Norwich The Face of Sanitisation

[Farkes The Herald Angels 0]

Interesting to read through some of the comments on us from Leeds forums. There were a couple that stood out for me as they weren''t full of F''s and C''s and Norwich are inb***ds...

Main theme here is that the atmosphere at Carrow Road is more like Twickenham and that the whole thing is a happy-clappy, middle class, family friendly bore.

Take these for example:

 

When football sold its soul to Rupert Murdoch, Sky expected more than live rights for their money.

They wanted a wide cross section of people watching the game-little kids with face paint on, sexy looking women, old codgers, all races, all ages, everything and anyone...they wanted clean, modern, "friendly" stadiums...they wanted happy smiling faces, lots of colour, noise, fireworks, music after goals, they wanted risk free entertainment...and that is what they got, and that is what the game has become. And that is what you get at Norwich. But not just them, they''re not the only ones...

None of us are being clever now when we proclaim football is no longer a sport. We all know that. Its a business, its an entertainment package with a game attached, its no longer the domain of hard working blokes who use it as an outlet and to hell with the facilities, the games the thing. Has the game been taken away from "us"? Maybe it has. Can we do anything about it, do we reluctantly concede that the Norwich City''s and Carrow Road''s of this world are irrecovable and live with it, or do we we stand firm and against all of that? And, if we choose the latter, what will that bring us? Is the game ever going to go back to being packed tight on a filthy terrace, a crowd that is almost exclusively bolkes aged 16-50''ish, white, working class, content to piss down their programme and onto the terrace, rather than up against the wall in the "lavs" at the back of the stand?

It isn''t the future of football that we saw at Norwich yesterday, its what football is NOW, has been for a long time, and will be, increasingly and ever changing to fit the mould of TV executives and big businesses, ran by obscenly rich men, in years to come. Very soon, we will all wax lyrical about days like yesterday even.

Has our club stood still? Have we, as Leeds fans, stood still with the club? Can we move onwards and upwards without changing our thoughts and beliefs about the game? Can there be a little bit of football England that is forever football as "it used to be"? of course. But don''t expect it to get anywhere. The template has been written, fit into it, or die. I guess there are loads of Norwich fans who despair just as we do about how the game has changed, and how their club has changed, but they''ve either moved with it, or given up and started supporting Great Yarmouth FC or whoever...meanwhile, they''ve got 20''000 season ticket renewals and, very strong rumour has it, a UK-based takeover and massive investment coming in the Summer-why? Because of all the things that Supercall has cited. Like it or not, the moneymen want those happy faces, modern stadium and the "nice" atmosphere. If, for every 100 of those "happy clappy" fans they''ve got, 10 have got so fucked off, they''ve walked away forever, well, that club isn''t the loser there.

I don''t know why Leeds are perceived as they are again now. I suspect that its "popular" to despise us again because we are all the things clubs like Norwich aren''t-but clubs like Norwich and many, many others-try going to a game at Reading, Southampton, Derby, Leicester, Forest, Ipswich etc etc-its just the same. The biggest "culprits" of the lot are at Old Trafford. But do they give a shit it isn''t like it was in the 1970''s there anymore, when things were ''real'', and they got relegated? Doubt it! Look at sport, cricket, 20:20, cricket for the media age and for people who can just about sit still and watch for a couple of hours, Rugby League, played through the Summer so it, and the people that play and watch it look bright, cheerful, clean, colourful...

Life is now wretchedly safe. Life is sanitised, anything remotely considered dangerous is banned, there are "risk assessments" everywhere, FFS, the "Pooh sticks" tournament that was going to be held today was cancelled because someone might fall in the river! Shops, cinemas, parks, schools, all shiny, clean, sparkling, even thinking outside of the regulated "box" is actively discouraged. Everywhere, everyone,=all clean, safe, regulated, supervised and governed by people who hate their fellow man. Everything has been disinfected, football included.

 

And this...

 

Thousands of older middle upper class people taking advantage of the cheap tickets. 3/4 of the ground who never got off their arses let alone chanted. A few out of their depth teenagers behind the goal who were cocky until they came within a few yards of a real football fan.

Everything set up for the happy clappys who would melt away if they had to pay the going rate. A loathsome little ''friendly'' club which epitomises sanitised football. The Holiday Inn bar afterwards was like a ''who''s who of upper class football supporting wankers''.

There was no edge. Before the game if felt like I was outside Center Parcs such was the lack of atmosphere and the clean cut nature of the experience.

Disneyland masquerading as a football club. Loathsome, gutless and passionless.

I may yet get to find out, but I''d rather be a Leeds fan in the Conference than a ''Canaries'' fan in the Champions League.

