Dempsey

[Willham]

He was Fulham's leading goal scorer in 07/08, 08/09

With 6 and 7 goals.

He was integral to our success in our Europa League run. That goal he scored vs Juventus has gone down in folklore, but Dempsey contributed so much more than just that moment.

The Juventus goal was actually Clint's only goal (or assist) in Europe that season. He was 15th among Fulham players in minutes played in European competition in 09-10.

I think you need to look up Dempsey's career with fulham if your truly asking that question.

Mate, I think it's you who needs to take a closer look at Dempsey's Fulham career. To be clear in your original post you said Dempsey "was masterclass but over and over again, we would have a new manager come in who didnt favour him. And each time, Dempsey stuck with us and regained his spot, earning the trust of the manager." Interestingly enough I've seen similar things said by some American fans re Dempsey's Fulham career. That being every time a new manager came to Fulham Clint had been regularly starting and playing well prior to the coaching change, but found himself undeservedly benched immediately or very quickly upon the new man's arrival. This myth goes on to state that Clint worked hard each time to overcome this unfair treatment and earn back his rightful spot in the starting 11.

It's a good story, but the facts don't support it. After Coleman brought him to England from MLS it was obvious to everyone he needed time to settle into the English game. He deservedly never starts a match for Chris who was fired only a few months after Clint arrived. Sanchez comes in and Clint has a few matches as an unused sub, a few more where he gets sub minutes before getting his first start in the last (meaningless) match of the season. After a few matches the following season he settles into a starting role for Sanchez (in a dreadful team headed for relegation). Hodgson replaced Sanchez halfway through that season and Clint largely kept his starting job (for 12 of the 18 remaining league matches) and Roy led us to our great escape.

Now I suppose Hodgson's first full season in charge is what a lot of folks point to when making the claim that Clint was somehow treated unfairly or that he had to do more than other players to earn playing time (though I don't buy it). Roy always did seem a bit unsure how to use Clint. But let's be clear Clint hadn't exactly had a 07-08 season that should have guaranteed him a starting role in the next. He had 6 goals on a team that needed a LOT of luck just to avoid relegation...almost nobody in that team had earned a guaranteed starting spot. Anyhow, Roy brought in some new players in his first summer with the club and Clint initially started on the bench before earning back his starting spot. The next season Fulham had a lot of matches to play with the long Europa League run so there was quite a bit of rotation but Clint started often in the league. However, as I noted above he didn't start much in the Europa campaign and frankly I think the results speak for themselves. Fulham was pretty damn successful with Clint in a sub role.

Anyhow, Mark Hughes took over only a couple weeks before the start of the 10-11 season and used his first few matches as basically his preseason. Unsurprisingly, he started the first match with the team that got Fulham to the Europa League final. Clint got the start in the 2nd match of the season against Manchester United. Our big money signing of that summer (Dembele) then got his chance the third league match of the season before Clint returned for good to the starting line up against Wolves in week 4. Clint would then go on to have by far his best season for Fulham (before the next one, that is).

Finally, Clint started every league match (except the final one...thigh injury?) in his one season with Jol.

Look, I wouldn't have taken issue with your post if you'd said something like "Clint worked very hard and improved year over year for Fulham, earning the trust of all his managers." That's unquestionably true. However the notion that he'd consistently been "masterclass" for Fulham and was unfairly relegated to the bench every time a new manager came is just nonsense. On the occasion or two he was benched, he could have had no complaints. Clint had done nothing early in his Fulham career (in some really poor Fulham squads) to merit being an unquestioned starter. The fact of the matter is it wasn't until Hughes's only season in charge that Clint truly did enough to even arguably use the word "masterclass" to describe his performances.

For a big part of what you're writing, your missing the bigger picture.

Demoted was played out of position to take up mcbrides place while he was injured during the initial part of Hodgson's patch of starts

Thats Hodgson being forced to make the decision. So thats not showing demosey had earned his spot then, he was used as a back up,

And it didnt work out too well then, he was alright but it wasn't his position.

I really can't be bothered to continue this. It looks more like your using wiki than that you actually watched the games.

Another thing I'd like to mention, i am not American, nor have any fascination with the overly large country.

I aren't trying to push an american rhetoric but trying to give a man due credit.

If you had said, I think you might be overly expressing things then maybe.

But at the very least, 2 of the managers in what you've said, clint proved himself when initially doubted.

I still think that Dempsey was almost a problem for roy, even when roy had seen how good he could be.

Roy was quite set on his tactics and formation, and Dempsey didnt naturally fit in that system, eventually he made changes but that was that

The season you mention Dempsey didnt play much in the European run, he was injured with a cruciate ligament injury, the game at juventus was actually his first game back if I remember properly.

So again, you say he was still a bit part player then, well no. The games he missed was mostly essential rotation and injury.

Again, I say, maybe you should revisit his Fulham career.

And I'm bot continuing this further, if you don't want to celebrate a Fulham player that's your choice.

