Football 2011-2012

[The Nal]

i thought he'd got extra training cos he committed the heinous crime of eating dinner after the 5-0 win against Wigan?

Edited January 3, 2012 by The Nal

[pink_triangle]

Fergie in interview with sirius. (US radio station that have interview rights with the club).

[eFestivals]

The league is in Utds hands.

sounds more like it's being pissed down the drain by fergie to me.

[The Nal]

sounds more like it's being pissed down the drain by fergie to me.

[ralph250]

Radio interview rights?? Is there anything man utd wont sell!

[strummer77]

Problem is Woodster, it's addressed in the report:

181. The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres negro" is not the most usual

form for Montevidean Spanish, since the form of the verb "ser" most commonly used

would be the "vos" form, that is "porque (vos) sos negro". Nevertheless, a small percentage

of people from Montevideo do use the "tu" form (in contrast to Buenos Aires, where it is

rarely used) or even a mixture of both. In the interview with Mr Suarez the transcription

indicated to the experts that he uses the "tu" form of the verb, though there are other

filmed interviews published on the internet in which he uses the "vos" form of the verb.

Given that he has spent some considerable time in Europe it is possible that his use of

Spanish alters between Uruguayan and European contexts. It is also possible that Mr Evra,

who may have learned his Spanish in Spain, where the "vos" form is not used, may, when

recalling the incident in interview, have rendered Mr Suarez’s usage as the "tu" form, even

if Mr Suarez used the "vos" form.

If he's used the Tu form in his interview, then it negates the assertion that he wouldn't, and gives hefty weight to the possibility of adaption to a European context (given he's in Europe, regularly conversing with Spanish nationals (Reina, Enrique etc).

Edited January 3, 2012 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

Why?

cos fergie's ego is getting the better of him, just for a change.

[strummer77]

cos fergie's ego is getting the better of him, just for a change.

Edited January 3, 2012 by strummer77

[thetime]

Nice to see the media and firum getting all excited because rooney got axed, the ebd if our title aspirations etc etc.

He didnt even start to play till the feb last season, and thats wasnt a to shabby season.

Our fortunes will only change when the great one steps down.

Can see both city and united dropping piints this week.

[eFestivals]

The last couple of team selections have been odd, but it still is any of those two's.

it defo looks like it's city's or Utd's, but it also looks as tho fergie thinks protecting his ego is more important than results on the field. So who knows how it might go?

Maybe having a bad birthday will have deflated that ego.

Although Man City and United lose tonight (very very unlikely either will), and we'll see the papers claiming Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs are in the mix.

Edit: United play tomorrow. Wonder if they'll bottle it like City did?

I think it's unlikely that any of those teams will get near to Utd or City, but I also think that if one does then quite possibly all four will. After all, if Utd or City are going to be dropping enough points for that to happen then it's likely to be one or more of those other four teams who are picking up those points from Utd &/or City.

Am looking forwards to tonight's game a lot. A couple of weeks ago I'd have said that city would have won, but with City's (relative) poor form in the last few games and Gerrard being back, along with Liverpool unbeaten by the top teams* under Kenny, then it could go either way .... but City are still the most likely to win I reckon.

(* Spurs a top team? Not yet they're not ).

[The Nal]

*6-1

Edited January 3, 2012 by The Nal

[ralph250]

The problem is Strummer, that Comolli backs Evra with the same usage "por que tu eres negro".

137.Mr Comolli, who is of French origin, speaks several languages "on a working basis,

including Spanish and English", as he told us.Comolli spoke to Mr Suarez in Spanish. Mr Comolli agreed that, when he spoke to Mr Suarez in the dressing room, he (Mr Comolli) thought that this was a potentially serious issue. He agreed that for an allegation of racist abuse to be made against one of his players would potentially have consequences for the player and possibly for the reputation of

Liverpool football club. He agreed that as a result of this he wanted to take care how the

matter was dealt with. Mr Comolli secured from Mr Suarez his version of events before he

went into the referee's room where he passed on to the referee what that account was.

286. However, against that, Mr Comolli accepted in evidence that he realised at the time that the allegation was a serious one with potential implications for the player and the club

and as a result he wanted to take care over how the matter was dealt with. This seems

entirely credible. Mr Comolli would want to get as clear an account as he could from Mr Suarez, soon after the match, as to what had happened.

138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He

said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him

"Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had

replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". Mr Suarez was emphatic that he had not said anything

that could be classified as racial abuse. Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination

that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he

had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black".

