Forums / The Terrace: Casual Footy Banter
Order: Newest / Oldest
Is It Legitimate To Hate On Your Players?
HangTime (Chelsea) 4 years ago
Yes, it is okay to hate on your player(s). I am a Chelsea fan and I am not a fan of many players on the squad. I was a big fan of Drogba. I am a fan of Luiz, Terry, Cole, Essien. I am not a fan of Torres, Sturridge, Bosingwa, Mikel. I like Ramires. I am neutral on Mata, Miereless, Kalou, Malouda, Cahill, Lampard, and everyone else
JestaYNWA (Liverpool) 4 years ago
Its a tricky question. I would like to think that I try not to hate on any Liverpool players but it would be a lie if I said I never have.

The legitimacy of such "hate" (which is probably too strong a word) comes down to the reasoning behind it. For example, I couldn't stand (and still can't) El Hadji Diouf when he was at Liverpool. It wasnt neccessarily performance based, it was mainly his attitude and his well documented incidents of spitting at fans etc. Therefore, in this instance, I feel no guilt about disliking Diouf and wanting him out of the club (and the Premier League entirely).

However, in situations when it is purely performance based then I think, as 'supporters', we do have a responsibility to give a player a fair go before condemning them. Admittedly though, this is made easier when a player is younger and there are some perfect examples in Liverpool's very recent history that I can draw upon.

Over the past season and a half I have witnessed a number of Liverpool players (and managers) come under scrutiny and criticism. The legitimacy of this scrutiny is once again influenced by various factors.

First of all, look at Jordan Henderson and Andy Carroll. Both of these guys were under 23 when signed and both have shown plenty of potential in the Premier League. This is, in my eyes, their saving grace. I do not consider it fair when guys like this this (I'm sure there are plenty of other examples at other clubs) are scapegoated for a bad result. They are still young, developing players who arent going to be as consistent as their more experienced counterparts. Someone like Lucas Leiva is testament to the fact that, if given time and support, a player can establish themselves in a team. It is the size of the price tags attached to Henderson and Carroll though that seem to be justification enough for some to be more scathing in their appraisal of these players, even though the price tag is not the players fault in anyway.

Then we have players like Stewart Downing and Charlie Adam. Players like this are at the supposed "peak" age for professional athletes. They also came to the club on the back of very good Premier League performances. It is these factors that make any sub-par performances even more disappointing. The very fact that they should be able to produce more consistently good efforts is what leaves them open to heavy criticism. That being said though, the very fact that DO have the ability and they're just not showing it regularly is what saves them from complete condemnation and buys them more time to win over the fans.

Which brings us to the third example. Roy Hodgsons two most infamous signings, Christian Poulsen and Paul Konchesky. Both players certainly fit the questionable signings category, Poulsen because of his age and Konchesky because he lacked the reputation of a "quality" player. The "hate" was on these players from the beginning and they needed to produce a level of performance beyond their abilities to win the crowd over. Is this legitimate reasoning though? From a neutral perspective it seems unfair as neither player deliberately set out to play poorly or sabotage the team, they just werent good enough. For the fans though, who are often blinded by passion and a desire for success this a perfectly legitimate reason to criticise the player and the manager who signed him. I myself made plenty of jokes at the expense of Konchesky, something which, if I'm honest, I feel a little bit guilty about.

I think ManOnDMoon was right in saying that "We’ve all seen others doing it, we’ve all done it", its a natural reaction for the passionate supporter. Essentially, what I'm saying is that the "legitimacy" of criticising your own players is determined by a multitude of factors. Each case has to be analysed individually (but the idea of actually "hating" a player is an unpleasant one). Sometimes its fair, sometimes it isn't but it is always a matter of opinion
ManOnDMoon (Manchester City) 4 years ago
We’ve all seen others doing it, we’ve all done it: your team is going through a rough patch or losing some games in a row and one player seems to become the easy scapegoat. The most natural thing to do is to blame a player that was lined up and shouldn’t have been bought by the club in the first place.

That particular defender starts and you panic. I’ll bring up some Man City examples. 1. Lescott had some bad performances earlier on in the season and fans started losing respect for him. 2. The idea of Drogba coming face to face with Savic made me enter a state of agony. 3. And last but not least, Balotelli is a liability and City can’t rely on him to win the title (?)
If you think such trivia is the easy banter of teenagers, then I would have to question why tv pundits, the press and sometimes – disgracefully- team mates and even managers indulge in such childishness.

In the end, I would like to ask: in your own experience, is it ever legitimate to hate on your own players?

Kick4Life - changing lives through football