If Tony Blair wrote a template for a football club then this is it.

So what are your views on these views? My sense is that to some extent the comments on the shift in football from raw emotion (70''s) to prettily packaged (2000''s) is not far off. Putting in seats didn''t help in this regard and clearly to get reasonably sized crowds you need to have a broad (family) base of fans. For me football in the 70''s was a bit edgy and therefore a bit more exciting. It was a bit more grimy - and occasionally dangerous - but there was something a bit more authentic about it. Remember the surges in The Barclay when there was a goalmouth scramble? The wooden huts serving overbrewed tea? The Rosettes and the rattles? The lack of stewards telling you you''d be thrown out if you didn''t sit down. And, of course, the violence, or at least for the most part the anticipation of violence. It added a bit of spice going to a game wondering when you might come across a bunch of thugs. Scary (I''m not exactly well-built or fight-minded) but adrenalin pumping. Nonetheless the violence and drunkenness itself was apalling and the result of it was plain for all to see at Hysal, when Man U came to Norwich and started ripping the top off The Barclay, at England''s World Cup matches in France etc..

So now, things are calmer and more comfortable, leaving people whose drug was the football of the 70''s yearning for a return to those days.

But I also think that to describe Norwich as Happy Clappy, sanitised and lego-like is way wide of the mark. It''s like me visiting Leeds and saying that the crowd is like a pack of violent rabid dogs. Some of them probably are. But most of them - the vast majority of them - are regular, decent folk who want excitement, a bit of banter and some fun. I think these Leeds views are borne in part out of the fact that Norwich, quite frankly, is a nice and reasonably friendly club. But I think they''re also borne out of a desire to precipitate the perception of Leeds being more of a working man''s club, more real, more authentic and - yes, they like this tag - nastier. So the more they describe Norwich as toy-town the more evil they make themselves out to be in comparison.

And my final point (sorry, this has got a bit long) is that just because there is not an aggressive edge at Carrow Road does not mean it''s sanitised. I have to confess I sometimes find it pretty quiet outside The Barclay, but there''s just as much humour, banter, upset, despair....going on inside Carrow Road as there is in any other football ground. Maybe as Norfolk folk we''re not as demonstrative as - say - Leeds, but to describe Norwich as "Disneyland masquerading as a football club. Loathsome, gutless and passionless" is plain wrong as we''re not masquerading as anything. The point is, the club is basically the fans - they make up 99% of the people involved in a club. These are real people, with real feelings, real hopes, real fears and real anger. Whatever nice seats, good food and posh retaurants they put in to the club doesn''t sanitise it, because you a football club is not capable of sanitising the vast majority of the people who are the club: the fans. The fact that most Norwich fans don''t gob on you, call you a c**t, smack your kids about and abuse others does not make them passionless.

The people who are really ''masquerading'' here are those who only recognise one aspect of passion as it relates to football. Anger and aggression. They are the sad and deluded ones.

[BroadstairsR 0]

I think that maybe the comments from the Leeds supporters was sour grapes. Otherwise, I am complimented by their description of our club. Living in the past, as they seem to do in every aspect because of their past glories is fine. However it can come over as being a bit sad.

[Mister Chops 7]

Seems to me that to these Leeds fans, "real" football consists of scuffles outside the ground, a crush to get through the turnstiles, a wall to wee against at half time (or the back of someone else''s legs), and presumably a scoreboard in roman numerals.I suppose they didn''t sense the raw emotion unleashed all around me when Martin got his head on Hughes''s cross and turned it neatly into the corner of the goal.  I think it''s fair to say our celebration blew the roof off Carrow Road, it was an outpouring of emotion and joy I haven''t experienced for a goal being scored for a long long while.Basically, I think they''re just bitter.

[paul ncfc 0]

Would any of this had been posted if they had won  1-0 ? Doubt it , seems to be trying to justify the behavior after the match as being a true fan when in fact it spread to women and children , something I cannot recall from the 70''s and 80''s.

[Tumbleweed 106]

It is a very interesting point though, has football become sanitised and does it matter?

To me the answer is obvious. Football was in near terminal decline at the end of the 70s early 80s when stadiums were empty, violence abounded and facilities were grim. In that state it wasn''t going to attract new fans or new money and investment. what has happened since then has effectively rescued the game. It had to be done. however the so-called "cost" is a safer environment, a wider fan profile, more places to get food, more branding and ultimately a more loyal fan base where the football afternoon experience is now generally a good one. the passion still exists, it just doesn''t spill over into something more unpleasant and most now understand there is a line which shouldn''t be crossed.