289. With those matters in mind, we turn to consider what Mr Marriner was told. Mr Dalglish

told him that Mr Suarez had said "you are black". Mr Comolli told him that Mr Suarez

said "Tues negro". As Mr Dowd told us, Mr Comolli spelt "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd

noted it down. In cross-examination on this point, Mr Comolli agreed that he told Mr

Marriner that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro".

376. It is to be remembered that Mr Comolli's initial understanding was that Mr Suarez had

said to Mr Evra "Porque tu eres negro". This is what Mr Comolli said to Mr Marriner and

what Mr Dowd noted down (save for what was perhaps some linguistic variation or

confusion between "eres" and "es"). Mr Kuyt also understood Mr Suarez to have used

Dutch words which translated as "Because you're black".

The problem is not only does that contradict Suarez, it also gives weight to the credibility of Evra's account which was "por que tu eres negro" - because you are black. The XIX century writer from cuba is what someone would make up etc, looks less credible with the above..

The report establishes that prior to speaking in the refs office, Comolli relays to Dalglish in Spanish what Suarez told him, and that Suarez was still in the room. It gives the argument that if Comolli's relaying was incorrect, that Suarez would surely correct him. Which I personally think is valid argument. Also given the seriousness of the situation and Comolli's appreciation of that as established above, then surely Comolli would seek accuracy.

The refs statement (accepted in full by Liverpool), states that Comolli stated he was fluent in Spanish, and that they asked for spelling dictation. Both points were later denied by Comolli, but look weak when both Marriner and Dowd are saying against that, and Liverpool accepted that statement in full. Surely they would've questioned that earlier, called in Dowd for cross-examination etc.

[ralph250]

Don't get the ego criticism Neil. If Rooney's missed training sessions and/or turned up hungover/pissed then Fergie's 100% correct in disciplining him.

It might have jeopardised the result, it might not have, but the effect on one game is less than letting that slide, and spreading throughout the club that it's acceptable to miss training.

Edited January 3, 2012 by ralph250

[pink_triangle]

it defo looks like it's city's or Utd's, but it also looks as tho fergie thinks protecting his ego is more important than results on the field. So who knows how it might go?

Maybe having a bad birthday will have deflated that ego.

I think it's unlikely that any of those teams will get near to Utd or City, but I also think that if one does then quite possibly all four will. After all, if Utd or City are going to be dropping enough points for that to happen then it's likely to be one or more of those other four teams who are picking up those points from Utd &/or City.

[The Nal]

Don't get the ego criticism Neil. If Rooney's missed training sessions and/or turned up hungover/pissed then Fergie's 100% correct in disciplining him.

It might have jeopardised the result, it might not have, but the effect on one game is less than letting that slide, and spreading throughout the club that it's acceptable to miss training.

Edited January 3, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

The problem is not only does that contradict Suarez, it also gives weight to the credibility of Evra's account which was "por que tu eres negro" - because you are black. The XIX century writer from cuba is what someone would make up etc, looks less credible with the above..

except of course they're both Spain-Spanish speakers and not Uruguayan-Spanish speakers - so they'd vary what they heard into something which makes sense to them and both end up with the same thing.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's no less of a reasonable assumption than an assumption that Suarez was lying because Evra and Commoli have the same versions.

The cultural aspects of this case can operate on every person involved, and warp things as a result.

[strummer77]

The problem is Strummer, that Comolli backs Evra with the same usage "por que tu eres negro".

[eFestivals]

Don't get the ego criticism Neil. If Rooney's missed training sessions and/or turned up hungover/pissed then Fergie's 100% correct in disciplining him.

If he missed training sessions then that was surely after he'd been brought in for extra training, which makes it a lesser thing.

And nothing that I've read anywhere has suggested Rooney was pissed or hung-over ... except from fergie's mouth AFTER he'd dropped Rooney and two others and lost a game because of it.

Fergie wouldn't tell a porkie to cover up for his own error and his own ego, would he? Just like Beckham never got a boot thrown in his face.

It might have jeopardised the result, it might not have, but the effect on one game is less than letting that slide, and spreading throughout the club that it's acceptable to miss training.

see above.

[eFestivals]

This Christmas he misses training sessions and turns up hungover.

so what training session did he miss between the win against Wigan and talking about the night out after the win the following morning?

[ralph250]

Appealing?

