football booing

[Bris Vegas]

In fairness, even great managers haven't helped with certain philosophies.

 

Who was it who once said 'nobody complains when you win' this just advocates a 'win at all costs' type of attitude which ultimately ruins the sport as a spectacle.

 

Sky may have ruined it for a minority, but let's be honest, the Premier League has grown into the most-watched league in the world so it must be doing something right.

 

English football has massively overtaken Italian footabll whereas not long ago all the best players, teams etc. were playing in Italy.

 

But, I can understand why WHU fans boo. For a club of their size, midtable PL football is the best it can get. If you're going to play midtable and have limited success, you have to have a style which entertains.

 

There is nothing more boring than watching rubbish football which only has a limit of midtable PL. Why should that be enough to satisfy the fans? Why?

 

Southampton, Swansea and Fulham (before this season) are probably the only teams I'd want a season ticket at. The rest would be dire.

[Gritstone Ram]

I apologise for the length of this email.

Last Wednesday night Phil Brown was co commentating on the West Ham match and said he couldn't understand the booing from the WH fans; on 606 on Saturday, Robbie Savage asked why fans weren't happy with a mid table position in the PL (a Lesta fan then said that he would be very happy with a mid-table finish, next season in the PL).

I sent the following email to Mark Chapman and others on 606 as my views on why fans boo in the PL and why I think 5 Live and the BBC are a (maybe unwitting) part of a wider conspiracy to reinforce the view that everything in the PL garden is rosy.

I am, I admit, an old fart in the sense that I have watched the Rams for 50 or so years. I enjoy watching Derby play and win and following the team home and away is and has always been one of the passions of my life. But I do not buy the argument that everything is better now than it was 50 years ago, in the football world. And in particular my argument would be that less competition is worse for the game in England.

Dear Mark Chapman, Robbie Savage, Phil Brown et al

This (long) email is not written in the expectation that you will mention it on the radio because not only will it be far too long for your limited attention spans but it is also far too critical of the BBC, Radio 5 live and its love of everything Premier League and in particular the status quo. But, on the basis that someone, somewhere might read it, here goes.

By way of introduction I am not the supporter of a PL team. My club has won the first division championship in the proper days when football was reasonably competitive and is doing pretty well nowadays in the second tier. I have been watching them play for over 50 years, home and away, in each of the top three divisions in that time, mostly as a season ticket holder.

Despite my dislike of much of what Radio 5 Live has now become I still listen on a regular basis though not with the same level of pleasure that I got from the first few years of its being. I did catch, however, Phil Brown’s comments about the booing at the Boleyn stadium last Wednesday night and Robbie Savage’s question on Saturday night about fans that might become bored with being in mid-table of the PL. It is those comments that have prompted me to write.

If I were to ask any of you pre season which clubs were likely to be in the top 5 of the PL for 2014/15, I would hazard two guesses: 1) that you would all name the same or very similar 5 teams and 2) that you would be right. Only the order of finish might be slightly different.

If I then asked you to name which clubs will be in the top 5 for 2016/17 and 2017/18 and onwards, you would be silly if you were to name any other than the same 5 clubs. And, again you would probably be right.

The only possibility that you would be wrong is if someone, with well over £200m to burn comes along, buys a club like, say, Aston Villa, or Everton and then spends the lot on ‘their’ club. And even then there is no guarantee of success - look at Spurs this year with one of the meanest Chairman around (and I don’t say that critically) and what has happened to his £100m. And don’t forget that was £100m on top of tens of millions already spent getting to the starting point of some level of success.

And how many people are there in the world (not the UK) with both the inclination and the money? Very few, and not one of them people who the ‘ordinary’ fan would recognise as currently being a fan of their club. Has Fawaz really supported Nottingham Forest all his life?

So, to break into that top 5 you need someone with more money than sense and someone who 99 times out of a 100 is going to be from overseas.

As that doesn’t happen very often to many clubs, then the real likelihood is that the current top 5 will remain the top 5 ad infinitum. And indeed football generally and its rules and money, from the so called Champions League (it isn’t) upwards and downwards, is now deliberately constructed simply to continue to keep those same clubs at the ‘top’.

So, for the remaining clubs (and their fans), the best that they can do is 6th. The best players will continue to go to ever bigger squads in the top 5 clubs.

When I first started watching football in the 1960s no one ever talked about winning ‘their’ league within a division, or starting a season plotting how to get to 40 points for safety - both those comments are a recent phenomenon and they indicate the paucity of the competition. If you enter a competition and stand no chance of winning the thing then, in the end, what is the point?

