Chris Waters: Tragedy for Tevez is in missing out on leading City’s revolution

I mean, wouldn’t you feel just a bit hacked off?

You’re sat there on the substitutes’ bench when your manager asks you to do yet another warm-up.

You’ve already warmed-up once during the second half of this particular match, so what’s the point of doing it again?

So you dig in your heels – or, in this case, your studs – and tell your manager that it simply isn’t on.

Okay, so it might not have been the smartest move you’ve ever made (far from it), but you felt justified in making a point to the boss.

Next thing you know, your manager is telling the media that you have flatly refused to play full-stop and that you are “finished” by your club.

Small wonder Carlos Tevez is said to be thinking of suing Roberto Mancini, his Manchester City manager, for defamation of character following the now infamous events that took place during City’s Champions’ League game at Bayern Munich.

I am joking, of course.

For as anyone who has played football will realise, a refusal to warm up is tantamount to a refusal to play.

Indeed, an instruction to warm up is a clear indication that you may soon be brought on to the field to help your team-mates; the warm-up is a vital part of ensuring you are properly prepared to execute your duties.

Tevez’s argument that he was refusing to warm-up rather than refusing to play is a bit like me refusing an instruction to switch on the computer on which I write stories for the Yorkshire Post while stating that I am not actually refusing to write any stories.

It is, in a nutshell, one and the same and would rightly result in my sports editor taking action.

Tevez is effectively claiming that the whole murky episode which led to him being fined two weeks’ wages (a cool £400,000) and suspended for a fortnight was a breakdown in communication.

How convenient.

An Argentinian (Tevez) getting mixed up with an Italian (Mancini).

As Manuel used to say: “Que?”

For the record, City found Tevez guilty of breaching five parts of his contract:

An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a club official.

An obligation to undertake such other duties and to participate in such other activities as are consistent with the performance of the player’s duties and as are reasonably required of him.

An obligation to comply with and act in accordance with all lawful instructions of any authorised official of the club.

An obligation to observe the statutes and regulations of FIFA and UEFA, the FA Rules, the League Rules, the Code of Practice and the Club rules, including but not limited to breach of Rule E3(1) of the FA Rules (obligation on the player at all times to act in the best interests of the game and not act in any manner which is improper or which brings the game into disrepute).

An obligation not to knowingly or recklessly do anything or omit to do anything which is likely to bring the club or the game of football into disrepute or cause the player or the club to be in breach of the rules (as defined in the contract) or cause damage to the club.

Tevez has the right to appeal to City’s board of directors and, should that plea go against him, could then take his case to the Premier League.

In the meantime, although theoretically eligible for selection, he is likely to remain an isolated figure.

Tevez has been training alone since returning from suspension and the club are determined to adopt a hard-line stance, insisting they will not countenance a cheap sale in January.

All indications are that City, if necessary, will hold Tevez to the remainder of a contract that expires in 2014 and leave him languishing in the obscurity of the reserves.

Unfortunately for Tevez, no one really believes there is anything more to this story than the fact that a petulant, overpaid footballer downed his tools on a German touchline.

The Argentine, in my view, does not have a case.

Whether our fine legal system would concur, however, is another matter, although one sorely hopes common sense will prevail and that lawsuits will be avoided.

City could even retaliate by suing Tevez because they consider his transfer value has plunged from an estimated £40m, which it assuredly has.

Tevez, alas, is not the type of chap who inspires feelings of great sympathy.

He is one of those people that we love to dislike – the South American equivalent of Robbie Savage, perhaps.

Tevez’s default facial expression appears to be surly; his mannerisms would suggest a strong air of arrogance.

You do not find yourself looking at him and thinking: “Oh, poor old thing. He might be a bit misguided, but he’s harmless enough. Why, he’s just a bit of a lad when all’s said and done.”

Where I do have a smidgen of sympathy for Tevez, however, is that he does not appear to be very well advised.

Indeed, his agent and advisors are surely doing him no favours at the present time.

Tevez does not seem the sharpest knife in the drawer and comes across as the type of fellow who might be malleable.

Although rich financially, he does not appear to be particularly wealthy in the intelligence stakes and now finds himself in the mother and father of all pickles.

I just have a sneaking feeling that, one day, he might look back on this period with some regret.

For Tevez has become public enemy No 1 at a time when, at the age of just 27, people should be talking about his wonderful skills and what he still has to offer – not his capacity for causing trouble.

Tevez, indeed, is a truly fine player.

He might have slipped down City’s pecking order before his bust-up with Mancini but he surely had the skill to come again.

The tragedy for Tevez is that he has now missed an opportunity to be part of a side that could well dominate English football in the next few years.

The stunning simplicity with which City destroyed their Manchester rivals the other day was perhaps not Barcelona-esque but was as good as anything on show in England at present.

Tevez, however, has become superfluous to requirements in a City revolution that is rumbling along just fine without him.

No longer a big fish in a small pond, he is the sort of stingray that Manchester City and Mancini can afford to do without.