Deeneys of this world deserve a pat on back... not a kick in the chops
STROLL into any pub, gym or coffee shop on our glorious isle and you will overhear conversations about football.
It doesn’t matter if it’s morning, noon or night, someone, somewhere will be discussing the latest bad tackle, offside, or 30-yard screamer that needed to be seen to be believed.
Chatter is the oil that keeps the machinery of football ticking along.
Match of the Day wouldn’t function without it – neither would Goals on Sunday on Sky.
In fact, often the pundits are better value, particularly Roy Keane and Graeme Souness, than what happens on the hallowed turf.
And I would be out of a job for a start – which some might welcome . . . and no, that’s not a suggestion, ta very much.
It’s the reason why post-match press conferences are held.
There are issues to debate, squabbles to clear up, injuries and tactics to discuss.
Again, this generates interest. It throws up a whole new subject for the masses to dissect.
The question is this week, however, does football want freedom of speech?
I’m not talking about the bland rubbish you see on every player’s twitter or instagram feed after every victory – they rarely do it after defeat.
If you’re on social media, you know what I’m talking about... ‘ tough match, great three points,
f fans were class’ guff. I’m talking about opinions that may be on the edge.
Do we want them aired, or not? Frankly, I do. I want to hear an honest assessment rather than the ‘ take the positives’ rubbish that is now beyond cliché.
I’m referring specifically to Troy Deeney’s outburst after Watford’s 3- 3 draw with Bournemouth in midweek. It was some game. It must have been – it was one of the first on Match of the Day – which no one would have called before kick-off.
The Hornets skipper accused referee David Coote of ‘ bottling it’ over a couple of sending- off decisions. Deeney admitted that both players should have had a man dismissed, and said that Cherries midfielder Dan Gosling tried to ‘do’ midfielder Tom Cleverley.
He’s now been hauled before the Football Association to explain himself. Was Deeney calling the referee’s integrity into question?
No, he’s saying that he failed to take the appropriate action in a couple of incidents.
Is he, as a professional footballer of some years’ standing, suggesting there was intent to injure in a challenge? Yes, he is. That is fiendishly difficult to prove. But Deeney can point out that, as a professional footballer with almost 500 first-team appearances under his belt, he is perfectly qualified to comment on it.
I don’t know Gosling’s frame of mind when he went into that tackle with the former Manchester United midfielder. Only one person truly does.
And that’s maybe where Deeney has a problem.
It is to be hoped Watford’s skipper is reminded of that fact and nothing more when he faces officials at the FA.
If Deeney wants to air his opinions – he should be allowed to. He shouldn’t be censored if they are honest views – surely we should encourage that?
Do you want to hear an impassioned Charlie Austin say that the referee cost Southampton two points? Or some bland, ‘take the positives and move on’ banality?
I want to hear the match official give the striker some back. Let’s face it, if everything in the game was ‘smashing, super and great’ all the time, interest would plummet. It prospers because of friction. There would be also be no campaigns against racism or homophobia, no speaking out on social i ssues, no VAR, no highlighting bad tackles, no naming and shaming cheats. And then
So let the likes of Deeney call it as they see.
The game would be a lot poorer if he didn’t.