28 February 2008
A Word on Eduardo
For those football fans who do not characterise their support by the teams they hate then the news that Eduardo da Silva has been released from hospital and should make a full recovery will come as great news. Thankfully such injuries are rare in the game but it has spawned much debate around tackling, safety, refereeing and punishment.
Cwoff takes a detailed look at the tackle and its consequent debate.
The Tackle
Eduardo picked the ball up mid way inside the Birmingham half with his back to goal. His first touch slowed the ball and allowed him to turn towards goal away from Fabrice Muamba who started behind him then moved round to Eduardo’s left. His second touch on the ball, carrying it towards the “D” of the box was fractionally heavy; Martin Taylor had chosen to intercept him as soon as Eduardo had turned and picked his position some 15 yards outside of the box. As Eduardo took his second touch, Taylor was in position to make a challenge. It looks as if he was planning to deflect Eduardo away from his direct route to goal rather than make a challenge - when it became clear that the second touch was heavy though, Taylor realised that he had an opportunity to engage and make a successful challenge. You can see this in his stance; as Eduardo turned, Taylor set himself and stopped moving. Only when Eduardo made his heavy touch which took the ball slightly out of his control did Taylor sense he could make a challenge.
At this point it was a straight race for the ball; Taylor aimed to stab at the ball to push it out towards the centre circle while Eduardo wanted the last touch to retain possession. It should be noted that there was no Arsenal player next to him, Adebayor was ahead and Fabregas behind, both to his right but in all likelihood Eduardo’s final touch was designed to get the freekick from a resulting challenge and retain possession for his team. However, lunging for the ball as he did changed his momentum and as a consequence meant that his entire weight was put through his left leg as Taylor’s challenge came in. And this really is the crux of the matter; Eduardo’s leg was broken because his entire weight was through his left leg at the time of impact.
It must be noted that the the Taylor challenge was single-footed so the recent rash of red cards designed to outlaw the two-footed challenge would not have been relevant in this instance. Also, his foot was approximately 20 to 30 centimetres off the ground, leg angled down and rotated so the foot is near-horizontal. Dangerous or not, this is not an uncommon challenge nor is it one which suggests any malicious intent.
If you look at the mechanics of running while one foot is almost always in contact with the ground the entire weight of the body is sent through either leg for only a fraction of a second. As you run with a given velocity (speed and direction), the energy needed to maintain that movement requires less than to begin the movement or change the velocity (changing either speed or direction). Consequently, the full weight of the body is never in contact with the ground for anything more than a fraction of a second.
Change that velocity or alter momentum however and energy needs to be dissipated and transferred which requires a greatly increased contact with the ground. In Eduardo’s case, his final touch required him to lunge in order to beat Taylor to the ball and change the direction of travel. As he took the touch, his entire body weight was sent through his left leg along with much of his momentum (it was in a sense the final step of his run - he was stopping). With Taylor committed to his challenge, his body weight and momentum was concentrated through his left boot. Normally if a player is running the odds are that the contact leg will either just have left the ground in which case contact will result in the player being spun up and over, or about to hit the ground and tripped downwards. With the body changing momentum and with a players full weight and energy being dissipated though a single leg, the player is in real trouble since a lateral force will not cause a braced leg to move freely. Had Eduardo relinquished possession and continued his run he would almost certainly have been knocked over and any damage he would have incurred would have been from his landing and not the impact.
As it was, Taylor went in hard which Eduardo sought to evade and the result was dreadful.
However such tackles are far from uncommon. If you watch enough football you will see them every week. The real rarity of this challenge was with it’s timing coinciding with the bracing and dissipation of momentum through Eduardo’s leg. Take a detailed look next time you see a player booked for a sliding tackle at the legs that knocks a player over ; then imagine what would have happened had the recipient’s leg been rooted by his own weight…
Punishment
As already stated, the rarity in the Eduardo injury was not in the tackle but in the rare timing of both the challenge and Eduardo’s counter. A single-footed challenge like that is very rarely awarded a straight red card and it is generally considered that the referee in this case gave the red only when the extent of the injury was apparent.
Birmingham’s manager Alex McLeish certain believes this but such is the sensitivity surrounding the incident he would have felt pressure to relinquish his claim to contest the decision. His main concern now is how to ensure that his defender is not affected psychologically by slicing through a fellow footballers leg. In this case, his being sent off and banned might give him time to recover mentally as well as diffusing the likely debate about how he should have been sent off and banned had he not received the red card.
