No, it doesn't help, that's true. But I think there is a tendancy amongst some of those who are least inclined to accept shortcomings on behalf of players and manager to make the most of the shortcomings of fans.
If only we could replace the fans everything would be all right.
Right, but A has already pointed out, even decent teams get the bird sometimes. Crucially though, points are still awarded for the players' performances and results regardless.
You don't appreciate that in our haste to banter off the supporters, we risk ignoring a rather more essential aspect of the matter?
"A football team is a number 9 and ten other players." - redgunamo.
Fair enough. But it simply makes no sense to me. We employ some of the top people in the world in each and every department of the football club, but yet we are supposed to believe that our fortunes really actually depend on what mood Claude & Co. happen to be in on a matchday.
Ridicules.
My point, if there is one, would be that it actually makes no difference either way. And the only time it's mentioned is as an excuse.
Last edited by reg; 04-20-2016 at 11:05 AM.
"A football team is a number 9 and ten other players." - redgunamo.
The logical conclusion of your argument is that whether the fans cheer or boo should make no difference to the team. Unfortunately, that runs counter to the entire logic of football, in which home support is considered to be a major advantage as it encourages our players and intimidates theirs. By the same token, a lack of support or worse at home is bound to have a negative effect on the team. There is simply no escaping this logic, I'm afraid.
However good a player is, they are still subject to human factors. They can still use home support to raise their game as they would use any other advantage. Thus, the absence of home support makes a difference.
And I think David Squires' fine effort deserves a mention here.
https://thesunshineroom.com/2013/03/...llel-universe/