Luis Suarez

[Peace. 4,352]

After what happen with the ladyboy, I cannot understand how some people want him here, even if we disregard the fact he's an horrible human being.

If Suarez looks so good, that's because he's the big fish in the small pound. It's the same situation that the ladyboy : he is significantly better than any of his teamates, so he has became their all in attack, everything goes through to him — just like this fucking ladyboy. Suarez looks so good because he's in an environment where everything is build around him, to get the better out of him ; once it won't be the case anymore, the whole world will see that there's no way that he's the best striker in the League.

Him alone had 187 shots this past season ; Oscar, Mata and Hazard had 193 to them three. Apparently he had 263 touches inside the opposition's box, which represents 140 more touches than anyone... He has made the double of touches than anyone in the League. That really shows that Loserpool is a one-man team and that this fact has swollen Suarez' stats.

Some people argue that if he can be that good while playing for a shit team, then with Oscar, Mata and Hazard he could be exceptional. My answer is that, well, sure he will have better players, but he won't longer be the center off the team. He won't be able to get 187 shots, nor spend his life in the oppsition's box. What if he will have to take only 100 shots and 150 ball touches in the box ? Statistically, according to his (poor) goal-per-shot ratio, he would only score 13 goals if he were to take only 100 shots.

I can tell you that the Suarez we will have won't be the one we bought, simply because the two contexts are different.

Furthermore, is he really the kind of striker we need ? Last year, we had many problems with our finish. Do we really need to bother with another striker who's a bad finisher ? Because that's what Suarez is, a bad finisher. His goal-per-shot ration is there to attest that. It takes him 8,1 shots to score a goal. In comparison, van Persie's is of 5,4 ; Rooney's of 7,1 ; Hernandez's of 4,4 ; Cavani's of 5,3 ; Sturridge ; 6,1 ; etc... Hell, ladyboy's ration is of 8,5 ! Mata's is of 5,8 ; Hazard's of 5,7.

What's the point having a striker who is worse than your midfilders when it comes to finishing ? If that's what we really want, we should as well keep the ladyboy. He's more or less as good in the finishing, but at least we won't have to give further money to that scum club. If your striker isn't good at finishing, he should be at least good at holding the ball or something like this to set up other players (to score goals). But nah, Suarez isn't this kind of player. We don't need a sort of inside forward that plays as striker. If we want to make that experiment, we should as well play Hazard up-front.

We should stay as away as possible of him. It has "the ladyboy 2.0" marked all over it : an unnecessary amount of money spent on a massively overrated player (them both are/were overrated for precisely the same reason) who doesn't fit the bill of our need and that has the whole English medias on his back (for different reasons). I am not saying he will be a supreme flop, though we will overpay for a player we don't really need and that will attrac medias' scrutiny at each and every of his movements.

[Mouri_Matic 560]

After what happen with the ladyboy, I cannot understand how some people want him here, even if we disregard the fact he's an horrible human being.

If Suarez looks so good, that's because he's the big fish in the small pound. It's the same situation that the ladyboy : he is significantly better than any of his teamates, so he has became their all in attack, everything goes through to him — just like this fucking ladyboy. Suarez looks so good because he's in an environment where everything is build around him, to get the better out of him ; once it won't be the case anymore, the whole world will see that there's no way that he's the best striker in the League.

Him alone had 187 shots this past season ; Oscar, Mata and Hazard had 193 to them three. Apparently he had 263 touches inside the opposition's box, which represents 140 more touches than anyone... He has made the double of touches than anyone in the League. That really shows that Loserpool is a one-man team and that this fact has swollen Suarez' stats.

Some people argue that if he can be that good while playing for a shit team, then with Oscar, Mata and Hazard he could be exceptional. My answer is that, well, sure he will have better players, but he won't longer be the center off the team. He won't be able to get 187 shots, nor spend his life in the oppsition's box. What if he will have to take only 100 shots and 150 ball touches in the box ? Statistically, according to his (poor) goal-per-shot ratio, he would only score 13 goals if he were to take only 100 shots.

I can tell you that the Suarez we will have won't be the one we bought, simply because the two contexts are different.

Furthermore, is he really the kind of striker we need ? Last year, we had many problems with our finish. Do we really need to bother with another striker who's a bad finisher ? Because that's what Suarez is, a bad finisher. His goal-per-shot ration is there to attest that. It takes him 8,1 shots to score a goal. In comparison, van Persie's is of 5,4 ; Rooney's of 7,1 ; Hernandez's of 4,4 ; Cavani's of 5,3 ; Sturridge ; 6,1 ; etc... Hell, ladyboy's ration is of 8,5 ! Mata's is of 5,8 ; Hazard's of 5,7.

What's the point having a striker who is worse than your midfilders when it comes to finishing ? If that's what we really want, we should as well keep the ladyboy. He's more or less as good in the finishing, but at least we won't have to give further money to that scum club. If your striker isn't good at finishing, he should be at least good at holding the ball or something like this to set up other players (to score goals). But nah, Suarez isn't this kind of player. We don't need a sort of inside forward that plays as striker. If we want to make that experiment, we should as well play Hazard up-front.

We should stay as away as possible of him. It has "the ladyboy 2.0" marked all over it : an unnecessary amount of money spent on a massively overrated player (them both are/were overrated for precisely the same reason) who doesn't fit the bill of our need and that has the whole English medias on his back (for different reasons). I am not saying he will be a supreme flop, though we will overpay for a player we don't really need and that will attrac medias' scrutiny at each and every of his movements.

