteous to all, but intimate with few; and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence." Stephen Kelly got himself mixed up by saying that the ref gave Tiny Chicken a red card simply because Eduardo was injured and garnished it with other stuff that it was not malicious and that it wasn’t two footed and not a lunge towards Eduardo. He’s just another footballer feeling compelled to fire his shit cannon for those willing to lap it up. The manner in which a murderer stabbed a victim is immaterial; any murderer can do it in 1001 ways – it’s the malice which the ref can see. There was aggression in that lunge but no it’s surprise that Tiny Chicken, Kelly, Bruce and McLeash (yes, I know – it’s not typo error) can’t see it. Who knows that Kelly was saying this so that a 2nd miracle can dawn on Birmingham and the FA decided to annul the red card after video replays so that Tiny Chicken can play again to help his relegation-threatened team stay up? These petty reasons are only unique to those with such a lowlife credo in life.

Yes, I’m not just dissatisfied because Eduardo is the Arsenal football player; but because these sort of incidents just cannot go unpunished. Obviously you can’t iron out completely such accidents in the game as we’re all human. The only thing is – you’d have to take it into perspective that going into tackles with the studs up high into the shin of another player is criminally unlawful as opposed to merely committing a foul in accordance to Association Football regulations and rules meriting just a red card and match suspensions for all of that. The player has had enough time to sift through the available choices for him, and poor judgment in the selection of any adverse-effect one doesn’t excuse him in the eyes of any law. There are infinite ways to stop a player dribbling but Tiny Chicken just have got to choose that one. Making poor choices in life may also be detrimental but good luck exchanging it if you don’t like it. It was a rush of blood to the head.

You can also read Arseblog’s writeup on this here. I do often find his earlier comments entertaining and humorous, and that I do find his calm and composed analysis of the situation well done. Remarkably, Arseblog did opine that Taylor was out to make sure that his own presence is felt on the pitch and so, resulted in the use of heavy tackles on the Arsenal forwards to throw them off the game. It’s the usual tactic to rough up the ‘soft’ Arsenal team as these demented Premiership managers who are tackling relegation year in year out instructed their players. Even Arseblog agrees that Taylor’s tackle has the imminent look of raw hurt on Eduardo drawn all over it.

Taylor, simply put, did not have sufficient common sense to exercise the proper restraint of certain unwarranted actions towards other players. But lack of common sense is also downright dangerous. It’s like suggesting that Taylor could not be faulted simply because of the short time-frame at his pleasure (or derision) to process the data fed to him (in his equally tiny brain) given the fast-paced modern football game into one where he can tackle the player of the ball fair and square and also ensure that the opposing player doesn’t get as bruised up as poor birthday boy Eduardo did. Common sense, in this context, is acquired when he has the proper attitude at his fingertips to begin with and to formulate an alternative method quickly. This Tiny Chicken Pea Brain clearly doesn’t have the right attitude in the first place. Talk about being paid thousands of pounds per week for a such a pea brain!

By defending Taylor in claiming that these accidents are common in football is also delusional – it doesn’t warn future footballers into thinking properly before flying into career-threatening tackles and just adopt the gung-ho approach into these matters. Tackles in football can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes but some can be more impulsively-driven than others, particularly for the young ones. I’m stressing future, preventive measures rather than just trying to single Taylor out for this one incident. The younger footballers should be schooled in these matters that even though a combative nature is ideal in the tough world of football, there has got to be a level-head in this one. In fact, by brushing off that such accidents in football are common place is akin to saying that any other automobile accidents and petty crimes are just as common, so why don’t we just forgive these petty offenders cos they don’t have a malicious bone in their body although they do have ill-tempered bones, impatient bones, crafty bones, naughty bones, horny bones and more bones than you can shake one at a dog. Still thanks to Kelly and Bruce for the inspirational biology lesson on bones.

Look, even Arsenal’s Denilson has gotten red carded himself in the past. His tackle on Burnblack’s David Dunn is quite as bad and nothing less than he deserved. I’m being fair here in saying that such rough, crazy streak of masculine aggression is better off stowed and controlled rather than exploded on the pitch and hurting all other footballers who don’t deserve this. It’s not just about the Arsenal – it’s about football. Remember that Marco van Basten prematurely ended his career because of the nagging, ankle injury which came, no doubt as a result of the many abuses his legs have had to endure courtesy of opposing defenders. Even Michael Owen has had persistent injuries which prevented him from maintaining the best sort of form and Ronaldo Luis Nazario de Lima (known as the first Ronaldo) is one footballer I’d really mark as the one of the best finishers of the late 90s and has suffered career-threatening injuries no thanks to opposing defenders who lacked common sense and talent to keep up with him. Do we need to waste all of these talents even though I’m fully aware that these are now players who can be called as ‘past it’?

I’d maintain this – Birmingham City FC’s Martin Taylor has got to be banned for life from playing football ever and let this be a lesson for all to follow, lest the beautiful game be further tarnished. I’d think that a mitigated ban of 6 years is also quite as good and he can start to think of playing for Accrington Stanley then.

This entry was posted in Football - Arsenal. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s