• Liverpool Message Board

  • bob b bob b Nov 24, 2007 18:39 Flag

    Terry fit for chelsea...injured for england

    What do people think about the fact that john terry is expected to be named in the starting lineup for chelsea today, and yet just days ago the captain of england was apparantly too injured to play for his country!
    Do club managers have too much power in determining whether their player plays for his country?
    Due to diff reasons the fact remains that against croatia england lined up with lescott and capbell at the back, when Terry and Carragher were fit.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Fair enough Robert. And, to be fair if Gerrard had played against Wigan I think you would have been legitimate in asking questions.

      To be honest when the announcement was first made right after the Chelsea game I was a bit suspicious, but after Kenny stated in an interview he'd have Gerrard go to be looked at by the England team that is when I gave benefit of the doubt, at least until it was known one way or another if there was an injury and if so how severe.

      On one level I can't blame clubs trying to protect players, especially when the international matches have little value. The Liverpool experience of Gerrard getting hobbled for 6 weeks in the last friendly after playing the full 90 while every other senior player was pulled at the half smacked of clubs doing deals and us being stuck with the result sticks in the throat like a wishbone. I’m not sure if we should blame other clubs who may have been a bit under minded in protecting their own, or Roy for not securing a deal himself for his player.

      But currently those deals or "invention of injuries" is done behind close doors so we really don't know, the Prem can say they are working with the national team, and the FA turning a blind eye. And it’s that which casts doubt and has supporters like us suspicions when players pull out and then recover like Lazarus for the next club match.

      I really don't blame the players. In fact it’s hard to blame the clubs who are doing what they can in the grey areas of the rules to protect their own interests. But something should be done. Either Friendlies should be optional so it’s clear who is pulling out and why, or the structure of when friendlies (and in fact qualifiers as well) need to be set up so they interfere less with league matches. If we can set time aside a full week for the FA cup ties, why not internationals? But asking clubs to play on a Sunday, release players that night for training followed by a Friendly on Wednesday, and then not expect them back at the clubs until late Thursday and be prepared to play on a Saturday is asking clubs to try and skirt the rules when they can. Who knows if that is what Chelsea and Terry did, or if Gerrard and Liverpool would have given the chance, but its clear that all clubs have and will do it if they feel it’s in their interests.

    • PS Sorry, but I did not intend to imply that all Liverpool supporters are guilty of this. If I have apparently done so, it is simply using "Liverpool supporters" as shorthand for "some Liverpool supporters".


    • My intent was as I have said it was many times, both before it was announced Gerrard wouldn't play against Wigan and since. Once more, hopefully the last time: I was upset about *some* Liverpool fans being cynical about JT's injury which prevented him playing against Croatia, their justification being that if he played three days later he must have been fit enough to play for England. That doesn't follow, for reasons I have been through plenty of times.

      You say you are cynical about it (which you are) but not hypocritical about it. My point is that if you (and other Liverpool fans) give Gerrard the benefit of any doubt then you should be giving JT the benefit of any doubt too. In defending Gerrard but attacking JT I believe you (Liverpool fans wot do it) are indeed being hypocritical.

      At the time I raised it, it looked like Gerrard would play. I wanted to see if Liverpool fans were going to give him the benefit of the doubt or renounce accusations against JT.

      That is the top and bottom of it.

      Two reasons why your theory that I simply wanted a go at Gerrard doesn't stack up (other than my repeated answer that it's simply not true): (i) I'm way too careful to base a contentious thread on a prediction that might collapse in two days, (ii) if I wanted to do that I would simply have started a new thread. Why would I need to drag up this one?

      And yes, you are right: the Vidic example might very well justify questions being asked, if my aim was questioning why players weren't playing last week. But it wasn't: if was questioning the prejudices of some Liverpool fans from some time back.

      Is it time to stop now?


      "Let's fight until 6, and then have dinner" Tweedledee

    • I am very grateful for positive remarks made in my favour by a number of Liverpool fans on this board, including you. There is a bit of this board which has what I think of as the Anfield humour, and that is the bit I enjoy the most here. (As it happens the Arsenal board has its own type of self-deprecating humour, but the United board is utterly devoid of it).

      As for stirring, sometimes you think I'm doing it when I'm not; at least, not consciously. I notice that when I'm not being serious the last sentence of each post tends to be rather more whimsical than when I am being serious. That's not deliberate, it just happens. The giveaway is if I lapse into pigeon French. Comme ca.


      PS Which is the last sentence in this post?

    • Yes undoubtedly.



    • Robert only you know your real motivation, either now or when you first decided to resurrect this thread. However if you think its unfair for LFC supporters to question your stated motivation based upon your long and rich posting history on our board, maybe you should re-read your own many posts. Many if not most give you respect on this board, however we all know you like to stir with a large wooden spoon when you get a chance.

    • Actually Robert what I think is sad is your generalization of criticism against all LFC supporters which shows me you have not gone back and looked at what I wrote on the subject at the time, nor read carefully what I've written since you decided to drag up this thread.

      I never said Terry was skiving, but did say it raised questions. While others may have (I'm sure some did) questioned Terry's individual commitment, I did not and have not, but that does not mean that questions don't still remain.

      On numerous occasions senior England players, especially those who play for the larger clubs pull out of Internationals citing injury. Terry did it 3 years ago, and I think it’s perfectly okay to use him as an example, but he's surely not the only one. If Gerrard had played at the weekend it may have been also appropriate to raise those questions again. That is not necessarily questioning the players themselves, but it might be, but also the clubs they play for, and the influence those clubs have in dictating who can and cannot play at any given time for their national sides.

      If your intent was to go after that question which I think is very legitimate then the appropriate board would have been the manc board as they pulled Vidic from the Serb game, not because he was injured, but because Rio was and they felt their needs should come before Serbia's (eventhough I’d think Man U is deeper in quality Center backs than Serbia, as I’d also think Chelsea is than the England national team). You and others might agree with them, however by the rules UEFA and FIFA do not, but yet they don't enforce their own rules regarding clubs releasing players for international duty. But its not appropriate to use Gerrard if that was your intent, at least until you knew he was not injured, or he actually played just a couple days later (as Terry did) raising the possibility that the injury might have been a club invention.

      If Gerrard had played against Wigan you'd be on firm ground that clubs have too much power, and in fact some fans are all too willing to go along with this injury story. I might even have agreed with you, and in fact before the Wigan game I believe I noted you were jumping the gun as he'd not yet been passed fit, but did not disagree with you at that point.

      But now we know Gerrard was injured, it seems you'd rather change the point and accuse Liverpool fans of some hypocrisy. I'm not sure why, we're defending a player who says he's injured and by him not playing a few days proves that out. Really not sure why is hypocritical about stating the facts? Terry might also have been injured and just recovered quickly, but it’s not hypocritical to say maybe he was not, or at least ask the question. Being a cynic is not necessarily the same as being a hypocrite.

    • I certainly agree with the second sentence. On the first, I suspect it is rather beyond time for us all to pack up and go home, rather than kick it off all over again.


    • And see my previous answer for why this is wrong.

      Please stop telling me what my motivation is. You're wrong and I am getting tired of refuting it.


    • Erm - it does. Apologies.

      Having accused me of hypocrisy, would you also then say that some (not all, by any means) Liverpool fans have been hypocritical?

      (If you do, then all this bad temper with everyone in the last few days has had some value for me.)


    • View More Messages