Much has been written about John Terry and the impact his actions have had on his, wife, best friend, club and country and for the most part, he has been insulated from the criticism both by the bubble all footballers exist in and his lack of exposure to the public outside Chelsea’s biased and (in their display of contempt for Wayne Bridge), distasteful fans.
On that last point, it should be noted that there where many Chelsea fans who applauded Bridge and are having a hard time maintaining their support for the team’s captain, sadly however, they were the minority.
In recent days – particular in light of the farcically covered and unobserved non-handshake between Terry and Bridge – the argument has finally shifted to the perhaps the pure essence of the issue for the two people most involved; if they can’t play together, who should quit the team?
As we mentioned in this previous post, in any normal, morally-guided part of society it would be John Terry who would be forced to relinquish the favoured position. So far that has not been the case and Wayne Bridge knowing this, felt he had no alternatiuve but to remove himself from selection. Indeed had he sought to force Capello’s hand by privately telling him that he wants to be in the squad but cannot play while John Terry is included, the moral question that has little ambiguity outside the win-first mentality of football would have arisen then and not now.
Of course had Bridge done that, not only would Capello have felt pressure to remove a more important player from his squad in favour of a less important player but Bridge himself would have realised that as soon as it had come out that Terry’s withdrawal, or the pressure to remove Terry at came Bridge’s instigation, Bridge would have been in many fans eyes the prime reason for England’s likely failure at the World Cup.
The way it has now worked out is ideal for Bridge and perhaps slightly better for Capello as well – Bridge is absolved of blame for creating the pressure on Terry (as he should be) while highlighting the moral disparancy between football and the rest of the world while Capello can point to public pressure and outrage as another reason why John Terry might not merit a place in the squad. That’s to go on top of his not being good enough, being out of form, being in the wrong frame of mind, upsetting his team mates, costing the squad a member and creating a massive distraction that shows no signs of abating a mere 100 days before the start of the tournament.
So the question remains; should the England fans boo Terry? Are they in the mood to forgive for the greater good of the team and their chances of winning?
The clue perhaps comes from the presence of the story itself. On the continent there is bafflement as to why England would undermine their chances of victory for something so trivial. In England however we hold everyone to a higher standard – pious but true – especially those with the most responsibility and the most visual role models.
Accordingly, the England fans will let Terry know how they feel. Were Bridge there, he would no doubt experience the polar opposite of what he so shamefully received at Stamford Bridge. He won’t be there however and that fact will add to the expression of outrage and distaste that practically all football fans (and some, genuine Chelsea fans) feel.
Whether Terry can overcome that and recover his form remains to be seen.
