• Front Page » Good supporter/bad supporter debate part three

last year, at the end of September

Good supporter/bad supporter debate part three

To the anger of some, Roland and Michael have stated their views on the message board culture and ‘Plan B’ argument on BfB this week; but if you don’t mind, I’ll add mine too.

Firstly I’ll say that I like message boards and their ideals. I’m a highly irregular poster myself, choosing only to chip in to respond to an opinion which particularly riles me or to join in with some banter (during the summer someone found a link to a porn film where the male star’s surname was Daley, and joked this was why our Omar was struggling for fitness – so I replied asking what the poster was doing to lead to him stumbling across this film). I do enjoy reading the boards though, and find the topics of conversation interesting and, sometimes, enlightening.

I can see why people participate in them, as talking about City as much as we’d like isn’t always possible with our loved ones; as we’d drive them round the bend and they are unlikely to say anything meaningful back. So I read threads from City’s Official Message Board a couple of times a week and enjoy some of the topics. Like being on your own on a train and listening to a group of friends nearby hold an interesting and funny conversation; I hope the participants continue speaking at a level I can hear and don’t notice I’m there.

But message boards do have their flaws too. I dislike the fact people don’t post under their real name. I appreciate it’s a culture that goes beyond Bradford City and to the wider world wide web, but it takes away accountability and gives the user licence to write statements they don’t have to back up with their own John Hancock. If you have conviction over your views, why hide behind an alias? Even though the people reading wouldn’t know who you are, it’s harder to write Stuart McCall is a muppet using your real name.

And yes, I should point out that I am no better. I have my own alias for the rare times I post. Once upon a time I did use my real name, but it had been recognised from appearing next to articles on here and I was soon receiving abusive responses and been asked where my mate Roland was.

The other problem I have, which Roland was getting at in his piece, is the lack of balance message boards have. There are many who’ll routinely post comments on them and make good points in victory or defeat, but when the latter occurs the amount of posts dramatically increases as several others join in, usually to criticise players and/or management. After the Bournemouth defeat I was glad I was straight out for the night with friends and wouldn’t have the opportunity to go online until Sunday evening, sure enough there was a higher number of posts than usual and a lot of it stinging criticism.

Look at the history of posts from a participant starting off the ‘McCall is useless’ thread, as you can do on the Official Message Board, and more often it’s their first post in weeks and months – probably since the last time they were angry with a City defeat. Where are these people when things go right and Stuart isn’t ‘useless’? This is where message boards lose perspective.

It’s a wider mentality though, if City win many of us will sit there content and go home in good spirits, lose and we’re moaning loudly and often booing and this kind of tone is continued in pub conversations after the game, to work mates on a Monday morning, oh and I’m still not satisfied that enough people have been told what went wrong, let’s go onto the message board…

My final irritation with message boards is the lack of argument those who criticise make. If you’re going to tell the rest of us Daley is rubbish and Paul Arnison isn’t up to it, at least explain why. It’s this last issue which has so riled Michael and Roland this week and, while no one disputes the right of others to hold a different opinion, failure to back it up with reasoning means it lacks credibility.

So we have some saying Stuart has no Plan B and that is why we lost, then when it’s argued by others that we did and it involved taking Graeme Lee off and bringing on Barry Conlon we’re then told it was a stupid plan and our manager is tactically naive.

My personal view is did we need a Plan B anyway? If we have conviction to play a certain way and players of sufficient ability to do so, why not stick to those principles to force our way back? I’m not saying don’t make substitutions or slight tweaks, but was there a need to launch long balls into the box with 20 minutes to go, instead of the passing game we favour in home games at least? Sure with five minutes to go launch the ball into the box, but for how disappointing Saturday’s defeat was we could easily have pulled a goal back minutes after Bournemouth had gone 3-1 up through playing the way we like, then it would have been game on.

That sort of conviction, to trust in your players and believe in the way you want to play, might not be something City can possess for sometime. I don’t know yet if our players are good enough, relative to this division, to beat most of others by playing better football - but I hope they can prove they are. Looking back to our last promotion 10 years ago I can recall only very occasions when manager Paul Jewell changed tactics in a game, even if we were trailing. Sure, players should be switched and if the opposition, like Bournemouth, are tactically beating you make alterations, but I hope that one day ‘Plan B’ will only be used in extreme circumstances.

