The Soccer Blog: Wolves are not a dirty team

Monday, 13 September 2010

Wolves are not a dirty team

By: timmyg | September 13th, 2010

wolves The aftermath of Saturday’s Wolves game has drawn battle lines between Fulham fans claiming Wolves are the dirtiest team yet and Wolves fans denying such accusations.

But there is a distinct difference between playing dirty and being a dirty team. One is a strategy and the other is a mindset. And what we’re seeing in Wolves is a team that is, for better or worse, playing dirty. But because it is still early in the season, we cannot label them a dirty team just yet.

Wolves are currently bottom of the disciplinary table with 15 yellow cards and one red. Yet, amazingly, Wolves have 12 different players carrying yellow cards but none have received a straight red.
They out-fouled their opponents in only two of the first four games, but only slightly. At the opener at Stoke they out-fouled the Potters 19 to 16. But the next week against Everton they were out-fouled 17 to 16, and again a week later at Newcastle 21 to 20. On Saturday the tally was 19 to 9 in favor of Wolves.

Another telling anecdote about Wolves is when their opponents were booked. Both of Stoke’s cards came after the 75th minute (Huth at 76 and Whitehead at 78). Everton’s only card came at the 77th minute. Three out of the five cards by Newcastle came at the very end of the match: Ameobi at 89, Perch and 90 and Barton at 90. And then on Saturday both of Fulham’s cards came at the 90th minute through Murphy and Hangeland.

I don’t have any stats on it, but I’m pretty positive most bookings occur in the second half. Referees have a pretty simple and straightforward system so that one innocuous tackle in the 10th minute will get a warning but that same tackle in the 60th minute will get a card.

But to have so many bookings so late in the game shows that the cards are retaliatory offenses. Remember the World Cup final? Nearly half of Spain’s cards (and I’m sure fouls, although there’s no easy way to track that stat) were in retaliation to the thuggish play by Holland. At a certain point players get fed up and go vigilante, but only because of the original offenses.

Yet Daniel Poultney, the Wolves correspondent for Soccernet, brings up a lucid point about Wolves’ fouls: they were incredibly awkward.

What the record doesn’t show though is what the players are doing to get themselves booked.
This detail would show that Wolves are not a team of cheats. You will not find two-footed tackles, elbows or scuffles on our list of crimes. Neither will you find diving, dissent or play acting.

What you will find is a catalogue of clumsy errors just like those that saw Christophe Berra sent off at Fulham. There will be plenty of obstructions and mistimed tackles.

Our fouls are due to our limitations though and nothing to do with our tactics.

Don Hymel, an erstwhile podcast guest, also brings some perspective to this point on the Friends of Fulham board:

[Wolves] fouled plenty and should have received more cards than they did, but they weren’t out to injure anybody. They wanted to intimidate and that didn’t much work. Why we were all so frustrated at them [and at the ref by a direct result], is that the majority of their fouls were cynical. Players pulled down and hip checked not to hurt them but to stop an attack. If you’re going to deal in quick — and I must say VERY EFFECTIVE — lightning counter attacks, you must be prepared to deal with the consequences when you lose possession. Wolves did by hacking down the Fulham player leading the attack. This is the very essence of professional fouling. If a player makes this foul, he should expect a yellow. I know I would have. If the ref had any guts, he would have started the yellows early on. Wolves would have either adjusted their tactics or wound up with four guys on the pitch.

I’m going to cut Wolves some slack here and agree that they are not a dirty team. Henry’s tackle on Zamora was clean, but unnecessary. Their tactics aren’t negative as much as they are sophomoric.

Well, not yet anyway.

Category: Off Topic, Player News, Team News

Tags: Off Topic, Player News, Team News, wolves
« The (last) Loaner Report (for the foreseeable future?) | Home | Subscribe

The Offside RSS Feeds

Share.wp-notable img {border: none;margin-left:5px;} digg:

Comments | Add your comment Lol in H7 | September 13th, 2010 at 8:09 am

I couldn’t disagree more about the “clean” tackle (oo er missus) by Henry. It was snidey and the affect and result is the reason tackles from behind are banned.

