Shocking Guardian article on De Jong/Ben Arfa

[Marvin]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that article, you mad, paranoid bastards

The news such as it was was that De Jong had contacted Ben Arfa privately. So why not just state that instead of re-stating the comments of Newcastle officials and the Dutch national coach who all had their own reasons for riding this media storm. And it was not a horror tackle.

If Bluemoon were running this story on your blog, can you see a City fan presenting it in the same way?

 

[Ric]

Can't really see anything wrong with that article to be honest.

 

[cookster]

Can't really see anything wrong with that article to be honest.

"Last seasons horror tackle" - well that's bollocks for a starter!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Can't really see anything wrong with that article to be honest.

Another WUM. Ban him.

 

[Marvin]

OK

Largely factually correct, but what about context? The news is that De Jong privately contacted Ben Arfa so why repeat all the old accusations that were made in the middle of the witch-hunt? A journalist sympathetic towards the players involved, or an objective fan would not have taken the "apology" if that's what it was, as an opportunity to repeat the old "Horror" tackle allegation that saw De Jong demonised by all comers. All he has done is pick at old wounds, when the players are trying to move on.

 

[Ric]

Can't really see anything wrong with that article to be honest.

"Last seasons horror tackle" - well that's bollocks for a starter!

It doesn't say "horror tackle" on the version I just read (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/16/nigel-de-jong-hatem-ben-arfa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... m-ben-arfa</a>), but not sure if they've changed it since the OP posted. If they did use that term then it was unnecessarily sensationalist.

 

[SWP's back]

Can't really see anything wrong with that article to be honest.

Another WUM. Ban him.

He used to Liam I believe.

 

[cookster]

Can't really see anything wrong with that article to be honest.

"Last seasons horror tackle" - well that's bollocks for a starter!

It doesn't say "horror tackle" on the version I just read (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/16/nigel-de-jong-hatem-ben-arfa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... m-ben-arfa</a>), but not sure if they've changed it since the OP posted. If they did use that term then it was unnecessarily sensationalist.

Exactly my point, one of the bullet sub headlines has been changed.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Can't really see anything wrong with that article to be honest.

"Last seasons horror tackle" - well that's bollocks for a starter!

It doesn't say "horror tackle" on the version I just read (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/16/nigel-de-jong-hatem-ben-arfa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... m-ben-arfa</a>), but not sure if they've changed it since the OP posted. If they did use that term then it was unnecessarily sensationalist.

They've changed it. Must have been reading this thread.

 

[RandomJ]

If memory serves the tackle wasn't even bad. Ben Arfa just got unlucky with the way his foot twisted.