seasidelatic

So as it looks like the game isn't going ahead, are those of us with train tickets to London going to see a different game? I am considering a trip to Craven Cottage

Harry's thoughts on Capello's England in 2008.

 

Harry Redknapp, by his own admission, is 'not a tactics man'. Capello gets pilloried in the press for not being up the the job; he's won Serie A six times, La Liga twice, the European Cup, Super Cup etc etc. Redknapp has won the FA cup once and got Bournemouth promoted when the cup final was still broadcast in black and white.

The England team is not something to be proud of. Not while players like Steven Gerrard, John Terry, Ashley Cole, Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney and, to a lesser extent, Joey Barton are anywhere near it. A shameful group of players who could well be led to the world's second most prestigious international tournament by a man who has the tactical nous of a garden snail.

The sooner England get knocked out this summer the better, so we can all get on with watching some decent football.

I'd love to have a shirt as simple as this again:

Quality.

The picture of the ruined knees on that BBC article look like they are accompanied by some Latics socks..

This will be my first time to Griffin Park, do Latics fans tend to go for the terrace or the seats?

Just realised the answer to my question is two posts above my own

I'm about to book some train tickets to that London for the Brentford game, is there any way I can book them through PlayerShare and make some money to keep Kuqi in sweeties?

That made me laugh far more than it should have done

I missed the glory years, I missed Roger Palmer and Neil Redfearn's penalty; I missed Wembley and the FA Cup semi. But I'm more upset I missed these shocking mascots!

Perhaps he's scheduled to have it after Monday's game, depending on the result?

Just noticed the title of the Zander Diamond interview on Laticsplayer is:

 

"ZANDER DIAMOND "WE ARE LICKING ARE WOUNDS..IT WAS AN UNJUST RESULT""

 

are

are

are

 

You must have a real quiet life if that winds you up

I look forward to Latics matches, quite often they're the highlight of my week. So you're probably right

FTFY

I am astounded by three things after the game.

1. How many Huddersfield fans come onto our board on the wind up, as if anyone cares?

2. How Jordan Rhodes has got a £10million price tag, he was barely noticeable yesterday and didn't really offer a goal threat. Leroy Lita looked far more dangerous when he was at this level.

3. How many of the Huddersfield fans to our right spent the entire ninety minutes facing our fans rather than the pitch, making :censored: gestures and mouthing 'see you outside'. Scary stuff

The words 'Huddersfield Town' and 'promotion hopes' do not fit together in the same sentence

Just noticed the title of the Zander Diamond interview on Laticsplayer is:

"ZANDER DIAMOND "WE ARE LICKING ARE WOUNDS..IT WAS AN UNJUST RESULT""

are

are

are

Really?!

The back five looked solid enough against the Scousers so I'm not overly concerned if that's who plays tomorrow.

Midfield of Parker - Furman - Weso - Scapuzzi for me with Kuqi up top and Taylor in behind, for me. Probably why I'm not a manager, though.

Train from Rochdale to Hudders via Victoria for me to allow for some post-match scoops in Manchester. Takes about an hour I think.

This is a tough three-way fight between Clark, Allen and Robinson. Robinson was a classless moron when we turned over the Mongs here earlier in the season, I am going with him.

 

 

They also were willing to hear mitigating factors on Luis' behalf that include the facts that:

 

-Luis has never been charged or accused of racism before

-He is of mixed heritage himself, with a black grandfather

-He grew up in a multicultural background and seemingly never had a problem with black people in Uruguay

-He plays in the Uruguyan national team with black players and doesn't seem to have a problem with them

-He played in the Dutch league with lots of black players, socialised with them, and was friends with many of them.

The first one I've highlighted is absolute horse:censored:. "He can't be racist, his Grandfather is black!" By the same token, Andy Gray can't be sexist, because his mother is a woman?

The second one is the most laughable. "He can't be a racist, he has some friends who are darkies too!"

Come off it.

A phrase I have often used is "you cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - and with that I give up. You clearly think Suarez is the innocent party here. That bastard Evra, getting him banned.

Here we go my Kopite friend, the points relating to Suarez' evidence:

- Suarez spoke in Spanish to Comolli soon after the game about this serious allegation. Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Kuyt. Both Comolli and Kuyt understood Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to Evra he said words which translate into English as, “Because you are black”. According to Suarez, Comolli misheard what Suarez said in Spanish, and Kuyt misheard what Suarez said in Dutch.

- Dalglish told the referee that Suarez responded with “you are black” having first been taunted with “you are South American”. Comolli is not recorded as using the word “taunted”, but said that Evra said “you are South American” to Suarez who responded with “Tues negro” which translates “you are Black”. There is no suggestion here that Evra had said “Don’t touch me”, yet this seems now to be an essential part of Suarez’s evidence. We were not given any explanation as to why the referee was not told that Evra had said “Don’t touch me, South American”, as opposed to “you are South American”. Secondly, at least as expressly reported by Dalglish, Suarez’s remark was a riposte to being taunted by Evra. If that is correct, it would suggest that Dalglish understood Mr Suarez’s comment to be in the nature of retaliation for having been called “South American”. But that would suggest that the riposte “You are black” was used in a derogatory sense, which is contrary to Suarez’s case. In fact, Suarez told us that he did not consider being described as South American to be derogatory, so it is difficult to understand why this was referred to as a “taunt”.

