His piece today on Sam English being taunted by Celtic fans who travelled down to England to do it is not, however, the stupidest or most ludicrous thing I read since getting up this morning.
In fact, Charlie Nicholas has him beat in the absurdity stakes, with a piece on Alfredo Morelos which is so awful that it’s actually quite funny.
Anyone here not seen The Office?
I resisted that show initially.
Because there’s a certain English sense of humour which I just don’t get, which I just don’t enjoy.
The premise didn’t sound particularly funny and I really didn’t believe I’d get much enjoyment out of watching it.
I was in my second year at University when my flat-mates convinced me to give it a go, and I have to say I was more than surprised to find it hysterical.
But every other scene made me cringe.
Because that’s the point; David Brent is excruciating, a man so lacking in self-awareness that he frequently does things that make you want to hide your eyes from the screen.
That’s what reading Nicholas today reminded me of.
On the surface it was a full-throated defence of Alfredo Morelos.
But if I had been asked to write a spoof piece which defended him whilst sticking in the boot, I couldn’t have done it better.
Not even the vivid imaginations of Pat Anderson or The Clumpany could have produced something so incredibly laugh out loud funny whilst pretending to play it straight.
Entitled “Charlie Nicholas rallies behind Alfredo Morelos as Celtic hero launches impassioned defence of Rangers striker” it is written by Sevco blogger Jonny McFarlane.
I don’t know whether he’s the idiot for publishing this or if we should point the finger at Nicholas and leave it at that.
I do know if he really thinks this is an “impassioned defence” that if I were being wrongly accused of murder and either of these two turned up to represent me, I’d start thinking about what I wanted to decorate my cell.
The article opens thus;
“Former Celtic idol Charlie Nicholas has launched a resounding defence of Alfredo Morelos and insisted compliance officer Clare Whyte should take action over Ryan Edward’s high challenge at the weekend.”
A resounding defence.
At this point I bet you’re wondering what Nicholas is up to.
You’ll still be wondering that by the time you get to the end of this.
The piece suggests that when Gerrard said Morelos would be harshly punished if he made a challenge similar to the one which took him out at the weekend that he was wrong … because Morelos would never have made such a challenge in the first place.
And I assure you, if found that unbelievable, if you just coughed up your coffee all over the screen, that it gets weirder as the piece goes on.
“Nicholas reckons … such challenges are not in Morelos’ nature with the 24-year-old is more prone to stupidity than viciousness,” McFarlane says.
Reading Nicholas’ own words, well … that’s when we disappear down the rabbit hole for real.
“You could hardly blame Steven Gerrard for coming out and saying Morelos would have been sent off if the roles were reversed. He was defending his player, and rightly so, because it was a bad tackle, but such talk is pretty irrelevant. The reality is that Morelos probably wouldn’t have made a challenge like that. He has never been the sort of player who jumps into tackles. We have never really witnessed that in his character.”
We have, actually, but this is all standard nonsense so far … but now it gets thoroughly surreal.
“He is more likely to punch or elbow an opponent when the red mist sets in. You don’t really see Morelos getting caught up in reckless or dangerous challenges.”
Amazing, isn’t it? The logic is flawless.
Morelos would never have made a bad challenge.
He’s more likely to try to break a jaw or a nose or give you a hairline skull fracture with an elbow or fist when he’s angry.
But he’s not reckless. Or particularly vicious.
Hard as it is to believe, Nicholas actually wrote this in Morelos defence …
So, other than being noted for punching, elbowing and kicking players in the head, it’s not in Mad Dog’s nature to do anything truly horrific … and McFarlane thinks this is a “resounding” argument in favour of the player?
Would you want this guy as a character witness?
“Your honour, the prosecution says he threw the guy down the stairs; actually he’s more likely to have beaten him with a baseball bat. That’s his style, don’t pay a bit of attention to what these fancy lawyers are saying about him, I know him better than they do and I’m telling you; baseball bat, every time. That’s how he did the last couple of folk.”
Honest to God, I’ve read some amazing pieces defending the indefensible behaviour of Freddy The Ned, but this has to be the most unintentionally hilarious of the lot.
McFarlane and Nicholas really made my day … as satire goes it was comedy gold.
Except neither of them meant it as satire.
Somehow, to me, that makes it all the funnier.
The CelticBlog faces many challenges going forward. If you like what we do, please subscribe and never miss another article. If you’re on Facebook, join us on our Facebook Group or share us on yours, if you’re on Twitter remember and re-tweet all our work.
How well do you know Celtic’s Polish players? Take the quiz below …