THERE IS MUCH debate about the fate of Luis Suarez following his biting incident yesterday.
The main point of contention seems to be whether Liverpool should sell or stick by their beleaguered star.
The Times’ football editor, Tony Evans, believes it would be foolish for Liverpool to sell Suarez, writing:
“Those who call for Suarez to be thrown out of the game have succumbed to hysteria,” while adding that banning him for “seven or eight games would seem reasonable”.
Steven Howard, the Chief Sports Writer for The Sun, took the opposite view, explaining:
“Now Liverpool must wash their hands of him after yesterday’s events at Anfield.
“The American owners will be furious at this latest round of appalling publicity coming, as it does, so soon after the Boston Marathon bombing on their own doorstep.”
Meanwhile, writing in the Daily Telegraph, Henry Winter took a similar view to Howard.
“It is difficult to see how Liverpool can continue to employ Luis Suarez after his latest assault on the fabric of the game, his latest trampling on the reputation of a world-renowned club. He held an opponent and then bit him.”
The Times’ chief football correspondent, Oliver Kay, said that Suarez’s actions went beyond his usual less-than-ethical behaviour.
“There are a lot of sly, cunning footballers on planet football. There are very few others who have found themselves in the dock once for biting an opponent, let alone twice.
“It looked like instinct – and that, whether you are one of the best footballers in the world or a two-year-old in a nursery, is a disturbing instinct to have.”
In addition, there are contrasting reports on what the club made of the saga. The Guardian reported that he suggested “no player is irreplaceable,” and the Daily Mail claims the club are under pressure to sell Suarez, while reports today suggest the club will definitely stand by the striker and refrain from selling him.
Finally, also in the Guardian, Dominic Fifield gave as vivid a summary of the event as any.
“It was his inability to retain any semblance of self-control that beggared belief, and it is that which leaves him a player as capable of inflicting as much damage upon Liverpool’s reputation as any opponents’ backline. This was, as the club’s former midfielder Jamie Redknapp pointed out post-match, utterly indefensible. It was also brutish and, quite frankly, ridiculous.”