Chamakh Is An ‘Embarrassment’

Ollie Irish

18th, October 2010


By Ollie Irish

Arsenal vs Birmingham continues to develop into a really hateful fixture. Mmm, we like it spicy. After Arsenal’s 2-1 win against McLeish’s lot at the Emirates on Saturday, Brum centre-back Roger Johnson accused Marouane Chamakh of diving, then compared Jack Wilshere’s red-card tackle on Nikola Zigic to Martin Taylor’s infamous leg-breaker on Eduardo (Big Eck also mentioned Eduardo and Wilshere in the same breath):

We all think it (the penalty) was the wrong decision. Chamakh’s reaction was an embarrassment

These decisions determine people’s livelihoods in the league. If we go down by a point we will look back to a game like this and think we’ve been harshly done by.

From what I saw the Wilshere ­challenge looked quite bad. Ziggy’s a big lad, not the type to go down to milk it. It looked bad. I thought Eboue’s tackle was awful as well.

It (Wilshere’s challenge) was not too dissimilar to the tackle on Eduardo by Martin Taylor – ankle height, could have snapped his leg. Thankfully it didn’t.

Strong words from Taylor (wrong words too: Wilshere’s tackle was badly mistimed but nothing like as brutal as Taylor’s), to which Chamakh answered back:

If they think it is not a penalty then they can be disappointed but for me I was definitely touched and I fell because I was touched otherwise I wouldn’t have fallen down in the area.

If they believe it was not a foul and they were one-nil up and obviously it changes the game a bit then it’s normal that they will feel disappointed now. But for me it was definitely a penalty.

I think it probably was a penalty, but there’s little doubt that Chamakh could have stayed on his feet. But that’s the game today: a contact sport that allows increasingly little contact. And let’s say it together: English players dive too.

Do you think Chamakh dived?

Posted in Arsenal, Birmingham City

Share this article: Email


  1. freakz says:

    Same old Arsenal always cheating! Damn hypocrites

  2. Chris says:

    There was undoubted contact between the two players, but there was no foul committed and it certainly wasn’t a penalty. Chamakh should’ve been booked and suitably embarrassed. Being ‘touched in the area’ is not an offence, unless it takes place outside the school gates at 3pm.

  3. gooner says:

    Same old Brum, always loosing and whining. It was 100% a penalty. And Jacks tackle was a red card but it wasn’t even in the same timezone as Taylors. All gooners admitt that while all Brum fans after taylor savaged Eduardo was all “Poor Taylor, he is not that kind of a player, he’s such a good lad. He takes the dogs for a walk and helps all ladys cross the street.”

  4. mac says:

    should of known beta 2 stick a leg out an trip chamack over. as 4 whilshire red was fair but he admitted it strait away,just annoyed that wen we do it it is blown out of preportion an we deserved to get treated this way.shame on all u anty arsenal fans (whilshire future england hero dont slate him for learning how the english game works the lads fantastic)

  5. freakz says:

    same old arsenal fans can’t spell for shit

  6. Neal says:

    It was a clear penalty. Chamakh had his leading leg taken from underneath him.

  7. good oldie says:

    sh*t blog, first and last ime i visit

  8. Tony Low says:

    whether he did or not, the guy has a lousy haircut. haters gonna hate.

  9. Eddie Yak says:

    Whether it was a penalty or not the world can argue until the cows come home, the issue will NEVER be solved amicably.
    I like to ask everyone who watch BPL to tell me how many teams in the BPL is a GENTLEMEN team ??? I said NONE ! Anyone disagreed ?

  10. Lembo says:

    Here we go again! Wilshere’s English so his tackle wasn’t that bad! If De Jong had made the same tackle, you’d all be calling for his foreign head!

  11. Arris says:

    Ollie Irish is a sad media fed dumb ass. Completely brain washed by the gutter press ans tabloids and unable to rationalise his own opinions. Needing to follow the lead from those austere and noble hacks of the news of the screws et al.

    Pathetic. Yeah, lets demonise Chamahk for what? “Making the most of a foul” in the penalty area??? Something that I have heard 100s of old pros say a player is ENTITLED to do. You feel the opponent so you make sure the ref knows there’s been contact.

    If we are going to hate on divers, lets be effin CONSISTENT here;

    Ashely Young is the most prolific diver in the league yet hardly gets a mention, gerrard is another, as is Drogba (FFS! He does it so much no one even brings it up any more!) then there’s Rooney (when he actually plays)

    So, give it a rest being a brain dead sheep, grow some balls and a brain.