I am really touched by all the comments following my post and I thank you all. I am no lawyer so I cannot have a grounded professional opinion on whether Liverpool should appeal or not. I have always seen the case as a disgrace, in the sense that what is really at stake seems to involve some of the contents of the public imaginary in GBritain --contents that, in some clear ways, are not nice towards us South Americans. The particular image Luis is projecting (I would say he is vaguely perceived by his rivals and the general public, with the exception of the Liverpool fans, as both a cunning and dangerous individual) set him up for this. It was just a matter of when he would make a mistake--or something that could be presented that way. That mistake happened.

In the football codes of our area of the world, Evra should be considered a pariah --and I wouldn't like to be him in the pitch facing some of the friends or fellow players of the guy he attacked. But in your codes, it seems it is seen the other way around by many--as if Evra was doing "Public Justice" or "the Law" a big favor with his report.

There are clear codes in football--at least in our football game in South America. Evra has not understood this, or is voluntarily breaking them.

It is not that we don't see football as an important thing, but (maybe because we have always had much bigger problems than that to cope with) we just cannot understand when somebody crosses the line and makes what was clearly a normal discussion within the limits of the game, occasion for a public lynching of a colleague. Justice is not being served there because the whole thing is completely out of proportion.

Let me quote something the great Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges said in one of his essays --and what he says about Argentines applies equally well to Uruguayans, since we are such close and similar countries and basically the same culture:

"The Argentine, unlike the Americans of the North and almost all Europeans, does not identify with the State. This is attributable to the circumstance that the governments in this country tend to be awful, or to the general fact that the State is an inconceivable abstraction. One thing is certain: the Argentine is an individual, not a citizen. Aphorisms such as Hegel's "The State is the reality of the moral idea" strike him as sinister jokes. Films made in Hollywood often hold up for admiration the case of a man (usually a journalist) who seeks out the friendship of a criminal in order to hand him over to the police; the Argentine, for whom friendship is a passion and the police a mafia, feels that this "hero" is an incomprehensible swine." (Borges, "Our Poor Individualism")

In our South American vision, Evra falls right into the category of the incomprehensible swine. You might have a discussion in the field, but to go out to the authorities and report a fellow player with the clear purpose of destroying his career is even worse than trying to break his leg. The captain of the Uruguay national team, Diego Lugano, said exactly this: that Evra was breaking all football codes. I think Evra made a huge human mistake, and I can see he is getting away with it, which aggravates me a big deal and is the motivation I had to took the pains of reading the 115 pages of the **** the FA offered the world. I don't understand why Evra did what he did; I do not understand how come he suddenly became so hatred towards a fellow player --especially since Suarez does not seem to have done anything outside what could be consider normal exchanges in any football match --some winding up, some insulting, etc. For us South Americans, football is a GAME, not a High Morals public school or something like that. You need to keep things that happen in the field confined to that dimension, because football IS A GAME. To some extent, players are actors in a public performance. And they are, of course, not serious representatives of the public morals making display of ideal ethics of a given society. They should not be judged on those absolute grounds. It looks to me like the case of those members of primitive theatrical plays that would jump into the stage to defend the actress being assaulted by the villain...

I perceive a self-righteous attitude in everything surrounding Suarez's case in England that, to some extent, is out of proportion--to the extent is is almost hilarious. Now, making some normal events on a football pitch part of a public discussion on racism and using Suarez as a weapon on that discussion (basically, making Suarez himself a sort of a bomb-man that has been detonated, destroying Suarez's image) is disgusting, at least to me.

Maybe the best thing would be to negotiate with the FA a way that, after a calculated and silent appeal, the penalty would end up being reduced a little bit, and on the other hand the player and Liverpool would issue a strong statement saying that 1) it has been stated by the FA and by Evra that Suarez is obviously not racist (quoting the FA paragraphs that say that), 2) that it was not the intention of Suarez to offend Evra, or to compromise Liverpool reputation in the battle against racism, and 3) that Luis Suarez will make an extra effort to participate and help even more in campaigns against racism.

After that, Luis should take the ban, get some rest, and come back for a great final half of the season for Liverpool. He can still do a lot of good to Liverpool and himself, and I guess that this could help him out learning a lesson about how careful you need to be while in such an visible public position. Probably the rivals would start respecting him even more after they see he accepted the penalty and they start perceiving how out of proportion all this issue has grown. People are noble after all, and I am sure many players will feel sympathetic for Luis.

