Mails: Dissing Lloris is not about an anti-Spurs agenda

Thank you for getting us through the longest week in football. Mail us at

Fanmail for Alan
Appropriate for a man named Alan to come over a bit Partridge with his defense of a drink driver. Where to start?

First of all the idea that F365 is anti-Spurs and supposedly pro-Liverpool. Now, as far as I’m aware, none of the F365 staff are Reds (none of the big dogs anyway), so I think we can rule that out. As for the anti-Spurs stuff, do you read the same site as the rest of us Alan? F365, who frequently praise Poch, the way Spurs play, their youth policy and ability to compete against far wealthier clubs? It’s normally F365 defending Spurs against the “yeah, but what have they won?” types.

On the point about what would happen to one of the F365 staff members if they got a conviction. I’m going to assume Alan is not yet old enough that he is in the world of work, because for plenty of careers if you are caught drink-driving, you lose your job. I am a teacher. I would lose my job. So can doctors, lawyers and many other professions. In many other industries a drink driving conviction can be the end of it, but Alan doesn’t believe any punishment is needed for Lloris?

Bizarely, Alan mentions Ben Stokes. Is that the same Ben Stokes who lost the England Vice-captaincy because he broke the law? He was also banned for an extended period, including the Ashes at great cost to the England team. He is evidence against Alan’s argument, not for it.

Forget the role model idea (and his Heath Ledger point is just bizarre), drink driving is incredibly serious. Lloris could have killed someone. That’s the fact. His workplace absolutely should make it clear how unacceptable that is. It’s deeply disappointing that Spurs haven’t taken appropriate action and quite sad to see how fans like Alan can be so blinded by bias for their own club.
Mike, LFC, London

…Alan, I too am a Spurs fan and I’m sorry; but you just made an absolute tit of yourself!!!

I’ll ingore the accusation of F365 bias as that one’s been done to death over the years. The criticism of Dier is valid; I have the same convo with plenty of Spurs fan mates; and jo worse than they give to Henderson for his same shortcomings over his first 30 caps for England! Likewise Dele; note F365 have not criticised him or his ability, just whether his particular skillset fits in this formation that England wish to use. Again; a conversation I too have had with many Spurs and England supoorting friends and 1 I broadly agree with – it had to be one of Lingard or Dele, not both.

The MC highlights your ridiculousness on the Heath Ledger line; but let’s look at Stokes – he was banned from playing by the ECB until he was charged and had the vice captaincy of the Test and ODI team taken from him; the very sanction F365 have called for Lloris to suffer. So another attempt to validate your point misses the mark!

You seem to then suggest that because 70s and 80s footballers probably drove drunk why should we lambast Lloris? Ermmm because society has finally come to realise that drink driving is an abhorrent and irresponsible behaviour that deserves 100% censure; kind of how we’ve finally realised the same is true of racism and homophobia!

To my knowledge; neither Gazza nor Best were charged of drink driving when playing (plus F365 didn’t exist in Best’s day) so you have no idea how F365 would have reported/written editorials on that matter – their defence of people with an addiction who are hounded and manipulated by the press is a different subject matter; it’s possible to be anti that and anti drink driving at the same time!!

Seems there’s only one person with bias here; and as usual, it’s the football fan that’s given in to tribalism and tried to defend the indefensible because he’s my team’s captain rather than the journalists!!
Paul (Spurs) Tunbridge Wells

…Surely the email from Alan the Spurs fan is a windup. The only person guilty of character assassination is Hugo Lloris.

Any comparison to Ben Stokes is irrelevant. Lloris is capable of making his own decisions and he chose not only to endanger his own life but he chose to selfishly endanger others. This isn’t bias and I am 100% positive that I’m not the only one offended by the thought that just because his actions only led to him “potentially doing serious injury to another man”.

Lloris might be a model professional on the pitch, but to just palm this off as an aberration is revolting.
Anon, Shrewsbury

…Alan’s email almost caused me to spit out my morning tea for two reasons:

1) Drink driving is a repugnant, selfish thing to do. Thank god nothing came of it but “aberration’s” like Lloris’ can and do kill people. Indiscretions like that can and do cause adverse consequences for people’s jobs all the time. Club captaincy is largely symbolic, it has little real impact but can make a potent impression on a kid who follows that team – stripping him of it would have been wholly appropriate and would have had no real consequence for the team.

2) Football365 is not biased against Tottenham; it’s clearly biased against my club. Which club you ask? The club I follow, as all other readers who follow said club agree.
Andy (club I follow redacted)

…I am, like Alan, a Tottenham fan.

Criticism of Alli and Dier stems from the fact that they’ve not played very well for England (frankly, nor for Tottenham) for quite some time. Flashes of brilliance from the former in otherwise muck performances, and individual positional/decision making gaffes in most games while otherwise offering not very much at all from the latter will lead to criticism – particularly in players that seem to have peaked while very young and not kicked on.

Criticisms of Hugo Lloris stem from the fact that he drove while twice the legal limit and could easily have killed somebody. Frankly, if the club had transfer listed him I’d have no complaints. He shouldn’t be captain going forward.

Otherwise – I think most people seem to like us, actually.