So if we crashed one with an Audi, we shouldn't buy a new Mercedes or any cars from Audi ever again in the future? Torres failing here doesn't mean Suarez will, Zidane worked miracle at Madrid while Kaka flopped badly, both from Serie A.

[BleedsBlue 1,549]

Full praise to Ivanovic for being so professional.He's aware of the media rumors of our interest in Suarez and if our intentions are serious then Ivanovic's media statement has made sure that horrific incident with Suarez doesn't affect the deal.

[petr.breu 1,618]

[TacticalBlues 2,817]

LOL need to see a subbed version of that. The end bit:

[The only place to be 11,313]

I don't know where this attitude is when it comes to Terry.

The amount of off-the-field and on-the-field bullshit he's done to soil the crest; affairs, bribes, assaults and racist abuse (he did abuse Ferdinand, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or has the bluest pair of glasses on) and people still praise him like a god. And just because JT got a lesser ban for racist abuse doesn't make it any less wrong.

Maybe just below Suarez on offences, but JT's list is fairly long. So no one can say Suarez is scum and turn around and say "well JT isn't that bad" and praise his as Mr. Chelsea or make excuses for him. It's a two-way street.

My point is: If he came here and started putting the ball in the net regularly, a lot of people would change their views and focus on him as a footballer first or, at the very least, become more neutral towards him. The same way a lot of people like to explain away/ignore the bullshit that JT does.

If the club had sacked JT, I would have supported them. I certainly don't feel the same way about him as I did in 2008.

[Special Juan 27,103]

Did JT not get found not guilty in a court of law?

[The only place to be 11,313]

Did JT not get found not guilty in a court of law?

Yes he did. What's your point?

[dave30 728]

Yes he did. What's your point?

What do you mean what's his point, what do you think it is? You can't sack someone for something that they have supposedly done if they are found innocent of the supposed offence in a court of law.

[The only place to be 11,313]

What do you mean what's his point, what do you think it is? You can't sack someone for something that they have supposedly done if they are found innocent of the supposed offence in a court of law.

He was actually found guilty by The FA though. I suspect (but don't know) there would've been provision in his contract to terminate it on those grounds.

Look, I've defended JT based on the real court's decision but if you want to put a gun to my head and ask me if I think he actually said it then I'd say he did. That doesn't make him a racist but it does diminish him somewhat in my eyes.

[dave30 728]

He was actually found guilty by The FA though. I suspect (but don't know) there would've been provision in his contract to terminate it on those grounds.

Look, I've defended JT based on the real court's decision but if you want to put a gun to my head and ask me if I think he actually said it then I'd say he did. That doesn't make him a racist but it does diminish him somewhat in my eyes.

But that would be a ridiculous thing to have done, he's our captain and a club legend and found innocent by a higher authority than the FA. Ashley Cole has shot a work experience kid with an air rifle that's far worse.

[The only place to be 11,313]

But that would be a ridiculous thing to have done, he's our captain and a club legend and found innocent by a higher authority than the FA. Ashley Cole has shot a work experience kid with an air rifle that's far worse.

As far as I know the Cole incident was an accident and it really doesn't come close to the use of racist language by 'our captain and a club legend'. The whole incident was ugly, but ultimately people have to make their own judgments based on the evidence and if you can honestly tell me that you're certain he didn't say what he was accused of then that's fine.

I can't and for that I'm sad.

[Special Juan 27,103]

Yes he did. What's your point?

He was found not guilty in a court of law, the highest judicial form in this country, then he was punished by the FA for something he was cleared of in court. So was he guilty or not guilty?

[The only place to be 11,313]

He was found not guilty in a court of law, the highest judicial form in this country, then he was punished by the FA for something he was cleared of in court. So was he guilty or not guilty?

He was found not guilty based on one set of guidelines (which doesn't have a provision for not proven) and found guilty based on a separate set of guidelines.

This discussion has been had thousands of times. People were talking about Suarez and how JT's ban factored into that way of thinking. My honest opinion is that I think he said it, not because he's racist but because he's prone to moments of poor judgment. If people actually want to have the same discussion (actually being honest and saying what they actually think) then that's fine but rehashing the arguments of last year really isn't worth it.

[dave30 728]

As far as I know the Cole incident was an accident and it really doesn't come close to the use of racist language by 'our captain and a club legend'. The whole incident was ugly, but ultimately people have to make their own judgments based on the evidence and if you can honestly tell me that you're certain he didn't say what he was accused of then that's fine.

I can't and for that I'm sad.

Even if he did say it it doesn't bother me personally, lots of things are said in the heat of the moment and one mistake doesn't undermine a lifetime of service. Plus shooting someone is far worse.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Even if he did say it it doesn't bother me personally,

Which is why people have to come to their own judgments.

[Special Juan 27,103]

He was found not guilty based on one set of guidelines (which doesn't have a provision for not proven) and found guilty based on a separate set of guidelines.

This discussion has been had thousands of times. People were talking about Suarez and how JT's ban factored into that way of thinking. My honest opinion is that I think he said it, not because he's racist but because he's prone to moments of poor judgment. If people actually want to have the same discussion (actually being honest and saying what they actually think) then that's fine but rehashing the arguments of last year really isn't worth it.

Guidelines or not, he was found not guilty, this isn't difficult to digest. If people who are defending Ferdinand haven't got the collateral evidence to present to the court to put JT to the sword then fine, more fool them.

Anyway, this is a debate for another time.

[diskoviolente 425]

Amazing striker and all that, lots of goals and skills...but please..no.

This guy is posion. Might as well bring in Joey Barton.

After all this sensible buisness the board has done until now, can´t see it happening.