Homepage Article Tom Davies and the Social Disconnect

[Jamo Martinez]

No, I get it - abuse isn't on, you aren't a supporter if you do as you aren't supporting etc. etc.

But while it's a nice sentiment, I think it's a hop, skip and a jump away from saying any criticism means you aren't a 'supporter'. I think you can 'support' by expecting a certain standard and criticising when they don't make it.



The reason I disagree is because of the above. Where do you draw the line? He uses the example of "<player> is sh*t". Sorry, but that's not abuse - that's an opinion. I think Sigurdsson and Davies have been absolutely sh*t for a long time. I'm not interested in supporting them being sh*t. It's up to them to make the grade. I'm not a mindless cheerleader.



That's what I mean about expecting a standard - that's the purpose and the answer to his question. Do I expect Everton to win every game? No, obviously not - but I expect them to compete at the comparative level they should compete at. If they don't, I can't switch my brain off and happy clap because some millionaires might read a tweet and get their ickle feelings hurt.

No, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of it. Abuse, sure - racial, personal attacks, threats, not on. But criticism, of any kind - no, absolutely not. The article doesn't do enough to separate the two.

No, I get it - abuse isn't on, you aren't a supporter if you do as you aren't supporting etc. etc.

But while it's a nice sentiment, I think it's a hop, skip and a jump away from saying any criticism means you aren't a 'supporter'. I think you can 'support' by expecting a certain standard and criticising when they don't make it.



The reason I disagree is because of the above. Where do you draw the line? He uses the example of "<player> is sh*t". Sorry, but that's not abuse - that's an opinion. I think Sigurdsson and Davies have been absolutely sh*t for a long time. I'm not interested in supporting them being sh*t. It's up to them to make the grade. I'm not a mindless cheerleader.



That's what I mean about expecting a standard - that's the purpose and the answer to his question. Do I expect Everton to win every game? No, obviously not - but I expect them to compete at the comparative level they should compete at. If they don't, I can't switch my brain off and happy clap because some millionaires might read a tweet and get their ickle feelings hurt.

No, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of it. Abuse, sure - racial, personal attacks, threats, not on. But criticism, of any kind - no, absolutely not. The article doesn't do enough to separate the two.

The premise of the article is clearly against abuse not criticism.

If all you’d done was said they’d not played well – even if you’d said they were playing sh*t – they might actually agree with you.

If your tweet was calling them a ****… well, that’s not the same thing, is it?

 

[the sniderman]

buddy are u fond of lawrence fox??

No, he's Katie Hopkins with a penis; a failed actor getting attention off the gullible for profit. Scum.

good answer buddy. proceed to the next level.

 

[Tubey]

The premise of the article is clearly against abuse not criticism.

If all you’d done was said they’d not played well – even if you’d said they were playing sh*t – they might actually agree with you.

If your tweet was calling them a ****… well, that’s not the same thing, is it?

It's not though. Contradicts throughout.

But even world class players can have bad patches, which unfortunately leads some people to insist said player is now sh*t and should be sold immediately, etc.

That’s not support.

And even if it was true, what is being achieved by posting it?

You will find much more hideous examples in reality, but for the purposes of this we will simplify it to ‘x player is sh*t’.

What is its purpose? Other than a detrimental one, what effect is it going to have on someone you supposedly support?

That's actually my point - they haven't drawn the line effectively enough, and using "you're sh*t" as an example highlights that.

Take it to its' logical endpoint - if you're saying someone should be sold makes you not a supporter, then the "James McCarthy is family" principle conversely applies for a 'true' supporter - we should never sell any players and instead we should support them with all our might to make them better. Cheer them on, clap even harder for Niasse!

Sorry, but no. He asked several questions - "what is to be achieved by posting it?", "what is its purpose" - that's the answer; expecting a standard. Expecting the club to try to compete to the very best level it can, with personnel who can do the job at elite level. If the club isn't arsed, why should I be? It's a two way street - it's not up to the fans to pretend players are good enough, it's up to the players to prove they are good enough. If they aren't, criticism - sometimes strong criticism - will correctly come their way.

 

[Jamo Martinez]

It's not though. Contradicts throughout.





That's actually my point - they haven't drawn the line effectively enough, and using "you're sh*t" as an example highlights that.

Take it to its' logical endpoint - if you're saying someone should be sold makes you not a supporter, then the "James McCarthy is family" principle conversely applies for a 'true' supporter - we should never sell any players and instead we should support them with all our might to make them better. Cheer them on, clap even harder for Niasse!

Sorry, but no. He asked several questions - "what is to be achieved by posting it?", "what is its purpose" - that's the answer; expecting a standard. Expecting the club to try to compete to the very best level it can, with personnel who can do the job at elite level. If the club isn't arsed, why should I be? It's a two way street - it's not up to the fans to pretend players are good enough, it's up to the players to prove they are good enough. If they aren't, criticism - sometimes strong criticism - will correctly come their way.

