England were a bit rubbish on Tuesday night against Japan. Not great at all. Plenty for Thomas Tuchel to ruminate over ahead of the World Cup.
As Martin Samuel writes in The Times: ‘The Senegal defeat seemed to end a few England careers under Tuchel, and this may do the same. Can there be a place for Phil Foden still after another bloodless display? Is Ben White truly worth the aggravation?’
That second question is particularly pertinent, because while Samuel seems to doubt whether White should be integrated back into the England fold after leaving a World Cup squad because of reported problems with a member of the coaching staff, he has rarely if ever had such doubts over whether Mason Greenwood is ‘truly worth the aggravation’ of allegations of attempted rape, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and controlling and coercive behaviour, charges which were made and later dropped after “the withdrawal of key witnesses and new evidence that came to light” with “no realistic prospect of conviction”.
It is not clear what made Samuel the arbiter on a case as complex and delicate as Greenwood’s. These headlines have all popped up on The Times over recent years, all articles penned by their Chief Correspondent:
‘Manchester United have a duty of care to help Mason Greenwood face future’
‘Manchester United make Mason Greenwood someone else’s problem’
‘Manchester United must decide on Mason Greenwood themselves’
‘If jobs exist for ‘criminal class’, why can’t Greenwood play for United?’
A shiny penny to those of you who recall Samuel using fake Erik ten Hag quotes to back up his latest turn as the devil’s most tiresome advocate in one of those pieces published during a time he became almost obsessed with the idea that if Greenwood played again, it should really be for Manchester United.
It is, however, clear that while he wrote in January 2022 that this was ‘a watershed moment for the game, how it handles the allegations and how it views Greenwood’, what Samuel actually meant was that the striker deserves a second chance.
That two-word phrase is used four times in the copy of his latest article for The Times, as well as in this deplorable headline:
‘It’s a worry if Roberto De Zerbi is cancelled for belief in second chances’
Is there anything more f**king laborious than pretending someone who has just been given a five-year contract worth £60m might be ‘cancelled’?
Samuel mercifully does not discuss De Zerbi in those terms – that abomination is on the headline writer alone – but it is no surprise to see the man responsible for this…
…vouch for the power of ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘the capacity to learn from his past’.
It is, after all, good to know where Samuel historically stands on the ‘hotness’ of allegations such as those surrounding Greenwood, considering more than a decade later he is all about ‘societal reintegration through learning and self-improvement’ (and chastising four separate Tottenham supporter groups – Women of the Lane, Proud Lilywhites, Spurs Reach and THFC Flags – for being really quite uneasy at the club’s appointment of a staunch Greenwood apologist in De Zerbi).
‘Their opposition to De Zerbi becoming Tottenham head coach concerns his stance on the former Manchester United striker Mason Greenwood, a player signed by Marseille during his time as head coach,’ is a cute line from Samuel, attempting to distance De Zerbi from the recruitment of Greenwood in the first place.
It’s a little awkward that De Zerbi said at the time of his signing that “Greenwood is the first player I called”, rather obliterating the flimsy idea that this was simply ‘a player signed by Marseille during his time as head coach’.
Greenwood was always a player De Zerbi specifically pursued rather than one he had forced or bestowed upon him. Elye Wahi wasn’t a mess he simply inherited either.
But ‘De Zerbi was required to speak about Greenwood in his position as a senior club official’, and ‘maybe there was an element of professional instinct in protecting one of his players’ with his comments.
Does repeatedly referring to a player as “like a son” who he vowed to “protect” and “defend” from censure really qualify as ‘professional instinct’ kicking in? It sounds a bit more personal.
Samuel is, of course, right: ‘This is actually about De Zerbi. De Zerbi talking of Greenwood, De Zerbi choosing not to exclude Greenwood, De Zerbi considering Greenwood capable of not being the worst version of himself, for ever. De Zerbi’s offence, it would seem, is to think the player worthy of another chance; to speak of him in positive terms, rather than constantly defining him by his basest moment.’
Except ‘De Zerbi’s offence’ isn’t that at all. Not even slightly. It’s the fact he put football ahead of everything and thus not only trivialised domestic violence then but has dismissed that context ever since.
Never mind ‘choosing not to exclude Greenwood’, De Zerbi specifically decided to sign, platform and shield him purely because he is good at scoring goals, not because he had some sort of epiphany on loan at Getafe, or showed any contrition at any point for anything.
But all this is a preamble to a paragraph bold in idea and frankly stunning in execution. Because if there is a chance to have a pop at Gary Lineker, you best believe a right-leaning newspaper will take it gleefully:
‘And yes, anyone who has heard the original recordings of Greenwood’s alleged behaviour released on January 30, 2022, finds it hard to square with the idea of a good guy. Yet to tie him to that moment is to consider humanity incapable of change, which we know is untrue and not in our best nature. It is now almost a year since Gary Lineker forwarded a fateful post, containing a crude antisemitic graphic, which he had failed to notice. The BBC could have let that be his epitaph. Instead, he was allowed a last Match of the Day, the balance of a glittering career as a footballer and in broadcasting outweighing a foolish mistake. There were consequences – as there have undoubtedly been for Greenwood who was heading for the twin peaks of United and England until he became a pariah – but there was equally a desire for forgiveness. Lineker’s immediate position may have been untenable, but his disgrace was not allowed permanence.’
Don’t worry, dear reader. Samuel has realised that allegations of serious domestic and sexual abuse might not be completely comparable to someone having ‘forwarded a fateful post, containing a crude antisemitic graphic, which he had failed to notice’.
‘Of course, Lineker’s mistake was of a completely different type and not nearly as serious as Greenwood’s alleged behaviour – but was never allowed to feel like a life sentence.’
At least try and mask your frustration at that, Martin. And what part of Greenwood’s remarkably well-remunerated life as a professional footballer at something certainly close to the highest level constitutes ‘a life sentence’?
‘Nobody is defending Greenwood’s alleged actions, or downplaying the seriousness of the original accusation.’
The fact you deem that clarification necessary in the closing paragraph speaks volumes.
‘De Zerbi, however, has committed no crime beyond remaining faithful to the idea of second chances. That this, too, is now considered a crime should really concern us all.’
You can’t even call someone accused of serious domestic and sexual violence your “son”, swear to “protect” and “defend” them from criticism and completely gloss over their past because they’re a “good guy” who is good at football nowadays. You’ll get locked up.