    But as Good Oldie says; shite blog, wont be reading this trash again.

  12. Arris says:

    The fact you even say it was a penalty at the end of your piece (of turd) makes your arguments all the more pathetic. Nice one!

  13. Ollie Irish says:

    Arris – Where do I hate on Chamakh!? If anything I defend him. Read all the words, you total moron, not just the headline, which is actually a quote by a Birmingham City player.

    And if you never read anything again on Pies, I won’t give two fucks – stick to the biased Arsenal blogs in future, numbnuts.

  14. Ollie Irish says:

    good oldie, the same goes for you – you’re also banned from commenting. If all you can dish out is moronic abuse, with no argument on your own, then you might as well stick to the same blogs Arris reads. Seriously, get the fuck out. I’d rather have three readers than a thousand kneejerk idiots like you who only ever bother to read the headline.

  15. Lady Arsenal says:

    I think Chamakh was obviously looking for it, waiting for the contact. Bottome line however is that the defender stuck his leg out, missed the ball, and MADE CONTACT with Chamakh. If you do that in the box, you can only blame yourself if you concede a penalty.

    Reference Rooney at Old Trafford last season – was going down before Almunia’s contact, but the contact came and the pen was given. If you’re a defender it’s up to you to avoid making contact.

  16. GoonerGaz says:

    Spot on Lady

  17. TerryWogan says:

    It was hard to see definitively if there was contact but what was clear was the swipe from the Birmingham player. Chamack has given nobody any reason to doubt his integrity to date.

    Correct punctuation would make this article a lot more understandable.

  18. Babar says:

    I’ve been following Chamack for years. He’s not a cheater.
    Writing stupid blogs will not solve your emotional problems.

  19. N4 says:

    Johnson , you mean how your very dubious penalty a couple of seasons ago affected our title chances!

  20. timao says:

    “wilshere’s tackle looked quite bad… it was not disimilar to the tackle on eduardo by martin taylor’.

    well, at last a birmingham player admits that Taylor made a bad tackle on eduardo!

    but of course the fact is zigic could play tomorrow. whereas eduardo nearly lost his foot. can anyone really be so obtuse as to compare these two incidents and find a hint of similarity?

  21. JollyMike says:

    It was a dive and a penalty! If you are kicked on the anchle it is contact that isn’t allowed, but he could have stayed on his feet.

    I think Johnson should have gotten sent off for the elbow on Chamach. Brummies aren’t talking about that incident!

  22. Stubo says:

    These two incidences are pretty straight forward really…

    Chamakh played for the penalty but the foul was there. Sloppy defending was punished by a clever striker doing something that, like it or not, is very common in the EPL. It was harsh on Birmingham (I’d be pissed if it happened the other way around) but it certainly doesn’t make Chamakh a “cheat” any more than the dozens of other well known goal scorers in the league who do similar thing regularly.

    Wilshere’s tackle was reckless and suitably punished by a red card. It was worth a red card and a three match ban but nothing more. To say it was as bad as the Taylor/Eduardo tackle is quite ridiculous and a little desperate. Taylor’s contact was square on the stationary leg, with all his weight travelling through the point of contact with a firm foot. Wilshere was over-stretching so he had little weight behind the tackle, he was coming in from the side in the direction Zigic was moving which dissapates the force, he did not hit the leg straight on or with the sweet spot of his boot, and you can see that his foot was loose at contact – if you look closely you will also see that his foot moves in a way that suggests he was trying to side-foot the ball away from Zigic. It was clumsy and silly but not at all a “horror tackle” as many have been dying to label it.

  23. Goonerpete says:

    If some of you remember a couple of seasons ago when we drew with Brum and Taylor ended the career of potential Arsenal great I remember a certain Scotsman going down like he got shot in the area to win a penalty when there was no contact from clichy. So brum fans and associated arsenal haters stop your double standards! “people in glass houses dont throw stones”

  24. amusedkid says:

    I dun get the whole debate. Scott Dan definitely touched Chamakh. I don’t see how whether Chamakh went down before or after the “contact” is relevant.

    There was contact. Period.

    Chamakh was probably looking for a foul but who wouldn’t be?

    At the end of the day, Scott Dan is absolutely dense. There was absolutely no chance of him reaching the ball in that situation.

Leave a Reply