I must admit, I do find the definitions of 'fan' and 'supporter' a little too literally based on etymology tbf. ie fan=fanatic and supporter=supportive However, the general gist/point of the article is clearly about drawing a line between criticism and abuse Nobody else has taken it to mean you can't criticise players. And criticising without abusing players is not the same as pretending they are good enough.

There are plenty of ways to voice displeasure at performance levels and express your expectations of players and the club without resorting to abuse.

 

[TimHowardsBeardJuice]

I think it's also a symptom of the gulf between reality of life between fans and players. When players used to be paid well, but no well that they'd never have to work again, they lived in a sort of attainable bubble - and their lifestyles wasn't so different from the fans. After retiring many would not be able to sustain the glamorous lifestyles and often have to ultimately settle for a more modest living, a nice house and car but nothing ridiculously flash. When those players made mistakes they were given more leeway because there was a stronger link with the fanbase and they were just seen as normal people. By elevating players to superstar level and the gulf in lifestyles between players and fans meaning that each can't relate to the other anymore then it's easier for adulation to turn to derision and worse. Then there's a perception of lack of commitment to the cause, lack of fight and passion for the club, simply because players are so well paid they don't have to worry about paying the mortgage next year. That they haven't got the motivation to give everything they've got because the consequences of not playing well are not that disastrous. I'm not saying this is right btw, just saying that the division between players and fans is exacerbated by the superstar status, ridiculous wages and the lack of common ground that players and fans used to have.

eithout disagreeing with your basic premise, how does this play out re: Tom Davies, who grew up in the same town as the fans, went to the club’s academy, seems like a guy who loves the club and the city, and is still often seen walking about town and interacting with folks in a way that other players don’t - but has lifestyle elements (thinking mostly about the clothes) that are wayyy different than the man on the street and show that he’s in a different stratosphere of wealth?

Its an interesting case.

Could that be behind some of the harsh fan treatment? ? A “who does he think he is?” kind of thing?

 

[truebluejersey]

If I had just played and did not perform well I would except/accept being told I had not had a good game. That would be an opinion on your performance which I suspect most mature people could except. Calling people a c/(t or making remarks like you’re s!’t is questioning their character and purely designed to belittle/emotionally suppress that person. That is the difference. I’m not a happy clapper just because I don’t give dogs abuse to someone. I don’t believe any player goes out deliberately to play bad. I also think we are all free to wear what ever clothes we wish to wear, within reason. This is not Beijing.

 

[degsy]

Great article, I only hope the abusive fans understand it and change their ways.

Not the sort of thing most of the targets would ever read, but still needed saying and if it makes just one give his head a wobble, then its done the job.

You see what you want to see sometimes, anybody else glance and think - cool, Tom Davies writing for GOT.

 

[windymiller]

....i suspect with the advent of social media, this is more a modern day phenomenon. Saying that, it’s lots to do with life’s values & more specifically how you treat people.

We love our footy and we are passionate about our footy. I‘ve never been of a view that fans should blindly support the individuals in their team, it’s a game of opinion and it’s perfectly reasonable to rate them & provide reasoning why. What is not perfectly reasonable is to verbally abuse a footballer.

It's not a modern phenomenon, although it is much more visible as a problem. I had a season ticket in the nineties (sadly, I now live too far away from Liverpool and so haven't had one in many years) in the Lower Bullens. There was a middle-aged man who sat a couple of rows behind me who absolutely loathed Earl Barrett, not a great player, I wasn't keen on him myself tbh, however this fella used to shout and scream all sorts of horrible crap at him all game long which went way over the line, it was particularly bad when he was taking throw ins and there was no way Barrett didn't hear it. Nobody, I'm ashamed to say myself included (the only thing I can say in my defense is that I was a teenager and considerably smaller than this bloke) said anything to shut this moron up. Nowadays, this fella would likely be saying heinous stuff every day on the socials and so more people might be exposed to it, so in that sense it has given them a platform, but they've always been about.

 

[bicycleheader]

Somebody less lazy than I could copy and paste into this thread the abusive posts coming up on Sunday when we are 1-0 down at half time

 

[Martin Alvito]

The premise of the article is clearly against abuse not criticism.

If all you’d done was said they’d not played well – even if you’d said they were playing sh*t – they might actually agree with you.

If your tweet was calling them a ****… well, that’s not the same thing, is it?

I don't agree with your interpretation of the article. Yes, the author repeatedly states that he's talking about abuse...but he also repeatedly hammers home that supporters are supposed to support. If what he meant was simply, "Don't be toxic, and don't tolerate it" as you're claiming, the notion that "Supporters support" wouldn't need to be restated repeatedly. That restatement undermines the passage you've cited.

Having "Nil satis nisi optimum" as a motto implies that the standard not being met is fair game as a topic of discussion, as is how individual supporters believe the club should proceed to meet that standard. I would agree with the author that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about having those conversations. I would not agree with the author's clear claim that declarative statements that a player is just not good enough are out of bounds.

The answer to the author's question, "How is this different than your kid's game?" is straightforward enough. "Nil satis nisi optimum" is not the standard, nor would it be reasonable to expect that of kids. Here, we are discussing professional soccer at the absolute highest level. The standard is explicitly different.

