The Liverpool Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve*
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 44K
  • Views Views 3M
Meh, players dive. Practically everyone being argued about here does dive. I don't see why the fact that they dive is such a contentious issue: I'd have thought it was obvious. Gerrard dives, Suarez dives, Young dives, Nani goes down like a dead swan thrown off a roof every time a full-back steps on a blade of grass within about ten feet of him.

Exactly. All those mentioned players are divers or goes down way too easily. Funny thing was Liverpool fans saying Gerrard will have a word with Suarez to cut down his diving.XD
 

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 PM ----------

On 15th October Liverpool and
Manchester United locked horns at Anfield in what Alex Ferguson had
billed as ‘the biggest club match in the world’.<br>
<br>
The game ended in a draw, with the home side wondering just how they had
let a victory slip from their grasp. However, it would not be the
result of the match, or the effects on the two clubs’ league position
that would still be making shockwaves two weeks later.<br>
<br>
The immediate aftermatch discussions centred on the only real moment of
controversy during the ninety minutes. Did Rio Ferdinand trip Charlie
Adam as he bore down on the United goal, leading to the free-kick from
which Liverpool opened the scoring? If so, should Ferdinand have seen a
second yellow? Or on the other hand, did Adam cheat and dive with no
contact?<br>
<br>
The final poser was addressed during Ferdinand’s post match Sky
interview, in which he confirmed that there was contact. Of course this
would not satisfy the United fans. Why let the truth get in the way of a
good old bleat?<br>
<br>
Ordinarily that short-lived debate would have been a weekend wonder, as
there were several more questionable decisions during that week’s
Premier League fixtures. As is the norm. Let the fans of both sides have
a moan, forget it and move on.<br>
<br>
However deep within the corridors beneath Liverpool’s Main Stand a
greater storm was brewing. Patrice Evra and his manager had visited the
referee’s room to submit accusations of racism against Liverpool’s
talisman Luis Suarez.<br>
<br>
Evra had suffered a torrid match. He was constantly at the point of
Liverpool’s attacks and frankly he coped poorly. In the second half, the
two players clashed near the Kop by-line. Suarez tripped Evra, who
rolled around in over-exaggerated agony. Of course he was in so much
pain that he ensured that he rolled back onto the pitch so that he would
interrupt the play. The Frenchman (note- not a racist comment)
remonstrated with the referee and his assistant, obviously believing
that he had been assaulted by Suarez rather than tripped.<br>
<br>
Back to the after match summit in the ref’s room. Evra, backed up by
Fergie, claimed that Luis Suarez had aimed racist abuse at him on ‘at
least ten occasions’ during the game.<br>
<br>
The matter became public, after Evra mentioned it in an interview with French TV station Canal Plus.<br>
<br>
I would also hazard a guess that Manchester United’s staff have had a long hard look at all the television images, to no avail.<br>
<br>
Let us note here that Evra did not make any protestation of racist
remarks to referee Andre Mariner during the game. Surely the obvious
course of action if you were ‘apoplectic with rage’ would be to alert
the official, and ask him to keep an eye on things. Mariner did have a
long chat with both players around Kop end penalty spot, but Evra chose
not to mention any transgression. After the ref’s ‘chat’ Suarez tapped
Evra on the back of the head in an apparent gesture of conciliation,
only for the Frenchman (note- still not racism) to petulantly dismiss
the gesture. Evra (apoplectic with rage) had also chosen to kiss his
badge for the benefit of the Liverpool fans in the corner of the stadium
whilst aiming kisses at them. Strange behaviour in the circumstances.<br>
<br>
By the next morning, no footage had been unearthed. Twenty four hours
later, still nothing. In fact, fifteen days on and there is still no
incriminating evidence. However, Evra stands by his story and the FA are
‘investigating’. No official enquiry has been ordered, but still the
matter rumbles on.<br>
<br>
Alongside all this there has been a disturbing and continuing slurring of Suarez’ name and reputation.<br>
<br>
In the days after the Liverpool – Manchester United meeting Sir Alex
Ferguson chose his words carefully, as usual, when he stated that “it’s
difficult for the referee with Suarez diving all over the place”. <br>
<br>
Pot. Kettle. Black.<br>
<br>
This is Alex Ferguson speaking, lest we forget. A manager who has
overseen such blatant exponents of simulation (or diving) as Nani,
Christiano Ronaldo and more recently Ashley Young.<br>
<br>
In fact Mr Ferguson ( I refuse to recognise his official title) seems to
have missed Young’s dive in the very match he used as his example. See
<a href="http://i53.tinypic.com/wak9so.gif" target="_blank">http://i53.tinypic.com/wak9so.gif</a><br>
<br>
However , I suspect that Ferguson was not interested in a balanced
comparison. He was on a mission to discredit Liverpool’s best player.
Ferguson knew that wherever he treads, his pandering legions in the
media will follow.<br>
<br>
And so it proved.<br>
<br>
Without any justification, Luis Suarez overnight became a racist and the worst diver in English football.<br>
