We say this every tournament about Terry and every time he gets exposed by players with superior skill, pace and movement. He's even older now. He might have the nous to marshal a Chelsea team with lots of willing runners around him, but that won't make up for his shortcomings in an England shirt.
I'd rather we didn't bring back the racist, he's never apologised to Anton Ferdinand. Somethings are more important than football and anyway Terry's slow enough in English weather, imagine what he'd be like in Brazil's heat!
Yes, yes and thrice yes. Footballers with flair and talent seem to have a lot of excuses made for them. For me these character flaws should be subtracted from their status anyway, eg how can Suarez be continuously cited as a great player when his is a cheat and borderline canibal?
LOL next time say what you really mean! He is slow and does get found out but he's still easily the best centre back for England and none of the current young players are of the same potential as a young Terry. Pretty sad state of affairs for English talent coming through.
Because it's on record that Terry said it. Scroll down to page four: http://www.theguardian.com/football/interactive/2012/jul/13/john-terry-trial-full-judgment
Because in the FA's eyes he used racist language and refused to apologise. The idea that his footballing ability or England's other options at centre back should be taken into account for the decision are ridiculous, it's not a football issue, it's an issue of being fit to represent your country and he quite clearly isn't.
It helps playing in a strong club team, whose manager places great emphasis on solid defence, with better players helping you out than you will have at international level -although Cahill would obviously be there and he is the best English centre back in my view. But Chelsea have a more dynamic midfield and more solid full backs (Ivanovic/Azpilicueta) than England at present. Team game.
As much as I think Terry is a scumbag you can't doubt his ability to read the game and Cahill benefits more from Chelsea team play. Surprised you rate Cahill. Just like people over rate Baines. Both are average defenders and in baines case his attacking qualities are what standout.
Obviously. 1 personal insult trumps your whole career and accomplishments in football, and current merit to be on the squad. Is the debate on whether he is fit to represent your country as a keynote speaker on the Race Relations Summit or what?
Using the term black **** is different from "1 personal insult"...me calling him a **** is a personal insult...me bringing his colour into it makes me a bigoted racist ****...however out of me and Terry only one of us things a persons race is ok to use as an insult...and it ain't me
Putting aside the whole racially-abusing, girlfriend-shagging, piss-drinking aspects of Terry for a second, there is a legitimate question here: why do England "need" Terry as captain? Can anyone name a single stirring England victory (and I could stop there, frankly) that was achieved because of Terry's influence on the team? Because I sure as hell can't name anything that England have reached a semi final of, let alone won, with Terry in the squad.
Playing for Chelsea is a Job. Playing for England is an honour. Even a racist **** has the right to work, but he should never be honoured.
Hoddle got sacked from England for one comment about his religious beliefs. Oversimplifying the issue doesn't prove anything. Out of interest, in your view, how many times can a player use racially insulting language before it becomes unacceptable?
Which goes back to my original point that while Terry is still England's best central defender, does it matter much if he is picked as whoever plays, England will still be an embarrassment and failure.
The thing is even without weighing in on whether sacking him was right, what Hoddle did was express his views very "qualitatively", something an insult never does. The point is insults work that way, they are meant to be insensitive. And just because someone uses an insult it doesn't necessarily say anything about their world view, or views on race, or a particular group of people. There are plenty of insults which are based on ethnicity and other non-racial qualities which can be more insensitive and have a deeper connotation than "black ****", which don't cause as much hysteria as anything race-based.
