Gary Neville Sparks Huge Complaints with 'Whack Him' Comment in Arsenal vs Liverpool Clash

In a heated Premier League showdown between Arsenal and Liverpool, former Manchester United defender Gary Neville ignited controversy with his punditry comments suggesting Liverpool players should "absolutely whack" Arsenal forward Gabriel Martinelli. The incident stemmed from a tense moment late in the match when Martinelli dragged injured Liverpool defender Conor Bradley off the pitch to expedite play resumption, as Arsenal chased a winning goal.[1]

Neville, covering the game, expressed disgust at Martinelli's actions, arguing that Liverpool players should have retaliated physically. His aggressive rhetoric drew widespread backlash from fans and pundits, amplifying debates around player conduct in high-stakes rivalries.[1][2]

Martinelli, unaware of the severity of Bradley's injury, acted amid suspicions that the Liverpool man was delaying the game. The Brazilian forward has since issued public apologies to Bradley and fans, clarifying his intent was not malicious.[1]

Enter Arsenal legend Martin Keown, who fired back at Neville in a scathing rebuttal. Speaking to Metro Sports, Keown dismissed the ex-United star's input: "Why are you asking me to respond to Gary Neville? I don’t really give a hoot what Gary Neville says. He’s just trying to inflame the situation when he’s got nothing else to do in the commentary position. He was bored, it wasn’t a great game and he was making that the narrative." Keown accused Neville of exaggerating for attention rather than providing balanced analysis.[1]

Keown emphasized context: the match's intensity and Bradley's potential time-wasting. He urged proportionate criticism, highlighting how pundits like Neville provoke unnecessarily.[1][2]

The exchange underscores the passions of Premier League rivalries, where on-pitch incidents fuel off-field firestorms. Martinelli's apology has somewhat diffused tensions, but Neville's "whack him" remark continues to polarize opinions, spotlighting the fine line between robust commentary and incitement.[1]

(Word count: 298)