<br>
The effects of the United chief’s comments can be seen almost daily.
Liverpool’s next match after United was another home fixture against
Norwich City. The referee Peter Walton enraged the Kop, as well as
Suarez as he waved away ten apparent fouls on the Uruguayan. TEN times
the Kop cried foul. TEN times the referee refused. Even when Mark
Tierney felled Suarez when he was through on goal, the referee decided
against a red card, or even a free kick, and merely turned away.<br>
<br>
As the final whistle sounded, Luis Suarez left the pitch having not been awarded a single free-kick.<br>
<br>
On to Stoke in the Carling Cup, which was to be a triumphant night for
little Luis. Two goals, one of which will surely be in the mix for Goal
of The Season, saw his team through the tie. Yet it was obvious that
Ferguson’s plot was working as intended. The home supporters jeered
Suarez.<br>
<br>
In the first half of the Stoke tie, the mercurial Uruguayan waltzed past
Jonathan Woodgate who had been shown a yellow card just moments
earlier. That Woodgate clipped Luis was not in question, but instead of
tumbling and winning a penalty and a certain red card for his opponent,
the Liverpool striker stuttered but maintained his balance before
dragging his shot wide. A chance had gone,and Stoke’s lead stayed intact
as did their back four.<br>
<br>
Now this sort of honesty would, you would think, earn universal praise.
Not on this occasion. Not public enemy Luis Suarez. BBC TV’s commentator
for the game, Guy Mowbray acknowledged that there had been a trip but
chose to **** Suarez with faint praise.<br>
<br>
“He is caught there and manages to keep his feet, which you have to say
is most unlike Luis Suarez” he said, following up with “He might wish he
hadn’t”<br>
<br>
Even after the Uruguayan’s masterpiece goal which brought his team
level, Mowbray had a dig. “You get two sides with Luis Suarez. That side
is absolutely brilliant.” Another cheap shot.<br>
<br>
Late in the match Crouch had legitimate claims for a penalty turned
down. Seconds later Huth preposterously threw himself to the turf as the
ball flashed around the box. Guess which incident was highlighted by
the commentators.<br>
<br>
As Liverpool’s players and staff recovered savoured the win at Stoke,
still there was no word on the racism allegations which were festering
quietly. Elsewhere another case of racism allegations raged, with video
evidence, and the Football Association declared an official enquiry.<br>
<br>
This forced Kenny Dalglish, who has more dignity and class than any so
called knight of the realm, to urge the authorities to conclude the
matter one way or another, declaring that the club is “totally and
utterly” behind Luis Suarez. He has a point. No new evidence is going to
emerge now. If there is sufficient evidence (any evidence) let’s get on
with it. If not, let’s move on.<br>
<br>
Yesterday, Liverpool had another vital match, this time at West Bromwich
Albion. Nine minutes into the game Jerome Thomas clumsily tackled
Suarez as he moved away from goal. Replays proved that the linesman was
perfectly correct to intervene and alert the referee to the
indiscretion. More fuel to the Suarez dive allegations. Hardly. <br>
Look at the incident again. Suarez clashes with Thomas and immediately
attempts to get back to his feet and chase the defender, before noticing
the linesman flagging furiously. At no stage did Luis claim a penalty.<br>
<br>
Later in the half Luis Suarez and Jerome Thomas clashed again, this time
with the Albion man being on the receiving end. However it was clearly
evident that the collision was caused by the Liverpool man slipping and
falling into the West Brom defender. As the two players left the pitch
at he interval, Suarez was clearly apologising and explaining, and
Thomas seemed happy to accept. Did Luis get any credit form the match
commentators for seeking out his opponent and apologising? <br>
<br>
There was another incident worthy of note. In the second period, Suarez
again danced around defenders to the left of the Baggies’ six yard box,
before losing the ball. Chris Waddle, co-commentating fro ESPN uttered
the immortal phrase “Suarez thought about diving there”. Did he? Please,
Chris Waddle, let us all into the secret of mind-reading. What you
really mean Mr Waddle is “I would expect a notorious cheating Uruguayan
to have gone down there”<br>
<br>
Luis Suarez must be getting fed up of this smear campaign: as must the
club, and his manager. I know I certainly am. Alex Ferguson knows what
he has set in motion. As he sits back and enjoys his whisky tonight he
probably looks back on a job well done.<br>
<br>
Suarez is a talent. He is a threat to Manchester United, make no
mistake. If his stint in England can be made unbearable, he will surely
be tempted by offers from pastures new.<br>
<br>
Today’s Sunday Mirror carried a story quoting Ferguson and his
incredulity that racism is creeping back into the game. Did the paper
accompany the article with a photo of the other player (captain of
England) who is actively under an FA enquiry? No, of course they did
not. They used a full page photo of Suarez aiming comments at Evra. When
confronted, the Mirror justified this decision by saying that in the
article Fergie talks about that incident, so it was right to use that
picture. For the record, nowhere in the respective article does Ferguson
mention Luis Suarez by name.

