It blew up on twitter over this about 2am. They purposely didn't publish until the early hours coz they knew what was coming. Within an hour of it being uploaded they had 100s of phone calls of formal complaints to the Sports Desk so bad that they tuned the phone off and that many e-mails complaining to their complaints fella it crashed them. Its with the club now and they ain't happy.
I agree with the article. He goes overboard with the poetry quotations (slight tangent at one point) but his basic assertion is correct. Suarez should be a contender for player of the year but, even if he continues to be one of the best players in the premiership, he'll never win it due to politics. Disgusting, really, but unfortunately true. Edit: Although others have won, despite controversy in their public / private life, Suarez's demonization by the press is almost unparalleled.
But not once does the **** recognise the role of the sportsmedia in general, and HIM in particular in generating this situation. It's like Matthew Hopkins bemoaning that the odd widow with too many cats will never be voted lady majoress because of the finger-pointing, witchhunt atmosphere.
I've decided to do all my posts like Martin Samuel so.......... The "good old times" all times when old are good Are gone; the present might be if they would; Great things have been, and are, and greater still Want little of mere mortals but their will: A wider space, a greener field, is given To those who play their "tricks before high heaven." I know not if the angels weep, but men Have wept enough for what? to weep again ! SAF is a drunk Utd suck balls!
Not if it has carpal tunnel syndrome. "A little learning is a dangerous thing, Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring." --Pope. (From memory so apologies for errors!)
He is making a point, starkly. So most of the thick readers can understand, the comparison could have been far more subtle. It simply says. Suarez should and will not be judged on his football ability come decision time for awards. The last line I thought was not needed, the mocking of serving a sentence of a proper scumbag. It was well written but the content was a little too on the nose and therein also lie some pointers to this guy and his.. preferred lit. Who knows how far the rabbit hole goes
Talking of meaningless awards, can anyone explain why Lawton, Samuel, Ladyman, Winter, Holt, Matt Lawton, Perrin, and several others all describe themselves as sportswriter/ sports journlist/ football writer/ hack in a hat of the year? Is this like those cringeworthy, end-of-the-year, HR awards where everyone, including Joanne from work-experience who makes the tea and does the sandwich run to Subway, have to be 'recognised'?
I e-mailed him back in January asking if someone siddled up to him and specifically told him in Yiddish to go and **** his sister he's just brush it off as a typical French 'exclaimation'. I got back a standard reply thanking me for my views but no answer. His column doesn't have that e-mail address anymore.
''you told me this was today's newspaper, but everything on it happened yesterday'' Gyp Rosetti Samuel is a ****
That's one bad mother in your photo, hash. Seen the latest episode where he buried that fat bloke up to his neck in the sand, so he'd drown when the tide came in, but smashed his head in with a shovel as a 'favour' for his cousin? Someone should do that to Samuel. Think Nucky will use Chalky to see him off.
**** me, this is a hatchet job of the worst kind! The pretentious little gobshite tries to dress it up as some deep and meaningful piece but he clearly lacks the skills to do so, hence we end up with a piece that essentially says "if you like him as a footballer then you are a racist"
yeah , he says to the cousin ''you owe me now '' Its all falling apart for Nucky , after copping on his mrs was with Owen , None of the ''families'' backing him and Gyp being Gyp
Yes I did, several times in fact as I could not believe how blatant he was being and thought I was just being overly sensitive. Some bits in particular deserve re-reading "How could he earn the votes of players, some of whom are black" "Could you vote for him? No. Could I? It would be very, very hard" "A vote for Suarez would appear to send out the message that racism doesn't matter" "Yet, imagine if he was the Footballer of the Year. There would be uproar, protests, arguments, quite probably resignations. A breakaway black union without doubt" "An unrepentant horror as an example to the next generation, it would be fiendishly hard to justify his glorification, almost inexcusable." "He has been associated with too much of football's dark side - racism, simulation - to rise above the negativity" And that's not all or even starting on the sly digs he has at liverpool. It's an old trick but if you think an article that contains those lines isn't a hatchet job then I would assume its you that hasn't read it.
I'm not out for an argument here, but you've lifted lines out of the context that qualifies them and that changes their meaning. I've read it through a second time to see if I'd misunderstood the first time but it still reads the same to me. He is saying that people would be afraid of voting for Suarez because they would be accused of being an apologist for racism- that he won't be given the recognition he deserves, because people don't like him. I don't read the papers any more so I don't know much about the author's other stuff, but as a stand alone article it's no hatchet job.
