MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP

Richard Williams in the Guardian:
As the harvest of furious emails and telephone calls made plain, there were two ways of looking at the Battle of Old Trafford. Those who stirred themselves to respond to the views I expressed in Monday's paper - and they probably stood for many others - believed that the scenes of mayhem at the end of Sunday's match were not only disgraceful but almost wholly attributable to the actions of the Arsenal team.

Well, I'm not so sure about that. Van Nistelrooy had just suffered the humiliation of missing a penalty that would have given his side two extra points.
He had also functioned, in the eyes of the Arsenal players, as the agent provocateur behind Vieira's dismissal. Making himself scarce was surely the prudent option.

At the time, sitting in Old Trafford watching the whole affair unfold, I thought it was both more complicated and less appalling than most people seem to believe. I still do. The emotional crescendo of the match's last 10 minutes made the individual incidents more understandable than they may have seemed on a TV screen or in still photographs in the morning newspapers.

The undercurrent, of course, was the special rivalry that sprang to life five years ago, when Wenger started to mount a consistent challenge to Ferguson.

Above that was the bad feeling that already existed between Van Nistelrooy and Martin Keown. A brand new ripple was created by the conflict between Ashley Cole and Cristiano Ronaldo, whose impudent footwork seemed to infuriate the England left-back.

Then there was Steve Bennett, the referee, trying too hard to atone for errors in his performance during the Community Shield.

Curiously, considering the degree of feeling between the clubs, there was virtually no physical unpleasantness in the match until Van Nistelrooy and Vieira clashed in the 78th minute.

Having examined the videotape, I think now that I underestimated [on Monday] the seriousness of Arsenal's reaction to the final whistle, and that of Keown in particular - though it has to be said that, if Keown had a face like Michael Owen's, he would probably not find himself in receipt of quite so much vituperation.

Other observers, however, have underplayed the extent of the home team's role in the provocation and its aftermath.

It might be remembered, however, that in the end no one suffered a scratch. It still seems to me that the significance of the whole incident has been exaggerated, not least because it provides so convenient a step from which to vault on to a high horse.

Paul Hayward in the Torygraph:

Roy Keane's conversion from hawk to dove in Sunday's melee at Old Trafford still fascinates. In the mythology of the dressing-room, surely, the resident Hard Man looks after his team-mate, not the indignant opponent. When Keane was comforting Arsenal's Patrick Vieira, was he not meant to be protecting Ruud van Nistelrooy?

Keane would probably laugh the question off. "Can't win either way," he would say. "If I kick someone up the backside, I'm a thug. If I play the sheriff, I've gone soft."

To criticise is not the intention. There is a striking contrast, though, with rugby. There, Martin Johnson is England's Keane. Hell would be full of polar bears before 'Johnno' stood back and allowed a frenzied pack of opponents to bully and harass one of his pals.

Paddy Crerand, the Keane of the 1960s, admitted yesterday that he would have "thumped" one of the Arsenal mob. This is not necessarily an offensive suggestion. You could argue that honest, face-to-violence of the sort you see in boxing gyms would have been preferable to the sneaky, craven digs at Van Nistelrooy. But what mystifies me still is why so few United players intervened decisively on behalf of their unfortunate Dutch colleague.

Gary Neville did, but Keane seemed more interested in nurturing his new friendship with Vieira, calming him down and guiding him towards the tunnel while Van Nistelrooy was being jostled and abused. At the final whistle, when Martin Keown and company went back for more, Keane was a comparative spectator.

True, he has a more highly developed sense of self-control these days; and maybe he was enjoying the spectacle of Arsenal getting themselves into so much disciplinary bother. Still, a Crerand or a Graeme Souness would have interjected and worried about the consequences later.

It makes you wonder whether the United players have some sympathy with the idea that Van Nistelrooy is sometimes too much of a thespian for his own good. A sometimes violent tackler he may be, but to Keane, diving or conning a referee would be anathema.

Martin Samuel in the Times:

As a nation, we simply cannot believe that a man as cultured, urbane, well-mannered and intelligent as Wenger can marshal the mewling bunch of juveniles that frequently masquerade as his first team at Arsenal. We see the man and we like him. We study his dark side — 52 red cards in seven years — and cannot equate the two.