good article.
 
Last edited:
Here's a wonderful article in the Guardian regarding Suarez and diving. Gets just about everything spot on. Spoilered for length.

Having showcased his Hand of God tribute act at the last World Cup, and sunk his gnashers into a fellow pro while at Ajax, Luis Suárez was a ready-formed cartoon villain when he washed up on these shores last January. All that was missing was the stovepipe hat, cape, cane and elaborate moustache. Nyahh nyahh nyahh. Yet even so, it's still something of a shock – a shameful, sorry shock – how quickly the Uruguayan has found himself to be the biggest pariah in English football.

Last weekend, in the early exchanges of Liverpool's visit to West Bromwich Albion, Jerome Thomas needlessly stuck out a leg to impede the progress of Suárez. Progress being used there in its loosest sense; Suárez was scampering nowhere fast, out of the area, away from danger. Knocked to his knees, skittering across the turf like a distressed toddler who had just fallen off his bike, the Liverpool striker didn't even claim for the penalty. But a foul is a foul, no matter how soft, and the spot kick was duly awarded. Suárez spent the rest of a brilliant display getting pelters from the Hawthorns faithful, and was loudly and signally booed off as he was substituted near the end.

All of which is fair enough. Fans are under no obligation to be even-handed; Thomas could have bowled into view behind the wheel of a 4x4, knocking Suárez 15 feet into the air off the bonnet, and some supporters would have still insisted Suárez deserved to be booked for jaywalking. But you expect a little bit of reason from the professionals and the media.

"I think the 25,000 people watching, even the Liverpool supporters, will probably agree with me that it looked like a very, very harsh decision, and there was certainly no intention to foul the player or give away a penalty," opined West Brom boss Roy Hodgson after the game. Top marks to Roy for chutzpah, in attempting to corral moral support from a fanbase he'd systematically alienated with a series of self-serving statements during his time at Anfield, but otherwise the comment missed the point spectacularly. Benign intent does not cancel out clumsiness. And seeing Hodgson was in the mood to make assumptions on behalf of others, Liverpool supporters will probably agree with me that his complaint smacked of bandwagon jumping, Suárez's sullied reputation a convenient out for his team's ****-poor display, one grabbed eagerly with both hands.