Wenger’s Reaction
There was significant criticism surrounding Wenger’s post-match interview when he suggested that Taylor never be allowed to play football again, and rightly so. It is no managers right to dictate the punishment a player receives and it was a typically one-sided tirade from a man who has learned neither humility nor perspective in his professional life.
However the interview took place immediately after the match when his mind would still have been firmly on the health and future of his player. Wenger, more than most managers treats his players like an extended family, particularly since so many come to the club so young and from foreign fields. He no doubt views himself as in loco parentis to many of his players and like any parent would have been devastated to see one of them so badly hurt. That he withdrew his original comment is as close to an apology as he will ever likely make and for that, while he should not be commended, he should be forgiven.
Ultimately, the only way to conclusively prevent such injuries as this from ever happening again is to outlaw tacking.
No matter how nasty the injury was - and thankfully it seems that he will now make a full recovery - the game would have to be fundamentally changed in order to prevent such injuries from ever happening again. But this is football. Professional sport and all sports come with risks. If you play rugby, you stand the chance of broken bones or a broken neck. In golf you can get struck by lightning (or eaten by alligators apparently). Cricket you can be hit in the face by the ball. Formula One; you can crash into a wall at 200mph. The risks to the participants of these great sports are always there and they are risks that no one would doubt for one moment are not worth taking.
The Eduardo injury was horrific but you are right that in order to get rid of incidents like this you would have to ban tackling altogether. If you look at some of the bad injuries that led to long term lay-offs, similar to Eduardo’s, like Larson or Cisse they were not malicious.
Referees have to try and stop what they have control over such as two footed tackles, showing studs and judging wether a player shows intent to cause injury or is playing the ball. These incidents are just freak accidents which are unfortunate
Whilst I agree with virtually all the article I have to disagree with your point regarding Wengers post match comments.
The tackle happened in the 3rd minute which means that he had 87 minutes of footaball plus the half time, more than an hour and a half, to think about what he would say to the press, therefore this makes his reaction even more disgraceful. In my opinion he knew exactly what he was doing when he made those comments which has ultimately caused the furore that has occured since within the Croatian press and Internet sites.
Whilst I agree with Birmingham Cities stance to not challenge his red card, I do think that the foul at worst was only worthy of a yellow card, however I think that Mr Wenger should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute which will then stop him, and others like him, thinking that they are above reproach and should then be a deterent to his dispicable slaying of ‘Tiny’ which has caused distress and incited hatred to not only Martin but to his completely innocent family, to besmirch a player in such a manner should be treated very seriously by the F.A.
Hmm, I’m really not sure about this. Although you rightly say that Wenger had a while to think about what he would say, his team are top of the league and he had a match to win, tactics to think about and needed to think about what he would say to his players to keep their minds on the game and not their team mate. I really don’t think he would have had time to adequately and calmly assess the incident and form a rational response.
However since then it has to be questioned whether his ‘retracting’ the statement is enough. Wenger I’m sure would plead ignorance of the Croatian website now dedicated to Taylor and I’m sure would privately think that what Taylor sowed he must now reap. Indeed I am sure he would not think it his place to try and diffuse the issue much less believe that it was he who instigated it (he would think it was the tackle and not his comments).
There is a clear will from all sides (except those in Croatia) to end this issue as quickly as possible. Birmingham have not appealed the card (nor would it be successful even had the leg not been broken I might add). Wenger retracted his spiteful statement. Eduardo had said that it was just ‘one of those things’ - which it was.
I think Croatia will get over it and I can’t see them causing any great distress to Taylor in the long term - it is not like he will be playing against them for England any time soon.
I agree Wenger was out of order but since all sides seem to want to put it in the past and get on with the season I can’t see that punishing Wenger will do anything other than stir up a hornets nest; Taylor being (incorrectly) punished more for breaking a leg, Wenger moaning and being punished for what he said, Croatians getting angrier and giving more abuse to Taylor.
People want to diffuse the situation and let it slip into the past so that Eduardo and Taylor can get on with their careers and since it really was ‘one of those things’ then perhaps in this instance it is for the best.