Does anyone want to return to the days when fights openly broke out on PoW road or behind the Barclay or where riot police had to shepherd opposing fans into separate parts of the station? Where grannies got trampled in a stampede when trouble brewed or where you clung onto your kids for fear of them getting hurt on the terrace or abused by a nutter. It still happens sometimes but now at Carrow Road there is a great spirit of comradehsip, a sense of belonging to something special. The pubs are still full before the game, the atmosphere still builds and the fans still celebrate like crazy when a last minute winner hits the back of the net.

Football had to move away from being the preserve of the lout. I think it is wrong to say its more middle class, its actually become classless. the variety of folks who go to Carrow Road now is tremendous. On saturday everyone was talking about the Leeds game in the City- even the man at the cathedral entrance when we popped in to look around on the way to the game.

I think these posts sum up why Leeds have stayed still, why their fans are so unpleasant and their stadium half full. They just don''t get the point and deserve to fester in their cess pit of miserable and squalid thuggishness.

 

[chicken 0]

In a way it has become sanitised but I doubt it has much to do with Sky. Football was being televised for a long time before Sky came along - they just paid more for it and televised more matches.

It was teams like Leeds that actually led to football being sanitised in the first place. Football was becoming unsafe - not just because of incidents like the Hillsborough disaster but also because of the behaviour of certain clubs fans. Leeds are up there with the Millwall and Wolves of the past of failing to control their fans both before and after games.

Football may never have used to have been the ''entertainment buisiness'' it is now but it was always a huge spectator sport. Some spectators went too far and that is the reason why it was sanitised. In fact I believe the ban on English clubs in Europe was one of the things that finally swung it. No point having great football teams if they can''t play some of Europes best.

As for Leeds commenting on Norwich - not sure how they can question it all when their own ''little'' club can''t even get the same number through the gates on a regular basis. And I seem to remember them all being family orientated and face paints galour when they were in the champions league when they had sold their heart and soul to the banker to get there . . . . nice.

[25overpar 0]

YORKSHIRE BITTER ANYONE?

[Beauseant 0]

I think that there are two quite separate issues here. There is no doubt that going to football matches has become much safer and family friendly, although that in itself is a double edged sword. It''s great to see kids able to experience live football without feeling threatened, but at the same time there has been a massive increase in what I would regard as "casual" supporters who like the experience but don''t have any real feeling for the club. I regret the loss of terracing and the attendant closeness and empathy with your fellow fan, although, as Mister Chops points out, the feeling on Saturday when Chrissy scored was unbelievable and I actually hugged the stranger next to me in sheer joy. Nevertheless the removal of the hooligan threat and improved facilities is not to be criticised.

What bothers me much more is the sanitisation of the game ON the field, as the idiot Blatter continues his crusade to ban physical contact. Watching the two Champions League games involving English clubs this week it is obvious that the trend on the continent (and increasingly in the Premiership) is to simply fall to the ground when in a tight spot safe in the knowledge that a free kick will be forthcoming. Much of the passion engendered on the terraces stemmed from seeing one of our players crashing into a tackle or grappling with an equally physical opponent and coming out on top, but that is being systematically removed form the game. If you take passion from the field it will, in turn, take passion form the stands and I think that we are seeing that.

As for the Leeds comments, I really wouldn''t dwell on them. They lost and may not even go up. They have two choices; look criticially at themselves and theire team or erect a smokescreen. KK''s quotes suggest that they have gone for the latter. Their problem, not ours.

[Puzzy magnet 0]

I''m afraid it''s drivel.

To deal with the slow death of their club Leeds fans have created this argument that somehow they represent "real" football. It is the rest of football that is wrong, and they are right...

Norwich City? Passionless? Not according to most reports of the game, who praised our support. Certainly louder than the reverse fixture last year at an empty (no but they are massive fans really) Elland Road.

They are like a sad old 50-year-old in Chigacos on a Saturday night trying to chase 21-year-old girls. Past it, pathetic and boring.

RIP Leeds.

[Farkes The Herald Angels 0]

In fact to support many of the follow-up views on here I like the description of given to the club by The Guardian which shows you can mix passion with pleasantries: "They are a fanatically supported community club"

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Puzzy magnet "]They are like a sad old 50-year-old in Chigacos on a Saturday night trying to chase 21-year-old girls. Past it, pathetic and boring.

RIP Leeds. [/quote]

Love this! [Y]

Going back to Beauseant''s point about sanitisation on the field, anyone who watched last night''s Champions League clash between Arsenal and Barcelona will know what he''s talking about there.  A great second half of football, sure, but it was plain to see how the merest touch was being given as a foul.  Fabregas'' booking and a foul given against Song in the second half were both complete jokes and testament to this sanitisation - its getting to the stage in Europe (and I fear for this year''s World Cup) where the only contact allowed will be a quick tickle under the chin...