For some reason – surreal, yet paradoxically predictable – a controversy over this most basic and clear-cut decision ran for most of the week. "It was a nice dive for the penalty," suggested West Brom midfielder Paul Scharner a couple of days ago. "Suárez is very good at winning penalties. He's one of the best on the planet, in fact. There was a general feeling among all the players that it was a soft penalty." Soft it may have been, but a penalty it was nonetheless, and Scharner's accusation of diving was at best myopic and befuddled. More uncharitably, seeing Scharner is in the business of shooting from the hip without a second's thought for reputation, his claim was a flat-out lie. That such a statement has been left hanging, reported unchallenged in the press, his words reprinted in headline-point size, borders on the weird.

Many of football's controversies are initially fuelled by television, the papers turning up 24 hours later with a couple of cans of petrol and a box of Swan, tittering excitedly. But to be fair this time round, ESPN attempted to nip this strange business in the bud. The co-commentator Chris Waddle was quick to call Thomas's foul, as were his colleagues in the studio, though you do wonder whether Waddle was feeling some guilt for his dubious performance during Liverpool's game the previous week against Norwich City, when almost every compliment given to Suárez was prefaced with a totally needless: "I don't like the way he goes to ground sometimes, but..." It's a strange state of affairs when a player's contributions are constantly framed by their misdemeanours – Steven Gerrard's finer moments have rarely been counterbalanced with his habit of starfishing himself to the floor, while Wayne Rooney has yet to be admonished upon Mark Hughesing one home for any previous ****-kicking red mists that may have occasionally befallen him – but this is the way of life for Suárez.

At one point during that Norwich game, Suárez was blocked off on the edge of the area. It probably wasn't a foul, though you've seen them given. Play went on, Craig Bellamy within nanoseconds running the ball out of play down the left. At which point Suárez was loudly berated by the ESPN commentator Jon Champion for not springing immediately back up and joining in the move again. Denis Law, who could defy gravity like few others, would have struggled to raise as much as a wry eyebrow in a similarly allotted time. Nothing, sure enough, was said when Suárez stayed teetering on his toes a few minutes later, dragging a shot wide left of goal, despite having been nudged in the area and well within his rights to send the nipples turfward looking for the penalty. Michael Owen, England's penalty-winning hero against Argentina in the 1998 and 2002 World Cups, would have had no compunction.

A few days later, in a Carling Cup game transmitted on the BBC, Suárez was standing in the penalty area at Stoke waiting for the dispatch of a corner, with his hands conspicuously in the air to demonstrate that he wasn't grappling with any defenders. "He's making sure the referee knows he's fouling no one," announced Guy Mowbray, before pausing and proudly quipping: "He's fooling no one." Lovely linguistic gymnastics, and what comedy, though hardly Reithian reporting; if Suárez displayed similar balance in the penalty area, he'd have an instant 10-match ban for simulation.

Thing is, nobody's fooling themselves, and it would be hard to paint Suárez as an angel. This latest slew of accusations have come in the wake of Jack Rodwell's disgraceful sending off in the Merseyside derby, for a tackle which saw the Everton youngster barely clipping Suárez. The Liverpool striker certainly made the most of Rodwell's challenge, and you can berate him for patrolling the outer boundaries of the game's laws – simulation is illegal, but exaggeration of a foul is only covered by the vague and highly subjective theory of gamesmanship – but then Rodwell was playing with fire having momentarily shown his studs as he thundered in for the tackle, surely the crucial factor in referee Martin Atkinson's mistake. Suárez had done nothing technically wrong; indeed, Atkinson had whipped the card out with Suárez having barely hit the turf, suggesting the player's reaction had little or nothing to do with what was unquestionably a dismal decision. Either way, it's not much evidence with which to condemn a man. And given pretty much everyone in the league is at it anyway, singling Suárez out for opprobrium does make one wonder.

There's a very large elephant in the room, of course, and it's parping the sort of elaborate freestyle jazz solo that makes Albert Ayler's Spiritual Unity sound like the theme tune to Hancock's Half Hour: the allegations of racist abuse levelled at Suárez by the Manchester United captain Patrice Evra. Should Evra's claims be made to stand, Suárez will have some serious talking to do, and quickly. Sympathy for his plight would suddenly be in extremely short supply, both outside and inside Anfield. But at the time of writing, that's a mighty big if: he's currently an innocent man, and must be treated as such.

