Jump to content

Tony Adams...


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Arthur Bach said:

Ian Knight was young, no guarantee on his future of potential - I've heard of stories of people saying they heard the break but I imagine time has made those stories whimsical and fanciful.

 

Football was hard back then and we knew less of the virtues of physio and recovery.

 

But I'm getting tired of people bleating about THAT tackle on Hirst. Arsenal were hard and football was different...

 

It was 25 years ago.

Hirst and Knight were virtually contemporary....without knowing the ins and outs of the respective injuries, 

I was at the Chester game..I didn't hear owt, but I knew it was serious..

I mean unless you can produce the f.ookin' Xrays, you can't really comment on the medical side of it..Boulds tackle was reckless, even for the times, as was Bennetts tackle on Knight....

Tackles like that one on Knight, were not common place.. Boulds on Hirst was more insidious, and as Adams more or less admits, was probably premeditated

Edited by asteener1867
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, asteener1867 said:

Hirst and Knight were virtually contemporary....without knowing the ins and outs of the respective injuries, 

I was at the Chester game..I didn't hear owt, but I knew it was serious..

I mean unless you can produce the f.ookin' Xrays, you can't really comment on the medical side of it..Boulds tackle was reckless, even for the times, as was Bennetts tackle on Knight....

Tackles like that one on Knight, were not common place.. Boulds on Hirst was more insidious, and as Adams more or less admits, was probably premeditated

 

Not doubting the severity.

 

But I am questioning the relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arthur Bach said:

 

Not doubting the severity.

 

But I am questioning the relevance.

Relevance to what?...Its a thread regarding the statement of a former footballer, thats the relevance...I don't believe anyone said Bould was responsible for us not winning the European cup...I mean, we aren't Leeds are we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rogers said:

 

Bould and Adams were just 2 of many who'd be sent off more these days. 

Pallister and Bruce were as bad.

 

lots of center forwards got hammered, but I always thought hirsty suffered more because he loved that ball into feet, which he'd then turn on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 31Dec1966 said:

Fair play ???  That's the last thing you can say about Adams, Bould and Graham.  Just because the "tackle from behind "  (also known as  dirty play) wasn't as frowned upon then doesn't mean they had to do it. There were plenty of players who were hard men but wouldn't dream of deliberately injuring another player.

Disgraceful.

 

 

Part of the game then I'm afraid and from his remarks it's clear that outcome wasn't his or Bould's intention. 

Edited by AwokenGiant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Bach said:

 

Fair enough, I was too young then and wasn't at the game.

 

No denying the injury was bad and the legal action that followed speaks for itself.

 

But a club succeeds and fails on more than just one injury to one player - I think the fans fall back on the Hirst injury like some kind of remedy for the failure of the club that followed when it was a much more complicated picture.

 

Amazing player, bad injury, questionable attitude.

 

 

It wasn't Hirsty's attitude, it was the drinking culture at the time.   Sheridan, Hirst were just a few who loved to shove the beer down their neck in Hanrahans and other places. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iliveinthenow said:

Compensation claim for Hirst if these players are opening talking about it to the media...

Rubbish. That was the game at the time. They were just better at it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rogers said:

If Hirst played now and had more protection, he'd have scored twice as many and played at least 100 more games. 

 

And been one one of the best strikers in Europe. 

 

Bould and Adams were just 2 of many who'd be sent off more these days. 

True although there was a big drinking culture back then that didn't help matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, AwokenGiant said:

 

Part of the game then I'm afraid and from his remarks it's clear that outcome wasn't his or Bould's intention. 

You are completely wrong. Read the article again. It is crystal clear that the intention was to injure Hirst. Cowardly, disgraceful behaviour, breaking another players ankle with an illegal (even then you were supposed to play the ball) assault from behind.  Adams does NOT apologise, just says "they" needed to take out the tackle from behind. 

The outcome most certainly WAS Boulds intention, Adams makes that clear in the article, which I have in front of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 31Dec1966 said:

You are completely wrong. Read the article again. It is crystal clear that the intention was to injure Hirst. Cowardly, disgraceful behaviour, breaking another players ankle with an illegal (even then you were supposed to play the ball) assault from behind.  Adams does NOT apologise, just says "they" needed to take out the tackle from behind. 

The outcome most certainly WAS Boulds intention, Adams makes that clear in the article, which I have in front of me.

Man up. Do you realise football wasn't invented when Gary Neville got his chalk board out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Milan Missing Marble said:

 

I was literally scared to open the thread incase he was linked to us for a coaching role or director of football role. He was a very good old fashioned centre back but he's a terrible coach and manager.

 

Have to admire the honesty of some of the ex Arsenal players, even though I hated that George Graham side back in those days. I have since heard the likes of Merson and Wright say on various interviews how terrified they were of the likes of Hirst, and the only way they could get near us was by going after our best players physically.

I will say he was a s**t centre half and by his own admission he had to physically injure the best centre forward  of his generation to stop him,fecking couldn't defend him fairly w***er

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adams was a brilliant centre half. One of the very best we've had in this country for a long time. Commanding, leader, fearless. Top top player. 

 

As a man, different story. Bit of an oddball. But he did bang Caprice, so give him some slack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vulva said:

Adams was a brilliant centre half. One of the very best we've had in this country for a long time. Commanding, leader, fearless. Top top player. 

 

As a man, different story. Bit of an oddball. But he did bang Caprice, so give him some slack. 

But to be able to defend a top centre forward of his generation they had to do him his words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was also at the game when Knight's career in effect was ended .Hirsty - yes shocking , but I remember Maurice setters , Nobby Stiles ,bite your legs Hunter, Dave Mackay and our own Norman Curtis  and Tony Kay. Times change and it's no point on bleating about what might have been . I might have played in the NZ National League , but I missed a play-off penalty . Fessi may have played in the Prem League but he missed a penalty - thats football - I'm sue Hirsty understands that .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...