From the safety of the away end he'll be getting both barrels from me.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Suarez
- Thread starter Marxo
- Start date
From the safety of the away end he'll be getting both barrels from me.
A question to all the Suarez supporters, what is it you like about him?
Falkor
Banned
- Jun 3, 2011
- 5,673
And suarez has no history really gets red cards in pretty big games and banned how ever many games for biting a player clear as day yeah lovely chap.
Steveapps71
New member
I guess before the start of the "Evra" episode he was a hardworking player that showed quality & seemed to play with a smile on his face.
Imagine if it had been Joey Barton or Craig Bellamy, i think then no one would be on their side
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
Great player.
pork pie
New member
I like the way he is his own man, and refuses to be told how he should think about others.
But this wasn't the case was it? He admitted to repeatedly calling Evra a negro, and tried to be clever by suggesting it was a term of endearment. He was found guilty by his own admissions as much as Evras evidence.
SeagullinExile
Well-known member
Not read the entire thread, so sorry if already mentioned. The reason he wasn't up before the courts is that no-one complained to the police, whereas in the JT case, a member of the public reported it, so they had to act.
A "cauldron of racist hate".......all I can say on that is, dont believe the hype....this a club who produced a book called the Asian Liverbird specifically catered for asian fans, who had a player who was/is basically at the forefront of anti racism in football in this country in John Barnes, who have no recent history of racism within either the club or the fanbase....
The whole shitstorm created by the Evra Suarez affair has thrown a lot of mud in many different directions, a lot of which has stuck, but the facts dont back up the basic media-fed idea of "Liverpool - The racist club" - and to be honest, anyone who believes Liverpool are a racist club, is either a bit thick, or easily led by the papers and Sky news....which go hand in hand in some ways
I'm not a suarez supporter, but I don't think his refusal to shake hands with Evra is as big a deal as many are making it out to be. From his point of view, Evra has lied about him ruining his reputation and getting him banned for 8 games.
For others defending Evra (just playing devil's advocate here...)
Regardless of view point, would you shake the hand of someone who got you banned after he made a crass and vulgar comment about you imaginary sister? Even if you said something you shouldn't have, there's still many people who have the attitude "you don't grass" - we've had people on here trying to argue there's nothing worse than grassing someone up. If they take that stance, perhaps they see Evra "squealing" as a worse crime than someone overstepping the mark when trying to rile an opponent (remember, the FA have stressed they do not believe Evra to be racist, he is mixed race, and apparently does a lot of work against racism - his crime is 'using racist language', not 'being racist')
There are also some who still question the validity of the FA panel's findings. A lot has been made of the consistency of Evra's testimony, but it wasn't that consistent, apparently, changing from "he said the (English) N-word probably more than 10 times", to "he said a spanish word negro (which is pronounced differently to the english version, and has a different, usually less volatile meaning) a few times". Evra got to watch a video of the incident while testifying, allowing him to refresh his memory of events and consequently will be more consistent, whereas Suarez had to go by his memory alone. There was also talk of the foreign language experts saying the phrase could be used in an offensive way, and they did, but they also supposedly said it doesn't really scan right in the situation for it to have been used in offensive manner. I'm not saying the FA panel got it wrong, just that the media coverage of the findings has presented what appears to be the wrong points for some people to feel confident about its legitimacy.
Mmmmm. Funny you should say this because I have always found the "he is his own man" term generally relates to someone describing/justifying a complete prick. It's a bit like when someone proclaims "I'm a self-made man", what he has really just said is I'm a gobshite.
Out of interest, Hitler fits your reasoning....what do you think of him?
He claimed it was said in a way that was meant to diffuse the situation. According to one summary of the 144 page findings document (I've only read one summary), the language experts, while saying it could be used as an offensive term, suggested that in the situation and the context, it didn't scan right as an offensive term, but did as an attempt to diffuse.
NMH
Banned
The point of the exercise though, is to underline before the fans and tv viewers that football is a sport, and one that is between spirited men.
That there is an honour to uphold by playing on their team, and wearing their team's shirt colours, should not eclipse or belie the fact that it is a sport. The fans should conduct themselves with this in mind, and the players represent them and the club foremost by their behavior on the field.
If we are to recognize football as a fine and honourable sporting arrangement, played by the rules and in recognition of the correct definition of our own sport then we surely cannot allow or encourage that it denigrates at the hands of some South American 'spoilsport' who has already brought the reputation of football down as any gentleman's game.
What next - every lad who doesn't like the opponent can decide who he will shake hands with, and push away in disgust any that he has any previous dislike for?
What if Rangers and Celtic just glower at each other and make angry gestures, instead of exemplifying their participation in what is 'just a game'!?
That could amplify in the stands and on the streets, and we'll have Egypt-scale atrocities that can turn into Jugoslavia-style of factional warfare.
I'm not kidding - people are as thick and as nuts to participate in suchlike just by it being exacerbated on the football field.
Just shake feckin hands and get on with the match at hand, ffs.
Agree with that to an extent - not debating the ins and outs and rights and wrongs because we'd be here all day and I cant be arsed frankly, but the way I view today, is that Suarez believes Evra has wronged him, and therefore didnt want the handshake. For a bit of balance, Evras actions were not exactly exemplary sportsmanship either, but under provocation of the non handshake....
the fact that the whole thing has moved so far away from a racism issue and is now just a tit for tat issue, I agree, is massively boring - but it wont stop in the media for a good while yet.
NMH
Banned
Er...you what?
el-Abd may get opposing players frustrated, but I really and sicerely doubt he's out there premeditating how he's going to get a player sent off!
He gets kicked, bloodied, elbowed, punched, broken nose and split lips and everything else - and I don't think that's planned by him in order to get an opponent sent off!
Ah, gotcha. Next time I am trying to calm a black man I'll call him a negro a few times then. That'll chill him out.
Oh good someone's brought up Hitler, thread over.
NMH
Banned
This whole point about "no grassing" doesn't fit, or sit well with this situation.
It's racism - that is not just something a player should endure and stand up for by saying nothing. We have had that for centuries and it's been deemed that it must stop.
Because this Suarez enters some lame excuse that it's a term of 'endearment', is easy enough to see through. He did not address a man who he knows the name of as 'negrito' as a nicey-nice little moniker to credit his race. This is really not worth trying to pass off as reasonable.
