Liverpool F.c.

[StevieH]

There's two types of football fan. People who would LOVE Suarez in their team - and liars

Who says they wouldn't love Suarez in their team? Just because he is a cheating <deleted> doesn't mean he isn't a fantastic footballer. Possible to be both you know...

almost certainly always both. messi handballs, ronaldo dives, maradona toots coke, zidane nuts people, pele lies to women about his erectile proficiency.

[rixalex]

as i said, hypocrisy. you're either against all forms of cheating in the game or you aren't.

I am.

you can't say some are somehow more offensive than others.

Why not?

Does that mean i can't say that i find rapists more offensive than shop lifters?

Different crimes provoke different reactions. Same principles apply to cheating.

If you are telling me you get as equally pissed off by players who claim throw ins that aren't theirs, as you do by players who blatantly dive in the box and win penalties that win games and cost you points, i have to say i struggle to believe that....

[rixalex]

There's two types of football fan. People who would LOVE Suarez in their team - and liars

Who says they wouldn't love Suarez in their team? Just because he is a cheating <deleted> doesn't mean he isn't a fantastic footballer. Possible to be both you know...

almost certainly always both. messi handballs, ronaldo dives, maradona toots coke, zidane nuts people, pele lies to women about his erectile proficiency.

Sad but true. The flawed genius syndrome.

[StevieH]

Why not?

Does that mean i can't say that i find rapists more offensive than shop lifters?

Different crimes provoke different reactions. Same principles apply to cheating.

If you are telling me you get as equally pissed off by players who claim throw ins that aren't theirs, as you do by players who blatantly dive in the box and win penalties that win games and cost you points, i have to say i struggle to believe that....

oh come on rix, don't go all daily mail on me. it's a fuc_king game f'chrissakes. not life or death.

well struggle away. they're all in the same ballpark, they're all 'part of the game'. as i said previously, i admire the latin attitude which considers getting one over however you do it as just a skill and part of the sport more than i do the pretense to some kind of moral superiority. they all break the rules, every type of cheating. to think otherwise is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.

[StevieH]

Sad but true. The flawed genius syndrome.

see i don't find it 'sad'. it is what it is. name a 'sane' genius? they're all unhinged to some degree. though i concede that messi looks incredibly boy next door. at some point he'll probably go on a killing spree with an axe.

[StevieH]

this is a fantastic article which covers both suarez and cheating in general. i urge everyone to read it. and written by a man united fan no less:

http://www.football365.com/profile365/8388303/Luis-Suarez-The-Pantomime-Villain/

Let's start from basic principles. Whatever Jon Champion should or should not have said, and whether ESPN were right or not to reprimand him, the fact remains that he was right: Luis Suárez is a cheat.

Now let's flesh out the principles. Cheating's a big thing that covers a multitude of sins - some deadly serious; some largely irrelevant - and nobody, not even a Ghanaian Manchester United fan, would suggest that Suárez is every kind of cheat. Match-fixing, for example, or doping: these are the wrongs that actually damage the game, and there's nothing to suggest that Liverpool's put-upon Uruguayan has ever dabbled in either.

On the other hand, diving is definitely cheating. So is exaggerating contact, feigning injury, claiming imaginary handballs (and corners, and throw-ins), and plenty of other nonsense; nonsense that is common not only to Suárez but to the majority of his colleagues up and down the land and around the world. Why, then, is Suárez explicitly "a cheat", when all this other cheating passes unremarked? This was neatly illustrated by James Lawton in the Independent, whose comparison of Suárez's "brutal cynicism" with four-time Golden Ball winner Lionel Messi - "Does Suárez take us, like Messi, beyond the boundaries of our own prejudice? Does he make us feel good about football? No, he doesn't" - blithely overlooked the fact that even the sainted Messi not only once punched the ball into the opponent's net, but then had the gall to celebrate the goal.

(I'm not saying, incidentally, that Messi doesn't make me or "us" feel better about football than Suárez does. He's much better, for a start. But to hang that point on a handballed goal just looks silly.)