[Wembley_Canary 0]

I think there is more than just a hint of bitterness in the comments of those Leeds fans. Remember last saturday must of really hurt their ego''s as much as anything. Conceding that late goal to give us the win which has practically made us untouchable in the league now, it must be hard for any club to take, especially Leeds who are after all a big fish in a small pond. This was supposed to be their season, they were supposed to hog the limelight this season not us! I think they also know that our fans totally outclassed them on the day inside the ground, not often Leeds fans get outsung at home or away from home games.

After such a bitter defeat witch could have potentially killed their promotion hopes this year, the only way they can make themselves feel a little bit better is by deluding themselves by believing that they are still a "proper" old fashioned club with "real" football fans like it should be, where as were clearly nothing more than happy clappers who lap up modern day football.......... If believeing that crap really makes them feel better about their dire situation then who are we to begrudge them that, let them have their moment, it''s been a hard long season for all those poor northern monkeys.

[birchfest 401]

Yet none of those mention the score..... funny that! All of those articles reak of Jelousy of not only the fact that we beat them and top of the league, but also that we sell out the ground regardless of who we are playing. Im interest to know what they see as a ''real football fan'', thugs who attack and spit at the elderly and children, who turn up at away matches with no care for the result just looking for a fight? I would rather have a stadium 3/4 full of ''middle class to upper  people'' than a half empty stadium with thugs in it. They can keep their reputation, because all I care about is the football and to that extent we are better than them and thats all that counts!

[morty 0]

Very interesting post.Awful font.

[Webbo118 0]

The only thing they aspire to is neanderthal status - some way to go yet !

[One Flew Over... 33]

Without a hint of irony the Leeds fan writes about the terrible state of modern football:"people watching the game-little kids with face

paint on, sexy looking women, old codgers, all races, all ages,

everything and anyone...they wanted clean, modern, "friendly"

stadiums...they wanted happy smiling faces, lots of colour, noise,

fireworks, music after goals, they wanted risk free entertainment...and

that is what they got, and that is what the game has become. "...and compares it to the glorious past:"Is the game ever going

to go back to being packed tight on a filthy terrace, a crowd that is

almost exclusively bolkes aged 16-50''ish, white, working class, content

to piss down their programme and onto the terrace?"what a load of bolkes. The risk-free society he denounces is caused by seeing litigation as a source of income. Going to watch 22 people play a game of football should be risk free. If these 16-50 year olds need risk then sign-up and get on a plane to Afghanistan, although I presume the army wants people with a modicum of self-discipline.

[Wembley_Canary 0]

I did find that quite funny too lol!

Makes me wonder why so many people on here still harp on about football not being as good as "the good ole days". Get with the programe or buzz off!

[WeAreYellows49 0]

My view on their views is, they are entitled to them but personally I couldn''t give too hoots what other fans think of our club, they should worry about their own club and not other clubs.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

What bothers me much more is the sanitisation of the game ON the field, as the idiot Blatter continues his crusade to ban physical contact. Watching the two Champions League games involving English clubs this week it is obvious that the trend on the continent (and increasingly in the Premiership) is to simply fall to the ground when in a tight spot safe in the knowledge that a free kick will be forthcoming. Much of the passion engendered on the terraces stemmed from seeing one of our players crashing into a tackle or grappling with an equally physical opponent and coming out on top, but that is being systematically removed form the game. If you take passion from the field it will, in turn, take passion form the stands and I think that we are seeing that.

[/quote]

I actually think that you''ve got this one wrong Beau. Or at least you''re blaming the wrong people.

The game in England has always been more physical than the rest of Europe (with the exception of some other Northern European countries) with more emphasis placed on tackling and physical contact. The English teams who flourished in Europe in the ''70s and ''80s were always those who were more discliplined (Forest) or who played better football and could bend the rules in a more ''crafty'' fashion (Liverpool). These facets of their game made the different way in which games were refereed in Europe less of a problem to them.

What we''ve seen in the last five years or so is the implementation of a more European style of refereeing being brought into The Premiership but this has been at the behest of The FA rather than FIFA. Why has this been done? I don''t know to be honest (maybe to attract more big stars from around the world who previously may have been put off by our more physical style of football?) but it has led to a period of English dominance in Europe. Who knows, it may even benefit our players in the upcoming World Cup. The rules of the game themselves haven''t been changed that much. Overly aggressive tackling, or however it is worded in the rules, has always been a foul it''s just that English referees have traditionally overlooked it.

