'Arsène Wenger always struck me as an intelligent and articulate man, and certainly somebody well aware of the impact his words are likely to have when a microphone is placed under his mouth at the end of a match. So he should be fooling nobody when he blames bad translation and "clumsy words" as the reason why he got into trouble with the Football Association for branding Ruud Van Nistelrooy a cheat.
And the Arsenal manager must have known exactly what he was doing when he effectively repeated the allegation before his side's match at Portsmouth. Having been fined £15,000 for his outburst by the FA earlier in the week, his timing was interesting and his apparent lack of contrition suggests he must surely be again called before the sport's ruling body, as some still refer to the FA despite all signs to the contrary.
Wenger would have been right to say Van Nistelrooy's challenge on Cole was dangerous, or that the United striker sometimes falls to the ground too readily and theatrically when tackled or fouled (although he is hardly alone in that), but does that make Van Nistelrooy a cheat? I think not.
Wenger did not even bother to turn up for his personal disciplinary hearing with the FA, saying he was "too busy", which would not have gone down well at Soho Square, and then he said of the hefty fine: "It's an expensive sentence. I said what I had to say and not a lot has changed. I must say basically nothing has changed. I fulfil my responsibilities after the game and I say what I feel I want to say. It was a misinterpretation from what you translate from French to English. In English if you say to somebody "you cheat", it is a big insult. I cannot find another word. Why do you have a word in your dictionary that you cannot use?
It is admirable that Wenger, unlike some other managers - Ferguson included - always takes the time to address the media after matches. But what Wenger might have said, with the benefit of hindsight, is that he was not happy with Van Nistelrooy's contribution to the match, that the FA should examine the evidence and take the appropriate action. After all, that is the FA's brief and it is one that is being implemented more effectively, with video evidence, than ever before. Less emotive words from Wenger might have had just as much impact in pointing out an injustice he obviously still believes to have taken place.
Wenger is too admirable a football man to demean himself in this way. Perhaps he still thinks his side were strong-armed out of a result by United, and that they didn't deserve to lose. But, when I last checked, that was part and parcel of football and always has been.
The Arsenal-Manchester United pantomime is endlessly entertaining to the point of hilarity for everybody with no commitment one way or the other and, in a way, I suspect many football followers will hope it rumbles on endlessly with Wenger and Ferguson cast forever as "Grumpy old Men" amid the chaos. But, in the interest of consistency, the FA must consider taking further action. While Wenger ponders the meaning of cheat, he might also like to consider the translation of "bloody-minded" and "intransigent" because both words are costing him and Arsenal dearly. Silence might have been wiser.'