Last night BBC 5Live - in a move akin to interviewing Ronald McDonald about the health benefits of fast food - chatted to Charlie Adam about Neil Taylor's challenge on Seamus Coleman and what goes through a player's head when making such a tackle.
Now I've watched this a couple of times and while his conclusion that he doesn't think Neil Taylor has intentionally gone in to hurt Coleman is clear, how he got to that point in the argument is a lot more confusing.
Here's what he said
You can see it, the force that somebody goes into a tackle. There is a force that somebody's gone 'I'm going to go in over the top' or whatever ... that's happened ... but it's just that's the nature of some people, how they played and how they are. There is people out there and there will be but me...
And I've be on ... I've gave out some bad situations in my career as well, over the past few years, I've never ever ever thought 'I'm going to physically hurt somebody.' You know, I've gone in late on a few people...
At this point, Mark Chapman asks 'And know that you're going to do it?'
No I've never ever thought I was guna do it. I've got there as quick as I've physically can. I've never ever thought 'There's an opportunity for me to go and hurt somebody.' But I have seen people go and think 'This is the right time to go. You can get away with it.'
And I don't think Neil Taylor has gone and seen that situation and thought 'This is the right time for me to go and hurt Seamus Coleman.'
So I think what Adam is trying to say here is that because there are some people who intentionally go in over the top and given that he has never gone in late on purpose, not to mention the fact that there are players who think they can sometimes get away with it, this means that Neil Taylor hasn't tried to injure Coleman?
It's seems like he was on the verge of offering a really interesting insight on a couple of occasions but then pulled back from the precipice. Twice he hints that there are players who intentionally try to at least leave an imprint on a player but then he immediately backs away from the point.
Of course the reaction to Adam coming on to talk about aggresive challenges was not lost on listeners.
@BBCSport was Paul Scholes not available?
— ben_ (@LifeBurp) March 27, 2017
I've no doubt Adam doesn't think Taylor intentionally tried to harm Coleman but it would have been interesting to find out why. While he mentions the difference between what you might describe as a wreckless vs vicious challenges, it's a shame we didn't get to hear how to make the distinction, if there is indeed one.
