Then keep watching or simply do a search for the various debates involving it. If you are being cheating by a certain 'tactic' then you are going to start playing the same game to even things out.
You can't have watched very closely. As said above, there are various threads about it, but to recap... The defender, who is almost stationary (not "lunging in" as most assume) tries to clear the ball by sweeping it away with his foot. This sweep is about an inch off the ground. He does not go over the ball. Eduardo's too quick for him and nicks the ball away. On his (unavoidable) follow through he makes contact with Eduardo's shin, but not with any real force at all. Eduardo is moving forward, but his foot is stuck in the turf, and his shin trapped by the defenders foot. Eduardo's momentum acts like a lever against the defender's foot, and it's that that breaks his leg.
But if you've been calling that tactic dirty, then make a choice to join in on the filth, then you only have yourself to blame. If you see other people doing bad, you can make the choice to stay good.
If you are apart of a culture that despies such tactics, then thats irrelevant. Its about playing a hard but fair game right? Even if the other team resosrts to that, you have the choice to be sporting and not stoop down to that level.
Its not like one is losing because of the principles he chooses to protect, he loses because he's not good enough.
A couple of interesting observations on the subject from non-English observers: Gianluca Vialli Italians take the “real world” with them on to the football pitch at youth level. And because it’s real, the rewards go to the winners, not the nice guys or those who play by the rules. It mirrors life. English kids — traditionally — have been spared that little life lesson, that you can get to the top by cheating as long as you don’t get caught. Italians, however, are taught that many succeed by cheating, which is why they have to be careful not to be cheated themselves. When I was growing up, I was not encouraged to take a dive, yet I picked things up in subtle ways. Back then, many did not view such tricks for what they are: cheating. They were seen as clever or, as we say in Italy, “furbo”. When an opponent won a penalty against us by diving or making a meal of slight contact, the attitude among players and coaches wasn’t to condemn him for cheating but to point the finger at our own defenders for allowing it to happen. “He was clever!” we were told. “He tricked you and he tricked the referee.” We were engaging in footballing realpolitik. Jose Mourinho: The hatred felt for gamesmanship is so strong in England that many foreign players who used to dive change after arriving. You are pushed to behave differently here, you don’t really have a choice. If you cheat you have no chance of being admired. Even your own supporters will dislike you. So what do you do? Well, the way is not to be stupid, but not to cheat either. If there is a foul, you have to fall. I call it ‘helping the referee to make a decision’. That’s not cheating. Sadly I suspect that the hatred for gamesmanship is slowly waning in England. The intolerance for cheating by the opposition is still there, but there seems to be more tolerance of it by our own players. Personally I hate it. I'm embarassed when we do it. I was embarassed by Michael Owen's dive vs Argentina. Gerard's dive vs Atletico was appalling. And before people say "How are we going to win anything if we dion't fight fire with fire", I'd rather not win than win that way.
Then there is no choice but to act, and quickly... save English football by developing more domestic talent and sending those foreign players to Italy or Portugal where, according to one citizen from each nation, they'll feel right at home. When that Champions League and UEFA Cup hardware starts to pile up on EPL clubs' trophy rooms, the rest of the world will no doubt follow suit.
That is your interpretation. I disagree with it. I should say that I don't believe the defender intended to injure Eduardo. I do believe he fully intended to make contact and take him down.
That's ridiculous. You can clearly see him try and flick the ball away with the outside of foot. Unless you went over the ball, or just lunged in with a straight legged challenge, neither of which he did, you wouldn't try and trip a player with the sole of the foot. People are just fixated with how it looks at the moment of contact, and don't look beyond that. Here's one place where it's been discussed in depth already. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=662223
Exactly, it's the same with the Paul Robinson sending off, they analyse and analyse the tackle by watching it in slow motion, where it doesn't look bad but if you see the force he goes in on Park with it's a bad tackle. Johnson however didn't mean that at all, it was an accident, the guy looked physically sick and shocked after it happened and as he went to check on Eduardo you get little twats like Fabregas pushing him away.
