Liverpool have been dealt a sickening blow with the news that Alexander Isak has suffered a suspected broken leg, and the manner in which it arose has left one journalist fuming.
On Sunday night, it emerged from reports by Paul Joyce in The Times and David Ornstein for The Athletic that the 26-year-old is set for a lengthy injury layoff after being on the receiving end of a wild challenge from Micky van de Ven in scoring the Reds’ opener against Tottenham Hotspur on Saturday.
There were seven yellow cards and two reds dished out by John Brooks in that fixture, and although the Dutch defender was one of those booked, it wasn’t for the tackle which has now had serious consequences for the Sweden international.
Journalist fumes over lack of sanction for Van de Ven
As the news of a suspected leg break for Isak emerged late last night, Liverpool-focused journalist David Lynch was left seething at how the Spurs centre-back got away unpunished for his challenge on our number 9.
The reporter posted on X: ‘There’s an unwritten rule in football that, if an attacker gets a shot away, the defender is given carte blanche to challenge them how they like. That was a really poor and late one from Micky van de Ven yesterday and this is the consequence, yet it wasn’t looked at.’
Isak now faces a long road to recovery as Van de Ven unpunished
Lynch raises a quite pertinent point in the wake of Isak’s devastating injury blow, and Frank Leboeuf on ESPN FC also called for the Spurs defender to receive some punishment because of the repercussions of his wild lunge.
Liverpool fans have drawn parallels between that incident on Saturday and Jordan Pickford’s cowardly tackle on Virgil van Dijk in October 2020, an atrocity for which the Everton goalkeeper went unpunished as the passage of play was rendered moot by the Dutchman being offside in the build-up.
Footballers are obliged to show a duty of care to one another on the pitch, and when a player makes a leg-breaking challenge, they shouldn’t get off scot-free because of a technicality or a misplaced belief that the incident is deemed irrelevant because of a goal being scored, as was the case on Saturday.
We don’t want to advocate a witch hunt against Van de Ven, who may well be feeling huge remorse over his lunge on Isak, but at the same time it’s not right that he’ll get to play in Spurs’ next match and Dominik Szoboszlai is suspended against Wolves because his fifth booking of the Premier League season was for apparent dissent after childish provocation by Richarlison.
Lynch and Leboeuf are right to be appalled over the lack of any sanction for the perpetrator in this incident, with Liverpool’s number 9 now facing a long road to recovery because of one reckless action for which the culprit will bear no punishment.
We can only wish the Swedish striker well in his convalesence over the next few months, and his eventual return to the pitch will be a welcome sight whenever it happens.
Isak will come back as Origi 2.0. Will not be the same player we got from Newcastle.
What a stupid comment. Origi is a legend.
It was apparent that Spurs players were out to do as much damage as possible in their tackles, this is the result – Van De Ven was never going to get to Isak – so decided on a jarring reckless tackle to be his best means of causing damage!
What was the Spurs player meant to do, let him have a free shot at goal? It was not a reckless challenge but a genuine attempt to block the shot. Football is a contact sport and unfortunately at times challenges that are genuine do cause injuries.
Erm, it was late and the same rules should apply regardless of a goal being scored. End of story.
I don’t know how you have have come to the conclusion that this challenge was genuine. A few days before the game I read Micky van de Ven’s comments about how he endured a torid time at the hands of Isak. Given his timidity about Isak, what comes to mind watching the tackle is a man that is focused on neutralising his opponent. There’s nothing genuine about this tackle, it has malice written all over it
Exactly. It was a good effort to block the shot. It was just bad luck that Isak’s standing leg got trapped.
The Ref lost control of the game the first was the Challenge on Isak no attempt to play the ball at all he just took out Isak. Should have been a red card serious foul play never mind the fact that Isak has now a suspected broken leg the ref took no action.
The second was the incident with Richarlison and Frimpong who was elbowed in the face enough to cut his lip nothing done by the ref.
why was there no action in these two incidents.
In reply to Grahams it was never a genuine attempt to play the ball the point was that he did not get the ball no where near it Van Den Ven wrapped both his legs round Isak to bring him down a tackle that was aways going to cause injury to the player.
If Van Den Ven had of made contact with the ball then it would have been a different matter but he was no were near.
Because like Dermot Gallagher I am an ex qualified referee and I do not suppose many of you are . We both do not see it as a red card . I know some ex players do but my conclusion being 66 years old and an ex referee of a number of years having played also for 35 seasons thought it was a genuine attempt with unfortunate consequences.
Even if the attempt was genuine (which no one except the defender can confirm for sure )…. The result of his attempt caused harm on a fellow player.
maybe not a red but certainly a yellow – anywhere else on the field it would be a foul and a yellow. Out of control lunge going thru the standing leg by scissoring them is just plain stupid