Agree with Saint and Crumpet on this, TT. It seems to be slating the bad hype around Suarez, not Suarez himself. I, like Saint, read it again to check I wasn't missing some subtle subtext, but couldn't find any. I'm not trying to be fractious or incendiary but perhaps you've misread / misinterpreted the piece?
I don't want to argue either (well not with other reds) but I do think people should understand his motivations for doing such a piece. If he really wanted to do as you say then why use some of the lines (and worse) that I quoted? Why not just say "yes he has his faults and detractors etc but surely we should forget about those and concentrate on the football" he could even pad it out with a whole top ten list of other sporting bad boys who are still recognised as sporting greats . But no, Samuels would rather continue to establish in peoples minds the reasons why we should never like suarez even if he is a good footballer. All this is apart from the fact that Samuals has been an integral part of the witch hunt against suarez, remember a lie repeated for long enough will eventually become an accepted truth. Answer me this, if a complete neutral read that article, would their thoughts be "god yeah I hadn't realised he was that good I will ignore everything else about him and concentrate on the football" OR "well yes he is a good player, but christ what a horrible character and I am glad he wont be POTY"
Ok, despite my last post I am willing to consider what you say, and if I have misunderstood could you show me where he does what you say?
This passage seems to encapsulate the entirety of his theme for the essay [emphasis mine]: Notice he uses a judicial qualifier, which I've highlighted, which he does throughout the piece, e.g. he dots the word 'alleged' around. He highlight two famous people who are experts in their field and who are lauded for their work, but who are reviled by some for their personality. Philip Larkin, for instance, was often accused of being a racist and a misogynist. Similarly, Ike Turner was a habitual drug-user and was also called misogynistic, and was physically and verbally abusive towards women. Samuel suggests in the essay that it's okay for popular opinion to condemn these people for their attitudes but okay to praise them for what they were good or innovative at, but Luis Suarez unfairly doesn't get this luxury. He says that here: He also says that, at the moment, Suarez is the stand out player in the league but that he won't get TPOTY award. (N.B.he prefixes this passage with examples of others who were judges on their talents not their flaws -- basically highlighting where football differs from other spheres of expertise*): *As people have pointed out, other footballers have won despite having questionable judgment / morals, so Samuel's wrong on this point. Suarez almost stands alone with his level of media persecution. He then states why he won't win TPOTY award (if current form continues): The key words are 'associated with'. He's been tarred by the media and, as we all know, 'there's no smoke without fire'. So he won't win. That is what I take from the article, rightly or wrongly. In his final paragraph, Samuel compares Suarez to Ezra Pound, which I found interesting. Pound was a famous American poet arrested for treason because he broadcasted anti-american shows during world war II, as he didn't agree with the politics of the time (some accused him, quite rightly, of fascist leanings). One of Pound's famous quotations is: "If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good." I think Suarez would agree with that.
CCC- I get what you are saying but it is all part of the ruse and you can see some of the flaws in his argument yourself. His whole motivation for writing the piece was to once again repeat his shyte about suarez and hopefully begin a campaign that would almost become a self fulfilling prophecy IE by saying people are scared of voting for Suarez incase it ended up with a break away black players union then people won't vote for suarez in case it leads to a break away black players union. Lets be honest, if Suarez continued his current form all season even the most rabid "anti racists" who make their living from the race industry would find it hard to claim that he should not be POTY, so why does fatty Samuels bring it up as a threat?
He was the prime mover in using the same tactic of self-fulfulling prophecies when he and several other journos in the pocket of Ferguson threatened that they'd toxify the LFC and FSG brands worldwide if they dared appeal against the verdict of the FA showtrial. Then when they didn't, they immediately said it proved Liverpool had no grounds to appeal.
TT: I understand what you are saying. I can see how, taken with his other Suarez-bashing articles (I doubt I've read many as I try to avoid them to be honest -- they just make me annoyed!), it could look like, as forum users call it, concern trolling. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll) I couldn't say whether he is being a disingenuous sockpuppet or not. You seem more familiar with his column, so I guess you are in better position to judge this than I am. I just thought I'd tell you how it read to me as a single essay. However, if Suarez continues his form until the end of the season, I disagree with Samuel's main thesis. Suarez could be the earthly avatar of beelzebub himself and he's surely still going to get TPOTY -- regardless of what anyone (including Samuel) writes to the contrary. At the end of the day all these football pundits are asked to write opinion pieces and so they are entitled to write what they like. They can play Devil's advocate they can change their minds repeatedly, etc. You have to take everything they say with a pinch of salt, as next week they are most likely contradicting themselves in some way. I have a friend who has an unnatural aversion to a certain football writer. He buys the paper this writer works for every day in order to scour its contents for passages he can take offense at. Controversial, partisan and contrarian writing sells newspapers. Always has, always will. An infamous red-top tabloid is the ultimate proof of that, although I wouldn't wipe my arse with it!