Seaside Mafia's quotes are significant as they reveal the truth of the issue. Diving and simulation and cheating in general is not part of the English footballing culture as it is in Italy or Portugal. It happens of course but to general disapproval by the fans in general. Some folks claim you cannot generalise but you must for a simple reason. Football cultures are different in different countries. For a long time, various tactics and attributes were encouraged when kids were learning to play in England. Kids were encouraged to play long-balls, get stuck in and not to loiter on the ball. This resulted in long-ball tactics, the more physically powerful kids dominating and athletic prowess being more prized than flair. This situation was not replicated in Italy or Portugal. Different aspects of the game were encouraged at youth level which resulted in different playing styles at senior level caused by having players with different characteristics. This is a generalisation but it is true the same. Italy, Portugal and England played differently in the 70's and 80's. As Vialli has claimed - kids in Italy are encouraged to win at all costs even by using devious means. This is not a criticism but merely a difference in attitude and a redrawing of what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. Kids in England were strongly encoured to play fair or win by fair means and be more gracious losers. The differences in football culture were both physical and extending into the attitude of the players. English football has been traditionally conservative in its attitude to foreign ideas. For many ideas there was huge reluctance to adopt ideas from foreign shores. This led to what is called an English style of play which was more physical but had less diving or play acting. The game was very quick and end to end. The fans grew to like this style of football and regard this as proper English football. The game was more physical than elsewhere and this is still the case. Scottish football developed along similar philosophies as English and Scottish football strongly influenced each other. Now in the last 2 decades, more foreigners have started coming to England to play and coach and this has led also to the influx of new ideas and methods for training, diets, tactics, medical treatments etc. English football - slowly at first began to adopt more and more practices from Italy, Spain and elsewhere. This is a good thing. One of the things that has been adopted as a more common tactic is the simulation of injury. It occurs now more than ever in English football. English players do it of course but still to general disapproval. The fans still do not like it or accept it. Chelsea fans famously displayed their disapproval of Drogba's antics a few seasons ago. He may have helped them win games but his unsporting methods irked many. The English fans do not like simulation and consider it unmanly and unduly devious. Some Foreign fans may regard English football as being too lenient with regards to physical tackles. It is precisely this which highlights the difference in football cultures around the world. Whether you agree with Pulis' comments or not - it is clear that the lines of acceptable behaviour in football as well as approved styles of play are different in different football cultures. The differences may be lessening but they still exist.
This is a lot of text for a situation where when a sentence and a simple link would have been better. Repped for your hard work, tho.
A link to what? You think I should have created a website, added my comments and then linked to that? Maybe next time...
You forgot EBJT who feigned injury to "alert the referee than an infringement had occurred" cheating cvnt.
British clubs did pretty well in Europe before the Heysel ban, when they were built around mainly British players. However, I certainly wouldn't want to see foreigners disappear from the English game, as I appreciate the benefits that they bring to our style of football. I would like to see a restriction on the number of foreign players allowed per team so that clubs are forced to cultivate more home-grown talent. However, I'm not sure that this is possible as it might breach European Union law.
I know. What I don't know is what the other European clubs were doing at the same time, so I can't apply that situation to this one until I do. Protecting English players from competition would certainly help them get paid and allow that money to stay in your country. That might be a great idea, whether the results on the pitch are considered or not.
English players are overpriced and overpaid enough as it is, such a restriction would make things simply ridiculous. Imagine Ashley Cole throwing up as he's only offered 200k per week.
I know, and I agree with you that it would push up the price of some pretty unworthy individuals. I'd like to see a salary cap introduced, but suspect that this would also be illegal. The only solution is to re-introduce the "I'm sorry but he's a cock" rule from the 1920s, whereby the general public get to vote on which players don't get to enjoy high salaries because of their tendency to be cocks. The ones that fail the test are also made to wear a dress with "I'm a cock" on the back in place of their name when they play. It was very effective until Jimmy Hill succeeded in getting it rescinded in the 1950s.