[ad_1]
When the official account of Liverpool tweeted the starting lineup chosen by Jurgen Klopp Monday night, this caused a wave of abusive responses from those who claimed to be supporters of the club. The main subject of their disdain was Adam Lallana, an English international chosen to play in the central midfield because of injuries suffered by Georginio Wijnaldum and Jordan Henderson.
"Now, for the real team", was the typical answer. One of them included an example of suicide in a caricature, another person pulling a rope around his neck. At least some were happy, even if it did not bring them much support: they were delighted that Wijnaldum and Henderson had been hit because they did not like to see them on their team.
Of course, Lallana played well. He drove forward, protected the ball and tried to link the midfielder to the top three Liverpool, as he always does. But full-time, while Liverpool scored 1-1, Lallana was no longer history. Suddenly, Liverpool supporters on social media worried that their team was "putting the title in the bottle". If you think this is the worst of the extreme reaction, look for "Klopp sacked" on Twitter. Yes, Klopp should be sacked if Liverpool does not win the league.
For what it's worth, Liverpool is on the brink of reaching the third-highest point total in Premier League history and the highest total in club history. If social media is neither a majority opinion barometer nor a natural habitat for reasoned debate, the right of some remains striking. Where did we all go wrong?
Liverpool is just the example of this week of moaning hysteria that now envelops football coverage. Last week, you could hear experts say that Maurizio Sarri was about to lose his job in Chelsea. When Manchester City lost to Newcastle, the army of bald fraud mobilized his troops. Within six weeks, Mauricio Pochettino was sentenced for Tottenham's defeat by Tottenham, congratulated for his three-game winning response, for being defeated for his defeats and later victories. Tottenham's participation in the title race follows the same path as a hokey-cokey dance.
Things happen in football matches. Teams lose points. Football players are people and, by definition, are unreliable. We have not yet created a club filled with football automatons. We generously grant greatness and ignominy, and very few deserve one or the other description. Worse, we redistribute these terms more often than the wind changes.
He created a bizarre world in which reputations are decided solely through a prism of extremism. If Liverpool finish second, Tottenham third and Manchester United fourth, which is hardly unlikely, there will be four teams in the top six (Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and Chelsea) whose current leaders will be accused of overseeing their disappointment this season. And disappointment means fraud. It's exhausting.
*****
The financial inequality and competitive imbalance of the Premier League are partly responsible for the increased impatience of the fans. The gap between the top six and the rest – at least economically – has never been greater. As such, the victories against this "rest" have become expectations rather than ambitions, and any reported loss is a relative crisis.
Take Tottenham as an example of the reduced margin of error. Pochettino's team is about to reach 87 points, which should allow Tottenham to finish third and seriously jeopardize his coach's progress. This points total would have won the Premier League in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The goals have been moved.
A victory by something other than a convincing result does not allow to deposit anything in the reserve of the business of a manager. Defeats and draws result in significant withdrawals. Only eventual triumph counts for success, and any fall is apparent evidence of an inability to bear the fight.
If the media play little in the production line of extremist opinion of supporters, it is a vital cog in its distribution. In the Wild West of digital journalism, it has never been so difficult to sell works and never more necessary to do so. Psychologists have repeatedly proven negativity bias, in which a sudden crisis is more interesting to readers than a lasting improvement. Nobody wants to read that everything is fine and nothing is selling like bad news. Call someone a fraud, and people click to appreciate what they call a fraud and get angry at them. Easy.
This trend of crisis coverage has been exacerbated by the fascination of extreme opinions, a phenomenon that concerns much more important topics than football. "Twitter reacts" has become an unworthy, but current title, with the media looking for sensational negative sales and then raising their hands to say "Not me, guv". "Liverpool players accused of conceding the title race in the Premier League by angry fans after losing points against West Ham" were offered Tuesday, to stick to Liverpool's original example.
Social media has allowed antisocial people to become social. Someone who would normally have had a scandalous opinion rejected can now find like-minded (and often anonymous) people. When these opinions are overemphasized (as in this example of the BBC), they inevitably propagate.
*****
The Premier League and the media have supplied the petri dish, but the very nature of football support seems to have changed. Tribalism continues to grow to the point that many people consider that an opposition club is blasphemy, and the anger of this people is extraordinary. Journalists and writers are joking about it (and I'm getting my little fiddle out here), but appalling personal abuses are being inflicted on those accused of bias against the top six teams. Crucially, this extremism becomes self-fulfilling. Self-centredness breeds isolation, isolation breeds more anger, and anger further engenders egocentrism.
I remember very well Wednesday's Sheffield fans applauding Nottingham Forest's goals in a 7-1 win at Hillsborough in 1995, as well as portions of Forest's support doing the same in the 5-1 loss to Blackburn Rovers the next season. It is difficult to imagine that this is happening now, because football has become more and more a very serious business. Fans are no longer defined by their love of the game or the support of their team, but by their angry defense of their own narrow vision on both sides.
In November, Kick It Out reported an increase in discriminatory abuse of 11% between 2016/17 and 2017/18, with a 22% increase in cases of racism. Last week, Sports Minister Mims Davies announced an urgent meeting with football leaders to tackle the growing problem of discrimination. As anger rises significantly, it is hard not to correlate the growth of tribalism in football with the growth of unacceptable abuse.
Even away from the worst elements of the fans, there is a general mania sufficient to give you a headache. Melodrama and hysteria are now commonplace as clubs and managers place themselves between crisis and glory as a train on the run and the fans feast at once according to their loyalty. It is not enough to wait until the end of the season for the distribution of medals and trinkets. Why bother yourself, when you can scream and scream and scream until you get sick after every game. And you can.
*****
In the next 15 weeks, one of the best races in the title over the years will be played. We have Manchester City champions, whose financial advantage puts them under pressure to defend their crown. We have Liverpool under the magnanimous Klopp, who has lost the entire season and will once again come to the top of the table if they beat Bournemouth at home, despite the enuresis of some supporters. We have Tottenham, far exceeding their financial weight and five points, a history of indisputable well-being.
Twenty years ago, supporters of these three clubs would have hoped, prayed, prayed and hoped. If they had failed, the trip would have been appreciated and admired. The rest of us would have sat down and would have enjoyed the show. Everything seemed positive, always a soap opera but did not mean anything more.
Is it the same in 2019 or was the "nothing" lost? Was Everton a "bottler" in 1986 for allowing an indebted Liverpool to fly over them? Was Alex Ferguson a "fraud" because Manchester United did not beat West Ham on the last day in 1995? Was Arsenal strangled after losing to Leeds in May 1999? Or did we match the losers but remembered the winners?
It could be the first Premier League race that will be defined by those who will miss rather than those who win, and people are eager to scorn those who miss. Be victorious, and you will rise up like a knight. Below, and you are destined for a life of fraud-itude.
Daniel Storey
[ad_2]
Source link
