Serious question.... 3773

Hi, Red. Hope you're sound in wind and limb (if that's not an unfortunate metaphor in the States at the moment...)

There is a valid alternative way of reading that first Keane-Haaland incident, you know, which has as much chance of being right as your interpretation. Imagine yourself in Haaland's place: you know someone is breathing down your neck - you may even know that it's Keane (with whom you may have been having something of a barney on or off the ball earlier in the match). You know that a tackle has come in from behind - and that is always something that riles any footballer. You may hear the whistle blow - but in any case you turn round to give the tackler a piece of your mind. What do you see? Keane writhing on the ground, apparently in pain.

In the heat of the moment I would suggest that it's far more likely that you think Keane is trying to con the referee, or play on his sympathy to avoid a booking for a tackle from behind (I guess we've all seen players who've tried to do that) than that you think Keane has done himself a serious injury (which we don't see very often). Hence the accusation of faking (not gloating or sneering, just angry). Serious injuries are not that common, thank goodness, and happen even less frequently to the tackler than to the one who is tackled. (Keane on Haaland on this occasion, and Gascoigne on Charles are two notable exceptions.)

It's all a long time ago now, and the trouble with trying to read the mind of a professional footballer is that you have to try and find it first. But it still comes a bit hard to a City fan to find Haaland being cast as the villain of the piece!

cheers citizenphil