Hope that’s cleared that up.
Darragh, Spurs, Ireland

…Oh Alan, I haven’t facepalmed at a mail so hard in so long, there is no “anti-Spurs” bias, Lloris did an incredibly dangerous and criminal act, he has been punished by the justice system and the response from journalists and fans alike is justified, he should be stripped of the captaincy end of.
Mikey, CFC (The Premier League is back!)

…Alan. Mate.

It wasn’t long ago people were laughing at Pool fans for claiming anti-pool bias in this very mailbox.

Stop it.
Jon (possibly the most ridiculous email I’ve read), Lincoln

…1. This is a football website, that’s why they don’t mention Batman, rugby etc.
2. Anyone who drink drives is a disgrace.
3. Lloris is a disgrace for drink driving, and plays football. Hence it is discussed on this football website.
4. Players are seen as role models, as most kids want to grow up and play football. If this is right or wrong is a completely different debate, but this is the way it is. So if you don’t like it, give up your £100K+ a week salary and go back to everyday life.
5. Lloris knows all this, and is Spurs and France captain. He also knows how highly likely it is to be caught when these players are followed by fans, media etc near on 24 hours a day. Yet he still made the decision to do it. He deserves to be punished.
6. Receiving a fine, to someone who money is never an issue, is not a punishment.
Dale Lamb (United Fan, laughing at Mourinhos press conference this morning)

And some more Mailbox reaction…
Wow, plenty of tin hats in the mailbox this morning. Where to start?

Labelling Juan Mata as having a ‘poor’ defensive workrate is just not true. Over his career he averages 1.6 attempted tackles per game (according to WhoScored), which is the same as Chris Smalling and more than Victor Lindelof (1). He also blocks as many crosses per game (0.1) as Herrera, Fellaini and Pogba, and as many passes per game as Jones (0.2). For someone who is classed as an attacking midfielder, I would say that’s a fairly decent defensive contribution. He might not be the best defender in the team, but that really shouldn’t be among his primary duties, so it’s hardly fair to use that as a stick with which to beat him. It’s also rather unfair to say that he is the reason that his Chelsea and United teams haven’t won a Premier League – there were plenty of other players involved in those campaigns, so it’s overly reductive to point the finger exclusively at him for that. I can’t stress enough that he is an attacking player, and saying “that means nothing if you can’t offer anything defensively” is just wrong; a better manager would see that his strengths lie in going forward – 79 goals and 86 assists in his career should be more than enough evidence to prove that. If the manager wasn’t so intent on playing negative football then we wouldn’t need our attackers to be defenders. Criticising Mata for not being a good defender is like criticising De Gea for not having enough assists.

Ah yes, the old “well, other people do it too” argument to defend Lloris. Whether you like it or not, Lloris is a role model for kids, so he absolutely should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. Millions and millions of kids worldwide are not seeing what the F365 team do on a daily basis, so you can’t compare the two things; the F365 team didn’t just win the World Cup, and don’t play in the most widely broadcast football league in the world. If Lloris is unhappy about the intense scrutiny under which he comes, then he should think about whether he should be a professional footballer. The message that the lack of club punishment sends out is that you can basically do whatever the hell you want as long as you’re rich/talented enough. Hardly a cautionary tale, is it? I think F365 have perfectly adequate perspective on the matter. Lloris should count himself very, very lucky that he wasn’t punished more severely and – which some are clearly failing to remember – that he didn’t hurt an innocent bystander with his appalling behaviour.

Simple one, this: the article wasn’t saying Rashford is better than Ronaldo and Kane – point out the quote where it was. It’s comparing their achievements at the same age, how is that so hard to understand?

Seriously, bringing religion into this, again? Billions of people do not believe in “your” god, so why should everyone have to pander to your sensitivities? It’s not mocking, demeaning or belittling your beliefs to say/write those names; they’re just words, you infer the meaning yourself. It’s also rather bold of you to assume that every instance of “Jesus” means Jesus Christ (it could be Gabriel Jesus for all you know), or ‘God’ means the Christian god (it could be Mars or Zeus for all you know). Did you also know that “crikey” (reference to Christ), “strewth” (a contraction of “God’s truth”) and “blimey” (from “God blind me”) are all references to god? Should we stop saying those too, lest you get offended? This site is written in a colloquial, conversational style, and those exclamations form an undeniable part of the modern lexicon, so you’re just going to have to make a decision: stay or go. If it offends you, don’t read it. If you can live with it then carry on, but don’t come on here complaining about the content that you choose to consume (FOR FREE!). No one is making you.
Ted, Manchester

Shearer revisionism?
Andrew McDiarmid, did Alan Shearer stay at Newcastle United for years and years despite offers coming in for him, and many more enquiries being made around his potential availability, all whilst it was crystal clear that his beloved home club would actually be winning sod all?

Man could have come to United at any moment, had he indicated he would have actually signed, and he would have then won a hatful of trophies.

That is me trying to be clever about Shearer having the chance to join Man United you see, alright I can get my own coat.
Manc. (Agreed that he joined a very decent club, but we cannot say he did not choose to stay at an average one, when he had sexy alternatives offered to him?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


To Top