Two of those nicknames were apparently created by the media. Who do things like this all the time. One newspaper had a full page picture of Graham Taylor with his head photoshopped as a turnip. Because he was crap. 'The Wally with the Brolly' is Steve McLaren, who was also crap, but carried a brolly. 'Bacon Face' refers to Alex Ferguson, who, when angry cos Man U were getting spanked by someone or the ref hadn't given them a penalty or whatever, would turn bright pink, like a side of bacon. All just footie banter. Childish, yes, but hey. Loads of sports have similar levels of childishness.
Thanks for the explanations.
I had forgotten that this was how tabloids had described Graham Taylor, - ugh, unnecessary - have never heard of the Steve McLaren one (but, then, I don't read tabloids, still less use them as a guide to living my life), and can understand how Sir Alex came to be described thus, but don't approve of it and would never use it. One can find fault with the notorious "hair-dryer" treatment of individual players teams that played under him, - and how he appeared when shouting at them - without seeking to insult the man by using an offensive term to describe him.
Still, one can criticise - and find fault with how they conducted themselves as managers (you will find many comments on Sir Alex Ferguson on these threads, not all of them complimentary, but they don't stoop to personal insult).
In any case, that is no reason to use them here, on a series of threads where both tone and content have been pleasant, enjoyable, and, in general, mutually respectful.
Besides, the internet is not the terraces, and there is absolutely no need to replicate a laddish - and often crude and boorish culture - here.
Moreover, whatever about tabloids (and I do not take them as any sort of guide for how one should behave or conduct oneself, far from it), calling people names is both childish and deliberately offensive, and shrugging it off is a licence for boorishness; adults don't need to do that, and should be a bit better than that. You can choose not to employ epithets of this nature, and I'm not so sure what it adds to the thread.
More to the point, one can express passion for a team withot recourse to offensive insult (derived from tabloid sources), and one can mock opponents without giving offence, unless that is the whole point of the exercise.
Notwithstanding that, the online world is sufficiently toxic and boorish for one not to wish to see it replicated in pleasant corners of an online platform.
Furthermore, should you - or one - wish to find fault, one can criticise the actions of someone, an individual, (or a team), rather than insulting the person; criticise what they do, not who they are.
In any case, whatever about the old fashioned terraces, (which are now - especially in the higher leagues - mostly obsolete as a result of the findings and recommendations of the Taylor Report, and the financial imperatives and needs of the Premier League, where football fans are colourful local background, and little more than that to foreign owners for whom football clubs are a source of profit or a vehicle for sports washing), this is not a football terrace from the 1950s or 1960s, or 1970s or 1980s - where one could find boorish banter but also hooliganism, racism and violence.
Rather, this is an online platform, and there is no need to replicate the culture of the terraces.
Have some of you ever even been to an actual football match?
Yes.
Football is a working class sport, an escape from the hardships of daily life.
Yes and no.
Football
was a working class sport, but its appeal now far exceeds and transcends the (mostly working class) communities from which it originally sprang.
And, if we are going to take a flying leap into the past, the actual foundation of many football clubs did not come from the working class, but from middle class (for example, Sunderland were originally called - and were founded as - Sunderland and District Teachers AFC) or trade or craft groups who sought to organise themselves so that they could play football.
Since the 1990s, it has also become gentrified to some extent, (for a variety of reasons), and welcomed women and families a lot more.
More to the point, the price of a ticket (especially for a premiership game) is now well beyond the means of many fans, let alone the cost of a season ticket.
In some ways, it can be compared to early Shakespeare era theatre, where audiences would shout abuse, throw objects etc.
Yes, I have been to the Globe, but, personally, I prefer sitting and not hurling abuse or throwing stuff at the players, performers during a live performance.
Not so much throwing of objects these days, but the 'robust' language amed towards the opposing team has always been part of the game.
That is no reason to replicate it here.
If you don't like that, then go and follow cricket or something more genteel instead.
The only "real" fans are those who wish to hurl abuse at opponents?
Nonsense.
With respect, you do not get to determine who is - or is not - a football fan.
This thread - and its ancestors - have been running for years, and some of us have been supporting our clubs for decades.
Yet, we can do so without recourse to cheap - and puerile - insult as a means of expression.
Don't try telling real football fans how to behave.
Everyone here is a "real football fan", and this has been the case with some of us for decades.
Nobody is being abusive here, there's no need for it, but banter is to be expected.
Not the sort of boorish "banter" which is little more than offensive insults disguised as "banter".
I think there's sufficient respect going on.
Agreed, for the most part, but it would be nice to keep it that way.
Getting upset over a few nicknames from football history is a bit ott if you ask me.
Why not use their proper names and focus your criticism on what they do?
