Luis Suarez appreciation thread

not when its taking the club down it doesn't,club comes first not the player.

we all know the fa are just itching to ban him for a long time as well, whether its justified or not, it will probably happen at some point, then we will have someone on our books who would be even more useless to us than joe ****ing cole was.

then what?

 

Plenty of players respond to the pressure of professional football with violent outbursts.

However, the nature of biting is bizarre. It is both violent and alarmingly animalistic. That Suarez, when in such pressure situations, reacts with a bite, indicates he does indeed require some sort of remedial attention.

... But let's not pretend he's the first or last sportsman to bite someone.

What's interesting for me is how we rank various offences. Is the seriousness of the consequence worse than the type? Was Roy Keane worse than Suarez - or can we not compare them?

 

Outside of the being missing for the first couple of months of the season.

 

Sorry if this has already been done: been on nights and just got up:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/wo...ini-tells-FIFA-panel-FELL-Italy-defender.html

FFS Luis, even McCormick could come up with something better than this! Would have thought any appeal would have been based on the unprecedented severity of it, not some hysterical nonsense like this.

Reminds me of the old joke (stop reading if you've read it before), about the vicar who found a talking frog in the garden. It said it was a choirboy and a wicked witch had put a spell on it, turning him into a frog, and that he need to be warmed up to turn back into a choirboy. So the vicar took it in and gave it warm milk and put it in front of the fire. Still not warm enough, he rubbed it with a warn towel. An hour passed, not warm enough still, he put it in his bed, put on the electric blanket, rubbed himself vigorously against it, and then - pow! he changed back into a naked choirboy!

And that, your Honour, is the case for the defence.....

 

I have been arguing this as well this week and have honestly come to the conclusion that people surely can't be as simplistic as they sound, it has to be they are looking for an angle to support their prejudice and that's just the news agencies, so this forum has no chance


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28036478

South American football expert Tim Vickery

"This is an individual who has a self-control problem. You hope people around him will stop living in denial and help deal with the problem."

On the face of it seems a benign enough comment but I don't think he has a self control problem 'per se', in fact I think the evidence is there for all to see. He has stopped his diving, play acting, moaning (to a large extent), and generally got people on side last season. This has all taken more work than he is given credit for, change a career of one type of habitual action and replace it with a cleaned up version while still in super charged atmosphere at most grounds getting abuse and adulation in equal measure.

The biting thing seems to me to be something else, maybe akin to people who cut themselves or self harm, some bizarre mechanism to compromise yourself in order to mentally regain some control from a situation you think is getting away from you. There is never any logic to it so people who say he is such a cheat thinking he will get away with it with 30 cameras at every game are missing the point. In a rational moment he knows he will be spotted but all that logic disappears when that neurological reaction surfaces.

He seemed to actually make a direct beeline for Chiellini and it was all over in an instance followed by instantaneous recognition he was in trouble which makes me think if the consequences are so to the front of your thinking that they are immediately apparent as soon as you have committed the act, what was it that over-road them and made you do it? He still nees help, obviously not the finished articular but not so bad to justify the hyperbole.

Separately while I have taken the trouble to type something (for a change) this was also in the same article:

Former Chelsea winger Pat Nevin

"The ban could have been longer. I was guessing six months. Liverpool is a fabulous club, it is a proud club and it does not need someone doing what he has done.

"There are lots of hints about Barcelona and Real Madrid being interested in him before this incident and it probably makes it easier for a move to happen. Football does not have morality when it comes to these kinds of matters. If they were interested in him and decided against a move because of this, I would be astounded."

So if there are no morals that would prevent a big club with huge history buying him, why would our club feel the need to get rid? Could understand it if he had a red shirt on at the time of this latest indiscretion but he was in the blue of Uruguay. Why are these "experts" so one dimensional in their analysis.

 

I'm just gonna put my teeth here, and if you walk into them it is your own fault

 

wtf are you on about you clownfish

 

Hes doing the old, agree with the enemy makes you the enemy routine.

#militant

 

I can easily forgive saurez sure I can if others can forgive and worship a man that smashed up women, turned up pissed and went through several livers

 

Now he'd go down an absolute storm on rawk...

 

Your tin-foil is ruining reception, maybe. Try to take it off and read again.

 

ahh I see. I thought he was training his autistic cat to use the internet.

 

I read it once, unlike you I don't need a second or third pass.

Are you even a Liverpool fan? or just a giant hemorrhoid with rudimentary internet skills?

 

Agree, Tobes is very #militant

 

tbh mate they are a bit much for me on there. Way too serious

#highlystrung

 

yeah a militant breast feeder.

 

Give us a rawk poem astro. They are legendary.

 

Im surprised they let rawkites loose on the internet.

 

You cannot agree with your enemy for the sake of peace.

 

his balance is still with credit, don't you worry. we still owe him.