This post is in direct response to an earlier piece authored by my Football Soccer Lens colleague.

It was stated that it is a shame that Arsenal fall to such depths of depravity, in an article full of statements that would stir the loins of the News of the World editorial staff. The real shame was that the article misrepresented the positions of Arsene Wenger and Arsenal Football Club in a calculated attempt to make them look like the worst thing to ever happen to the world. Before I move on to my analysis, let us first critically analyse the comments and accusations thrown at Arsenal.

First, the authors comments regarding the 0-0 at Old Trafford in 2003/2004. Firstly, the author seems confused as to what really constitutes a “dive.” And it would be rather hypocritical to accuse Wenger of myopia after that statement. I do believe, however, that images often do the job a lot better than words. I leave the readers to judge for themselves whether Rooney dived or not. Click here.

Second, the author accuses us of not admitting guilt at our overreaction. However, truth be told, everyone from the Chairman of the board, Peter Hill-Wood to Arsene Wenger admitted that we were out of line at the full-time whistle and accepted our fines without appeal.

I think our arrogance has driven the author to such a rage that he is attributing accidents as scandals (thus the terms “Pizzagate”,”food fight”). Fabregas chucking a slice of pizza at the wall out of frustration, and the ill-fated food item hitting Alex Ferguson by accident (something that is backed up by staff testimony) is being taken as a direct attempt by Arsenal to hurt the Manchester United Angelic Brigade manager out of sheer arrogance.

With Pizza.

The author proceeds to term Manchester United’s efforts at Old Trafford in 04/05 as nothing short of heroic, as they “managed to give as good as they got on the field.”

Any spectator who has watched that match will have to be excused for wondering if giving it as good as it gets on the field means hacking down players continuously for nutmegging you and going studs up on them when you’re clearly second-best to the ball. How Gary Neville stayed on the pitch beyond 30 minutes in that match is a question that baffles many a great minds today.

Before we move on to the main point of the author, we must also appreciate his sly dig at Henry, regarding his celebration, or lack thereof. I’m not quite sure when the author starting watching football, but if he was to jog his mind some years back to when Manchester United’s player of the century (as voted by their own fans) was still at the club. I would wonder if the author would revise his dig at Henry were he to view Eric Cantona’s silent stares after scoring (quite wonderful) goals.

And now to the main issue, which the author begins addressing by accusing Wenger of being poetic and extravagant (after throwing the thesaurus at us, no less. Jens Lehmann “sauntering”?!): Were Arsenal right to be incensed with what resulted in Tottenham’s opener?

Kicking the ball out of play in the event that the opposition/your own player is down is one of the few Gentlemen’s pacts remaining in football today. It may seem unnecessary in Spain when players are going down like Messerschmidts in the Battle of Britain, but it is widely accept as norm throughout most leagues in the world.

Michael Carrick broke no rules in playing on, he had every right to play to the whistle. But bless his soul, he saw the collision, and stopped in his tracks, about to play on. It is at this hesitation that Arsenal players, most notably Pires, who was right next to Carrick, assume that he’s going to throw the ball out as that would be the gentlemanly thing to do. But it is Spurs after all. Martin Jol screamed at Carrick from the bench to “Play! Play!” and he passed it on to Davids, catching the Arsenal defence flatfooted.

The author, in his Arsenal-hating glory, asks us: “What the hell would you do?” A fair player’s response would be to kick it out. The author says Spurs were right to play on. Obviously correct by the rules, but losing all moral high ground. Just like the author revels in Arsenal’s behaviour after the full-time whistle at Old Trafford in 03/04, awarding an implicit moral high ground to Manchester United; here he celebrates Spurs’ behaviour giving up that very moral high ground. The author not only needs to figure out who’s side he’s on (Anyone but Arsenal FC, presumably), but also whether landing in such a contradictory mess is worth taking his Arsenal hate out of proportion.

Michael Carrick and Robbie Keane were both of the view that the ball should have been kicked out. Carrick, in fact, blushed when he was asked by the Sky Sports interviewer about the incident. Edgar Davids, perhaps to save his blushes, refused to comment and said that he was busy looking at the ball. Martin Jol said he knew nothing of the incident and had no idea why Wenger was so angry with him. Wenger said that Jol was lying, which ruffled a lot of people’s feathers.

Was Wenger incorrect in branding Jol a liar? Poor old Martin Jol, who had nothing to do with the incident, would have screamed at his players to kick the ball out.

Unfortunately for the author, and for Mr. Jol, Sky Sports switched on their microphone from the touchline the next day and coupled it with a camera view of the incident. Martin Jol is clearly seen pointing to the pitch and screaming “Play! Play!” (Click for video)

Wenger could have perhaps used a euphemism or two to describe the two-faced response of Jol to questioning, but he was surely not incorrect.

Oh, and at this point, I must thank the author for telling me where Chuck Norris really is nowadays. He dresses up as the fourth official at Premiership matches. No wonder the author describes the fourth official as “security staff.” A roundhouse kick or two would sort Wenger out, eh?

Another example of how the author has, unfortunately in my opinion, stretched facts to suit his spin. Michael Dawson was “hit by an Arsenal player”? Without any use of expletives, how exactly is going for a 50/50 header synonymous with physical assault?

The author’s antipathy to Arsenal can be expected, considering his allegiance, however it cannot be respected as long as his arguments continue to stretch facts to suit spin, and continue to put United on a pedestal that they most certainly do not deserve.

This was a classic case of Pot calling Kettle black. Can one act of class by Cesc Fabregas (throwing the ball out of play so Dawson could receive treatment) induce such a significant loss of long-term memory? (The author should also perhaps reconsider his assertion that this was an isolated act of class: Arsenal had been frustrated against Villarreal and Madrid but kept kicking the ball out) This piece came from the supporter of a side that was famous throughout the world for harrassing referees when decisions didn’t go their way (Stand up Messrs Keane, Stam, Neville and Irwin), for drunken rants at journalists for merely questioning flawed team selections, for fouling any team that dared play the game better than them and even ending a career in the process.

Having supported Arsenal for well over a decade now, I am aware of the shortcomings, moral and football-wise, of my team. And I have no problems respecting fair criticism, however, the stretched imagination and Fox News-style spin introduced by the author to this website leaves a lot to be desired.

It was sweet for the author when the ball hit the back of Jens Lehmann’s net at Highbury. Before climbing to his pedestal in Olympia, he should perhaps also ponder why the entire world celebrated when Costinha scored at Old Trafford.