Negative supporters

[Howe Magic]

Its so funny when we win a match all the moaning people seem to disappear off this board,maybe they go on another teams boards winding them up. To be honest i dont even think these people support any club but just go on message boards causing trouble between proper fans of these message boards - i for one am sick of these people just wish they could find something else to do,maybe now the schools are back they will not bother coming on here - or is that just wishful thinking .....

[The Marksman]

I actually find it refreshing to get a different perspective. I don't always agree with the negativity but equally I don't always agree with the positivity either. What's wrong with allowing debate?

One thing Negative Ned certainly does is stimulate debate. I wouldn't be surprised if he's an alter-ego of a regular on this board creating mischief

[Number 1]

Everyone has a right to air their views both positive and negative. It's just the way of the world (or certainly this country) that the negative is usually more prominent that the positive. For example, do you go into a shop and tell them how good the product was you bought, or how good the service was? By the same token, if the item wasn't good, or the service wasn't good, you'd complain wouldn't you?

Same thing really. People are always quick to complain, but if somethings good, they keep quiet.

[The Fury]

Everyone has a right to air their views both positive and negative. It's just the way of the world (or certainly this country) that the negative is usually more prominent that the positive. For example, do you go into a shop and tell them how good the product was you bought, or how good the service was? By the same token, if the item wasn't good, or the service wasn't good, you'd complain wouldn't you?

Same thing really. People are always quick to complain, but if somethings good, they keep quiet.

Absolutely. It's also, in my view, a silly assumption to make that just because the flaws of something are being analysed that is then classed as 'being negative'.

[North Stand Shrimp]

What a silly post.

Most of the negativity was because we were playing badly and Sammy wasn't picking his best side due to back room disagreements.

On Saturday we played well and Sammy made full use of his squad after settling some differences. So you will find that the board is alot less negative now, just because they are not posting doesn't mean they are not still browsing though

Maybe the people who were on here last week moaning are now on the F1 forums moaning about Lewis Hamilton being striped of his Belgian title!

[marky]

I find these posts highly annoying, but funny at the same. By complaining about people being negative, you are being negative yourself

[Raeyes]

Right, here we go.

What really annoys me, is peoples sheer blindness when it comes to performances of the team and how judgment can be clouded by a result (deserved or not). I've gone over it time and time again in my head trying to ascertain reasoning's behind this, and I can only conclude that it just boils down to pure old fashioned stupidity. The sort of stupidity that from game to game has beliefs from some posters/soap boxers on here suggesting that we're the worst team on the planet when we lose, to the best thing since sliced bread when we win. It's crazy. This sort of attitude is apparent at every club, but we are not every club and it doesn't mean it has to happen here. We are not Manchester United. We will not win every game. Open your eyes.

I can't remember who said it on another thread (shrimper?) but I completely agree with them; we played no better or worse against Shrewsbury than we had in our two previous league games against Dagenham and Bury, yet the mood is markedly different. The only difference between all three games was that on Saturday we got a deserved victory. I'm not a tree hugger thinking everything is a bed of roses, or being derogatory to those who allow themselves to get carried away with emotion (well sort of not anyway). But please, let's have some realism about the team. The people who are readily heaping the praise on the side after Saturday should have been doing so after the Bury game.

Now, where's that soap box. Sorry for my Bryan sounding post, I had thought about starting my own thread but that would have been too much.

Keep the faith

[HALMA 1983]

I couldn't heap praise on the team after the Bury game because I wasn't there but I was at the Rotherham home game and did post on how dire, terrible, poor or what ever else you'd like to call it, the team was all over the place, totally disjointed and not helped by the off field disagreements that had weakened the side put out.
Last Saturday was a completely different matter and it showed and the fact that most haven't posted anything but praise speaks volumes, the team was set up right with the correct players to get the result needed and even if they'd failed i'm sure most would have taken it on the chin because the players gave their all and folk went home knowing they'd been highly entertained but by the same token I’d also encourage anybody to speak out when it's not good (if it clearly isn't) to do so rather than say nothing and it never be put right, if that's being negative then so be it.
For all we know Sammy could possibly have been swayed by popular demand to let players 'out in the cold' back in and to drop those who needed dropping or was it just desperation? atleast one thing was improved by doing so and that was the result.

[marky No.1]

Sammy did state on Radio Lancs last night that he had looked at the new players over the pre-season and the first few games in various positions to see if they were as good/better than what we already had. He mentioned "people" were impatient and wanted quick results. I think as said on another post his time in the stand watching the Dagenham game was the ultimate deciding factor to his team selection against Shrewsbury and this very much paid off on Saturday.
I wonder if when D.A. is fit will he be able to walk back into the team

[Keith]

________________________________________________________________________


A large group of posters will only ever post positive stuff and will stay
quiet when things go bad.


________________________________________________________________________





The majority will post positive & negative stuff, although their defenition of 'positive' &
negative may vary from individual to individual.