Evra's accusations do throw light on a certain irony, however, and lead us to what is the crux of the problem. English football is rightly proud of its efforts to kick out racism. The game has come a long way since the unreconstructed days of the 1970s and 1980s. Arguably even more of an achievement lies in the fact that nobody involved with the sport has since got complacent: the recent accusations involving Suárez and John Terry have been addressed swiftly and seriously, across the board by professionals, administrators, media and fans.

But while there's a healthy zero-tolerance attitude to the overt stuff, a strain of unspoken, casual xenophobia remains. English football puffs out its chest in pride at its modern cosmopolitan nature, but despite the international roll call there's still a bit of work to be done. In more than one quarter, Suárez has been advised to tone down the theatrics in order to get the crowds – and the media – off his back. Given that making the most of challenges, providing there's no drift into simulation, isn't against the laws of the game, and that such a grift is more widely accepted in other countries, there's an unsettling undertone here: you can work in the country, but you have to do things our way. Extend that argument into any other walk of life, and you're on very dodgy political ground. Exactly why football should be treated any differently isn't made clear.

The pious demands aren't, of course, directed at homegrown players partial to a wee dive: the aforementioned Gerrard or Owen, for example. When Arsenal's record-breaking 49-game unbeaten run was ended, it was thanks to a brilliantly disguised but shameful tumble by Wayne Rooney, as British a bulldog as you're likely to see. Francis Lee, also of these shores, practically invented the concept of going to ground in the mid 1960s.

There's also a strange (and very British) kind of logic on display here: if we're so annoyed by the over-reaction of certain players to being fouled, all quadruple salchow and pike, then instead of heaping abuse on the poor saps rolling about, would it not be better to ask the other players to stop kicking them? The last time we ended up here, in the summer of 2006, one of the best players in the world was nearly hounded out of the country for winking, while the man who perambulated up and down a man's front tail was treated as the victim of the piece.

A desperately sad state of affairs, all told, and one which leaves poor old Suárez hanging out to dry. He is, sadly, unlikely to be cut much slack; you know how these things pan out. In many respects, while Liverpool's player is within his rights to bemoan his lot, the club's fans can't complain too loudly, as all this is nothing new. Allegiances being what they are, Kopites didn't man the barricades alongside their comrades at Chelsea when Didier Drogba was getting pelters for being regularly kicked around like an old sock. Nor did they fight the good fight side by side with those from Manchester United, when Cristiano Ronaldo was constantly berated for being repeatedly sent flying across Old Trafford on his shiny teeth.

Still, it would be nice to think this is where we all finally come together and draw a line under this nonsense, though the suspicion is that we haven't quite matured enough. We're getting the overt stuff down pat. The rest? Not so much. But let's not be too harsh on ourselves. Much of this, you have to hope, is less true xenophobia, and simply the projection of jealousy and frustration at watching truly brilliant players going about their business. If Liverpool's No7 wasn't any good, few people would care. Cristiano Ronaldo, let's remember, was vilified for doing stepovers.Stepovers. A skill. Thanks, Britain! Well done, us! Luis Suárez must wonder what he's let himself in for.
 
I don't think Suarez is particularly a diver, as basically everyone dives nowadays. But I do think he dives more than he should do, which I have got to admit is annoying. But I just don't see why everyone says Gerrard dives - I haven't seen him do it, and I don't think he would.
 
Not being funny, but who's Marc Pelosi? I swear I've heard of his name, though, and if he succeeds then I ain't complaining. I hope he's cheap though(unlike our other signings - Carroll, Downing, Henderson, etc.)!
He signed a contract a few months back. Very highly rated youngster. Pep was after him for Barcelona and told him if he didnt join them to go to Liverpool to develop.

That may be where you heard about him. This story is about 6 months old and just coming through now due to WP and age etc.

Hes also already on liverpools team on FM12
 
Here's a wonderful article in the Guardian regarding Suarez and diving. Gets just about everything spot on. Spoilered for length.

Having showcased his Hand of God tribute act at the last World Cup, and sunk his gnashers into a fellow pro while at Ajax, Luis Suárez was a ready-formed cartoon villain when he washed up on these shores last January. All that was missing was the stovepipe hat, cape, cane and elaborate moustache. Nyahh nyahh nyahh. Yet even so, it's still something of a shock – a shameful, sorry shock – how quickly the Uruguayan has found himself to be the biggest pariah in English football.

