Didsbury Dave said:SWP's back said:Not the worst but we could be better. Or is not being the worst ok for for? Are you not the worst boyfriend/husband?
Football fans as a whole are largely the same. There is no group identity.
Our fans were happy to grab the tag of "best fans in the world" in the 90s, largely because we had nothing else to hold on to. We werent the best then and we aren't the worst now.
There is no best or worst, fans are just fans, a group of disparate people who support a club in their own way.
SWP's back said:Didsbury Dave said:Football fans as a whole are largely the same. There is no group identity.
Our fans were happy to grab the tag of "best fans in the world" in the 90s, largely because we had nothing else to hold on to. We werent the best then and we aren't the worst now.
There is no best or worst, fans are just fans, a group of disparate people who support a club in their own way.
I think Stoke are the best (so long as they have just scored).
Didsbury Dave said:SWP's back said:I think Stoke are the best (so long as they have just scored).
There are no "best". And there are no worst.
awest said:Just a week after Roberto Mancini’s name was chanted vociferously by City fans as their team cruised past West Brom at The Hawthorns, City’s manager was the target for abuse as his team stumbled to a 0-0 home draw with Birmingham.
I know City’s fans have proved themselves loyal over the years. The 30,000 plus attendances at Maine Road when they were down amongst the dead men in the third tier just over a decade ago, were proof of that. That, after 34 years of abject failure, City are still the third-best supported club in the country is remarkable.
But do the drongos who gave Mancini dog’s abuse on Saturday have the faintest idea what their kneejerk, idiotic barracking does to players and managers? City are still comfortably fourth and their previously leaky defence is looking much better. Mancini understands you have to get the foundations right. He may be a tad conservative but City fans should give him a whole season before judging him, not just 13 games.
Those City fans who booed him and the team are infantile morons who want it all and want it now and they’re a substantial reason why City have failed over the years. Contrary to what some might think, money hasn’t changed them – they’ve been idiots through thick and thin. City have a sizeable minority of fans who know absolutely nothing about football. They’d be better off heading across town to Old Trafford where they’d be among their kind.
City as sure as hell don’t need them.
danburge82 said:awest said:Just a week after Roberto Mancini’s name was chanted vociferously by City fans as their team cruised past West Brom at The Hawthorns, City’s manager was the target for abuse as his team stumbled to a 0-0 home draw with Birmingham.
I know City’s fans have proved themselves loyal over the years. The 30,000 plus attendances at Maine Road when they were down amongst the dead men in the third tier just over a decade ago, were proof of that. That, after 34 years of abject failure, City are still the third-best supported club in the country is remarkable.
But do the drongos who gave Mancini dog’s abuse on Saturday have the faintest idea what their kneejerk, idiotic barracking does to players and managers? City are still comfortably fourth and their previously leaky defence is looking much better. Mancini understands you have to get the foundations right. He may be a tad conservative but City fans should give him a whole season before judging him, not just 13 games.
Those City fans who booed him and the team are infantile morons who want it all and want it now and they’re a substantial reason why City have failed over the years. Contrary to what some might think, money hasn’t changed them – they’ve been idiots through thick and thin. City have a sizeable minority of fans who know absolutely nothing about football. They’d be better off heading across town to Old Trafford where they’d be among their kind.
City as sure as hell don’t need them.
I agree with every bit of that!
SWP's back said:Didsbury Dave said:There are no "best". And there are no worst.
I was being ironic considering the media love in for Stoke's atmosphere, however, if they are not winning, they are silent.
There must be a best and worst though.
Who are your favourites?
bluetonium said:I don't like defensive football. I don;t like to have to pay to watch it. I don;t like to have to pay to watch a draw, or a loss. Winning can make my week, losing can ruin it.
But it would have to be something big to make me boo a City team. Bit of a rant now.
I was appalled at the ferocity and venom directed at the team by some of the fans at the Brum game. I took my missus to the last game after a ticket came up spare. She won't come again, ever, describing CoMS as a bubbling cauldron of hate, and City fans as a bunch of whiners who don;t know good fortune when it hits them in the face. To an extent, I'm sorry to say I agree.
Now, my missus isn't a football fan particularly, feeling a loyalty to all that is Blue mainly through me I guess, but she was shocked at the level of anger directed at City by our own fans. Some guy in row C in 307 was screaming, swearing, spitting everywhere at every sideways pass and missed chance.You know, the kind of behaviour you expect from a rag if they don't get absolutely everything their own way - sack Fergie, we haven't signed any big players, Glazers are ruining us blah blah blah - but when all goes to plan they're back to their smarmy self important selves. She's now questioning what City fans are really like, after years of me assuring her that it's the reds over the road who don't have a clue. She's vowed she'll never come back to watch City, and has serious doubts about raising a kid as a City fan now because of the hostility and atmosphere. And this is a time of hope and prosperity for City? There was more laughs and camaraderie in the stands when we were in Division 2.
I think booing the England team last night was a bit rich too - France are in form, we had débutantes and no lack of effort, and it was a friendly! Is this the way football is headed now, or just City and the National Team? If so, why? What's changed?
Ultimately, I came away from the Brum match kind of agreeing with the other half. Although I was hugely disappointed with the result, the booing and the hostility got to me more. Why should I pay 30/40/50 quid a ticket when the only thing I can guarantee is that the atmosphere will turn in that stadium quicker than anything, if we aren't winning after 10 mins, playing attractive football, hitting every pass spot on, only going forward and not even giving the ball to the opposition once . We could never guarantee the result at a City match - that's never changed over the years. But the impatience and ease at which some turn to anger spoils the occasion for some.
Don't get me wrong - fans have a right to voice there opinions. I just wish that some would think about the good / damage of booing. Regardless of your wage or ability, being booed by 40K plus every other game has to be the most detrimental of things to your confidence and desire, creating another issue for the team to overcome, as if the opposition and media interest were not enough.
At the end of the day, we had a squad of players desperate to win. Whether they go about it in the right way is irrelevant, to a point, for me - for 90 mins they need us as the 12th man. Ok, bringing Tevez off was a very strange one, but when the dust settles we're still in 4th, more spending power than anyone, and still needlessly putting pressure on our own team to win every game or face our anger. This is our team, Mancini is our guy, the starting 11 are those with the task to win the game - decisions have been made so that is that. For 90 mins I wish the majority would forget whether they think xx is the right coach/player/mascot for us and just will them on to a victory.
Didsbury Dave said: