I was talking to somebody about hooliganism today after the Leeds/Millwall incident. Being a Leeds fan he told me how he used to be part of the Leeds firm and the trouble they used to get into. Why?
Well, it's like this from what he told me. It's something to fill up the time which must be done so that you don't miss out on something. If you've ever been to an Indian wedding, you'd have noticed numerous things must be done in order for it to remain a legitimate Indian Wedding. I remember going to an Indian wedding where I was told that the boys (representing Brothers) guide the girl around a holy book. I was told later, that it was done wrong. I said oh dear, what was done wrong, to which I was told with a snigger, I don't know but something was done wrong.
So as I do, I source the information, who said what, who said something was wrong, why would this person view it so authoritative even though they themselves are unknowledgable of the affair and concluded - they were talking complete and utter rubbish and it was some gossip system to undermine somebody on their wedding day. So, see success, see celebration, undermine it by saying "nope, you're wrong, I am right".
Such is the same with hooliganism. You can do something over and over again and it becomes right. It becomes so right because everyone is doing it. It becomes so right that when you don't do it, something feels wrong. It becomes so right that somebody becomes jealous of you doing it, tells you you are wrong (with no reason to say so) so this solidifies your position to continue doing it because there is no reasoning to say it is wrong; but you ignore all obvious facets of morality that deem it wrong on a practical level.
Now, as he moved on in life, moved away from hooliganism, looked back on his memories and saw a different world, he realised it was a waste of time and now spends time before and after games having food at some place or having a drink in a pub. He finds it far more enjoyable and loves the company of the people without the aggro. So whatever happens, we will return back to community that is a solidarity. I think it's inate within in humans to first enter conflict with anything, but always celebrate and move towards solidarity, community and common ground.
Such is the same in a football team. You could completely smother players and tell them to do their best. You could continue to play a player and say, he will do best and developing him is better than changing the team. You could believe that the development and success of a player, in this case Eboue, is a lot better than using Walcott who will blitz past players, making them release a little wee in the process. Yet no, we sit around, we see a player regularly for long enough, we begin to believe it is right and get confused when another is played.
We've done this a lot in the past when players aren't doing well to the point that we do begin to accept players at the expense of others.
Case in point, Pennant and Bentley. Why can't we play these two players at Arsenal. Let's first accept that these two are outstanding players. To think otherwise goes against the brilliant pieces of football they play and the success they have gathered. At times the appear to carry their respective teams but we didn't use them.
The argument against them is their attitude but, the managers who played them, played them to develop them as players and to push them further. In spite of but in some cases in light of their attitude. As works in progress, as projects and give them a chance and give them a future. I respect that because when you believe in somebody, great things can happen.
Unless, like Eboue you take advantage of world class situations and start to feel comfortable in your position.
Many of our major players, a large group of them have had their careers either over shadowed with these occurrences because they have been littered with narratives (negative) by Arsenal fans, where as those who stayed and remained in the long term have their less admirable parts of their lives forgotten about.
Very few Arsenal players, very few indeed from the past have completely moral lives. Very few.
Still, we have produced many of the notable football players over the past 15 years.
Yet, as said above, it depends how you represent what is right and what is wrong and quite easily you can make or break a player with that - very much like you can make or break a person by focusing on anything you view negative about a person, depending on how much emphasis you play on them and the type of emphasis.
I personally know of Pennant's past and Bentley's. I think they're great players and I think Wenger would have made absolutely great players of them. I think he could have placed them in the England team and pushed Arsenal to the top. To cut a long story short and to move on Eboue and Walcott - I'll say it was all down to financing players and nothing to do with a players attitude. I see this as an objective and rational reasoning to this after looking at all the players we have had in the past, their personal lives and who got a chance at Arsenal and who didn't and what occurred to them after leaving Arsenal correlated to the Wenger effect on players and the obvious factor - Wenger creates great players.
We cannot therefore see a player play, reduce the capabilities of the team by playing out of sync (this behaviour would not be allowed at any of the top teams in the world, as it spoils things at Arsenal) when in fact we have a collection of players who can play in sync for the team available. Eboue is a fantastic player but he hasn't been his best for a while so it's about time we played the players who are match fit, are the strongest and can play a full game.
Otherwise we'll get used to Eboue and probably struggle.