-The discrepancies between what Dalglish and Comolli reported to the referee on the one hand, and Suarez’s evidence as to what he said on the other hand, have not been satisfactorily explained.

- The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Suarez’s evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Suarez’s account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.

It seems to me like you have just read the conclusion of the report as opposed to going through it in entirety. Suarez's statement did not change 3 or 4 times. Minor specifics of it changed and that is to be expected seeing as the trial was a few weeks after the incident. And if you read through the entire report as to what conclusions it came to in the end you would see that Evra's statements also varied a bit in their exact specifics especially when compared to his witnesses. And in the end no actual evidence was produced showing Suarez had called Evra those things besides what Suarez admitted himself. Also another thing the FA used to show that Evra was a more credible witness was the fact that Evra gave a more calm and composed statements in English. Now that would not be a surprise considering he is more familiar with the English language and has been involved with quite a few similar cases before (in one of them- Chelsea- in which he was reported to be a grossly unreliable witness by the FA themselves). If you have time to read it you will see some more of the bias first hand in how they arrived to their conclusions.

 

In terms of the 8 match ban you say it is not unprecedented. Now would you tell me how many games players have been banned in the past in England for such incidents (even when there was actual evidence available)?

The incident at Stamford Bridge has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and you know it. Evra refused to give evidence about it as he hadn't heard anything. Not an 'unreliable' witness; not a witness at all. Trying to drag Evra's name through the mud to exonerate Suarez is a new tactic, fair dos.

I have actually read the whole thing, I am a student with plenty of spare time and it wasn't nearly as complicated to digest as I intially feared. If you give me a few minutes I will find the quote from an independent panel who conclude that Suarez was guilty of using racist language. You can try and play the 'it's not racist in Uruguay' thing all you like, but that isn't an excuse. Not at all.

And as for this: "And in the end no actual evidence was produced showing Suarez had called Evra those things besides what Suarez admitted himself".

If Suarez has admitted it, what further evidence is needed?! "Yeah your honour, I told him I don't talk to blacks - doesn't make me a racist though."

There was absolutely no bias in the report whatsoever, why would there be? Or are you claiming this is some big Anti-Liverpool Pro-United conspiracy from the FA, as usual?

That isn't very likely considering who the FA Chairman is; care to remind us all who he used to be the Chairman of?

So calling someone a negro once without any racist intent (even if it was used in an argument and after being called your "sister's c*nt) is deserving of an unprecedented 8 match ban? Not sure that is the way to go in tackling racism. And I can almost guarantee you Terry will not get worse than a 2 match ban. Just wait and watch.

 

In terms of the bunker mentality I think it's due to us feeling that one of our players has been harshly and unfairly treated and branded a racist when he is no such thing. We believe his account of the incident, we know he isn't a racist (even Evra and the FA admit that- despite their nonsensical sentencing) so why can't we offer him some support. After all our anthem is You'll Never Walk Alone and we will stick by that. Does that mean the club is racist?

It isn't an unprecedented eight match ban; it is a very lenient eight match ban. It should have been a life ban from English football and a one-way ticket to a country of Suarez' choosing. This thing about Evra saying 'your sister is a plum' doesn't have a literal English translation - it's a general insult dished out all the time, like calling someone a knobhead.

Suarez was proven to be an 'unreliable witness' and on that basis he was shown to not only be a racist, but a liar too. His statement changed three or four times throughout the hearing; though if, as you say, you've read the report in its entirety then you'll know that too.

Your manager, Comolli and Suarez all gave conflicting evidence; what Dalglish and Comolli told the referee is what Suarez initially admitted, he then changed his story thrice.

The fact of the matter is this: Suarez said "I kicked you because you are black" - "I don't talk to blacks" and then pinched Evra's skin and said "see! blackie! blackie! blackie!". If you think that is acceptable, then fine. But I think that puts you firmly in the minority and might well explain the behaviour of your coaching staff and fans.

Suarez STILL hasn't apologised, in his words "I cannot apologise when I don't feel I have done anything wrong."

I think that tells us everything we need to know about him as a person.

And Athletic. Which is a pretty fundamental mistake when you've only played a game against Oldham Athletic four days hence.

They've spelt 'endeavour' wrong. Typical Scousers.

I had someone scream at me (block 123) telling me to sit down, when I get got up to take my coat off. Ball was out for a goal kick. Baffling stuff.

I haven't had the opportunity to go to the Gayfarm before but I've been to every game in 2012 and I intend to keep that run going