Liverpool Thread

Suarez75 said:
Im talking about the faux rage thats enimating from rival fans of teams! Yet these fans have players of their own that have been out of line.

As usual the overreaction far outweighs the crime.

ban him, fine him and get on with it, but dont make him out to be worse than anything else thats gone on in football.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
All the little bitches have been out all over the web slating him. He did wrong. Nobody is denying that but there are worse things to worry about in the world than Luis Suarez or any other player who next does something naughty.

I don't know why loads of people have such a hissy fit tbh?
 
Suarez75 said:
As an aside this is a good piece of writing on Sundays antics and exactly what im getting at regarding us all as fans and rivals.

http://www.cartilagefreecaptain.com/2013/4/22/4251988/luis-suarez
Click to expand...

I like the part where it says Paul Scholes is as bad as Suarez, because he's always lunging into leg breakers. Like the 0 times he's broken someone's leg, and the 0 times he's ended someones match after a challenge. Behold the power of urban legend. (not saying he's not dirty - he definitely leaves a bit in, but the very fact that he's held in such high regard by pros of all teams tells you what you need to know)

That article basically says that unless you're pure and clean yourself, you're not allowed to express an opinion. Well you know what, I've done a lot wrong in my life and I'm still pretty upset about the marathon bombings. So erm, am I in the wrong? No. It's a retarded point of view, sounds like the f*cking inquisition line of logic.
 
beachryan said:
I like the part where it says Paul Scholes is as bad as Suarez, because he's always lunging into leg breakers. Like the 0 times he's broken someone's leg, and the 0 times he's ended someones match after a challenge. Behold the power of urban legend. (not saying he's not dirty - he definitely leaves a bit in, but the very fact that he's held in such high regard by pros of all teams tells you what you need to know)

That article basically says that unless you're pure and clean yourself, you're not allowed to express an opinion. Well you know what, I've done a lot wrong in my life and I'm still pretty upset about the marathon bombings. So erm, am I in the wrong? No. It's a retarded point of view, sounds like the f*cking inquisition line of logic.
Click to expand...

Beachryan hes making a point how some players are favourable than others. Whether Scholes breaks a leg or not, he has a terrible record of bad unpunished challenges, he's even admitted it himself, but the media just laugh it off. Whilst someone like Michael Brown or Cattermole are cast as dirty. Theres no bloody difference between them as far as tackling goes, they are all dirty.
 
He has a terrible record of bad unpunished challenges? Really? The second most yellow carded player in premier league history?

Are you just making up narrative now?

People treat Scholes and Suarez differently. That's the media, fellow professionals, the fans of other teams - everyone. If you can't work out why and think it has anything to do with what shirt they wear, you're an idiot.
 
I think Schole's good out weighs his bad. When I think of Scholes his tackling efforts are the last thing I think of. Where as Suarez his bad is nearly even with his good. When I think of Suarez I remember his Goal vs Norwich and his hand ball inside the goal WC'10 .
 
bebo said:
I think Schole's good out weighs his bad. When I think of Scholes his tackling efforts are the last thing I think of. Where as Suarez his bad is nearly even with his good. When I think of Suarez I remember his Goal vs Norwich and his hand ball inside the goal WC'10 .
Click to expand...

I don't see what was wrong with his handball at WC'10. Virtually every single player would have done the same. Bullshit if they say they wouldn't have. On the radio this morning they brought that up as though it was shocking. He should have punished by the guy scoring the penalty but it was a piss poor effort and he missed. As guttening as it was for Ghana, I wasn't shocked at what happened. Far from it.
 
Agreed on his on-field actions in the WC. He did the right thing in saving it. Every pro should do the same.

Refusing to go down the tunnel and instead celebrating in front of the Ghanaian fans showed a lack of class.

I don't dislike Suarez for that incident, personally. It's for the dozens of other nasty things he's done.
 
Tbh Ithought this was the best part of the article and apt reading this thread;

Ultimately we're all a bunch of idiots who care way too much about grown manchildren running around chasing a ball. Who are also idiots. And we're all going to act in completely stupid, irrational ways. Some of us just wear different colored kits.
Click to expand...
 
PU6HY said:
I don't see what was wrong with his handball at WC'10. Virtually every single player would have done the same. Bullshit if they say they wouldn't have. On the radio this morning they brought that up as though it was shocking. He should have punished by the guy scoring the penalty but it was a piss poor effort and he missed. As guttening as it was for Ghana, I wasn't shocked at what happened. Far from it.
Click to expand...

My point was my personal memory of Suarez , not saying what's wrong or right ... I don't see him being racist nor a cannibal. :). I haven't heard anything of him off the pitch. He's a family man who is dedicated to his family.
 
beachryan said:
Agreed on his on-field actions in the WC. He did the right thing in saving it. Every pro should do the same.