It's a little simplistic to assume that Suárez gets stick simply because people just don't like him. They don't, obviously, and there are plenty of excellent, non-hypocritical reasons not to. (Why not quote your favourite paragraph from the FA's report in the comments?) But simple, straightforward antipathy isn't enough to explain the hysterical persistence of the disapproval. The most interesting aspect of Jon Champion's comments on ESPN wasn't the question of accuracy - as noted above, he was more or less bang on - but that he violated the great unwritten rule of talking about footballers: they are not what they do. They can do the thing; they never become the thing. They can do the verb; they never become the noun. A player may tackle like a thug, or talk like a racist, but you'll search in vain for any mainstream voice that will stand up to say: X is a thug; Y is a racist. Nobody is ever that type of player.

There are, I think, two competing theories for Suárez's exceptionalism in this regard. The first is that all his critics are jealous of him because he's well-paid and happy and dead good and furthermore he's dead good for Liverpool Football Club and everybody hates Liverpool Football Club and are jealous of them because they're dead good even though they're not actually that good at the moment but they are because they're special and better in ways that people who don't support Liverpool Football Club could never hope to understand. We can, I hope, leave that one to quietly fester on the darker corners of the internet.

The other is that he's become a pantomime villain. This one feels right. Pantomime villains, of course, aren't villains because they do bad things (though they do). They're villains before that, from the moment they sneak onto the stage, swirling their cape and twirling their moustache.He's behind you! Boo! Hiss! They provide the obvious Bad Guy, who stands in opposition to the Lass In Trousers and the Bloke In The Dress and the Curiously Sentient Domestic Animal and all the other stereotypes that help preserve the careers of fading television stars with time to kill before their call from Operation Yewtree.

(How Suárez became the pantomime villain, in Britain at least, is probably largely down to the handball against Ghana; more precisely, the unrestrained glee with which he celebrated Asamoah Gyan's subsequent penalty miss. Denying an African team a place in the semi-final of the first African World Cup is one thing - crimes against patronising narratives can perhaps be forgiven. But disregarding your sacred duty to appear suitably penitent? Outrageous.)

The problem, though, is that pantomime characters are unapologetic stereotypes, and they get away with being stereotypes because anybody looking for anything more is in the wrong theatre.See the Bad Man. Shout at the Bad Man. To treat Suárez as a pantomime villain - to greet his every action with boos and hisses - is to define yourself as a member of a pantomime audience, and the most obvious thing about pantomime audiences is the complete lack of thought. That's fine when you're watching men in silly costumes falling over, but not when you're watching ... oh. Hang on.

It's true, of course, that football is a pantomime in plenty of ways. Cheer for the goodies, jeer at the baddies, laugh and howl at the referee comic relief. But if there's anything else to it - and I don't think it's controversial to suggest that for most people there is, even if they might not agree on precisely what - then any outrage needs to be similarly more complex. Despising Suárez for punching the ball into the net only makes sense if you (a) despise everybody that does so equally, which nobody seems to be doing, or ( despise anything and everything that Suárez does, simply because he's Suárez, which is more than a little childish.

If football is going to be something that grown-ups can enjoy, then we need to be grown-ups about it, and that means admitting to ourselves that sometimes the things that the designated Bad People do aren't any worse than what the Good Guys get up to. Alternatively, we can embrace perfectly childish reasons for hating somebody - he plays for Liverpool, say - and get on with enjoying them in all their childishness. But we can't have both. And besides, when it comes to Suárez, the desperate clamour for any and every reason to hate him detracts from the multitude of perfectly good reasons not to like him at all.

Andi Thomas

[nev]

this is a fantastic article which covers both suarez and cheating in general. i urge everyone to read it. and written by a man united fan no less:

http://www.football3...tomime-Villain/

Let's start from basic principles. Whatever Jon Champion should or should not have said, and whether ESPN were right or not to reprimand him, the fact remains that he was right: Luis Suárez is a cheat.

Now let's flesh out the principles. Cheating's a big thing that covers a multitude of sins - some deadly serious; some largely irrelevant - and nobody, not even a Ghanaian Manchester United fan, would suggest that Suárez is every kind of cheat. Match-fixing, for example, or doping: these are the wrongs that actually damage the game, and there's nothing to suggest that Liverpool's put-upon Uruguayan has ever dabbled in either.

On the other hand, diving is definitely cheating. So is exaggerating contact, feigning injury, claiming imaginary handballs (and corners, and throw-ins), and plenty of other nonsense; nonsense that is common not only to Suárez but to the majority of his colleagues up and down the land and around the world. Why, then, is Suárez explicitly "a cheat", when all this other cheating passes unremarked? This was neatly illustrated by James Lawton in the Independent, whose comparison of Suárez's "brutal cynicism" with four-time Golden Ball winner Lionel Messi - "Does Suárez take us, like Messi, beyond the boundaries of our own prejudice? Does he make us feel good about football? No, he doesn't" - blithely overlooked the fact that even the sainted Messi not only once punched the ball into the opponent's net, but then had the gall to celebrate the goal.

(I'm not saying, incidentally, that Messi doesn't make me or "us" feel better about football than Suárez does. He's much better, for a start. But to hang that point on a handballed goal just looks silly.)

It's a little simplistic to assume that Suárez gets stick simply because people just don't like him. They don't, obviously, and there are plenty of excellent, non-hypocritical reasons not to. (Why not quote your favourite paragraph from the FA's report in the comments?) But simple, straightforward antipathy isn't enough to explain the hysterical persistence of the disapproval. The most interesting aspect of Jon Champion's comments on ESPN wasn't the question of accuracy - as noted above, he was more or less bang on - but that he violated the great unwritten rule of talking about footballers: they are not what they do. They can do the thing; they never become the thing. They can do the verb; they never become the noun. A player may tackle like a thug, or talk like a racist, but you'll search in vain for any mainstream voice that will stand up to say: X is a thug; Y is a racist. Nobody is ever that type of player.

There are, I think, two competing theories for Suárez's exceptionalism in this regard. The first is that all his critics are jealous of him because he's well-paid and happy and dead good and furthermore he's dead good for Liverpool Football Club and everybody hates Liverpool Football Club and are jealous of them because they're dead good even though they're not actually that good at the moment but they are because they're special and better in ways that people who don't support Liverpool Football Club could never hope to understand. We can, I hope, leave that one to quietly fester on the darker corners of the internet.

The other is that he's become a pantomime villain. This one feels right. Pantomime villains, of course, aren't villains because they do bad things (though they do). They're villains before that, from the moment they sneak onto the stage, swirling their cape and twirling their moustache.He's behind you! Boo! Hiss! They provide the obvious Bad Guy, who stands in opposition to the Lass In Trousers and the Bloke In The Dress and the Curiously Sentient Domestic Animal and all the other stereotypes that help preserve the careers of fading television stars with time to kill before their call from Operation Yewtree.

(How Suárez became the pantomime villain, in Britain at least, is probably largely down to the handball against Ghana; more precisely, the unrestrained glee with which he celebrated Asamoah Gyan's subsequent penalty miss. Denying an African team a place in the semi-final of the first African World Cup is one thing - crimes against patronising narratives can perhaps be forgiven. But disregarding your sacred duty to appear suitably penitent? Outrageous.)

The problem, though, is that pantomime characters are unapologetic stereotypes, and they get away with being stereotypes because anybody looking for anything more is in the wrong theatre.See the Bad Man. Shout at the Bad Man. To treat Suárez as a pantomime villain - to greet his every action with boos and hisses - is to define yourself as a member of a pantomime audience, and the most obvious thing about pantomime audiences is the complete lack of thought. That's fine when you're watching men in silly costumes falling over, but not when you're watching ... oh. Hang on.

It's true, of course, that football is a pantomime in plenty of ways. Cheer for the goodies, jeer at the baddies, laugh and howl at the referee comic relief. But if there's anything else to it - and I don't think it's controversial to suggest that for most people there is, even if they might not agree on precisely what - then any outrage needs to be similarly more complex. Despising Suárez for punching the ball into the net only makes sense if you (a) despise everybody that does so equally, which nobody seems to be doing, or ( despise anything and everything that Suárez does, simply because he's Suárez, which is more than a little childish.

If football is going to be something that grown-ups can enjoy, then we need to be grown-ups about it, and that means admitting to ourselves that sometimes the things that the designated Bad People do aren't any worse than what the Good Guys get up to. Alternatively, we can embrace perfectly childish reasons for hating somebody - he plays for Liverpool, say - and get on with enjoying them in all their childishness. But we can't have both. And besides, when it comes to Suárez, the desperate clamour for any and every reason to hate him detracts from the multitude of perfectly good reasons not to like him at all.

Andi Thomas

Thanks for posting that, a good read.

What ever is said about Suarez you cannot take away he is a bloody good player.

[Chicog]

How Suárez became the pantomime villain, in Britain at least, is probably largely down to the handball against Ghana

What a pile of poo. He's created his own reputation by diving in every match. He appeals to the ref for a foul if the wind changes direction.

[nellyp]

How Suárez became the pantomime villain, in Britain at least, is probably largely down to the handball against Ghana

What a pile of poo. He's created his own reputation by diving in every match. He appeals to the ref for a foul if the wind changes direction.

I admit to Suarez appealing a lot and going down (not all the time) too easily. Let's face facts a lot of players do it, and don't get so much limelight. It's an interesting slant though, and the only reason I knew Suarez by name was because of the World Cup...and there is always the "first appearences" factor. If you look at any game I will guarantee you will see a striker go down when he shouldn't. If you attack and take on defenders as much as Suarez you are going to be noticed more. same analogy as the Man U have loads of penalties because they are always in the opponents penalty area, but this one is true

[Jimjim]

There's two types of football fan. People who would LOVE Suarez in their team - and liars

There's two types of Liverpool fan. People who believe that bullshit and.... no, there's one type of Liverpool fan.

I would have loved Man U's and now Real Madrid's Ronaldo at Liverpool, and apparently there was a possiblity at one point. massive mistake on that one if we had a chance and didn't take it.

But then again, I'm honest, and not full of shit like you.

[rixalex]

Why not?

Does that mean i can't say that i find rapists more offensive than shop lifters?

Different crimes provoke different reactions. Same principles apply to cheating.

If you are telling me you get as equally pissed off by players who claim throw ins that aren't theirs, as you do by players who blatantly dive in the box and win penalties that win games and cost you points, i have to say i struggle to believe that....

oh come on rix, don't go all daily mail on me. it's a fuc_king game f'chrissakes. not life or death.

Not life or death? Huh? Stevie, it's called making an analogy. Analogies have parallels, they aren't representative of exactly the same thing. Raping is not the same as diving, but did i really need to state that? Come on...

The point i was trying to make was that it is quite possible to find two things offensive and wrong, but one more offensive and wrong than the other. You seem to be living in a world in which every offensive and wrong act is equal to every other offensive and wrong act... well at least on the football pitch anyway. I don't buy that for one second.

Blatant diving in the penalty box with no contact is of course more offensive and wrong than claiming a throw in that isn't yours, because the likelihood of claiming a throw in that wasn't yours and having the result of the game turn on that one moment of cheating is extremely slim. The chances however of a dive in the box turning a game is very high. Doesn't mean i think that throw in cheats should be allowed to get away with it, it just means them getting away with it irks me less than divers.

And what is with the Daily Mail comment? An attempt to label me as some sort of right wing fascist? I don't like divers, and yes, i don't like divers more than throw in cheats. Any country that generally accepts diving as a skill is just plain wrong, and i don't give a shit what that country is. If it was my country, it would still be wrong. And that's about the beginning and end of it. Please don't turn this into something racial or political... if you knew me you'd know i am about the furthest you can get from being either right wing or racist.

[sharecropper]

I'm interested in this new Liverpool Way (of looking at cheating).

Stevie, are you now saying everyone does it and it's OK? In which case, just SAY Evra cheated and lied about Suarez saying what he said, would that have also been OK as things stand with you? After all, it would have just been a bit more cheating, yes?

[nev]

I'm interested in this new Liverpool Way (of looking at cheating).

Stevie, are you now saying everyone does it and it's OK? In which case, just SAY Evra cheated and lied about Suarez saying what he said, would that have also been OK as things stand with you? After all, it would have just been a bit more cheating, yes?

Please please please do not open the evra/suarez debate mate, both sides i hope want to forget about it and just concentrate on football match ahead.

[carmine]

I'm interested in this new Liverpool Way (of looking at cheating).

Stevie, are you now saying everyone does it and it's OK? In which case, just SAY Evra cheated and lied about Suarez saying what he said, would that have also been OK as things stand with you? After all, it would have just been a bit more cheating, yes?

Please please please do not open the evra/suarez debate mate, both sides i hope want to forget about it and just concentrate on football match ahead.

Lets discuss Parker being stamped on by Balotelli. That could have cost you the title!!

[BangrakBob]

I'm interested in this new Liverpool Way (of looking at cheating).

Stevie, are you now saying everyone does it and it's OK? In which case, just SAY Evra cheated and lied about Suarez saying what he said, would that have also been OK as things stand with you? After all, it would have just been a bit more cheating, yes?

