Liverpool
Everton
Seems like the FA are continuing their system of making disciplinary decisions based on what they think would satisfy the public.
I'm not sure he's put it in that much perspective. He's perpetuated the line that there is a grand conspiracy to hound him out of the country, and the implication that a reduced ban of, say, three matches would be enough to keep him in England.
I think there's a lot of common sense in there, and it's extremely balanced considering he's a team mate.
I can't stand Liverpool but the way Redknapp and Souness were carrying on afterwards about tarnishing the club's great name is a load of pretentious nonsense. They've had plenty of incidents in their history that would dwarf Suarez's antics.
I wouldn't agree with them either, but Carragher is still representing the other extreme. Sure he makes the grudging concession that biting people isn't right, but the basic point is Suarez is, once again, the victim. Liverpool fans have a particularly cultured taste for victimhood (some of it justifiably so).
I was given a slight reminder of the Souness era Liverpool team while watching the performance of the 2 Bundesliga teams in the CL semi final. Maybe they would be fit to lace one of Liverpool's boots from that era.
To a certain extent but there is a bit of sense to what he is saying. The calls for Liverpool to get rid of Suarez were ridiculous and I think he makes good points in relation to that side of it. That's what I meant by 'putting things into perspective' really.Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I more or less agree with that but I think he went beyond a grudging concession. This is about as scathing as it gets when talking about a current team mate (even if they will never play together again!)
"Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic. It was wrong on all levels. You simply don't expect to see a grown man bite another grown man - that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school."
He could have toned that down easily enough if he was really playing the victimised game. I find Carragher pretty refreshing in general anyway. The victimisation game was never going to be far away though!
Last edited by DeLorean; 25/04/2013 at 2:00 PM.
I agree with Gary Lineker when he said that the idea further punishment can't be handed out if a card was given out already or the ref didn't put anything in his report is a complete joke. Incidents like the Defoe one warrented further action along with ones like Rooney smashing his elbow into James McCarthy's head. That was serious dangerous play. If he connected with the wrong part of his head that day anything could have happened to McCarthy. People may laugh it off but it's dangerous play. Loads more incidents over the last few seasons that could be added to the list.
Lets talk about six baby
It is a stupid rule alright, even more stupid when they abide by it sometimes but not always, as Edmundo pointed out with the Ben Thatcher case.
I agree with the main points in Carragher's article.
I don't see where Carragher's points to Suarez being a victim. He points out that Suarez a recipient of a heavy punishment but that does not imply victimisation, instead that implies Carragher disagrees with the extent of the punishment.
Furthermore, I don't regard that Carragher makes a "grudging concession" that biting is wrong, he states emphatically that biting is wrong.
When one argues against the extent of the punishment meted out, one is accused of supporting/encouraging biting.
Crazy stuff indeed.
Last edited by geysir; 25/04/2013 at 3:13 PM.
I think he's right to point out that Suarez isn't the first one to do something bizarre and crazy, and that one incident alone shouldn't lead to people calling for the player to be sold. That I agree with, and Souness can go suck an egg for what it's worth. However, I think some people are legitimately questioning whether it's worth having a player who can't be trusted not to get suspended for a good chunk of the season.
He could have been far more scathing if he wanted to - saying it was childish is hardly a measured response.I more or less agree with that but I think he went beyond a grudging concession. This is about as scathing as it gets when talking about a current team mate (even if they will never play together again!)
"Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic. It was wrong on all levels. You simply don't expect to see a grown man bite another grown man - that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school."
He could have toned that down easily enough if he was really playing the victimised game. I find Carragher pretty refreshing in general anyway. The victimisation game was never going to be far away though!
He implies that Suarez is being "hounded" out of England. That implies that there are people actively trying to unsettle him or worse.
Except I didn't say thatWhen one argues against the extent of the punishment meted out, one is accused of supporting/encouraging biting.
Crazy stuff indeed.
I think your toning down his comments by suggesting he was merely calling it childish. Maybe it just reads differently to you than to me. Of course he could have been more scathing but he definitely could have been a lot less scathing, if victimisation was his agenda.
I think he's talking more about the comments by people (formerly or otherwise) associated with the club when saying they should be trying to help him, not hound him. I don't think he's pointing any fingers at the FA or even the broader media for their treatment of Suarez.
How could he have been less scathing?
I really doubt Suarez gives a fig about what Graeme Souness has to say. Perhaps Carragher is directing his column at those people, but it's hard to see why that merits an entire column.I think he's talking more about the comments by people (formerly or otherwise) associated with the club when saying they should be trying to help him, not hound him. I don't think he's pointing any fingers at the FA or even the broader media for their treatment of Suarez.
If one argued that Suarez deserves a 10 match ban for the cowardly ankle busting stamps he got away with, I'd have no problem agreeing.
Graeme Souness? Absolute garbage.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
I think that's the one where afterwards Souness starts pointing out to some damage done to his sock.
"Now I am not for one moment trying to sugar-coat the incident in which Luis bit Branislav Ivanovic."
He could have left it at that like most do, including Rodgers, but he went on to say...
"It was wrong on all levels. You simply don't expect to see a grown man bite another grown man - that is behaviour you would associate with nursery school."
It's remarkably timid. He might as well have said "it's just not cricket, old boy."
Admittedly, that would be worth it for the novelty value.
Graeme Souness,
"but this is embarrassing and puts Liverpool in a bad light in this week of all weeks [the 24th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster].
The ultimate hypocrisy.
I thought he was a great player but i lost all respect i had for him in April 1992.
Lets talk about six baby
Most others lost all respect for him in April 1986
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks