This is How We Are.
This morning I checked in on social media to gauge reaction to the game, as I usually do. There’s a lot of criticism of the crowd’s reaction. Throw me a lifebelt, I’m drowning in a stream of moralistic pious sewage.
Have people ever been to a football match? Have they ever supported a team? Any team? Teams have rivals. They don’t want those rivals to succeed. It’s fundamental. You decide who you support and in that big bang moment of creation you also learn who your rivals are. Positive and negative. Yin and yang. Defines what you are by knowing what you’re not.
Last night, Spurs played a football match. I wanted them to win. I admit that I didn’t feel as bad about this defeat as I have done with others. That’s it.
Not every Spurs fan felt the same. I really don’t agree with them, but that’s not the point. The garbage I’m reading, from pompous sermons on how Spurs fans have desecrated the righteous values of football to small-minded snarking from small-minded fans of other clubs has one thing in common – they just don’t get it.
This is what football fans do. They despair when their rivals have the upper hand and gloat whenever they fail, or in this case might fail. Last night was an expression of this eternal truth. Cheering for City? From my corner of the South Stand, I didn’t hear any pro-City chanting. I did hear a lot of abuse directed at our north London rivals. I don’t need to stand up to know what I feel about them, although I did need to stand up to see the game.
Here’s Oliver Holt, now chief sports writer for the Mail:
In this tweet he manages to be so mistaken about football fans in so few words. “fans got it wrong” – don’t make judgements about how we fans are thinking and feeling, and don’t ever tell me how to feel. “Mocked” – Spurs fans around me did not fear being mocked, social media is not the real world. “an example of the very best of sport” – where Oliver transports us back to late Victorian times. ‘Play up lads, and play the game!’ Blimey, those Royal Engineers fans are going to give us some stick, eh.
And also in the Times, Martin Samuels:
What angers me are the patronising judgements being made about Spurs fans coming from all sides this morning. Fans who wanted us to lose made me angry but I understand why they were conflicted. We all were to some extent. This was a highly unusual set of circumstances. I very much doubt that fans of other clubs would have behaved any differently. Remember the so-called Battle of the Bridge, when Chelsea prevented us from sustaining our title challenge even though they had only the prospect of a mid-table finish. Their crowd chanted for Leicester as one. Or here’s Tony Evans, a writer who does understand fans, writing about when Liverpool had a chance to stop United winning the league.
There’s no mention of fan loyalty, for example. Of capacity crowds every single week despite the extortionate prices and the fact that under this chairman we’ve won a single League Cup and nothing since 2008. Of British record crowds at Wembley.
And while I’m about it, there are endless examples this morning of how the expression of fandom on social media appears for many to be the only reality. My question asking if people had ever been to a football match is not entirely rhetorical. Many younger fans have not been to any or many games, for reasonable reasons of price and, where the fanbase is world wide, geography. So social media is the only place where they express themselves. The bantz, the ‘mocking’, the insults, these do not reflect the reality of fandom. Much of it is generated for the express purpose of getting clicks and hits, all of which are monetised. In other words, it is sustained, if not created, with profit in mind. In this world, cliches abound, convenient off-the-peg takes that mean anyone can join in without having to think for themselves, or indeed watch much football. In this world, Spurs fans today have no class, we’re two-bob and tinpot, we have loser mentalities.
This world is real to its inhabitants because this is their main source of information and the place where they express their fandom using these conventions. It’s not my world. I visit every now and again but I don’t live there. Other interpretations and realities are available.
By and large, Spurs fans in the ground handled it well. Fans got behind the team, for example after City’s first goal, there was a groundswell of singing to urge the players on, and we responded approvingly to our effort and good football, especially in the first half, both of which have been sorely absent of late. And barracked City for timewasting when they were a goal up. Those conflicted feelings emerged later, and once the game was gone, the balance tipped towards acceptance of a City win. Many left the ground as soon as the penalty was awarded, let alone scored.
There were quiet periods, but to be honest, that’s not unusual at Spurs, particularly when opponents are on top, as was the case for some of the second half. But ‘normal anxiety’ isn’t a hot take. Neither apparently is having fun. Samuels pictures a few Spurs fans doing the Poznan. Perish the thought that with the game lost, they had a bit of fun, last home game of the season. Because football fans can’t have fun. It would be an insult to our chairman.
This debate has been energized by Postecoglou’s post-match comments where he referred cryptically to problems at the club: “the last 48 hours to me have revealed the foundations are pretty fragile…inside and outside.” The focus of today’s coverage has largely been on the fans, the presumption being that we are the ‘outside’ bit, compounded by a video showing him having a go at a fan behind the bench who wanted us to lose.
He was obviously very angry in that press conference but it’s debatable whether he meant that there’s a fundamental lack of support from the crowd. Never a good idea to be seen to have a go at supporters but I think sections of the media and unchallenging social media discourse have made more of it than is justified and I don’t see anything in what he said that means he doesn’t feel supported by us. As Celtic manager, he’s seen all this at first hand and coped well in an atmosphere that’s frankly more combustible than the north London rivalry.
As for the game itself, I took away the positives of a committed, organised performance with Romero leading the way, and where Ange showed, belatedly perhaps, that he can adapt his tactics to match the demands of the league. Sarr as a false nine gave us more heft in midfield, the extra man being the basis of our better shape with better passing and covering options, unfortunately at the expense of weakness up front in the absence of a central striker. After a poor run of results, I hope this is the beginning of the changes that must surely come.
This leaves us with what to me is evidence of a more sinister problem – what does Ange mean about “inside”? Is he referring to the players – are some doubting his methods? Or does he know the summer transfer budget and he’s unhappy about it? I like the fact that he is angry about the club’s future and wants to do something about it. He has the ability and determination to address these problems but the board have to support the growth of the club. As I said last week, once more we’re ending the season on a sour note.