And that is what West Ham fans are booing, the overall lack of ambition and challenge. Because once the initial excitement of seeing the best players and teams has faded, once reality has set in and you know that the only exciting seasons, the only time when matches really mean anything are when you flirt with relegation, then what is the point?

And if you are David Gold (or even Sam Alladyce) you might think ’well you ungrateful lot. I have kept you in this league so that you can see the best players; or ‘I have invested millions of my own money but I don’t have £100’s of millions to spend, so this is the best we can do. Sorry and all that, but that’s the way it is’.

But it wasn’t always like that. There was a better time when clubs could get promoted from the second tier and win the first tier, or get close; could win cups, or get close; could get into Europe and even win European competitions because those competitions were structured in a way that allowed that to happen. Could Nottingham Forest ever win the premier European competition again? Could Leeds get to finals and win, ever again?

If any of you were to answer positively to either of those questions then you are deluding yourselves.

And once clubs, players, managers - so called football professionals - buy into the ‘the best we can do is mid-table’ routine then so starts, eventually, the fan reaction. Because West Ham fans remember the days of Hurst, Peters and Moore; Forest fans remember European cups; Derby fans remember Mackay and McFarland and Todd (highest transfer fee in the UK in his time. Could Derby ever do that again?); Everton fans remember Kendall. And so on and so forth. Unlike football professionals, fans buy into the history of their club, of winning things, of great players - we don’t want mid table mediocrity. We don’t want ‘just’ to survive. We want competition. We want a chance - a proper chance - to win. And winning is NOT '10th is the best you can do, oh we might have one great season and come 8th, but realistically we were never in with a chance of winning.' Mid table, year after year, is BORING, once the initial excitement has worn off. Sam Alladyce may well be realistic but he's BORING! Fans don’t go to watch the ‘other side’; they go to watch ‘their’ team win and prosper. Just staying up is not success.

And so, why are 5 live culpable?

Well in my view 5live and the BBC generally (as well as the wider media) have bought completely into the status quo. Where are the challenges to Scudamore and his mates? Where is the questioning of the FA? Of UEFA? Of football’s rules and regulations - the really important ones about money and competition and fairness, not whether the ball was over the line? Where are the investigations into foreign owners, the way in which Portsmouth, and Leeds and many others have been run? Why was Ferguson allowed to go for years without giving an interview to the BBC? Why are you not questioning the proposed changes by Platini in the lead up to Qatar that will fundamentally change the way in which football is played in this country? Why do you not challenge FIFA and their systems and processes? Why are fan-unfriendly kick off times, by inclusion, supported by the BBC (you don’t have to cover those matches)? Why do you continue to promulgate the ‘football history only started with the PL’ line - just look at the stats your teams spout in commentary every week? Why is Match of the Day, and Radio 5 live, so in thrall to the PL that other football - and other sports - are largely ignored, or covered when there is little else to cover? Why are the teams you cover almost always those in the top 5 v anyone else? Why are you not challenging the growing inequality of competition in the second tier, of the impact of the changes to academies, of the ever reducing English players in the top division and the impact on the England team or of semi-finals being played at Wembley?

And so on. And the answer? To coin an old phrase, you’re frit the lot of you. Frightened of rocking the PL boat, of upsetting Scudamore, of losing the contract to cover football in the top division, or the FA Cup, or World Cup, or European competition. Of those organisations not spreading their largesse your way and of gaps in the Radio Times. Or, of course, because you have all bought into the line that it is best this way, that actually the PL is the best league in the world, with the best football. Gentlemen, take it from me, there was a time when football was better, when competition was more even, when it wasn’t boring to finish 10th.

So there you go, if indeed any of you actually read this. That’s why West Ham fans were booing; that’s why more fans boo at more matches than ever before. Football has changed and not for the better.

Did you get a reply?

[eddie]

I think they were booing ugly defensive boring football a la sam allardyce.

West ham used to be known for attractive football.

 

I can remember some pretty turgid stuff in the 1980's.

 

In my own defence though, I was saying "Boo-urns".

[ilkleyram]

Did you get a reply?

Not yet. Not expecting one though!

[G STAR RAM]

Having watched West Ham tonight I feel their fans pain!

