Why diving still prevails in football

Diving has become a central topic of discussion amongst football supporters and in the media during recent years. Many see the influx of foreign players in to the Premier League as a major contributing factor to what now appears to be an epidemic spreading throughout the sport. Perhaps there are other reasons behind the continuance of the widely condemned practice of diving, though.

Although there is a substantial presence of cameras at stadiums, capturing the action from every angle possible, a number of professional footballers continue to display naivety and still commit one of football’s most frustrating offences.

So why do players continue to dive? It is because the Football Association does not take any retrospective action against diving. Some footballers are happy to risk a booking in order to win a penalty or a free-kick for their team that can potentially change the game because they know the extent of their punishment is soft.  There are numerous occasions when they escape being noticed and, therefore, being booked, which means that some divers receive no sanctions at all for their actions. Even though there is sufficient evidence to exploit divers after matches, the FA does not distribute punishment. When there are incidents of violent conduct in football matches that go unnoticed by the match officials, English football’s governing body will often hand out suspensions retrospectively.

Why don’t they do the same for diving? The only drawback with retrospective action is that the punishment will not change the outcome of a match where diving has a direct influence on the score line so there is very

little consolation for the victims of this form of cheating. However, the idea of suspensions will undoubtedly work towards discouraging this negative behaviour, deterring the suspects from diving in the future.

Did Suarez dive to win the penalty?

It is a subject that has been the centre of much controversy in the Barclays Premier League this season. Manchester United’s Adnan Januzaj and Ashley Young have both been guilty of diving, with Januzaj being booked three times so far this season for such an act. For a player with such potential and talent, Januzaj’s theatrical nature is beginning to build an unwanted reputation. Luis Suarez’s role in winning Liverpool a penalty against Aston Villa at the weekend has been questioned after  the Uruguayan international was accused of going down too easily, prompting another question…

Is there a difference between diving and going down under minimal contact? A large proportion of players anticipate contact when approaching the goal or try to make the contact themselves as they look for a reason to go down.

Januzaj has been regularly
accused of diving this season

Admittedly, there are incidents when players like Januzaj are booked for diving when they have actually been fouled. It is difficult to sympathise with them. After all, it is players like Januzaj who have established a reputation from their previous behaviour so referees, rightly or wrongly, expect them to dive.

In terms of the referees’ handling of diving, it is fair to say that, in spite of players trying to con officials, their ability to identify the matter has been impressive so far this season, with some officials making fantastic decisions under difficult circumstances.

Video technology used during a game to determine a dive or foul could prevent diving having an influence on the match but this would potentially be too disruptive and time consuming.

As a result of the patterns emerging in football, it seems that retrospective action could be an effective way of enforcing a clear anti-diving policy. Suspensions for three matches have to be introduced. With the money players are earning, the distribution of fines is not a strong enough consequence to deter diving. If players face missing several matches in succession, then it is more likely that players will take note and, more significantly, managers will start to play their part by discouraging diving because they will want to have their players available for selection. 

Who should replace Theo Walcott?

Walcott won't make it to Brazil

Arsenal and England attacker Theo Walcott has been ruled out for six months with a knee injury, meaning that he will miss the World Cup in Brazil this year. For a player who didn’t feature at the 2006 tournament despite being in the squad and who was omitted from Fabio Capello’s team that travelled to South Africa in 2010, this is a hugely devastating blow for the former Southampton player, and for England, too.

Of course, in 2006, Walcott was just 17 years old, lacking international and top flight experience, so it wasn’t exactly surprising to not see him play. However, that won’t ease the frustration he must be trying to contain at this present moment.

Whilst Theo Walcott isn’t England’s greatest asset, he did provide a lethal injection of pace to the side, allowing him to penetrate through defences at alarming speeds, which either created great opportunities for himself in front of goal or to assist other players.

England do have several potential replacements, though.

The Ox can't wait to be back

Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, one of Walcott’s team-mates at Arsenal, has demonstrated sufficient ability in that position for both club and country. However, Chamberlain, also a former Southampton prodigy like Walcott, has been injured for the majority of the season so far. With little Premier League experience anyway, Chamberlain’s injury has severely impacted his progress as a professional footballer. Although he is expected to be fit well in time for the tournament, the winger will have to get back in to the Arsenal starting line-up, which won’t be an easy task considering their impressive form this season.

Liverpool's Raheem Sterling

Another candidate is Raheem Sterling. Although the Liverpool forward hasn’t made as many appearances this season as he would have liked to, Sterling has regularly shown the ability to score goals for Brendan Rodgers’ side and does offer similar levels of pace to Walcott. Again, the only problem is that, like Chamberlain, he doesn’t possess much international experience.




Andros Townsend greatly enhanced the England squad in their final two World Cup qualifiers, helping the side to beat Montenegro and Poland, and even scoring a goal on his international debut. The Spurs midfielder’s performances in both matches were very credible, with the England debutant looking like he had been playing in the side for a long time. Once more, experience is an issue but Townsend delivered in matches where great pressure was on the England side to seal qualification. To show the levels of composure and maturity that he did at a young age in games of such magnitude is a testament to Townsend’s character. Replication of those performances in Brazil, where the pressure will be even greater, would be extremely useful for the England side. Surely Townsend deserves a chance to prove himself at the World Cup. After all, he made a significant contribution to England securing qualification.

One man who does have experience on the international stage is Aaron Lennon. However, the Tottenham winger has not been enjoying regular football at Spurs having been plagued by injury for much of the season, which has subsequently affected his England involvement as well. It is, therefore, difficult to see him being the most suitable replacement.

Wilfried Zaha

Wilfried Zaha, the former Crystal Palace player, is another young star, but one with insufficient international experience. Having not featured on a regular basis under David Moyes at Manchester United this season, it’s difficult to see him being deemed an appropriate substitute for Walcott.

Other, less likely contenders include Blackpool’s Tom Ince and Norwich’s Nathan Redmond. Ince has been heavily linked with a Premier League transfer to Swansea City this January in a move that would undoubtedly improve his chances of receiving a call up, whilst Redmond will also need to have a consistent second half of the season to ensure that he is put up for consideration.


Altogether, the main problem is age and, consequently, experience. Playing for England is a huge responsibility, and intense pressure is placed on individual members of the squad to deliver success quickly. It does seem that Hodgson is going to have to select a younger player anyway and, personally, I would feel inclined to hand the position to Andros Townsend. Out of all of the players mentioned, he is the only one to have made a significantly strong impression on his England debut, displaying confidence and ability in a high pressure environment. Townsend deserves his chance having shown his capabilities on the international stage. Nothing seemed to faze the midfielder, and, if I was Roy Hodgson, I’d certainly choose him. At the moment, it’s very likely that Townsend will be selected anyway so there’s a chance that the other names mentioned will be seriously considered for the squad. Of course, club form needs to be consistent and of a high standard. With a number of games remaining in the Barclays Premier League this season, there’s plenty of opportunity for the potential candidates to earn their ticket to Brazil.

A friendly against Denmark early in March will give Hodgson one final opportunity to assess the different options and experiment with what he has available before preparation for the opening group game against Italy begins.