Just over a year into the job, I still feel unsure about Stuart as our manager. Not in a sense that I don’t think he’s good enough – I can see with my own eyes the progress he’s made – but that, by being our manager, we have a legend who was and still is worshipped by most of us but with whom it is now acceptable to slag off and label ‘tactically naive’. I don’t think he’s above criticism and I think he’s made mistakes – though I fail to see why people are surprised and angry when he does given he’s managed a football team for barely 50 games – yet he’s a legend who’s given so much to this club and some of our supporters lack respect for it.

Win on Saturday and the arguments die down (until the next defeat) and those who’ve slagged off Stuart will say nothing. No offence to the people who run them, but I hope all City-related message boards stay relatively quiet between now and May because it will mean we’re having a good season.

4 Responses to “Good supporter/bad supporter debate part three”

  1. Wayne Says:

    Now this is a subject that, like Jason, makes my blood boil. On Saturday, immediately after the whistle, I watched in horror as a ‘City fan’ called out to Heckingbottom. He shouted, “You’re a f#cking disgrace Heckingbottom. I hope you aren’t going to pick up your wages for that s#ite performance.” Why he had picked out the full back to have a go at amazes me. Daley did not support his full back and twice during the game, crosses were made from their right-hand side. However, both crosses should have been comfortably defended against by our centre backs. Unfortunately, they too were having an off game and they managed to score with both chances. Did this man have a verbal attack on Lee or Clarke? No, he didn’t. Heckingbottom was the easy target, just as Colbeck and Daley were last season.

    I often post on the Telegraph & Argus website and get so angry and frustrated that ’so-called’ City fans are abusing our players and management team. On what grounds do they feel he need to do this. They don’t know what happens during the week, yet all we hear is, “Sack Jacobs. He is rubbish and hasn’t got a clue.” Where do they get that piece of wisdom from?

    Just the other weekend, a section of the crowd booed our team off at half time against Exeter. We hadn’t been playing poorly, just not making the decisive pass or cross. At the end of the game, where were those people who had been booing just 60 minutes earlier?

    I understand what you are saying Jason. Regrettably, we have to live in a World where we have ‘fickle’ fans…. or should that be ‘thick’ fans!

  2. Mark Williams Says:

    One reason why i always visit the BfB site is because the posters all have to put their real names - it does asdd more substance to the debates and the boo boys and duff critics rarely appear for some reason? lol

    I must admit I am a regular user of the C & Banter board under another name and really enjoy the drivel and humour over the years - I’ve made some good friends along the way and try not to take anything too seriously.

    McCall has done a good job so far and you can see the result on and off the field (with financial backing from the Directors) - we look more professional and the results are starting to come.

    I have promised to bare my backside on camera if we fail to win the division this season - just how much more confient can you be?

  3. Bantamtills (Alias) Says:

    The whole essence of this post can be summed up simply:It is called “human nature.”

    I cannot understand why you have a problem with the fact that when our team are loosing/playing below their best, supporters are quick to jump on the “easy target,” be it a left or right back, winger, striker or member of the management team. It’s “human nature.”

    For a lot of us, winning a game of football on a Saturday afternoon in Bradford is all there is. Not all of us have the ability/maturity/inclination to keep schtum when things are going against us. We need to aportion blame. We need to be able to reason why and to put a label on it. “Human nature.”

    As for an Alias on a message board, perhaps just another bit of escapism from what for the majority
    is a mundane day to day existance? It’s “human nature” isnt it?

  4. Wayne Says:

    What rubbish Bantamtills. You may want to pick on an ‘easy target’ and class that as ‘human nature’, but I just feel it is cowardice.

    Why is it ‘human nature’ to attack another human for simply trying his hardest to do his job? Do you see the same people posting positive comments when we play well and win? The answer is a resounding NO.

    When I post messages about ‘my club’, I do so with a purpose of trying to remain positive. What is there to gain by posting negative remarks. The players probably won’t read them anyway! If a player or a team put in an abject performance, they need your support not criticism, if they are to bounce back.

    Don’t get me wrong. If we play poorly and get beat, I am as upset and angry as the rest of our fans. I just don’t see the point in verbally attacking OUR players!

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

BfB does not post all comments and those it does post are moderated and are not put on the site until they are approved.

Comments will only be approved if they are attached to a real name and email address (which we will never share with anyone) makes an interesting point about the issues raised in the article or report it appears with.

We want you to express opinions but this is not the OMB and never will be so backbiting, flaming, tongue lashing, needless meanness and general bad behaviour will not get onto this site.

It is how we make sure BfB stays good.

Next/Previous