Although I sometimes despair at some of the things that go on in modern football I actually think that the fact the game has become less physical* is a good thing. I want to see the likes of Messi, Rooney and Ronaldo playing this summer without the possibility of them being kicked out of the tournament like Pele in ''66 or Maradona in ''82.

You make an interesting point on how the fans feed off the passion involved in a bone crunching 50/50 tackle but surely there are other aspects of the game to get passionate about. About thirty minutes into last nights game Jim Beglin said something along the lines of ''This is a great exhibition of passing but it''s lacking passion. What it needs is a couple of meaty challenges in the centre of the pitch''. I just don''t understand that point of view. If you can''t enjoy watching the type of football played by Barca in the first half last night then I would suggest you try watching a different sport Jim!

* ''Less physical'' doesn''t really sum up what I''m trying to say, in fact it sort of proves your argument correct [:$]. Perhaps ''less reckless'' would be a better way of describing it. If you go through the back of the centre forward and risk snapping his achilles then you deserve a yellow card regardless of whether it''s your first offence. When I started playing I was encouraged to give the forward a boot early on ''just to let him now you''re there'' (and I quite enjoyed doing it to be honest [;)]) but I''m glad it''s no longer allowed.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Beauseant"]

What bothers me much more is the sanitisation of the game ON the field, as the idiot Blatter continues his crusade to ban physical contact. Watching the two Champions League games involving English clubs this week it is obvious that the trend on the continent (and increasingly in the Premiership) is to simply fall to the ground when in a tight spot safe in the knowledge that a free kick will be forthcoming. Much of the passion engendered on the terraces stemmed from seeing one of our players crashing into a tackle or grappling with an equally physical opponent and coming out on top, but that is being systematically removed form the game. If you take passion from the field it will, in turn, take passion form the stands and I think that we are seeing that.

[/quote]

I actually think that you''ve got this one wrong Beau. Or at least you''re blaming the wrong people.

The game in England has always been more physical than the rest of Europe (with the exception of some other Northern European countries) with more emphasis placed on tackling and physical contact. The English teams who flourished in Europe in the ''70s and ''80s were always those who were more discliplined (Forest) or who played better football and could bend the rules in a more ''crafty'' fashion (Liverpool). These facets of their game made the different way in which games were refereed in Europe less of a problem to them.

What we''ve seen in the last five years or so is the implementation of a more European style of refereeing being brought into The Premiership but this has been at the behest of The FA rather than FIFA. Why has this been done? I don''t know to be honest (maybe to attract more big stars from around the world who previously may have been put off by our more physical style of football?) but it has led to a period of English dominance in Europe. Who knows, it may even benefit our players in the upcoming World Cup. The rules of the game themselves haven''t been changed that much. Overly aggressive tackling, or however it is worded in the rules, has always been a foul it''s just that English referees have traditionally overlooked it.

Although I sometimes despair at some of the things that go on in modern football I actually think that the fact the game has become less physical* is a good thing. I want to see the likes of Messi, Rooney and Ronaldo playing this summer without the possibility of them being kicked out of the tournament like Pele in ''66 or Maradona in ''82.

You make an interesting point on how the fans feed off the passion involved in a bone crunching 50/50 tackle but surely there are other aspects of the game to get passionate about. About thirty minutes into last nights game Jim Beglin said something along the lines of ''This is a great exhibition of passing but it''s lacking passion. What it needs is a couple of meaty challenges in the centre of the pitch''. I just don''t understand that point of view. If you can''t enjoy watching the type of football played by Barca in the first half last night then I would suggest you try watching a different sport Jim!

* ''Less physical'' doesn''t really sum up what I''m trying to say, in fact it sort of proves your argument correct [:$]. Perhaps ''less reckless'' would be a better way of describing it. If you go through the back of the centre forward and risk snapping his achilles then you deserve a yellow card regardless of whether it''s your first offence. When I started playing I was encouraged to give the forward a boot early on ''just to let him now you''re there'' (and I quite enjoyed doing it to be honest [;)]) but I''m glad it''s no longer allowed.

[/quote]

I''m not sure we''re actually disagreeing very much Shack, it''s more a question of degree. I certainly don''t hanker after the days when the Chopper Harrises and Norman Hunters of this world reigned supreme, and I remember as a 9 year old being reduced to tears at the brutality inflicted on Pele in 66. In my view the physical side of the game is an essential part of football as a spectacle, and whilst I accept that skill, great footwork and imagination are just as uplifting (and anyone who wasn''t captivated by watching Barca last night probably needs a head transplant) but the balance has been shifted much too far. Football is a contact sport, but it won''t be if this trend continues.

