Didn't Gerrard face a court of law? So going to court and being guilty aren't the same thin at all then are they scousy.
Sorry,example of clearly. Sitting at a press conference doing the FA's bidding is not leading the team
Where were you during the World Cup in South Africa?,asleep? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/21/john-terry-england-squad
John Terry is a prick who doesn't even deserve a sniff of the England's captaincy these days. As much as I hate to say it, the captaincy belongs to Gerrard now. Please quit with the delusion and tunnel vision Chelsea lad, because it is as plain as day, and as fair as snow whites arse.
Gerrard was found not guilty of a charge unrelated to football,Terry's charge relates to an 'alleged' racism insult during a football match. Stay on topic.
Oh the press ,that's funny when you consider the number of times you yourself have said you don't believe anything in the papers And if it was remotely true why do you think Capello wanted him back as Captain then? See scousy the story just doesn't make sense does it? And still no one can answer why some of the most successful managers in club football history have made/kept him Captain. I wonder why?
More delusion. I could have posted links from the BBC,ITV,ESPN,Sky and every redtop and broadsheet paper. But you'd still believe it never happened.
You must have a warped idea of leadership ! why does that not surprise me? if you have been a blind follower of that scumbag... You cannot have been watching the England matches where clearly Gerrard has led by example.
He was chosen by these managers. So what? does not mean that he is the captain in the dressing room for England. The captaincy of the national team was rightly taken away from the scumbag. Hodgson has accepted it and chosen another one. Deal with it
As someone said earlier, wearing a full kit and shin pads at the CL final from which he was banned from, tells us all you need to know about him. Complete prick
So what exactly does it tell about him then? He was there to lift the trophy for one simple reason - the club wanted him to. Whatever way you want to look at it, he did play a massive part in Chelsea winning the CL and his team mates looked like they had no problem with that. Whether it's right or wrong surely it's up to the club to decide if they want him to be there or not, and their answer was pretty clear. Yeah he could have put on a suit or tracksuit to distinguish himself from the rest of the players but I don't see what difference that would have made. Is it really different from unsused substitutes celebrating?