Matt | September 13th, 2010 at 8:47 am

“But to have so many bookings so late in the game shows that the cards are retaliatory offenses”

I’m just wondering how you come to this conclusion about bookings against Wolves this season? The first half booking for Pantsil (which you seem to have forgotten) could quite easily have been a red. But I’m sure that you’ll point to the fact that it was clumsy rather than nasty.You say that the Henry tackle on Zamora was “unnecessary” Obviously the resulting injury was very unfortunate and I wish Bobby a speedy and full recovery,however when a player has the ball at his feet and he is bearing down on goal you would expect a tackle to be made. I’d also like to hear your thoughts on the late booking for Murphy, which was probably for the worst tackle of the match, and was on a player near the halfway line heading away from goal. You may describe that as “unnecessary”

Ian | September 13th, 2010 at 9:02 am

Who was it that cynically fouled Doyle to prevent a pretty certain 1 on 1 chance with the keeper? This mock horror that Fulham (and Newcastle previously) fans are spouting is incredibly hypocritical.

wolf | September 13th, 2010 at 9:02 am

Matt – you are obviously blinkered to fulham as I am to wolves, the fact of the matter is that the worst 2 fouls in the game were made by fulham players, murphy did actually go out to kick Karl Henry – where’s your logic in condeming Wolves?

wolf | September 13th, 2010 at 9:04 am

Sorry last msg should have been for the 1st poster, lol in h7

timmyg | September 13th, 2010 at 9:17 am

Matt, when your team has been fouled a crazy amount of times, you will seek retribution. I don’t excuse Murphy or Hangeland’s tackle, but I can understand them. See the difference? It’s also why that most of the cards Wolves’ opponents have received have been in the last minutes of the game. Ergo, my conclusion. Did you read it?

Ian, Fulham have been top of the fair play table for the past several seasons — same with our fans. We aren’t dirty. It’s not hypocrisy, but indignation.

Seriously, I love you Wolves Fans. I defend you, and you attack the messenger. Mamma mia…

Ian | September 13th, 2010 at 9:31 am

timmyg – when required, your team played dirty commiting cynical fouls designed to prevent attacking play. Your article above is based on assumption and a rather rose tinted view of the game. Your conclusion, is based on same assumptions and rose tinted view. I doubt you have any real idea about the cards received in the latter stages of the Everton and Newcastle games. Fair play for the article, but it’s just sugar coating the nonsense that has been spouted recently with some added srpinkles for good measure.

Alan Coe | September 13th, 2010 at 9:39 am

I am fascinated by the demonisation of Karl henry in certain quarters bnut not particularly on this site. The instant response from the MoTD commentator was ‘good tackle.’ I agree. I think some of the Wolves players are not best at timing tackles but Henry is not one of those. Robust but not dirty

Matt T | September 13th, 2010 at 9:54 am

I’m a wolves fan who was at the Fulham game. Went with a couple of mates who were neutrals for this encounter. Their view was . I agree with some of the comments about clumsy and in some cases limited. Berra’s two cards were the result of being turned by a better and quicker player and finding himself hopelessly out of position. Henry’s tackle on Zamora was fantastically timed – the outcome for Zamora a really unlucky accident. Worse tackle of the day was Danny Murphy’s at the end. That was nasty. Maybe out of frustration but hard to see why when your team has just scored the winner. I really enjoyed the game. We’ll struggle this year like last year but played some half decent stuff. It will take time to become established and we might well go down – but we won’t do it kicking lumps out of teams. Mark Hughes was reasonably careful in his comments. He knows what it is like when managers/TV pundits/the press decide to label your team as dirty!

Leave a ReplyIf you have not commented here before, please take a moment to peruse our
Commenting Guidelines.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Already candidates for succeeding Capello are stepping forward Fabio Capello WILL Step down after Euro 2012 Two games, Two wins. Where from here? more news...

Search The Offside

The Soccer Blog

Pages

Monday, 13 September 2010

Wolves are not a dirty team

No comments:

Post a Comment