By the way, I take your point about the FA and FIFA, but I start to twitch if I don''t blame Blatter for something at regular intervals![:D]

[blahblahblah 2]

Throroughly agree One Flew Over :[quote]"people watching the game-little kids with face

paint on, sexy looking women, old codgers, all races, all ages,

everything and anyone...they wanted clean, modern, "friendly"

stadiums...they wanted happy smiling faces, lots of colour, noise,

fireworks, music after goals, they wanted risk free entertainment...and

that is what they got, and that is what the game has become. "[/quote]The thing that the writer has missed is that "they" are the general public - the "they" that he refers to only follow the money - the public gets what the public wants.  It''s his attitudes that cause the reputation that Leeds carry like a millstone, and spoil it for his fellow Leeds fans aswell as the rest of us.

[The Butler 0]

It is strange that the "Hardmen" of world football were not the British but the Italians and the Argentinians.

They also added a cynacism and a degree of cheating that is only just being matched now.

The game last night, although great football, was interspersed with some great oscar performances. To me that has slowly insinuated into our game the more "continental" footballers that have been brought in.

Perhaps the refs would not react so much if players stopped performing "the dying swan" every time someone goes near them.

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Beauseant"]

What bothers me much more is the sanitisation of the game ON the field, as the idiot Blatter continues his crusade to ban physical contact. Watching the two Champions League games involving English clubs this week it is obvious that the trend on the continent (and increasingly in the Premiership) is to simply fall to the ground when in a tight spot safe in the knowledge that a free kick will be forthcoming. Much of the passion engendered on the terraces stemmed from seeing one of our players crashing into a tackle or grappling with an equally physical opponent and coming out on top, but that is being systematically removed form the game. If you take passion from the field it will, in turn, take passion form the stands and I think that we are seeing that.

[/quote]

I actually think that you''ve got this one wrong Beau. Or at least you''re blaming the wrong people.

The game in England has always been more physical than the rest of Europe (with the exception of some other Northern European countries) with more emphasis placed on tackling and physical contact. The English teams who flourished in Europe in the ''70s and ''80s were always those who were more discliplined (Forest) or who played better football and could bend the rules in a more ''crafty'' fashion (Liverpool). These facets of their game made the different way in which games were refereed in Europe less of a problem to them.

What we''ve seen in the last five years or so is the implementation of a more European style of refereeing being brought into The Premiership but this has been at the behest of The FA rather than FIFA. Why has this been done? I don''t know to be honest (maybe to attract more big stars from around the world who previously may have been put off by our more physical style of football?) but it has led to a period of English dominance in Europe. Who knows, it may even benefit our players in the upcoming World Cup. The rules of the game themselves haven''t been changed that much. Overly aggressive tackling, or however it is worded in the rules, has always been a foul it''s just that English referees have traditionally overlooked it.

Although I sometimes despair at some of the things that go on in modern football I actually think that the fact the game has become less physical* is a good thing. I want to see the likes of Messi, Rooney and Ronaldo playing this summer without the possibility of them being kicked out of the tournament like Pele in ''66 or Maradona in ''82.

You make an interesting point on how the fans feed off the passion involved in a bone crunching 50/50 tackle but surely there are other aspects of the game to get passionate about. About thirty minutes into last nights game Jim Beglin said something along the lines of ''This is a great exhibition of passing but it''s lacking passion. What it needs is a couple of meaty challenges in the centre of the pitch''. I just don''t understand that point of view. If you can''t enjoy watching the type of football played by Barca in the first half last night then I would suggest you try watching a different sport Jim!

* ''Less physical'' doesn''t really sum up what I''m trying to say, in fact it sort of proves your argument correct [:$]. Perhaps ''less reckless'' would be a better way of describing it. If you go through the back of the centre forward and risk snapping his achilles then you deserve a yellow card regardless of whether it''s your first offence. When I started playing I was encouraged to give the forward a boot early on ''just to let him now you''re there'' (and I quite enjoyed doing it to be honest [;)]) but I''m glad it''s no longer allowed.

[/quote]

Oh the irony!

[Farkes The Herald Angels 0]

[quote user="morty"]Very interesting post.Awful font.[/quote]

Yeah sorry about font....trying to be...er...creative...but it''s bloody difficult to read. Sorry all

[Howson is now! 0]

[quote user="Puzzy magnet "]Fabregas'' booking and a foul given against Song in the second half were both complete jokes and testament to this sanitisation - its getting to the stage in Europe (and I fear for this year''s World Cup) where the only contact allowed will be a quick tickle under the chin...
[/quote]

Raising your hands to an opponent? Instant Red Card [;)]

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Beauseant"]

What bothers me much more is the sanitisation of the game ON the field, as the idiot Blatter continues his crusade to ban physical contact. Watching the two Champions League games involving English clubs this week it is obvious that the trend on the continent (and increasingly in the Premiership) is to simply fall to the ground when in a tight spot safe in the knowledge that a free kick will be forthcoming. Much of the passion engendered on the terraces stemmed from seeing one of our players crashing into a tackle or grappling with an equally physical opponent and coming out on top, but that is being systematically removed form the game. If you take passion from the field it will, in turn, take passion form the stands and I think that we are seeing that.