________________________________________________________________________
A minority of people will only post negative and rarely, if ever, post positively.
________________________________________________________________________


The thing is, we all notive the negative postings, in particular from those who rarely, if ever, balance those comments with positives. That doesn't mean that they should be silenced or aren't entitled to express their point of view, but it does mean that the comments should be taken in the context of someone who only ever sees the negatives.

Personally, I'm more of a positive, glass half full person. A friend of mine is a glass half empty person. We recently went to the Ulster GP (the weekend of the huge flooding in Belfast). On the Friday we went for a ride along the coast road to the Giant's Causway. The coast road is FANTASTIC! Beautiful scenery, wide sweeping bends, little traffic... stunning. It was the only time the sun shone in the whole time we were there. By the time we arrived at the Causway, the rain was back and the ride back to Belfast was in torrential rain, with poor visability. The main thing my friend remembers about the ride was the appaling conditions, the main thing I remember is the fantastic coast road that is now one of my favourite roads anywhere. We were both on the same run but we 'noticed' totally different things. It doesn't mean his opinion of the day is wrong or that he is any less a motorbike fan, it's just that he experiences the world through a different set of values to me. I'm sure I prefer to remember the sun, not the rain... but does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to talk about the rain if that's what is important to him?

Let the negative comments from the minority flow... then the majority can remind those posters of all the positives that they are missing!

[badger]

These negative supporters need to get some prozac from there doctor.

[HALMA 1983]

He mentioned "people" were impatient and wanted quick results.
I wonder if when D.A. is fit will he be able to walk back into the team

I don't go for that in the slightest, all football fans want is to be entertained and that's what you pay your money for WIN or LOSE, if you go away feeling shortchanged then you have to expect some flak just as the manager and the players love taking the pludits when things are going good.

I like Danny adams (last season anyway) but I wouldn't let him or Blinkhorn back into the side now until both can prove their worth, WHY change a WINNING team?

[marky]

The only time a winning team should ever be changed is when there's an injury, players are starting to get tired or someone new (and better) joins the club. As far as I'm aware, none of the starters from Saturday have picked up an injury. It's so early in the season that the middle one shouldn't be a factor (I'd be very concerned if it was). However, should this new lad come from Plymouth, then it's likely Curtis will lose his place.

[slackAlice]

The only time a winning team should ever be changed is when there's an injury, players are starting to get tired or someone new (and better) joins the club. As far as I'm aware, none of the starters from Saturday have picked up an injury. It's so early in the season that the middle one shouldn't be a factor (I'd be very concerned if it was). However, should this new lad come from Plymouth, then it's likely Curtis will lose his place.

I'd agree with most of that marky , its a bit of a juggling act isn't it. Sammy will want to keep the momentum now and go at Barnet and get another 3 points. But I suspect he'll tweak one or two things here and there -he'll have a strong bench no doubt. Will Stanners start ? I think your right about Curtis - he'll be a sub and Sammy will have a good look at this new lad.

The thing with us now is it's a long season and we don't have say Cup games where we would field a weak team to try a few things out -the side against Oldham was a strong team, and although I take your point they shouldn't be tired , its picking up injuries that can prove a problem. He'll [Sammy] probably hope we cruise into a 3-0 lead at Barnet and then bring some of the week in -week out lads off.

[shrimper]

I couldn't heap praise on the team after the Bury game because I wasn't there but I was at the Rotherham home game and did post on how dire, terrible, poor or what ever else you'd like to call it, the team was all over the place, totally disjointed and not helped by the off field disagreements that had weakened the side put out.
Last Saturday was a completely different matter .......

For all we know Sammy could possibly have been swayed by popular demand to let players 'out in the cold' back in and to drop those who needed dropping or was it just desperation? atleast one thing was improved by doing so and that was the result.

I think, Ade, that if the Bury and Daggers performances had followed the same pattern as the Rotherham one, then we'd be having a different debate. Those were two games in between Rotherham and Saturday when, in my opinion, we were - barring a couple of bad mistakes here and a bit of bad luck there - not far from getting two good results and certainly deserving of better.

Had we done so, our start to the season would have looked completely different and I think that's what Raeyes means when he implies people sometimes judge our whole team, squad, manager etc on the basis of some pretty flimsy and very temporary evidence (one or two poor games, a couple of bad results and all of a sudden we'll be 'lucky to avoid relegation' etc.

And, on Sammy changing his team about because of 'popular demand' - I don't buy it.
But he is a manager with good footballing knowledge and, quite naturally, what he does by way of team selection, will sometimes tally with what fans, with their knowledge, would also have done.

There are plenty of other times when he makes a decision that we, as fans, maybe wouldn't have thought of that also prove to be successful - but which pass without much comment.

Having said all that, on the original message, I'm one of those who never minds 'negative' posts - as long as they aren't abusive and are backed by some sort of reasoning (however much I might disagree with the opinions). Ned is one of those I always read.

I very rarely agree with him but that's for me to debate with my own reasoning. It would be a very boring board if we all thought the same.

