One again, if he'd kept his nose out of a dispute he didn't have to get involved in, then Costa would still have got his ban, and the Goons would gave still had eleven men on the pitch at that time. He behaved like an idiot and got what he asked for!...
Mmm........ Must be your anti-Chelsea agenda getting the better of you then. I thought we were meant to be letting referees ref games. Yet they have over turned a decision when the incident was under the ref's nose. It amazes me how selective the fa are with these kind of things. When challenges like Callum McManamon, the Burnely guy on Matic and Ageuro on Luiz a couple of year back go completely unpunished but a few handbags gets a 3 game ban and a trial by media.
Koscielny, Mertesacker, Vermaelen and even Gabriel. We've had/got some decent CBs. It was the dark days of players like Silvestre and Squillaci that were bad.
No mate, it's my anti-**** bias taking over. If someone did a suplex on him mid game after being wound up, I would send Costa off not the person doing to suplex. Do you know why? because Costa would have got exactly what he deserved. He wouldn't be doing it again any time soon, not of he ever fancied playing some actual football. Sure he would write a story about how much of a nice guy he is and how he's being targeted but the truth would be, he is. The same applied to Suarez. If someone took him out after his **** antics. So what. He would have got what he deserved. Every time he was genuinely fouled but nothing was given or better yet, he was booked, was a great moment for football. Suarez however had some redeeming qualities. When he wanted to he played some incredible stuff. Costa isn't any of that. How he's actually a footballer is questionable in the first place. Does his ****ish behaviours sit well with you?
Anyway, the goons player could still be punished for what happened after his incorrectly awarded red card was given. So why are you people moaning.
Still no serious contribution? Have you ever made na post that wasn't looking for a.reaction. to phrase that better, have you ever taken part on an actual discussion? Try it, you can still have fun along the way.
A lot of it I'm absolutely fine with. Managers and fans love to have a player that gives the opposition hell. Almost every pundit supports his combative style; just that he needs to know when not to cross the line. I think he's just a bit more open with his aggressive attitude and you are naive if you don't realise that centre halves and strikers have always had nasty little tricks and sledgings that go on in games, that most of us don't see as it's off camera. I think it was Keown the other day that was slagging off Costa but admitted to pinching opponents and stepping on feet etc. himself! I can see why people might not like him but he's no Suarez. A guy who has served many lengthy bans for head butting, alleged racism and biting opponents, twice.
I don't like defenders who do it either. It's a sign of weakness in their ability. Great defenders don't need to step on your toes or call your mum names. They don't need to wind you up. Same with great strikers. Suarez was a strange one, he has the abikitybbut too often choose the wum option. For me it showed he lacked intelligence, not in football terms, but in general. He was simple, thick if you like. Costa doesn't have the ability so its his weapon. i just don't like imposters like him in the game. 30 years ago he may well have fitted in perfectly but the games moved on. Maybe many of us wouldn't have such a low opinion of Costa of he spent more time playing than being a ****. Because that's the lasting impression. He scored loads last season but he wasn't remembered for it was he?
Bet you loved Paul Scholes he was as nasty as they come (his challenges were shocking). Bet you didnt wish for him to be suplexed. I suppose when you are WC you are allowed to get away it with (or if he plays for your team)
Scholes wasn't malicious and never went out to hurt anyone. His tackles were also no where near as bad as you are making out for one thing, yes they were sometimes mistimed and looked bad when slowed down and viewed 300 times over bit they were simply the tackle of a naturally attacking midfielder. Don't forget, scholes started life as a striker, this was evident throughout his career. He also had the attributes to control a game so fitted into midfield perfectly. To even compare the two is a bit daft Bobby.
Do you work for the media or something? Scholes was absolutely filthy and he admitted as much once he retired. "Of course I can tackle. There’s plenty of evidence of me being able to tackle. I was just getting people back. If someone got me early in the game, it was always in the back of my mind that I needed to get them back." - PS He was just as dirty as Keane, but he played for England and Man Utd, so the media fawned over him and played it off. "Good ol' Scholesy with another one of those! He really can't tackle, you know! " Load of old bollocks.
At the same time he also said he nevernset out to hurt anyone and was never malicious. Maybe he did like to give it back, I suspect that's commonplace. Bit of rivalry on the pitch, the little battles that take place. These are part of the game. Now of he was doing it like Keane, who did sometimes maliciously intend on hurting players, I will concede the point, bit it's not like that. Why scholes was even brought into this is just stupid. Costa's not fit to lace Scholes childrens boots, never mind the great mans.
Because deliberately going out to hurt someone ala scholesy when hes gone to "get someone back" is a pretty ****ish thing to do. Us chelsea fans can accept thaylt costa is a thug and whatever else you want to call him. You on the other hand cannot accept that some of your legends arent as clean as you think they are. I have mentioned scholes as an example as man u fans seem to label him whiter than white. I could have just as easily mentioned cantona keane hughes etc.
Scholes has said, he never went into to hurt anyone. Getting tackled then tackiling the person back is part of the game. Its an on the pitch battle within the rules of the game. It's like two strikers trying to outscore each other. Scholes gets tackled so decides he will tackle the player back. A whatever you do, O can do to... Or you won't out do me attitude. Nothing wrong with that. What Costa does is like Vinny Jones light version. With a similar footballing ability.
Keane Hughes and cantons would all have been far better shouts that Scholes. Keane was horrid. I'm glad he played for us. Cantons was so arrogant you wish he played for you, thankfully like Keane, he played for us. Sparky again, nasty piece of work, bit of a thug. However, what you've forgotten with all three... Incredible footballers, three of the leagues greatest ever players, of which Costa is nowhere near. Plus they were doing this 10/20 years ago. The games changed massively.