[/quote]

I actually think that you''ve got this one wrong Beau. Or at least you''re blaming the wrong people.

The game in England has always been more physical than the rest of Europe (with the exception of some other Northern European countries) with more emphasis placed on tackling and physical contact. The English teams who flourished in Europe in the ''70s and ''80s were always those who were more discliplined (Forest) or who played better football and could bend the rules in a more ''crafty'' fashion (Liverpool). These facets of their game made the different way in which games were refereed in Europe less of a problem to them.

What we''ve seen in the last five years or so is the implementation of a more European style of refereeing being brought into The Premiership but this has been at the behest of The FA rather than FIFA. Why has this been done? I don''t know to be honest (maybe to attract more big stars from around the world who previously may have been put off by our more physical style of football?) but it has led to a period of English dominance in Europe. Who knows, it may even benefit our players in the upcoming World Cup. The rules of the game themselves haven''t been changed that much. Overly aggressive tackling, or however it is worded in the rules, has always been a foul it''s just that English referees have traditionally overlooked it.

Although I sometimes despair at some of the things that go on in modern football I actually think that the fact the game has become less physical* is a good thing. I want to see the likes of Messi, Rooney and Ronaldo playing this summer without the possibility of them being kicked out of the tournament like Pele in ''66 or Maradona in ''82.

You make an interesting point on how the fans feed off the passion involved in a bone crunching 50/50 tackle but surely there are other aspects of the game to get passionate about. About thirty minutes into last nights game Jim Beglin said something along the lines of ''This is a great exhibition of passing but it''s lacking passion. What it needs is a couple of meaty challenges in the centre of the pitch''. I just don''t understand that point of view. If you can''t enjoy watching the type of football played by Barca in the first half last night then I would suggest you try watching a different sport Jim!

* ''Less physical'' doesn''t really sum up what I''m trying to say, in fact it sort of proves your argument correct [:$]. Perhaps ''less reckless'' would be a better way of describing it. If you go through the back of the centre forward and risk snapping his achilles then you deserve a yellow card regardless of whether it''s your first offence. When I started playing I was encouraged to give the forward a boot early on ''just to let him now you''re there'' (and I quite enjoyed doing it to be honest [;)]) but I''m glad it''s no longer allowed.

[/quote]

I''m not sure we''re actually disagreeing very much Shack, it''s more a question of degree. I certainly don''t hanker after the days when the Chopper Harrises and Norman Hunters of this world reigned supreme, and I remember as a 9 year old being reduced to tears at the brutality inflicted on Pele in 66. In my view the physical side of the game is an essential part of football as a spectacle, and whilst I accept that skill, great footwork and imagination are just as uplifting (and anyone who wasn''t captivated by watching Barca last night probably needs a head transplant) but the balance has been shifted much too far. Football is a contact sport, but it won''t be if this trend continues.

By the way, I take your point about the FA and FIFA, but I start to twitch if I don''t blame Blatter for something at regular intervals![:D]

[/quote]Interesting, and in many ways in agreement with the quoted Leeds views in spirit if not in meaning.Much of the response on this thread has been they called us names so lets call them ones and put it down to sour grapes. What prompts this reaction in some ways is the realisation that some of this is actually true. I guess no one would want to go back to this and yes younger posters that is the Barclay but it is undenaible that some of the magic has been lost along the way. If you have come to the club post Robert Chase this will be hard to understand but when I came to Carrow Road for the first time it was a strange and mysterious place, almost tribal, predominately male, smelling of smoke and stale alcolhol with a sense of danger (almost always entirely unfounded). The football was harder, more basic though often skilled, less athletic, rougher played by guys who lived amongst the fans and often went on to sell insurance, open newsagents & run pubs. There was more support but smaller crowds because people often picked theit matches so crowds could flex from 15k to 30k in the same season.All of this has gone and you can''t blame fans for missing it, whether it is to your taste or not.

