Luis Suarez ... love him or hate him

"Imagine the tabloid fodder of Lindsay Lohan's life with Jennifer Lawrence's acting chops."

-- Wright Thompson, "Portrait of a serial winner"

Wright Thompson's wonderful piece for ESPN about Luis Suarez, from which the line above was taken, is actually one of three excellent sports stories I read today, the others being Alyson Footer's about the integration of Houston and the role the Astrodome played in it and Will Leitch's on ESPN's soccer coverage, which in its explanation of how both ESPN and NBC Sports Network cover soccer presents a guide that all sports television executives should heed.

I don't think I can both quickly and properly sum up Thompson's Suarez story, particularly without spoilers, so I'll suffice by saying that he builds around the search for details on an incident that may or may not have happened in Suarez's youth into an attempt to explain what makes him who he is, good and bad.

Seriously, read it, along with Footer and Leitch. You can thank me later.

But even before I read the piece, I've been thinking about how Suarez, as few others I can think of in sports, with the possible exceptions of Ray Lewis or Michael Vick, embodies the guiding principle of this blog ... that we are all hypocrites, that we are willing to forgive (or at least understand) people we like while condemning in those we don't. It applies in life as well as sports.

If the worst thing you could say about Luis Suarez was that he's a serial diver (another trait he shares with Lawrence ... falling down in public), that would be one thing. It's unsporting as hell, and I think it has given him a reputation as The Striker Who Cried Wolf, but diving isn't exactly committing assault on the pitch.

Except Suarez has done that ... twice. And not fists-or-feet-flying assault, but biting. Along with spitting, is there any nastier thing you can do.

And oh yeah ... he was also suspended for racially abusing Patrice Evra. I'm actually surprised that in the Suarez ledger, the biting, and not this, seems to be the first thing people think of.

I don't know if it's because the soccer world still doesn't get the problem of racism (this is only a clip, but I would recommend the "Real Sports" story about it on HBO if you can catch a replay), the argument in some quarters that "negrito" is not actually a racial slur in South America, because talking too much about it would also force an uncomfortable discussion of how the John Terry-Anton Ferdinand situation was handled or something else, but that's how it seems.

Yet much in the same way Ravens fans cheered for Lewis, Eagles fans cheered for Vick (and Jets fans may now) and Chelsea fans cheer for Terry, Liverpool fans (including myself) cheer for Suarez, even if we know in our heart of hearts that maybe we shouldn't.

Why?

Do you really have to ask?

Today's dumbest story in sports: all-England edition

So it turns out Liverpool won the Premier League after all ... provided you only count goals scored by English players.

Yes, the New York Times brings us some research showing that game-by-game, if you only counted the goals by English players, Liverpool would have cruised to the title by nine points over Southampton and 16 over Manchester United. I actually would have guessed at the result before reading, as Steven Gerrard, Daniel Sturridge, Glen Johnson, Raheem Sterling and Jordan Henderson give Liverpool a strong English contingent.

As for Manchester City, the actual champions, they would have been relegated with a record of one win against eight losses and 29 draws.

The whole exercise is pretty silly. For starters, it only accounts for goals scored, not goals stopped. As leaky as Liverpool's defense was, it would have been even worse without Simon Mignolet (a Belgian) in goal and central defenders Kolo Toure (Ivory Coast), Daniel Agger (Denmark), Mamadou Sakho (France) and Martin Skrtel (Slovakia), although I'm not sure how Skrtel's four own-goals would count on the ledger.

But more importantly, and seriously, it's just pointless. It would be like someone saying baseball is America's National Pastime so let's see who won the World Series by counting statistics garnered by Americans (although that would mean no David Ortiz or Koji Uehara, so maybe that's not such a bad idea).

The timing of posting the standings if only English goals count is fortuitous, though, in that it's not only the day after the Premier League season ends, but also the day the English World Cup roster was announced. From what I understand, the lack of English players in the Premier League and its international impact is a source of much hand-wringing, with various attempts to figure out how to make things better.

However, as The Secret Footballer pointed out, the Premier League is a business, and a highly successful one, based on getting the best players from around the world.

"That flagship policy (reaching the semifinals of Euro 2020 and winning the 2022 World Cup) is undermined by a multibillion-pound elephant at the other end of the table. It’s called the Premier League and it doesn’t care if England never win the World Cup again."

So there's no need to fantasize about what the standings would look like in a Premier League of only English players; it's not going to happen.

Plus, it's not like England's international record isn't all that stellar when most of the players in its top league were English. There's a reason why 1966 is a magical year there.

Liverpool, the sweet and the bitter

So bloody close, but yet so bloody far

If you just told a Liverpool fan these facts back in August:

• that the team would go from seventh in the Premier League to second, get back into the Champions League and take the title race down to the final day,
• that they would score more than 100 goals and play in an entertaining, crowd-pleasing manner,
• that Luis Suarez would go from being suspended and wanting out to leading the league in goals, teaming with Daniel Sturridge (once again, and I cannot say it enough, thank you Chelsea) to form the often-unstoppable SAS, signing a new contract and being named PFA Player of the Year,
• that they would not only sweep Manchester United, but that United would have such a terrible season that David Moyes would surpass Roy Hodgson at Liverpool in the pantheon of managerial hires that seemed to make sense at the time but turned out so, so wrong,
• that Brendan Rodgers, unlike Hodgson, would prove to be a brilliant hire who can't sign that new contract soon enough, 
• that Steven Gerrard would find a new home as a holding midfielder and in so doing revitalize his career,
• that Jordan Henderson would actually turn into a good player,
• that Raheem Sterling would start living up to his immense potential
• and that they would lay waste to Arsenal in a display that makes me want to have "How many do you want? HOW MANY DO YOU WANT?" as the ringtone on my phone ...

... he or she would be pretty pleased with how the campaign would go, right? I mean, sure, it would have been disappointing to not win it, but that's still a wonderful season.
However ... what that Liverpool fan wouldn't have known then, but would know now, is how close they were to taking the title. It actually would have been fairly preposterous had they pulled it off, as they would have had to improve upon their 2014 record of 15 wins, three draws and one loss either by eliminating the loss, making the loss a tie and winning one of the ties or winning two of the ties ... basically anything adding up to three or more points.
Yet it looked like they were going to do it. After all, following the 1-1 draw against West Bromwich Albion Feb. 2, Liverpool won 11 in a row through April 27. There was open talk about Liverpool winning the trophy, and The Guardian even ran a story profiling the 20 players that brought them to the cusp of the title.
Then Chelsea's Jose Mourinho parked the bus, Gerrard fell down, Demba Ba remembered for one of the few times this year that his job is to put balls in the back of the net ... and Liverpool effectively kissed the title goodbye. Losing a three-goal lead to Crystal Palace didn't help, either, but the Chelsea loss was the opening Manchester City needed, and they weren't going to lose again.
So the season, brilliant as it was, ends in the disappointment of knowing that a trophy was there for the taking but not taken. Sure, it's easy to say that Liverpool will be back, that the current players will improve, young players who weren't ready to crack the roster this year will earn places and that the team will make additional astute signings, particularly to address the lack of depth and leaky defense.
And maybe they will be, but nothing's guaranteed. This year, the possibility of a Liverpool title was getting a "Yeah, but," as in "Yeah, they might win the title, but their players are in better shape because they're not playing in Europe." Next year, Liverpool will be in the Champions League, which is obviously great, but it does tax the roster.
You also have to assume that Manchester City will continue to spend whatever it takes to win and that Chelsea will try to find strikers who can actually score goals. Everton showed signs of being really good this year. Maybe Tottenham Hotspur will finally figure it out. 
Arsenal actually topped the table for a long stretch before falling off, and Manchester United seemingly has too much talent to stay down long if they get the right manager (something I frequently remind my mate Gardner of when he's feeling too down about life). 
In other words, just because Liverpool had a great year this year, nothing is guaranteed for next year. It could be the last step toward a title, or as close as the club gets for a long time.
And the worst part is, there are no shortcuts. There is actually no one who will be able to say in August with any more certainty than a prediction that Liverpool hoists the trophy a year from now. It's a journey that kicks off in a few months and won't end for another year.
Let the next journey begin. 

A walk through the Garden

And there it is ... right down the street from my hotel.

I'm not a big "bucket list" type of guy. Sure, there are things I'd like to do, but I don't look at doing them as another item checked off.

But of the few things I'd like to do but haven't yet, going to an event at Madison Square Garden is near the top of that list. Not only is it in New York City with that famed, distinct architecture sitting right atop Penn Station, it has an aura that I struggled to define as I was thinking about it. 

What I came up with is that no matter the event -- Knicks, Rangers, the real Big East men's basketball tournament, concerts, wrestling (even the way wrestlers would walk to the ring looked different, entering from the side and with a shorter walk, seemingly into a mass of humanity) -- the Garden seems to fit the event, like there was never a more natural place for it. Nothing ever seems out of place.

As he so often does, Jeff Jacobs of the Hartford Courant got it just right before the Rangers and Flyers played in the seventh game of their playoff series Wednesday night.

Wow. Place looks different from the last time I was here for Michigan State-UConn.#game7 pic.twitter.com/7ZzEfZVSMD
— Jeff Jacobs (@jacobscourant) April 30, 2014

I had actually momentarily forgotten that this year's East Regional was at MSG, and not just because the NCAA, in its finite wisdom, continues to insist on generic floors. For on Wednesday, the Garden was a hockey arena hosting a massive game that had the whole city buzzing.

Mrs. Last Honest and I spent a few days in New York this week, staying at the New Yorker hotel right down the street from the arena. While we didn't go to the Rangers-Flyers game (we were supposed to see the Yankees and Mariners that night, a game washed away by the all-day and all-night rain, and I wasn't up to spending the hundreds of dollars it would have taken to go to the hockey game), we did take a tour the previous day.

Wow ... just wow.

The tour wasn't perfect. I understand the guide (who was actually delightful, plus she was working off a format, anyway) was trying to inform us about the renovations at MSG, but I really don't care about tile patterns or the high-class offerings in the food court. Also, if there is going to be a stop for people to have their photos taken with hockey sticks or basketballs, it should be before or after the tour and not in the middle, and people shouldn't have to get their picture taken if they don't want to.

All these did was take time away from what people wanted ... which was to be in the arena.

It's always exciting to walk into a stadium or an arena, but there are some that are more meaningful than others. As I was sitting there, listening to our guide talk about how the rink is put together and the changeover from hockey to basketball, there was only one thing I could think of.

I'm in Madison Square Garden. I'm in Madison. Square. Garden.

Now I just have to get to a game there someday.