[ilkleyram]

In terms of spending Derby were the Man City of the early 70s. I think we broke the spending record a few times. So it could be said that we bought success like top clubs do today. We weren't really interesting in developing players. I can only think of Steve Powell coming through the ranks if you can call it that because I don't think he had many games in the reserves.

 

But the games were far more even and more exciting then. Teams like QPR and Ipswich were quite capable of winning the League. On the other hand, you never saw the great goals every week that you do now. I can't think of any exceptional Derby goals in the 60s or 70s.  Apart from a goal scored by someone from Wrexham, or maybe it was Chester, around 1979 I can't think of any great goals at the Baseball Ground hit from far out.

Peter, I can think of plenty of long range shooting at the BBG - Alan Hinton for one was a superb exponent of great goals hit from far out; Bruce Rioch was another; Archie Gemmill could hit a free kick as well as anyone today. And there were others.

But I don't want anyone to think that I don't believe that there aren't really positive elements of football today - the pitches are so much better as is medicine and fitness generally; that players don't play 70 matches a year and sent out 25% fit must be better for them; players were exploited and not rewarded properly (as opposed to being over rewarded nowadays); the balls are lighter and the TV coverage is better - and so on. Indirectly Sky has paid for all those things and others.

But i come back to my fundamental point which is that the overall level of competition is now much less and the league is the worse for it. In Dave Mackay's championship winning year we were something like 7th with about 5 weeks left. We won the league. That couldn't happen today. We all know one of about 4 teams will win the thing on day one.

With all my heart I want us to go up. I would prefer that we went up as champions. But I know that once the initial excitement has worn off a couple of seasons in, when we have a season of struggle because we haven't bought so well, or Steve has moved on and his successor isn't quite as good, that the attraction of finishing 10th at the very best will wane. Boredom will set in. And what's worse is that the Championship is going exactly the same way. It won't be too long before it is PL2

[uttoxram75]

In terms of spending Derby were the Man City of the early 70s. I think we broke the spending record a few times. So it could be said that we bought success like top clubs do today. We weren't really interesting in developing players. I can only think of Steve Powell coming through the ranks if you can call it that because I don't think he had many games in the reserves.

 

But the games were far more even and more exciting then. Teams like QPR and Ipswich were quite capable of winning the League. On the other hand, you never saw the great goals every week that you do now. I can't think of any exceptional Derby goals in the 60s or 70s.  Apart from a goal scored by someone from Wrexham, or maybe it was Chester, around 1979 I can't think of any great goals at the Baseball Ground hit from far out.

May i refer the honourable gentleman to Bruce Rioch and Charlie George.

[petersimple]

I don't think I missed many matches in those days and I really can't remember many great long distance goals at Derby. I can remember Rioch and Hinton nearly breaking the bar with shots, but not many went in from a distance. Charlie George scored great long distance goals at Real Madrid and at Ipswich. The latter was so fast that I think the cameraman missed it. Henry Newton scored a good one against Newcastle in the cup.

 

A Cardiff City fan told me the best goal he ever saw was scored by Gabbiadini but was when he was playing for Northampton at Cardiff. It went in like a bullet from a long way out.

[Perky1106]

Good post here, although long winded.

 

It's a symptom of the Premiership money. £40m a season, money the nPC comes nowhere near to matching means teams are happy to become permanent mid-table teams and not take big risks.

 

Now it's seen as an admirable feat to be an "established Premiership team" like Stoke or WBA even if you never win trophies.

 

But I do feel this season has been positive and the gap has begun to close. The over-achievement of Everton has been a breath of fresh air and it's entirely possible that Liverpool might win the title.

[petersimple]

This thread reminds me of Alan Durban's comment when he was manager of Stoke. After a very defensive display at Arsenal in 0-0 game a journalist asked Durban if that was a bit unfair on the spectators. His reply was : "If they want entertainment then they should go to a circus." That remark got a lot of attention in the papers the next day. 

 

In the 60s Stoke seemed, to me anyway, a good football team. I always looked forward to watching them when they were on the ITV Sunday afternoon game. Tony Waddington used to sign skillful players rather than the bruisers we usually associate with Stoke. I'm thinking of players like Peter Dobing and George Eastham.  I think the Stoke grimness started when they signed Dennis Smith - the player who ruined our 75-76 season.

 

I don't think they get many boos at Stoke even though they don't play the most entertaining football.

[cannable]

I don't think they get many boos at Stoke even though they don't play the most entertaining football.

It did get Pulis the sack though! To be fair, I watched the second half of Stoke - Vill and they scored 2 well worked team goals!