James McCarthy

[Jimmy1]

Oh now they're trying to be reasonable and pleasant are they? They've plumbed new depths the loveable southern rascals.

Had our fill of cockneys on here for the year.

 

[Cork Evertonian]

We had a similar incident happen to Tom Cleverly and we didn't make any song and dance over it.It was a proper tough and hard tackle.The ball was won fairly.That's how football works.It was unfortunate about the injury but that's the way thing's go.Listening to West Ham fans making us out to be some modern day equivalent of the crazy gang Wimbledon team.lol So any West Hams complaining on here from their East London hovel can go and do one as far as im concerned.Besides i thought they were all tough and hard in the east end of Landan.What's happened to the old Julian Dicks/The Mitchell Brothers east end fighting spirit?I think i know what the problem is.Everton beat West Ham more often than not.You're our whipping boys and you don't like it one bit.

 

[Pabbers]

Nolan and that other RS Taylor were bragging in the papers bfore that game about how they were going to "do" our boys and they didn't mean merely winning the game either!

Anichebe sued Nolan, and won.

 

[catcherintherye]

yeah, i can see the arguments about the scissor tackle, especially if both legs end up wrapping around an ankle. it can be executed with one leg getting the ball and the other not touching the opposition's standing leg, so can you really ban it. It's not a thug way of trying to injure someone with these disgusting two footed lunges you see, it's just a technique of tackling. He did get the ball after all, it's an odd one, because i bet many of us grew up being taught to take the ball and the man.

Unless you have made a similar tackle you can't always appreciate that the "scissor" motion is often quite natural as your body turns through the motion. He led with 1 leg and played the ball. Often as a defensive player though you know that you will make some contact with the attacking layer with the second leg. In that instance what can you do? Not make the tackle and let the attacking player go through on the basis that you may make contact with him after you win the ball?

If you watch the tackle closely Payet has overran the ball so it is there to be won. I've made that tackle several times as a right footed player. McCarthy is ideally trying to win the ball with his right foot by getting his body between Payet and the ball. If he can stretch and do that then any contact that comes after this leads to a free kick to Everton. He can't quite reach that far so has to knock the ball with his left leg but the right leg then follows afterwards in the motion designed to not just remove the ball from Payet but secure the ball for Everton.

Unfortunately Payet's poor control and subsequent inability to ride the tackle of McCarthy have meant that Payet has got himself injured. The idea that McCarthy has intention to hurt Payet is laughable, his intention is to win the ball back while it is outside of the control of Payet.

Payet only has himself to blame. He can do 1 of 3 things to avoid injury there.
1) Slide in himself for the tackle. He cannot be injured if he is not stood up.
2) Ensure he keeps closer control of the ball thus not giving the opportunity for McCarthy to try and execute a recovery tackle.
3) Successfully ride the tackle. Either by jumping over it, or appreciate McCarthy has got to a loose ball first and he needs to step backwards and allow McCarthy's full motion to go through without impeding him by putting his leg in the way.

Irrespective of the cockneys whining anyone who has played the game will know Payet is at fault for that not McCarthy.

 

[whufaninpeace]

Well said. Good to see you actually come on and write a well written and balanced post rather than do what the last West Ham fan did where he claimed to "come in peace" and then aimed petty jibes in a few of his posts. Don't see the point in that myself.

A lot of what you've said is right. The scissor action is what's made it dangerous but I also think that players have less control over their legs when going in for a heavy tackle than is made out by the modern day fan and pundit. If you go in to a tackle hard, you aren't always able to control where your legs end up. I wouldn't have much of a problem with them banning these scissor tackles but it just seems like it would take away even more of the physical side of the game because Dier actually won the ball cleanly and McCarthy got a bit of it too. I don't believe either player set out to injure the opponent either so getting punished seems a bit harsh.

Injuries are part of the game, and that's something a lot of your fans have overlooked on this occasion. I think their frustration at losing such a key player has clouded their judgement on this one.

Fair point, and I agree with most of the post. I disagree however that banning the scissor tackle would make our game less physical in any way. Every weekend we see hundreds of tackles go in, some clean some less so, without the scissor motion. I thoroughly believe that the scissor motion is one that a player does when he is angry/frustrated, and wants to leave an impression on the other player. Not an injury per se, just a lasting impression to maybe intimidate the other player or get in his head a bit.