[Sabes]

I have to disagree with Shrimper I think that Stanley was brought back into the squad due to popular demand and it is my opinion (albeit one you are more than welcome to disagree with) that it was a PR stunt to appease the fans who had a focal point for their dissatisfaction in how the team were playing. Stanners has no real impact in the team when drummy is playing. My only real concern is that he keeps a winning team and doesn't refert to the old favourites Adams et al. The continued absence of Twissy, the only genuine game changing player we have in the squad baffles me, however (when he is playing just behind the have main striker). I agree that he can no longer be effective for a full 90mins but not even having him on the bench is just short sighted, if the lad lacks confidence involve him in the first team and make him feel wanted, we have no one better and blinkorn is not a patch.

[Skid]

Can I just ask, why do people keep referring to the likes of Adams as 'old favourites'? He was one of our star performers last year and picked up how many awards at the presentation do?

[Raeyes]

Go and play on the M6 Skid

[Posh]

I can see the point regarding Dagenham game v Shrewsbury game. However to say there was little or no difference between the two performances is incorrect in my view. Firstly Shrewsbury seemed a much better side, stronger, fitter and more organised, if frustrated by how we played against them.

Our defence performed similarly bar the mistakes. However in midfield we were much better with a willingness to try and play football on the ground where possible. Even the defence played balls out from the back occasionally rather than hoofing it up the park because they seemed to have more confidence in the players in front of them. Up front Diarmuid and Rene were trying to run into channels and seek out space again because they expected more from the players behind them to play balls into them rather than receiving long high balls.

Our midfield makes us tick. They can help protect at the back and help deliver up front. On Saturday they were keen to apply themselves to both (Wayne's bulldozer tackling and Drummy's pass for the goal showed it) against Dagenham they were largely bypassed, didn't support at the back and bar the odd run from Wayne and Wainers did little to help deliver up front.

[campdave]

Being Northern Irish, and "priviledged" enough to watch some of the football we played under Sammy (2 years without scoring), I'd say he's pretty thick skinned, and personally, think anyone who thinks he takes any notice what the fans are saying about who should or shouldn't play needs their head examined.

[Phoenix]

maybe they go on another teams boards winding them up

I thought they went off to write articles whinging in the programme

Only kidding Quinny, ockers, et al.

[bigreddog]

where's my article by the way ockers? wasn't it negative enough?

[shrimper]

I can see the point regarding Dagenham game v Shrewsbury game. However to say there was little or no difference between the two performances is incorrect in my view. Firstly Shrewsbury seemed a much better side, stronger, fitter and more organised, if frustrated by how we played against them.

Our defence performed similarly bar the mistakes. However in midfield we were much better with a willingness to try and play football on the ground where possible. Even the defence played balls out from the back occasionally rather than hoofing it up the park because they seemed to have more confidence in the players in front of them. Up front Diarmuid and Rene were trying to run into channels and seek out space again because they expected more from the players behind them to play balls into them rather than receiving long high balls.

Our midfield makes us tick. They can help protect at the back and help deliver up front. On Saturday they were keen to apply themselves to both (Wayne's bulldozer tackling and Drummy's pass for the goal showed it) against Dagenham they were largely bypassed, didn't support at the back and bar the odd run from Wayne and Wainers did little to help deliver up front.

We're pretty much saying the same things but just interpreting them differently. I don't think there was a massive difference in 'overall' performance in the three games. By that I'm trying, really, to give credit for the effort against Bury and Daggers, not downplay what we did on Saturday. In all three we had a lot of possession and created quite a few chances and, had we not been punished for the mistakes against Bury and Daggers, neither of those opponents could claim 'daylight robbery' if we'd sneaked a draw or a win.

We made a couple of defensive mistakes on Saturday as well (one where Bents and Roche got tangled up, another when Roche didn't come to clear a ball until dangerously late and their lad nearly got in). If we'd been punished for those then I think, again, we'd have been saying 'deserved better but can't keep making silly mistakes'.

Where I do 100% agree is that the 'difference' was in a very crucial area - central midfield - and that contributed to a happier feel and better shape in the side which I hope we can now develop and use to go on a good run of results (and I think we will).

On Stanners, I still maintain that the fans' opinions merely reflect what anyone with a footballing brain could see as obvious. I don't accept that our opinions actually made Sammy make a decision re-Stanners that he wouldn't have made anyway and, again, I think we flatter ourselves if we ever believe that.

Sammy tried to get Stanners out on loan. He also tried to sign one or two players in his position. While all that was going on and the transfer deadline loomed he saw Carr not doing what he'd been brought in to do (and I hope he can at a later stage) and, weighing all that up, he thought "this is daft - I'm trying all these things when I've got a player here who I know can do a job for us. Time to have a word and see if we can sort this thing out".
I don't think it was PR, just good, footballing management.

He's done it, Stanners has responded in the way Sammy and we all wanted him to and that's that. Great to have him back on board and I reckon, if he's fully fit, he may even start on Saturday.