seriously, if U view it as an unbiased football fan, then U
would see some truth in it, rather than getting emotional.
In this article, (if U want to talk about Gerrard, later), he
mentioned Pool peaking last season when they got the best chance to
win the title, with only 2 loses in the entire season.
but instead of building on that, they sold Xabi, and now,
fighting to even get 4th. What's wrong with that?
And lastly, why you get all pissed up with the mind games, it is
part and parcel of the game. The reporters interview him, take the
most juicy part, magnified it, and those read it, without
processing, jump. So what are you?
Now, Gerrard. Yes, SAF did not get banned for going after Wiley.
However, he got warnings. Given his position as a Sir, and
his achievements, he got off lightly. Now, abit unfair you may say,
and I agree.
For Gerrard, the two incidents the V Sign and the elbow,
everyone saw it. But does it means whether the ref saw it or not,
the English FA can choose whether to act or not? In SAF's
case, he is going after the English FA, the system, for
inconsistentcy,and indirectly Gerrard. Rio got a 3 match ban
(ignore the extra1), for hitting Fagan, fair, and square. why not
Gerrard? Whether the ref saw or not, it is a hit. no?
Well, I just giving you my opinion, and yes, I am a MU Fan. So i
may be defending or just laying the cards on the table.
my two cents.
just to let you know, i too agree that gerrard should be given a
ban. he did did wrong things too. who doesn't right. about rio, yes
he gotten a 3 match ban. but my point is, if rio didn't get the 3
match ban, would SAF now, criticise the FA?