This scapegoating of Suarez might end up integrating him even more definitely into British football culture, which I don't think would be a bad outcome at all for him --and might help British culture, after it has vented all its anger and prejudice, to take a step in the direction of understanding foreign cultures a little bit more --and start laughing a little bit more about football and what is at stake in it. No wonder it is South American players, used to consider football just a game you play for fun where you intend to defeat your rival through invention and, yes, some level of "cheating", among the ones that are bringing the most imaginative and creative ways of playing into England fields. Or isn't a good dribbling a form of deceiving (cheating) your rival?

http://www.facebook....do.mazzucchelli

[The Nal]

If he missed training sessions then that was surely after he'd been brought in for extra training, which makes it a lesser thing.

[eFestivals]

Suarez does not seem to have done anything outside what could be consider normal exchanges in any football match --some winding up, some insulting, etc. For us South Americans, football is a GAME, not a High Morals public school or something like that

Hmm.

I'm not trying to justify what Suarez has done.

But if it's the case that players are often winding each other up then I do think that there's a very relevant point in that snippet I've quoted.

Offence is offence, no matter what words are used - and the FA rules bear that out. If verbal offence is being committed on the field in every match then why report one set of words but not another?

It's quite possible that Evra might have more offended on a personal basis if the insults had been about his mother or sister (and if not Evra, certainly other players) rather than about skin colour, but here's betting that those other words wouldn't have the same follow-thru from a player or the same level of punishment if they were followed thru on.

I really do think that this country needs to gain a more sensible sense of proportionality towards such things - because a system that considers a set of words (any words) to be a worse thing than other things such as physical violence is a fucked up system.

[eFestivals]

Wrong way around. He was brought in for extra training because he missed training.

in which case you've also got it wrong because that must have been before xmas that he'd missed training.

Utd staff said he was "lethargic". Thats why he was dropped. Fergusons criticism of Rooney was in response to the question "why was he left out?".

all three players equally "lethargic", to the point that a poor team with lots of players being played out of position was considered better?

The details of what really went on are confused or open to question, but that fact makes the fergie version not make any logical sense.

The only thing that does makes sense is "punishment" for players who were deemed to have done something they shouldn't.

Dont really get where this ego thing is coming from to be honest? Are you saying he dropped Rooney for a laugh? Or because he went out for a meal?

It appears to be the case that he dropped Rooney and two others because they went out for a meal and for nothing else. Nothing else makes sense with the info to hand ... or did those other two also miss training?

As for you not getting the ego thing, eh? .... there's a 25 year history of fergie letting his ego get the better of him and him lying about it afterwards, with this merely being the latest example.

Perhaps the fergie story is true this time, but history suggests that it's not likely to be.

[eFestivals]

Suarez could allows fuck off back to Uruguay and play football by their rules ?

and just as applicably, the FA could come up with a set of sensible and proportional rules, and the likes of Suarez would have less of a problem in accepting them as reasonable.

If Suarez's punishment is of the right level (and I'm not saying it isn't) then other punishments are wildly wrong.

[eFestivals]

Couple of points back at this one...

1, I actually think they are sensible and proportional. I see NO REASON to make a reference to a players skin colour during a match. The FA doesn't have to accepting and understanding of different peoples cultures. The only culture that matters is ours and that is why we have a independent FA. Their opinion has been very much with the pulse of the nation on this issue. The minority view point is one that we should buckle to his apparent culture differences.

2, If Suarez did not find the rules acceptable then he should probably not agreed to them at the start of the season and sought employment within a different FA structure. Liverpool fans and their supporters questioning the structure, rules and ruling ways need to wake up and realise THEY SIGNED UP TO THEN at the start of the season.

We have a 115 page document which points to the lad changing his story, being unreliable and ultimately admitting to using the word and hence breaking the very clear rule. We should draw a line under this, but the drawn line should be guilty, because he is.

Thankfully, most Liverpool fans seem to be going quiet on the issue now, lets hope LFC follow suit.

I suggest that you look up the meaning of "proportional". It's not possible to have any proportionality for one instance.

As I said "If Suarez's punishment is of the right level (and I'm not saying it isn't) then other punishments are wildly wrong.".

How is it right that the violence in punching someone is considered a lesser thing - less than half as bad - than using racist language?

While an argument could be made that it is worse, it's certainly not considered to be a worse thing in UK culture, as the punishments handed out by courts of law get to prove beyond all doubt.