Dorset Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) There cannot be a football fan alive who doesn’t know the major issue needing to be settled now that John Terry’s affair is smack-bang in the middle of the public domain. It doesn’t have anything to do with how his wife is coping or what she will do in the future, nor is it a question of feeling sorry for his kids. Nope, in the world of football we get straight to the heart of the matter and it is this - is the whole messy business damaging enough for the England captaincy to be taken from JT and will he even go to the World Cup as a squad player? These two possible outcomes are not intrinsically linked, although many outsiders would argue that, if the ’crime’ committed is so bad, one punishment should quickly follow the other. However, that is why they are outsiders…they simply don’t know how football works and how easy it is for fans to ignore such logic when presented with a load of punditry answering these questions in exactly the same illogical way. That said, slowly but surely, a lot of the Media men, hacks and so-called expert summarisers have detached themselves from the holier-than-thou brigade pursuing their own crusade for JT’s demotion, to raise their heads above the parapet and back him for leadership in South Africa. Of course, it’s impossible to name them all, each and every one of us has taken a different path when trawling through the tittle-tattle, but maybe the time has come to put as many as we can in each camp, just to see how the numbers stack up and, if for no other reason, to see whether we really have players in the game, let alone team mates, turning against our captain and flocking to support the cuckolded Wayne Bridge. Whilst we’re at it (if you’ll excuse the phrase) let’s name some names amongst the messengers who not only brought us the news, but are now proceeding to eek it out to sell their papers, dashing our World Cup hopes along the way. So, I’ll start by giving you a couple of purists from the Times to set the ball rolling and first up there can be none more so than Patrick Barclay. To paraphrase his piece, having first pronounced moral judgement on JT and deemed the offence sufficiently damning, he bestows the captaincy on Wayne Rooney and goes for a double Wayne-winner by telling us that Bridge’s views must be sought by Capello before the Italian gives his ruling on JT remaining as a squad member. Although dear old Paddy himself draws the line at taking JT out of the England squad - you can only go so high and be mighty hypocritical, apparently - he then rather over eggs his own pudding of an argument by expressing doubts as to whether Capello [did I mention he’s Italian?] will make the right decision on how to proceed. His train of thought leads to a blaming of the FA for appointing a foreigner when [obviously] only a home grown coach would be qualified for judgement on scandals like these. Such a shame he ignores the fact that, as a Scotsman, he’s a fine one to comment in the first place. My second player in the pedant category is Matthew Syed, the ping pong-tastic preacher who calls JT’s exploits ‘a betrayal’, thereby clinging to the raft of opinion that separates this sexual peccadillo from others committed by footballers throughout the ages. He’s no fool, realising that the team mate factor is crucial to any separation process and eventual separation of the legal kind for JT just wouldn’t cut it when it comes to discriminating between what he did this time and what a fair proportion of the England squad have no doubt done in their own murky, but not as yet, well publicised past. Personally, if I were in the England squad and given a say on matters, I’d like JT in there with me for reasons ranging from bloody good captain through to damn good player and I wouldn’t hesitate to add another reason to the list, namely, it might be a good idea, at the very least, to keep my eye on him for the odd ninety minutes or so. Bridgey, on the other hand, has been betrayed by more than one person here and reconciliation with both, rather than just the best looking, would be the Christian thing to do. After all, unlike JT’s circumstances, his position has always been one of betrayal without the betrothal. There you have it, then, two from the sanctimonious side of town to open proceedings, to which I’ll add the names of Oliver Kay, Matt Hughes and Gab Marcotti, all from the same newspaper, who are in the opposite camp in believing that JT should not only stay in the squad, but also keep the captaincy. The responding argument is common to all three, merely confirming the views of a growing number I’m sure, that this affair is nobody else’s business but those directly affected by it and has nothing whatsoever to do with football, captaincy and World Cups. Edited February 3, 2010 by Dorset
chelsea gal Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 :) Well said I dont like wat he did but i support chelsea not ter's personal life
Ruh Buh Juh Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I don't like what he did either, but can anyone here ever tell me a case about an affair that was this publicised?
chelsea gal Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I know what you mean, there just takin da pee coz its jt captain of chelsea and captain of engerland!!! The press are twats always wer always will. As popular as mourinho was when he was our gaffer, the press dragged his name thru da mud over havin an affair and it wasnt half as bad as what there doing to jt. They need to milk stories to keep there jobs what wit the resession n all :) they dont give a fcuk who they hurt along the way!!! ps: Really tryin to get the full stops and that in the correct places for once
BlueBeard Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I don't like what he did either, but can anyone here ever tell me a case about an affair that was this publicised? Only one I can think of is Prince Charles shagging Camilla 'Horseface' Bowles behind his wife's back throughout his marriage - indeed, even before he married Diana. But that was OK though, he wasn't the England captain, just the future King.