I guess we can assume you're sticking with the churlish, petulant view....

[uptheos]

There's two types of football fan. People who would LOVE Suarez in their team - and liars

Who says they wouldn't love Suarez in their team? Just because he is a cheating <deleted> doesn't mean he isn't a fantastic footballer. Possible to be both you know...

The irony is that Suarez doesn't need to cheat - he's one of the best players around with tremendous skills.

Cheating just devalues all this.

[Chicog]

There's two types of football fan. People who would LOVE Suarez in their team - and liars

Who says they wouldn't love Suarez in their team? Just because he is a cheating <deleted> doesn't mean he isn't a fantastic footballer. Possible to be both you know...

The irony is that Suarez doesn't need to cheat - he's one of the best players around with tremendous skills.

Cheating just devalues all this.

And it devalues him as a player because referees will always think twice before giving him the benefit of the doubt.

[smokie36]

Why not?

Does that mean i can't say that i find rapists more offensive than shop lifters?

Different crimes provoke different reactions. Same principles apply to cheating.

If you are telling me you get as equally pissed off by players who claim throw ins that aren't theirs, as you do by players who blatantly dive in the box and win penalties that win games and cost you points, i have to say i struggle to believe that....

oh come on rix, don't go all daily mail on me. it's a fuc_king game f'chrissakes. not life or death.

Not life or death? Huh? Stevie, it's called making an analogy. Analogies have parallels, they aren't representative of exactly the same thing. Raping is not the same as diving, but did i really need to state that? Come on...

The point i was trying to make was that it is quite possible to find two things offensive and wrong, but one more offensive and wrong than the other. You seem to be living in a world in which every offensive and wrong act is equal to every other offensive and wrong act... well at least on the football pitch anyway. I don't buy that for one second.

Blatant diving in the penalty box with no contact is of course more offensive and wrong than claiming a throw in that isn't yours, because the likelihood of claiming a throw in that wasn't yours and having the result of the game turn on that one moment of cheating is extremely slim. The chances however of a dive in the box turning a game is very high. Doesn't mean i think that throw in cheats should be allowed to get away with it, it just means them getting away with it irks me less than divers.

And what is with the Daily Mail comment? An attempt to label me as some sort of right wing fascist? I don't like divers, and yes, i don't like divers more than throw in cheats. Any country that generally accepts diving as a skill is just plain wrong, and i don't give a shit what that country is. If it was my country, it would still be wrong. And that's about the beginning and end of it. Please don't turn this into something racial or political... if you knew me you'd know i am about the furthest you can get from being either right wing or racist.

Wasn't he paraphrasing Shankley?

[nev]

I'm interested in this new Liverpool Way (of looking at cheating).

Stevie, are you now saying everyone does it and it's OK? In which case, just SAY Evra cheated and lied about Suarez saying what he said, would that have also been OK as things stand with you? After all, it would have just been a bit more cheating, yes?

Please please please do not open the evra/suarez debate mate, both sides i hope want to forget about it and just concentrate on football match ahead.

Lets discuss Parker being stamped on by Balotelli. That could have cost you the title!!

It did and also cost you lot 3rd place and a automatic champions league place ahead of arsenal

[rijit]

No doubts the boys a top player, but that article!!! <deleted> what a load of absolute pretentious dribble!! lets simplify things forwards go down when they see a chance of a penalty and players handball, both cases, always have and always will,like it or not that's football. I've never met suarez, but to survive 4 so long outside of his home country, although his wage could hide issues up, suggests he's not totally stupid, so when he stops making frigging stupid decisions, perhaps public opinion will go his way.

Edited January 11, 2013 by rijit

[rijit]

oh and i didn't come on here for that I wanted top see if anyone had answered how much it cost you to get rid of joe cole?

[Devil]

oh and i didn't come on here for that I wanted top see if anyone had answered how much it cost you to get rid of joe cole?

I mentioned it Rij a few pages back it was reported at 3 mil... apparently cheaper than paying him his 92k week salary until the end of contract - still a piss take of a bad deal for us.

[sharecropper]

I'm interested in this new Liverpool Way (of looking at cheating).

Stevie, are you now saying everyone does it and it's OK? In which case, just SAY Evra cheated and lied about Suarez saying what he said, would that have also been OK as things stand with you? After all, it would have just been a bit more cheating, yes?