Last weekend, in the early exchanges of Liverpool's visit to West Bromwich Albion, Jerome Thomas needlessly stuck out a leg to impede the progress of Suárez. Progress being used there in its loosest sense; Suárez was scampering nowhere fast, out of the area, away from danger. Knocked to his knees, skittering across the turf like a distressed toddler who had just fallen off his bike, the Liverpool striker didn't even claim for the penalty. But a foul is a foul, no matter how soft, and the spot kick was duly awarded. Suárez spent the rest of a brilliant display getting pelters from the Hawthorns faithful, and was loudly and signally booed off as he was substituted near the end.

All of which is fair enough. Fans are under no obligation to be even-handed; Thomas could have bowled into view behind the wheel of a 4x4, knocking Suárez 15 feet into the air off the bonnet, and some supporters would have still insisted Suárez deserved to be booked for jaywalking. But you expect a little bit of reason from the professionals and the media.

"I think the 25,000 people watching, even the Liverpool supporters, will probably agree with me that it looked like a very, very harsh decision, and there was certainly no intention to foul the player or give away a penalty," opined West Brom boss Roy Hodgson after the game. Top marks to Roy for chutzpah, in attempting to corral moral support from a fanbase he'd systematically alienated with a series of self-serving statements during his time at Anfield, but otherwise the comment missed the point spectacularly. Benign intent does not cancel out clumsiness. And seeing Hodgson was in the mood to make assumptions on behalf of others, Liverpool supporters will probably agree with me that his complaint smacked of bandwagon jumping, Suárez's sullied reputation a convenient out for his team's ****-poor display, one grabbed eagerly with both hands.

For some reason – surreal, yet paradoxically predictable – a controversy over this most basic and clear-cut decision ran for most of the week. "It was a nice dive for the penalty," suggested West Brom midfielder Paul Scharner a couple of days ago. "Suárez is very good at winning penalties. He's one of the best on the planet, in fact. There was a general feeling among all the players that it was a soft penalty." Soft it may have been, but a penalty it was nonetheless, and Scharner's accusation of diving was at best myopic and befuddled. More uncharitably, seeing Scharner is in the business of shooting from the hip without a second's thought for reputation, his claim was a flat-out lie. That such a statement has been left hanging, reported unchallenged in the press, his words reprinted in headline-point size, borders on the weird.

Many of football's controversies are initially fuelled by television, the papers turning up 24 hours later with a couple of cans of petrol and a box of Swan, tittering excitedly. But to be fair this time round, ESPN attempted to nip this strange business in the bud. The co-commentator Chris Waddle was quick to call Thomas's foul, as were his colleagues in the studio, though you do wonder whether Waddle was feeling some guilt for his dubious performance during Liverpool's game the previous week against Norwich City, when almost every compliment given to Suárez was prefaced with a totally needless: "I don't like the way he goes to ground sometimes, but..." It's a strange state of affairs when a player's contributions are constantly framed by their misdemeanours – Steven Gerrard's finer moments have rarely been counterbalanced with his habit of starfishing himself to the floor, while Wayne Rooney has yet to be admonished upon Mark Hughesing one home for any previous ****-kicking red mists that may have occasionally befallen him – but this is the way of life for Suárez.

At one point during that Norwich game, Suárez was blocked off on the edge of the area. It probably wasn't a foul, though you've seen them given. Play went on, Craig Bellamy within nanoseconds running the ball out of play down the left. At which point Suárez was loudly berated by the ESPN commentator Jon Champion for not springing immediately back up and joining in the move again. Denis Law, who could defy gravity like few others, would have struggled to raise as much as a wry eyebrow in a similarly allotted time. Nothing, sure enough, was said when Suárez stayed teetering on his toes a few minutes later, dragging a shot wide left of goal, despite having been nudged in the area and well within his rights to send the nipples turfward looking for the penalty. Michael Owen, England's penalty-winning hero against Argentina in the 1998 and 2002 World Cups, would have had no compunction.