 

[whufaninpeace]

i like the cut of your jib. good luck in all but one of your remaining matches.

Cheers, same to you as well

 

[bluemangroup]

Cheers, same to you as well

His jib is in terrible nick tbh with you mate.

 

[catcherintherye]

Fair point, and I agree with most of the post. I disagree however that banning the scissor tackle would make our game less physical in any way. Every weekend we see hundreds of tackles go in, some clean some less so, without the scissor motion. I thoroughly believe that the scissor motion is one that a player does when he is angry/frustrated, and wants to leave an impression on the other player. Not an injury per se, just a lasting impression to maybe intimidate the other player or get in his head a bit.

The scissor tackle is the result of a tackle where you are looking to win the ball with your right foot can't reach and nip it with your left foot first. I am not sure how you could ban this tackle, as it would mean players would be not be able to commit to a slide tackle if they felt there was any chance of their body turning as it went.

On a slight aside you really need to have a word with the clueless little bellends on KUMB and all their clueless gobbing off. We really don't need to resort to deliberately injuring your "star" players. It's almost as embaressing as Kopite behaviour, implying conspiracies when the lad has just gone in for a tackle and won the ball cleanly.

If you're player was more skilful (and not mis controlled the ball) or as much of a shithouse and decide to not go in for the 50/50 tackle he wouldn't have been injured.

 

[whufaninpeace]

My first reaction was how great the tackle was, and then I saw his other leg swing round and I agree that a yellow was the correct course of action. However, consider this Blues, if that had been Kouyate on Barkley, would we have all been shouting at the ref (or in my case Iraqigoals.net), for a straight red? Of course! I can therefore understand why West Ham fans would feel slightly hard done by. Would we have accused him of trying to hurt the player? No, by the first leg getting the ball you can see it was just a clumsy challenge bourne out of frustration, I don't think you can accuse him of attempting to injure the player in any way.

Cheers for looking at it from the other perspective. To be honest, I hate the scissor tackle, and if I saw one of my players doing it I would feel the same. Of course, some of the reaction from our fans is a bit over the top. However, I believe that most of the comments were made in the heat of the moment after finding out about his injury. I think a lot of our frustration comes from the fact that you lot are a bit of a bogey side (can you please send Lukaku overseas and out of this league!?), we seem to pick up quite a few injuries against you lot, and that it was to our star player who we all love to watch week in and week out. I agree that some WHU fans need to calm down though, as there wasn't any malice in the challenge, just a bit of frustration.

 

[EFC78]

Fair point, and I agree with most of the post. I disagree however that banning the scissor tackle would make our game less physical in any way. Every weekend we see hundreds of tackles go in, some clean some less so, without the scissor motion. I thoroughly believe that the scissor motion is one that a player does when he is angry/frustrated, and wants to leave an impression on the other player. Not an injury per se, just a lasting impression to maybe intimidate the other player or get in his head a bit.

It's hard to tell with the McCarthy one as West Ham fans are making him out to be the wreckless villain, and our fans are understandably sticking up for him. Personally, I think it was more of a case of him trying to win the ball from behind but not really caring much if he took out the man too. I don't think the scissor motion was deliberate personally, just unfortunate.

And in the case of Dier on Cleverly, Dier went to win the ball and got it cleanly. His legs inadvertently crossed in to the scissor motion but I don't believe it was deliberate, it was just the way he went in for the ball.

 

[Nymzee]

Momentum on the pitch can cause tackles like these to happen is the way I see it. He's a fiesty player but there won't have been any malicious intent on killing Payet; he's not Roy Keane. It was a poorly executed slide tackle but the speed at which he went in for it always meant there was a chance his trailing leg would follow through - it has to.

Awkward tackle, unfortunate injury. Let's hope in the reverse fixture no West Ham player thinks retribution is required.

 

[catcherintherye]

And in the case of Dier on Cleverly, Dier went to win the ball and got it cleanly. His legs inadvertently crossed in to the scissor motion but I don't believe it was deliberate, it was just the way he went in for the ball.

Yes exactly this. The body can turn during a tackle. To do anything other than scissor would result in doing yourself very serious damage to your tackle leg, quite possibly career ending. The only normal motion is to scissor.