In a sense, the premise of the article is misguided because the worst purveyors of toxicity cannot be reached. They want attention, good or bad, and have learned that being a provocateur is a good way to accomplish that objective. Appealing to their sense of decency isn't going to work. They don't have one and, if they are going to discover it, that will happen in its own time.

If the author's point was that this club deserves the best fans, and that we should all have the courage to take a stand against the worst excesses of fans, I would agree. I will freely cop to failing to call out some of those excesses. I think we have to be careful about how we go about doing that, because derision and shame are attention and the proper response is to single those provocateurs out for not being heard going forward.

All of that with respect to our obligations to the club is a two-way street, though. To be direct, the club is recovering from a long period where it was not living up to its motto. We now have a manager that undeniably meets the standard, and who is working towards bringing the club back in line with its stated objectives. He, and the players that are in line with that vision, merit our patience and support.

 

[aglee]

eithout disagreeing with your basic premise, how does this play out re: Tom Davies, who grew up in the same town as the fans, went to the club’s academy, seems like a guy who loves the club and the city, and is still often seen walking about town and interacting with folks in a way that other players don’t - but has lifestyle elements (thinking mostly about the clothes) that are wayyy different than the man on the street and show that he’s in a different stratosphere of wealth?

Its an interesting case.

Could that be behind some of the harsh fan treatment? ? A “who does he think he is?” kind of thing?

Well I'm not saying that's the mechanics of how it works in each case - I'm more saying it's how the mindset of fans towards players in general has turned over time, so no I don't think it's "who does he think he is", I think it's a consequence of fans not seeing players as 'one of us' - and even local lads can be included in that. If we've elevated professional footballers to superstar status - showered them with riches and placed them on a pedestal far above mortal man then when they don't perform like superstars we'll mercilessly cast them down again. It's not right or fair but it is a mirror of exactly what our media does to players - remember England players getting crucified in the press before Euro 96 - the dentists chair incident etc, then hailed as heroes after the Netherlands game. The press raise up footballers as gods and then vilify them and with social media we've learned to be our own press. The superstar lifestyles just make it easier to distance ourselves from them so we can idolise or castigate them without a normal level of objectiveness and decency we would normally apply to our fellow human beings.

 

[Prevenger17]

@ForeverBlue92 have you read this mate?

 

[Jamo Martinez]

I don't agree with your interpretation of the article. Yes, the author repeatedly states that he's talking about abuse...but he also repeatedly hammers home that supporters are supposed to support. If what he meant was simply, "Don't be toxic, and don't tolerate it" as you're claiming, the notion that "Supporters support" wouldn't need to be restated repeatedly. That restatement undermines the passage you've cited.

Having "Nil satis nisi optimum" as a motto implies that the standard not being met is fair game as a topic of discussion, as is how individual supporters believe the club should proceed to meet that standard. I would agree with the author that there's a right way and a wrong way to go about having those conversations. I would not agree with the author's clear claim that declarative statements that a player is just not good enough are out of bounds.

The answer to the author's question, "How is this different than your kid's game?" is straightforward enough. "Nil satis nisi optimum" is not the standard, nor would it be reasonable to expect that of kids. Here, we are discussing professional soccer at the absolute highest level. The standard is explicitly different.

In a sense, the premise of the article is misguided because the worst purveyors of toxicity cannot be reached. They want attention, good or bad, and have learned that being a provocateur is a good way to accomplish that objective. Appealing to their sense of decency isn't going to work. They don't have one and, if they are going to discover it, that will happen in its own time.

If the author's point was that this club deserves the best fans, and that we should all have the courage to take a stand against the worst excesses of fans, I would agree. I will freely cop to failing to call out some of those excesses. I think we have to be careful about how we go about doing that, because derision and shame are attention and the proper response is to single those provocateurs out for not being heard going forward.

All of that with respect to our obligations to the club is a two-way street, though. To be direct, the club is recovering from a long period where it was not living up to its motto. We now have a manager that undeniably meets the standard, and who is working towards bringing the club back in line with its stated objectives. He, and the players that are in line with that vision, merit our patience and support.

I do say in a later post that I'm not comfortable with the definitions of 'fan' and 'supporter' in a very etymological sense and yes, he does restate that notion throughout the article.

I suppose it boils down to what jumps out of the page at you on first reading. It felt to me, like the majority of readers, that despite the reiteration of the idea that 'supporters support', the main point was that criticism is one thing, abuse is another.

You're right that it is misguided as the worst perpetrators will always justify their actions.

It's also naive to ask what is the purpose. I'm sure that most of these people have no pretentions of changing club policy by using nasty words on social media. They simply vent their frustrations in a beastly, brutish manner.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

@ForeverBlue92 have you read this mate?

Some of the abuse you see online is scandalous particularly when its racist/threatening.

I've called certain players garbage and will continue to do so if their performances deem so.

For 50k a week you could throw tomatoes at my front door for all I would care

 

[Terrarian]

Toxic environment online. People are horrible under cover of anonymity. Behaviour of people when they think they can't be caught is shocking.