I'm sorry but this is the biggest load of bollocks ever. The article is clearly referring to the dark time at the end of the end nineties, early 2000's when it was truly dark. Those were the days when there was no waiting list for season tickets you would show up and they would show you round the ground so you could pick your seat. The days when only two games a year were sold out and the rest you could walk into the spurs shop in wood green and buy a ticket no problem. Nobody wanted to go to the lane because we were gash. We would lose to middlesborough and southampton and fulham on a regular.The article raises some good points - and while I'm fervently pro-1882 there will be some 'teething problems', and then other problems, and then some more, just like in growing up as indiviadual
However, I want to pick up this idea of 'two dark decades without the prospect of a trophy'
The last time we went two decades without a trophy, let alone the 'prospect of one' was the 1930s and 40s, dark decades indeed for many reasons, but surely not what the author is referring to?
Because hardly any of the current STs he's referring to were going to games then.
I suspect he's referring to the 90s and noughties. In which case, if he has forgotten so quickly, we won two trophies in the 90s and one in the noughties. We also reached several other semi-finals, so far from the 'prospect of no trophies' we had a very real prospect of at least 5 trophies, maybe as many as 7, and we realized our aim on 3 occasions.
If you want to talk about 'dark trophyless' decades, well we're currently suffering one, again a fact that seems at odds with the writer's analysis of where we are today compared to where we were.
The author's views on this are worth noting and correcting, because they represent an oft held myth, that it's fantastic today compared to how terrible it was twenty years. But at least most who peddle that incorrect view (IMHO) don't make the mistake of forgetting our last three trophies.
Also this 'appalling football, substandard players,' compared to what we get today. We're talking Lineker , Gascoigne, Ginola Klinsmann, Berbatov, Keane, King, Bale, Modric amongst others who played in those decades. Was beating Reading 6-4 so much worse than beating Hull 1-0? Was beating Woolwich and Chelsea 5-1 so much worse than drawing with Chelsea 1-1 and losing to Woolwich 1-0. Of course there are many counter examples, but did the writer actively follow us during those two 'dark decades'? There are a lot of people (not me BTW) who preferred the Jol years to the AVB years so far.
Oh and I agree with Raiders' point, sitting in silence does make you a worse fan, and those who mainly are vocal in criticising our players, are far worse than that. To me they're not even fans/supporters, they're just people who pay money to hinder our team.
Those were the days when we would get knocked out against a lower league club in cup competitions when they weren't even trying. When the team was full of Gary Doherty and Chris Perry. When we raved about beating a crap Leicester side in the worthless cup. Now we are challenging for champions league spots every year. We beat teams away all the time. I went to maine road in 2000 and whatever and saw us win away for the first time in the season and it was the end of January. Nowadays we have internationals all over the park and even when we're playing crap we're still 5 points off the top of the league.
The article raises some really good points. I remember when Graham was in charge there was so much in fighting amongst fans. Some who wanted to boo the team some who wanted to get behind the lads. I don't want to go back to those days. I don't want to be called a crap fan because I've had a bad day at work and don't feel like singing that game. I've been to games in Turkey where they have conductors who make the fans sing. It was great. I wouldn't want that every week though.
I think the 1882 movement is great but we've got to aim for harmony at the lane not division.