Banning the scissor movement means preventing a slide tackle when you are stretching or coming in from the side. That is in essence the West ham angle on this. They don't think it's fair Everton tried to tackle their star man. When he cleanly tackled him and their man got injured because he was a coward they have got the hump and started coming up with a whole host of utter drivel on their page. What it comes down to is they don't like that we tackled their player. It's pathetic.

 

[Nymzee]

Wonder if people would shout up if it happened to like Joey O'Brien.

 

[ilikecheese]

Imagine being a fan of a team that had Nolan and Collins, and moaning about dirty play.

 

[whufaninpeace]

Unless you have made a similar tackle you can't always appreciate that the "scissor" motion is often quite natural as your body turns through the motion. He led with 1 leg and played the ball. Often as a defensive player though you know that you will make some contact with the attacking layer with the second leg. In that instance what can you do? Not make the tackle and let the attacking player go through on the basis that you may make contact with him after you win the ball?

If you watch the tackle closely Payet has overran the ball so it is there to be won. I've made that tackle several times as a right footed player. McCarthy is ideally trying to win the ball with his right foot by getting his body between Payet and the ball. If he can stretch and do that then any contact that comes after this leads to a free kick to Everton. He can't quite reach that far so has to knock the ball with his left leg but the right leg then follows afterwards in the motion designed to not just remove the ball from Payet but secure the ball for Everton.

Unfortunately Payet's poor control and subsequent inability to ride the tackle of McCarthy have meant that Payet has got himself injured. The idea that McCarthy has intention to hurt Payet is laughable, his intention is to win the ball back while it is outside of the control of Payet.

Payet only has himself to blame. He can do 1 of 3 things to avoid injury there.
1) Slide in himself for the tackle. He cannot be injured if he is not stood up.
2) Ensure he keeps closer control of the ball thus not giving the opportunity for McCarthy to try and execute a recovery tackle.
3) Successfully ride the tackle. Either by jumping over it, or appreciate McCarthy has got to a loose ball first and he needs to step backwards and allow McCarthy's full motion to go through without impeding him by putting his leg in the way.

Irrespective of the cockneys whining anyone who has played the game will know Payet is at fault for that not McCarthy.

This response is a bit over the top. To state that Payet is the one completely at fault, and that McCarthy is free of all blame is completely biased. Taking off my C&B specs, I could see how some of it may be Payet's fault. His miscontrol led to the challenge being made in the first place (doesn't mean he needs to be more skillful, as even the best players miscontrol a ball from time to time, yes even Everton players). However, to say that it's all his fault is completely blinkered. Say what you want, McCarthy had some knowledge as to what he was doing. He's a professional football player, he makes hundreds of tackles weekly. I can bet you pretty confidently that he isn't doing any of these scissor challenges in training, no matter how physical the training is. The tackle was made out of frustration, and to let the player know that he was in for a tough battle. He could have easily avoided the scissor motion if he wanted. I don't think he had the intention of injuring, just that he wanted to make his presence known.

I always enjoy the "Anyone who has played the game" or "anyone who has any knowledge will agree that I'm right about everything" comments. I played the game for 20 years at a decently competitive level (not professional by any means). In my time playing, I saw maybe a handful or two of scissor tackles. Not once did I ever see a look of "my mistake" or "uh oh" on the face of the player who committed the offense, when the other player ended up injured and unable to carry on. It was always accompanied by a sheepish grin and a satisfaction of "putting the player in their place". It's a tackle that is made when you aren't necessarily having things go the way you plan, and you get frustrated. I'm not saying McCarthy was proud of injuring Payet, just stating that you can bet he was in control of his actions.

And as for your other post, which I will just respond to here, I agree that a lot of KUMB posters went over the top. It's the internet, a place where people know they can say pretty much whatever they want, without any guilt or punishment coming their way. Each forum has a group of people who go over the top, including this forum. Judging from your posts so far (only the past few that I've seen, granted), it seems that you are one of them that goes over the top in the other direction, the "it's never our fault, our players are complete angels" and "every other fan is stupid and we are the only reasonable ones". Most fans who have responded to my posts have been fairly reasoned and presented their points with only a bit, I would appreciate if you tried to do the same. Stating that Payet was a "coward" or a "shithouse" for getting tackled is idiotic at best. Also, stating that he isn't skillful shows that I should not take your knowledge of the game into consideration. Most of your fans have been able to admit that it was an unfortunate injury, and that they wish him the best in his recovery. You're just taking the West Ham fans' reaction and going the complete opposite direction.