A few days later, in a Carling Cup game transmitted on the BBC, Suárez was standing in the penalty area at Stoke waiting for the dispatch of a corner, with his hands conspicuously in the air to demonstrate that he wasn't grappling with any defenders. "He's making sure the referee knows he's fouling no one," announced Guy Mowbray, before pausing and proudly quipping: "He's fooling no one." Lovely linguistic gymnastics, and what comedy, though hardly Reithian reporting; if Suárez displayed similar balance in the penalty area, he'd have an instant 10-match ban for simulation.

Thing is, nobody's fooling themselves, and it would be hard to paint Suárez as an angel. This latest slew of accusations have come in the wake of Jack Rodwell's disgraceful sending off in the Merseyside derby, for a tackle which saw the Everton youngster barely clipping Suárez. The Liverpool striker certainly made the most of Rodwell's challenge, and you can berate him for patrolling the outer boundaries of the game's laws – simulation is illegal, but exaggeration of a foul is only covered by the vague and highly subjective theory of gamesmanship – but then Rodwell was playing with fire having momentarily shown his studs as he thundered in for the tackle, surely the crucial factor in referee Martin Atkinson's mistake. Suárez had done nothing technically wrong; indeed, Atkinson had whipped the card out with Suárez having barely hit the turf, suggesting the player's reaction had little or nothing to do with what was unquestionably a dismal decision. Either way, it's not much evidence with which to condemn a man. And given pretty much everyone in the league is at it anyway, singling Suárez out for opprobrium does make one wonder.

There's a very large elephant in the room, of course, and it's parping the sort of elaborate freestyle jazz solo that makes Albert Ayler's Spiritual Unity sound like the theme tune to Hancock's Half Hour: the allegations of racist abuse levelled at Suárez by the Manchester United captain Patrice Evra. Should Evra's claims be made to stand, Suárez will have some serious talking to do, and quickly. Sympathy for his plight would suddenly be in extremely short supply, both outside and inside Anfield. But at the time of writing, that's a mighty big if: he's currently an innocent man, and must be treated as such.

Evra's accusations do throw light on a certain irony, however, and lead us to what is the crux of the problem. English football is rightly proud of its efforts to kick out racism. The game has come a long way since the unreconstructed days of the 1970s and 1980s. Arguably even more of an achievement lies in the fact that nobody involved with the sport has since got complacent: the recent accusations involving Suárez and John Terry have been addressed swiftly and seriously, across the board by professionals, administrators, media and fans.

But while there's a healthy zero-tolerance attitude to the overt stuff, a strain of unspoken, casual xenophobia remains. English football puffs out its chest in pride at its modern cosmopolitan nature, but despite the international roll call there's still a bit of work to be done. In more than one quarter, Suárez has been advised to tone down the theatrics in order to get the crowds – and the media – off his back. Given that making the most of challenges, providing there's no drift into simulation, isn't against the laws of the game, and that such a grift is more widely accepted in other countries, there's an unsettling undertone here: you can work in the country, but you have to do things our way. Extend that argument into any other walk of life, and you're on very dodgy political ground. Exactly why football should be treated any differently isn't made clear.

The pious demands aren't, of course, directed at homegrown players partial to a wee dive: the aforementioned Gerrard or Owen, for example. When Arsenal's record-breaking 49-game unbeaten run was ended, it was thanks to a brilliantly disguised but shameful tumble by Wayne Rooney, as British a bulldog as you're likely to see. Francis Lee, also of these shores, practically invented the concept of going to ground in the mid 1960s.

There's also a strange (and very British) kind of logic on display here: if we're so annoyed by the over-reaction of certain players to being fouled, all quadruple salchow and pike, then instead of heaping abuse on the poor saps rolling about, would it not be better to ask the other players to stop kicking them? The last time we ended up here, in the summer of 2006, one of the best players in the world was nearly hounded out of the country for winking, while the man who perambulated up and down a man's front tail was treated as the victim of the piece.

A desperately sad state of affairs, all told, and one which leaves poor old Suárez hanging out to dry. He is, sadly, unlikely to be cut much slack; you know how these things pan out. In many respects, while Liverpool's player is within his rights to bemoan his lot, the club's fans can't complain too loudly, as all this is nothing new. Allegiances being what they are, Kopites didn't man the barricades alongside their comrades at Chelsea when Didier Drogba was getting pelters for being regularly kicked around like an old sock. Nor did they fight the good fight side by side with those from Manchester United, when Cristiano Ronaldo was constantly berated for being repeatedly sent flying across Old Trafford on his shiny teeth.

Still, it would be nice to think this is where we all finally come together and draw a line under this nonsense, though the suspicion is that we haven't quite matured enough. We're getting the overt stuff down pat. The rest? Not so much. But let's not be too harsh on ourselves. Much of this, you have to hope, is less true xenophobia, and simply the projection of jealousy and frustration at watching truly brilliant players going about their business. If Liverpool's No7 wasn't any good, few people would care. Cristiano Ronaldo, let's remember, was vilified for doing stepovers.Stepovers. A skill. Thanks, Britain! Well done, us! Luis Suárez must wonder what he's let himself in for.

really good article, but it missed the fact that Suarez had a record for diving back at Ajax (hed picked up 5 yellow cards for it before joining Liverpool)
 
Last edited:
When Arsenal's record-breaking 49-game unbeaten run was ended, it was thanks to a brilliantly disguised but shameful tumble by Wayne Rooney

:( Bad memories re-visited :(
 
I found something interesting...

Liverpool striker Luis Suarez has spoken publicly about his ongoing (and still unresolved) race-feud with Manchester United's Patrice Evra.

In an interview with El Pais Deportivo, Suarez protested his innocence:

"The FA will have to clarify things with [Evra]. There is no evidence I said anything racist to him. I said nothing of the sort.

"There were two parts of the discussion, one in Spanish, one in English. I did not insult him. It was just a way of expressing myself.

"I called him something his team-mates at Manchester United call him, and even they were surprised by his reaction."

The plot thickens...

Liverpool's LUIS SUAREZ admits: "I called Evra something..." | Liverpool-Kop.com | Liverpool FC News, features, statistics and analysis
 
Anyone know what punishment it carries if he's found guilty? And wonder how Liverpool will treat it internally.
 
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/lates...arez-statement

The Club this afternoon received notification from the Football Association of their decision to charge Luis Suarez and will take time to properly review the documentation which has been sent to us.

We will discuss the matter fully with him when he returns from international duty, but he will plead not guilty to the charge and we expect him to request a personal hearing.

Luis remains determined to clear his name of the allegation made against him by Patrice Evra.

The Club remain fully supportive of Luis in this matter.
 
Anyone know what punishment it carries if he's found guilty? And wonder how Liverpool will treat it internally.

Last I remember, there was a case involving local sides, and a player was found guilty, got a fine and a four match ban. Don't know if that would apply to the prem
 
Last I remember, there was a case involving local sides, and a player was found guilty, got a fine and a four match ban. Don't know if that would apply to the prem

I think given the stature of the two players and clubs involved in the whole incident the punishment if found guilty might be overly harsh to set an example.
 
I think given the stature of the two players and clubs involved in the whole incident the punishment if found guilty might be overly harsh to set an example.

True. And it's got to be done-lately it's getting stupid, both on field and twitter. If he is found guilty, gets a major punishment-if I was john terry I'd be worried. If found guilty of course.
 
I think given the stature of the two players and clubs involved in the whole incident the punishment if found guilty might be overly harsh to set an example.

Yep, he definitely deserves a heavy punishment IF true, but I dont want the FA bending its own rules. However there is a bigger issue here, and that is if it becomes a criminal matter. there was a case where a player got a ban, but then the police got involved and he was criminally convicted and banned from football grounds for three years, which is obviously an effective 3 year footballing ban.
 
Yep, he definitely deserves a heavy punishment IF true, but I dont want the FA bending its own rules. However there is a bigger issue here, and that is if it becomes a criminal matter. there was a case where a player got a ban, but then the police got involved and he was criminally convicted and banned from football grounds for three years, which is obviously an effective 3 year footballing ban.

What bugs me is how many different forums are saying that players should just put up with it "cause it's part of the game. If they don't like it don't play football". I'd like to think they're trolling, but I sincerely doubt it. Players are paid to play football-not suffer immoral and unjustifiable abuse
 
Back
Top