Yes,it is a fair point.But it still doesn't help.Originally Posted by reg
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.
OK, but there is an equal tendency among those fans who most vocally complain to deny that their actions may have any negative consequences for the team.
And I think David Squires' fine effort deserves a mention here.
https://thesunshineroom.com/2013/03/...llel-universe/
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.
Correct,this is why my initial response was NOT to blame the fans for the results (ergo blaming players and management) but say the fans were a contributary factor in some results.I stand by that.
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.
No, I disagree. We *have* escaped your logic; we are fourth in the league, not bottom. Even at this late stage and despite everything we could still win the title.
Of course, players are human! However, professionals give up the right to use human factors as an excuse; they do their job, they win or they lose and that's it. Then they get ready for the next one. That's why they are professionals. They don't care about outside factors.
And that is true for Curly's wife's brain surgeon as it is for me and Arsene Wenger or the nice lady who's just been here to fix a minor problem with a car.
"A football team is a number 9 and ten other players." - redgunamo.
We can only be said to have escaped it if you believe that this team has performed to the utmost of its ability and that fourth is the best it could have expected.
But I don't think that is your argument, is it? You believe we have underperformed and refuse to accept that the poisonous behaviour of our supporters may be any sort of factor in that underperformance on the grounds that professionals shouldn't allow the fact that the people who are supposed to be on their side are instead consistently booing them. And if you refuse to accept that, the logic dictates that you don't believe there is or should be such a thing as home advantage.
Effectively, you are arguing that among professionals, there should be no such thing as morale. You seem to think that anyone getting paid to do a job will do the job the same way regardless of human factors. I would have thought you of all people would understand the importance of morale to performance.
Reply With Quote