[Farkes The Herald Angels 0]

I agree with you Big Fish. My original post was not to so much have a go at Leeds (despite the fact I think the comments are extreme), but to reflect on the degree to which their views resonate with any of us. Clearly some of their views strike a chord with you, although Carrow Road was indeed a strange and mysterious place, no less than when 36,000 crammed into the ground for the League Cup semi final replay and the fog came over the open terraces of the River End and the game was abandoned with us in the lead. I couldn''t move. I could barely see. I couldn''t take a aleak. But the atmosphere was deafening and way beyond what''s possible now with seats and 10,000 less people. That''s what I liked about those days. Often uncomfortable, but raw and - as you say - tribal. I''m not sure the Leeds fans comments are simply because they lost and are sour grapes, but because some of them genuinely feel that a club like ours is the way of the present and the future (which it is) and they yearn for the past. What they yearn for is often unfortunate, but I don''t think it''s because we beat them. As some of you say, who really cares what anyone from Leeds thinks, but I''m interested in this as a general view of football as much as one team''s supporter commenting on another club

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="Kevin Keelan"]I agree with you Big Fish. My original post was not to so much have a go at Leeds (despite the fact I think the comments are extreme), but to reflect on the degree to which their views resonate with any of us. Clearly some of their views strike a chord with you, although Carrow Road was indeed a strange and mysterious place, no less than when 36,000 crammed into the ground for the League Cup semi final replay and the fog came over the open terraces of the River End and the game was abandoned with us in the lead. I couldn''t move. I could barely see. I couldn''t take a aleak. But the atmosphere was deafening and way beyond what''s possible now with seats and 10,000 less people. That''s what I liked about those days. Often uncomfortable, but raw and - as you say - tribal. I''m not sure the Leeds fans comments are simply because they lost and are sour grapes, but because some of them genuinely feel that a club like ours is the way of the present and the future (which it is) and they yearn for the past. What they yearn for is often unfortunate, but I don''t think it''s because we beat them. As some of you say, who really cares what anyone from Leeds thinks, but I''m interested in this as a general view of football as much as one team''s supporter commenting on another club[/quote]Good post [:D]

[grantroederdisaster 0]

I''ve been going to Carrow Road since the days of being packed into terraces, standing in a crowds of 40,000+ when the ground wasn''t as big as what it is now and the facilities were dire. Would we want to go back to them days of being overcrowded in poor facilities - NO!

I also saw all the bulls h i t hooliganism of the 70''s and 80''s where going to games could be very unpleasant which was the reason why crowds were so low in the 80''s. Would we want to go back to them days of being worried about your personal safety all because you wanted to go to the football? - NO!

What era do I think is the best - Apart from no standing areas and the capacity of Carrow Road being 10,000+ short of what it should be - the present era takes some beating!

Yes theirs happy clappers, but they have been going to games as long as I''ve been going and probably way before I first went. Indeed many in the huge crowds that watched us in the 59 cup run were fairweather supporters jumping on the bandwagon who didn''t know any of the songs. I know guys who went to them cup games that never set foot inside Carrow Road again!

Nowadays theirs lots of corporate sorts who wouldn''t go to football if they had pay or stand in the old terraces but they are a neccessity cause as with all sport without sponsorship, football wouldn''t survive!

To tar Norwich City home crowds with the "this is all thats wrong about football" brush is so wide of the mark its unreal!

Its also insulting to put Norwich in the same bracket as a bankrolled, plastic club like Reading who without the Majeski guy would be smaller than Swindon!

The disgusting s c um like antics of a reasonable number of the Leeds support last Saturday was something I''ve not seen for a long while at Carrow Road and personally would welcome people of that nature being banned from football grounds!

Most away games I''ve been to in recent years have been at grounds less full to capacity than what Carrow Road is and with less atmosphere. - I''d include a couple of visits to Elland Road in that assessment!

Yes Norwichs prices are cheaper than many but they are reasonably priced and considers the next generation of fans the youngsters, makes football affordable for 16-21 year olds who won''t be earning that much money and the over 60''s on pensions. I don''t see the justification of paying more than £25 to sit in the cheap areas of a football ground and nor does many others. This is why clubs like Ipswich and Leeds get crowds lower than ourselves cause their pricing is silly and doesn''t encourage youngsters to go to games!

Yes football has been sanitised and apart from the unjustified banning of sections of safe standing areas, all the sanitisation has made football spectating better!

Oh and also the fact that we beat them probably has something to do with anti Carrow Road mumblings of Leeds fans who realise their team is in danger of another season in League 1!

I for one will take great pleasure in seeing Leeds miss out on promotion, cause the club went down in my estimations after what I witnessed at last Saturdays game!

[canary cherub 1]

Cheer up Leeds fans . . . a playoff final against Millwall should produce just the sort of atmosphere you''re looking for . . . [:)]