Wenger’s captain, Vieira, is the worst-behaved player in Premiership history, his team are beyond control and Robert Pires is a big cheat whose behaviour against Portsmouth 11 days ago was an affront to all definitions of sporting decency.

Yet because the Arsenal manager has the pleasing demeanour of a sophisticate, we fawn over him like the embassy guests in the Ferrero Rocher advert as the cheapo chocolates are handed round. “Oh, Ambassador, you are spoiling us.”

It’s embarrassing.

Wenger is treated with a reverence that would not be afforded a British national with the same record in the same role.

Were the manager of Arsenal plain old ’Arry Walker, minus the glasses and Gallic charm, plus a few dropped aitches and the odd explosion of Anglo-Saxon English when he didn’t realise the microphones were on, would he be indulged through £250,000 in collective fines for indiscipline? Of course not, and rightly so.

Yet Wenger’s reputation survives. You can preside over malevolence, bullying, childish self-pity and intimidation; just be sure to speak French to us while you do, mon chéri.

When Sir Alex Ferguson loses his cool, his regional tongue and industrial language see him lampooned mercilessly. Spitting Image would have had a field day. Who can forget the “youse are all idiots” headlines after his defence of Juan Sebastián Verón? Yet Ferguson properly recognised the indiscipline in his team in the aftermath of the hounding of Andy D’Urso, the referee who awarded a penalty to Middlesbrough in a match at Old Trafford in January 2000, and dealt with it.

Wenger is his opposite. While he projects an air of personal responsibility, he has shown little interest in nurturing the same quality in his players. Neither manager criticises in public, but Wenger alone must be equally forgiving in private, too.

In all other areas, Wenger has been given the freedom to influence and control. He has a training centre built to his specifications, he decides everything from the way his team play to the food they eat. On one European trip, the entire shipment of aircraft meals had to be altered because it did not fit Wenger’s nutritional requirements.

So, if he wanted to address Arsenal’s disorderliness, he could do so in an instant.

Instead he has apparently tolerated an arrogance and petulance that is startling. This is Vieira talking about the late penalty award for a foul on Diego Forlán by Martin Keown on Sunday:

“How can you whistle for a penalty in injury time when two players are battling for the ball? To give such an important penalty the referee has to be sure of himself.”

But he was, Patrick. That’s why he gave it. Yet you can almost hear the disbelief, the incredulity in his voice. How dare he do this to Arsenal? Doesn’t he know who we are?

Arsenal are not a violent team but they are a stroppy, often unpleasant one. They lose their cool; they defy the referee; they snap, they snarl, they cheat, they whinge. If they were a child, you’d take their Gameboy away. But Wenger is the soft parent who has let them have their own way for too long.

Wenger’s first reaction, having witnessed his players round on an opponent like a bunch of nightclub louts spoiling for a row, was to call Van Nistelrooy a cheat for not wishing to be gelded mid-game by Vieira. This, in turn, gave his players carte blanche to justify their behaviour.

Then, 24 hours later, Peter Hill-Wood, the chairman, was wheeled out to present the acceptable face of Arsenal Football Club; the Old Etonian, all traditional values and striped tie, appalled by the behaviour of his senior players.

Except Hill-Wood’s stake gives him about as much influence over what goes on at Highbury these days as Bill Nicholson’s did over the dismissal of Glenn Hoddle at Tottenham Hotspur.

The real voice of modern Arsenal, David Dein, the vice-chairman, has been silent throughout (although he may well be having plenty to say at his other seat of power, the Football Association, where he is also vice-chairman).

Arsenal are a club utterly in hock to their manager and their directors will do anything to keep him happy.

They know that without him they will lose key players. They know that the club is his vision. So they will continue to tiptoe around him even through the FA fines and suspensions that are sure to follow this latest descent into chaos.

Wenger has improved on the success under Graham and has certainly done wonders for the football. Other statistics are damning — 20 sendings-off from the beginning of season 2001-02 to the present day, compared with two at Manchester United (both for Roy Keane), a total of 148 matches lost to suspension by Wenger’s players in seven years — but within the marble halls, they are willing to trade.

That’s what you have to love about good old Arsenal. They’re all class.