EVERYTHING SEEMS TO REVOLVE AROUND ARSENAL THESE DAYS..

Two main issues this week have been Emmanuel Adebayors’s antics at Eastlands and the overturning of Eduardo’s two match European ban.

The former topic is something I have mixed feelings about. But the latter is a ludicrous decision and yet again sends out the wrong message.

The Togo international’s goal celebration on Saturday was predictable, but it could have been worse. He ran up to the Arsenal fans, celebrated and let off steam. Football is about scoring goals and milking it.

So many fans and critics often comment on how boring goal celebrations are these days (Alan Shearer springs to mind)and that there are no characters in the game stirring things up anymore.

Well, the Manchester City striker is certainly a volatile character, and was it really so bad to celebrate so wildly?

I recall Thierry Henry running the length of the field after scoring a wonderful individual goal. This was against Tottenham at Highbury in 2002. I don’t remember the Arsenal fans complaining too much about that at the time.

Football fans have short memories. And that particular celebration was incitement of the highest level.

I can understand the Gunners fans being disappointed with Adebayor last season. His performances when it really mattered were despicable.

Against Chelsea in the FA Cup semi final, he laboured around the field like he didn’t have a care in the world.

Against Manchester United in the Champions League semi final second leg, he actually gave up after United took the lead. Anyone watching the game that night could visibly see that.

Behaviour like this is not what you expect from a top class forward. It is moments like that when fans are justified to complain about the outrageous salaries that footballers receive.


Looking from a different angle, I fully agree with the view of the Times writer, Gabriele Marcotti. He stated that Robin Van Persie also has a lot to answer for concerning Saturday’s brutal encounter.

Adebayor has received a three match ban for his stamp, but I’ve looked at this incident many times on television and I don’t think anyone can prove if he meant it.

He possibly did mean it, but what seems even more viable is that Van Persie deliberately set out to injure Adebayor with his awful tackle.

Following the match, the Dutch international immediately went onto the Arsenal website and complained about Adebayor’s conduct. Sour grapes anyone??

Van Persie, magnificent player that he is, can hardly talk about other players' conduct. His disciplinary record is awful.

Considering the atrocious injury record the forward has you would think that he would try his best not to get suspended, considering the amount of games he misses.

If Adebayor intended to stamp on Van Persie then he deserves a three match ban, but it’s not entirely transparent unless he admits it, which isn’t going to happen.


What is far more clear cut is that Eduardo dived against Celtic.

As I’ve stated before, I was happy to see the Arsenal striker banned, and two matches seemed a fair punishment.

But now it’s been overturned, where do we go from here?

UEFA does this so often. They make a decision, then on appeal they decide to overturn it. Why?

The Croatian international clearly went to ground before he was touched. The Celtic keeper, Artur Boruc, was rash, but it was a completely different scenario to Wayne Rooney against Arsenal or Glen Johnson against Tottenham.

Both of these players were clearly brought down by poor challenges from the prospective goalkeepers.

Two matches is not a harsh ban. Arsenal will qualify from their group quite comfortably and Eduardo should have missed two fairly uninspiring group games.

However, the striker's presence may now affect the outcome of the Champions League group in terms of the position of the other three teams, and that's not right.

I wonder how Standard Liege felt about his winning goal last night. He should not have even been on the pitch.


Remember, Didier Drogba’s ban was also reduced on appeal. Again I ask, why?

Initily, missing four matches meant that Chelsea’s fortunes in Group D could have been substantially affected by losing one of their key players.

This to me is a fair punishment as Drogba misses the majority of their group games.

Reducing the ban by one match now means that he only misses half of the qualification matches.

The Ivory Coast international is such a vital player for the Blues, far more vital than Eduardo is for the Gunnets. He can now inspire them for one more match, and that could yet prove crucial. Qualification can so often depend on one or two points here and there.

I actually believe Drogba deserved a greater ban. He has had that sort of punishment coming for a while.

While he is a supremely giftted player, he does attempt to bend the rules more than any other player I've seen in recent times.

Drogba spends more time on the ground than Emile Heskey, he just get's away with it more because he's so good.

If the Chelsea marksmen scores the goal that decides whether they go through as group winners or whether they finish second in their group, then UEFA have once again made a mockery of the fair play system.

The governing body of European football really needs to take a long hard look at themselves. In my view we are undoubtedly back to square one.