I guess we can assume you're sticking with the churlish, petulant view....

?????

[BangrakBob]

I'm interested in this new Liverpool Way (of looking at cheating).

Stevie, are you now saying everyone does it and it's OK? In which case, just SAY Evra cheated and lied about Suarez saying what he said, would that have also been OK as things stand with you? After all, it would have just been a bit more cheating, yes?

I guess we can assume you're sticking with the churlish, petulant view....

?????

I assumed you commented after reading the article, I was referring to the viewpoint;

"Alternatively, we can embrace perfectly childish reasons for hating somebody - he plays for Liverpool, say"

[BangrakBob]

Sahin is off to Dortmund....that was 4.5M quid down the toilet

[carmine]

Sahin is off to Dortmund....that was 4.5M quid down the toilet

This is a strange one. What an earth happened here. A fair few number of us at Spurs myself included would have been more than happy seeing this talented player on a loan to us (be it our mid is very strong already) yet by all accounts he's been a disaster.

We were also wondering why Levy/AVB supposedlybacked off. Was there something in this or were you/he just plain unlucky with injuries? Could this be the case if Dortmund were ok to have him moved onto them?

[BangrakBob]

Sahin is off to Dortmund....that was 4.5M quid down the toilet

This is a strange one. What an earth happened here. A fair few number of us at Spurs myself included would have been more than happy seeing this talented player on a loan to us (be it our mid is very strong already) yet by all accounts he's been a disaster.

We were also wondering why Levy/AVB supposedlybacked off. Was there something in this or were you/he just plain unlucky with injuries? Could this be the case if Dortmund were ok to have him moved onto them?

You wonder how he can go from title winning player of the year in germany, to 4 appearances with Real Madrid and 7 appearances (subbed off after 65 minutes) for Liverpool.

This happening at Real Madrid you might understand, many fantastic talents end up bench reserves for Real or Barca, but I don't understand it with Liverpool. Especially as we brought him in, fought off Arsenal and he never got a chance. Considering how much patient we have with other less talented individuals I just don't get it.

Jonjo has got the go ahead in front of him and as much as Jonjo is a potential talent, he didn't perform better than Sahin. He played 300 minutes more football, but statistically did not perform better than Sahin in attack or defense.

Apparently he wasn't "happy", I can understand that from his view point if it was about not getting a chance. Maybe there are some underlying issues, or if we are looking to bring in someone else in, I'm not sure.

One thing I'd put money on.....he sets the Bundesliga on fire!

Edited January 12, 2013 by BangrakBob

[rixalex]

Apparently he wasn't "happy",

Oh dear... not another one.

Drive around in super cars, live in playboy mansions, millions in the bank, shagging the latest underwear models, playing a bit of footie at the weekend... what a life eh... just how these guys manage to struggle on, i just don't know... as if cursed at birth... forget the starving in Africa, it's these guys my heart goes out to.

[carmine]

Apparently he wasn't "happy",

Oh dear... not another one.

Drive around in super cars, live in playboy mansions, millions in the bank, shagging the latest underwear models, playing a bit of footie at the weekend... what a life eh... just how these guys manage to struggle on, i just don't know... as if cursed at birth... forget the starving in Africa, it's these guys my heart goes out to.

Well i thought it a wonderful gesture from Ronaldo who continued to train midweek and even turned up for matches earlier this season even though he was claiming to be "sad."

[BangrakBob]

Apparently he wasn't "happy",

Oh dear... not another one.

Drive around in super cars, live in playboy mansions, millions in the bank, shagging the latest underwear models, playing a bit of footie at the weekend... what a life eh... just how these guys manage to struggle on, i just don't know... as if cursed at birth... forget the starving in Africa, it's these guys my heart goes out to.

I totally agree, money has changed these people and their values. Although in Sahin's case I think it was about not getting a run in the side.

I don't want to bring up Suarez here (again) for others to jump on and start on parts of his game, but I have to say if you isolate his commitment to his team and giving his all for 90 minutes and wanting to win, it is admirable compared to most. He doesn't stop because it isn't about money for him, it could b jumpers for goal posts and he'd be the same. It seems most players now are conditioned to play for money and themselves. Football is a tool to get rich, rather than money being an add on benefit to being able to play football for a living.

Edited January 12, 2013 by BangrakBob