dkw Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Only one I can think of is Prince Charles shagging Camilla 'Horseface' Bowles behind his wife's back throughout his marriage - indeed, even before he married Diana. But that was OK though, he wasn't the England captain, just the future King. and President Clinton, but its ok as he was only the President of the most powerful country on the planet. ps: Really tryin to get the full stops and that in the correct places for once dont, it winds moi up and makes me smile. join the "dkw against grammar and punctuation" campaign
dkw Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 i suppose we shouldnt be the slightest bit surprised about the hypocrisy we are currently seeing in the media after their past record. remember these are the people who almost destroyed Sir Bobby Robson, hammered him and ridiculed him. then fell over themselves to prove how much they had supported him and how they loved him along, much more than the other papers honest. and then we have Jade goody, the joke, the chav, the scumbag, the terrible mother, everything thats wrong with modern society. whats that, shes dead? we loved her, she was like Princess Diana, such a battler, what a mother, girl done well etc....
moi Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 and President Clinton, but its ok as he was only the President of the most powerful country on the planet.dont, it winds moi up and makes me smile. join the "dkw against grammar and punctuation" campaign I am much more concerned about the fact that there is a spelling mistake in Dorset's excellent post - unheard of!
BlueBeard Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I am much more concerned about the fact that there is a spelling mistake in Dorset's excellent post - unheard of! There is? Should it be 'peccadildo'?
WV2 Blue Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 In 1 of the red tops today, not sure which 1...it took until page 11 to find news, especially when a former Prime Minister is being questioned about leading us into an illegal war...its all JT, its pathetic...........this is what matters
moi Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 There is? Should it be 'peccadildo'? That's going straight to iQuotes!
Peeking Duck? Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 i suppose we shouldnt be the slightest bit surprised about the hypocrisy we are currently seeing in the media after their past record. remember these are the people who almost destroyed Sir Bobby Robson, hammered him and ridiculed him. then fell over themselves to prove how much they had supported him and how they loved him along, much more than the other papers honest. and then we have Jade goody, the joke, the chav, the scumbag, the terrible mother, everything thats wrong with modern society. whats that, shes dead? we loved her, she was like Princess Diana, such a battler, what a mother, girl done well etc.... DING DING DING! We have a winner!
The Machine Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 In 1 of the red tops today, not sure which 1...it took until page 11 to find news, especially when a former Prime Minister is being questioned about leading us into an illegal war...its all JT, its pathetic...........this is what matters It can be considered that the government played a influential and sneaky role in this injunction being overturned. Why? Because had the JT story not have happened the media would have been focused on Blair's questioning session by the Chilcot Inquiry over the Iraq war. Its rather a coincidencde that the JT Terry came out at the time of Bliar' grilling ect. ect.
terraloon Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 i suppose we shouldnt be the slightest bit surprised about the hypocrisy we are currently seeing in the media after their past record. remember these are the people who almost destroyed Sir Bobby Robson, hammered him and ridiculed him. then fell over themselves to prove how much they had supported him and how they loved him along, much more than the other papers honest. and then we have Jade goody, the joke, the chav, the scumbag, the terrible mother, everything thats wrong with modern society. whats that, shes dead? we loved her, she was like Princess Diana, such a battler, what a mother, girl done well etc.... But didnt Princess Di have at least two affairs whilst still married to big ears?
moi Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 But didnt Princess Di have at least two affairs whilst still married to big ears? I think there was an element of sarcasm in dkw's post. A dead adulteress is a heroine - a live one is a slapper!
terraloon Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 I think there was an element of sarcasm in dkw's post.A dead adulteress is a heroine - a live one is a slapper! Got that but my point which perhaps I should have explained better,was that these affairs were known about when she was alive and far from being slaughtered like JT she was still held up there as a role model and the press were eating out of her hand
youlots Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Yeah but she was part of the "family" so the english press will only go so far... Also, from recollection she didn't play for Chels...
geezer Posted February 5, 2010 Posted February 5, 2010 Yeah but she was part of the "family" so the english press will only go so far...Also, from recollection she didn't play for Chels... Well we couldn't afford her wages at the time. Had Roman been around then who knows..................
Recommended Posts