Refusing to go down the tunnel and instead celebrating in front of the Ghanaian fans showed a lack of class.

I don't dislike Suarez for that incident, personally. It's for the dozens of other nasty things he's done.
Click to expand...

i don´t remember this part... he was celebrating, but not in front of the Ghana fans...he was on sidelines by his team and after they didn´t score he celebrated looking at the Uruguay bench not believing his luck and acting like a kid, i remember it becouse that time i thought what a lucky guy... i remember that match very good, actually better than the final..
 
SuarezBirthday_m2mcwsbcz2.gif


Old but Gold :LMAO:
 
I don't agree with Poyet.
I don't even agree with the part tik is quoting.

I like to think that i'm a reasonable fan. Yes i'm biased towards Genk and Spurs. But there are certain limits. IMO it's pathetic continuing defending what Suarez did. I wonder what people who defend Suarez now would say when someone would try to bite them out of the blue during a football match. Just like Ivanovic (who reacted pretty low key) they would be horrified (and i'm not the only one who thinks Ivanovic was horrified, that was also the assessment in the Football Weekly podcast).

I agree up to a certain point that a prime minister should not interfere in football business, but i do agree with his role model reasoning. These guys are millionaires because of their immense popularity IMO they should act like role models.

I know we've had this discussion before. Some people say that they are "only" football players. I could agree with that if they only would act like football players, but the star players (and this is not specifiically about Suarez) earn a huge amount of publicity money. They sell abroad range of products from cererals over shampoos and deo stick to underwear...that is much more than being "merely" a football player. Thus the role model argument is a very important one.

But what infuriates me most is not Suarez. A couple of months ago i decided to enjoy Suarez as a football player and not longer to care about his other antics. Things like this will happen over and over again with this guy, but i will not by an hypocrite and concede that i've enjoyed football villains before Suarez. Someow those archetypical villains (even if they far less fantastic players like Suarez) add something to the soap oper and spectaclea that is modern football.

What infuriates me is the stupid tribalism about all of this. The people who are defending Suarez now would be the first to condemn if he was a player of another team. It would be even worse if he would have played for Man United, because for some obscure reason Liverpool and Man Utd happen to be arch rivals. I love football, but i truly hate this aspect. Perfectly intelligent people like Beach and Pipa (and they are only examples, please don't take this personal) are not capable of being remotely objective about their club and their arch rivals. I don't understand the first thing (about their favourite club) and even less the second (about the supposedly arch rivals). Is it all part of the game ? Should it be ? No. Maybe i am missing something but IMO this is primitive, daft, stupid...

If i will continue to react in this thread, it will not be about Suarez. I couldn't care less. But for some reason i hate the tribalism. It must be something cultural.

PS: a word of advice to Liverpool fans who don't want this to be the Suarez thread: stop defending him. mathewss and tik are fine examples that it is possible to be objective.

PPS: i wonder how dags feels about this. He never posts in this threas, but be assured that he doesn't miss a post.
 
4 games remaining and 6 matches at the start. If he need any sort of surgery whether brain, it's a good to start the preporation .10 seems harsh at least the owner will need another ST!
 
Hmmm... I was thinking the rest of the season would be a fitting punishment. I giggle a little though, because we've got some internal family rivalry going on since part of my family is from Liverpool. But if I have to be rational about it, ten matches is too much in my opinion.

Had Suarez actually penetrated the skin and completed a real bite, then maybe ten matches would be fitting since it's very high risk of infection.
 
Or possible convertion to a dracula depends on who you talk to :)

Either way it should be more than a 3 match ban, but 10? LFC will argue for sure.
 
He's had a 7 game ban for biting previously, that obviously didn't deter him, he received an 8 game ban for racial abuse and was warned about future conduct. What did you think he'd get? Hope you do argue it to be honest and get hit with an additional ban for a frivolous appeal.
 
Technically it was an 8 game ban for using racist language. If he was racist, I'm sure he'd be banned for life.

It's too harsh in my opinion. I'm not sure what the appeal process is, but I'd imagine it'll come down a little bit.

Similar to the Barton ban last year, couldn't understand the size of that ban either.
 
Purely theoretically a ban for Suarez is completely useless. He will do other things that are very contorversial. So the FA might aswell not have banned him.

If you look at it from Ivanovic's point of view (and that of his future victims) 10 matches is very lenient, also consdering that he also had two long bans. He is a recividist, from that point of view 10 games is not enough.

To be honest, it doesn't really matters...

Ok and now the Liverpool fans can begin to complain that the FA is against their club...i wonder what arguments they will use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom