Jamie's No Fall-Guy
Jamie Guy recently returned from a loan-spell in the non-league and scored twice in a reserve game for Colchester United. The 21-year-old might be on the point of a first-team recall, which could cause a mixed reaction from the home faithful. Vital`s Matt Calmus, however, says it`s time give Guy another chance...
Shame on those people who summarised Jamie Guy`s dealings with law magistrates on Wikipedia, that public webspace of some o-so infinite wisdom. Guy appeared before the wigs last summer, apparently, quote: "cause [sic] the tosser was drink-driving."
Very eloquent. Except that the slip-shod analysis of what most Colchester United fans are hoping will be the only other sour part of the young striker`s predicted road to redemption isn`t fair. It highlights a valid opinion of Guy`s action, sure; public interest is always highest in those who put themselves in positions where their every move can be analysed.
But Guy has done, or is doing, his time. In the summer, he was named and shamed in the local press, had his license revoked for a year and spent six months on at Oxford United.
People reading this situation nearly always also forget that Guy didn`t actually hurt anyone through his wrongful actions, even if the 21-year-old still deserved a reprimand for breaking society`s normalrules.
There`s a more accurate statement of the Guy pediment from our sister site, Vital Oxford, where one fan reviewed his 20-odd game and three-goal spell thus: "This boy was a real disappointment and he is a player who could easily waste a very promising career unless he grows up a hell of a lot." What that says is not only that Guy`s prolific per-season never materialised in non-league goals. It also tells us his character might still require some reform to hone an obvious natural ability.
In mitigation of his attitude, football is essentially a sport that lends itself to arrested development: those players who make it professionally are some of a select few who still get to kick a ball at work, for a living. The same ball they were kicking as kids, essentially, which makes the pitches funded by our football-mad nation an expressive grass- carpeted expansion of the playground mentality.
Not excusing Guy`s behaviour, but an at times questionable mentality is probably partly a symptom of his environment.
A symptom in the same way that the offensive Wikipedia entry, a type of internet graffiti, presumably comes from the sort of fan who thinks paying at the stadium gate automatically gives them a right to throw expletives and offensive remarks at all players.
No so - the ticket price does not include a conscience clause which makes systematic discrimination okay.
An objective analysis, in Guy`s case, would be to accept that he has suffered enough for making not one, but two, seperate mistakes that landed him in court.
Your jury might still be out, of course. I say it`s time to give him another chance.