[Sgt Fulham]

It's mainly just anti American rhetoric that you'll come across quite a bit in the UK, generally comes from a hint of jealousy

There's no denying that Clint was top top draw

Moving to the Spurs was his only downside

Jealousy over what exactly? Would appreciate if you would elaborate.

[Chi_FFC]

Demoted was played out of position to take up mcbrides place while he was injured during the initial part of Hodgson's patch of starts

Thats Hodgson being forced to make the decision. So thats not showing demosey had earned his spot then, he was used as a back up

Demoted? What are you talking about? McBride was injured early in the season while Sanchez was still in charge. Clint only found himself inserted in the starting line under Sanchez after that injury to McBride. 

Again, I say, maybe you should revisit his Fulham career.

If anyone needs to do this it's you. You've written a plethora of mistaken things about Clint's Fulham career in this thread and I'll finish by returning to the one that prompted me to post in the first place. The notion that Clint had consistently been "masterclass" for Fulham and was unfairly relegated to the bench every time a new manager came is just nonsense. That just didn't happen. Further it wasn't until Clint's second to last full season with the club (Hughes's only season in charge) that Clint truly did enough on the pitch to even arguably use the word "masterclass" to describe his performances.

[LC]

Dempsey had an ability to score goals from nothing, the majority of them that I remember came from him cutting in off the left wing, he was good in the air. Outside of scoring I didn't think he contributed that much to the team, but to be fair scoring goals is the name of the game. I don't see any reason to put Dempsey down, he scored some very important goals for us.

In the interest of fairness I'll also add that he isn't my type of player, I enjoyed watching Luis Bou Moute play who was a player who would dribble at players, just my personally preference.

[Willham]

Demoted was played out of position to take up mcbrides place while he was injured during the initial part of Hodgson's patch of starts

Thats Hodgson being forced to make the decision. So thats not showing demosey had earned his spot then, he was used as a back up

Demoted? What are you talking about? McBride was injured early in the season while Sanchez was still in charge. Clint only found himself inserted in the starting line under Sanchez after that injury to McBride.

Again, I say, maybe you should revisit his Fulham career.

If anyone needs to do this it's you. You've written a plethora of mistaken things about Clint's Fulham career in this thread and I'll finish by returning to the one that prompted me to post in the first place. The notion that Clint had consistently been "masterclass" for Fulham and was unfairly relegated to the bench every time a new manager came is just nonsense. That just didn't happen. Further it wasn't until Clint's second to last full season with the club (Hughes's only season in charge) that Clint truly did enough on the pitch to even arguably use the word "masterclass" to describe his performances.

'Demoted' was an auto correct. It should say 'Dempsey'

And in the mcbride injury, that was with Hodgson,

I actually remember the game he returned from injury too. But before that Hodgson had been using dempsey in the mcbride hole rather than Dempsey's position.

I have a whole text conversation on messenger from the time with a friend, at the time I was complaining about Hodgson, playing people out of position and mcbride and bulland being injured.

You seem to have a block on your memory my friend :)

Bullard and mcbride returning from injury is pretty much what kept us up. Before that with the two players missing and dempsey out of position, we were very toothless. When everyone returned, thats when our great escape began.

[kiwian]

He was Fulham's leading goal scorer in 07/08, 08/09

With 6 and 7 goals.

He was integral to our success in our Europa League run. That goal he scored vs Juventus has gone down in folklore, but Dempsey contributed so much more than just that moment.

The Juventus goal was actually Clint's only goal (or assist) in Europe that season. He was 15th among Fulham players in minutes played in European competition in 09-10.

Yes, but a goal which will never be repeated in either its execution or importance.

[Willham]

He was Fulham's leading goal scorer in 07/08, 08/09

With 6 and 7 goals.

He was integral to our success in our Europa League run. That goal he scored vs Juventus has gone down in folklore, but Dempsey contributed so much more than just that moment.

The Juventus goal was actually Clint's only goal (or assist) in Europe that season. He was 15th among Fulham players in minutes played in European competition in 09-10.

Yes, but a goal which will never be repeated in either its execution or importance.

He also scored quite an important goal in one of the play off qualifying rounds, and he was injured with a cruciate ligament for a lot of the European games.

[Twig]

It's mainly just anti American rhetoric that you'll come across quite a bit in the UK, generally comes from a hint of jealousy

There's no denying that Clint was top top draw

Moving to the Spurs was his only downside

That's a very provocative statement. What exactly are we jealous of in your opinion?

[Willham]

It's mainly just anti American rhetoric that you'll come across quite a bit in the UK, generally comes from a hint of jealousy

There's no denying that Clint was top top draw

Moving to the Spurs was his only downside

That's a very provocative statement. What exactly are we jealous of in your opinion?

What about the leading world's liberalism 🤥
the president 🤥
The size 🤥
The hospital systems 🤥
Low wages and tipping systems 🤥
State laws 🤥
The lack of 'u' in words 🤥

Maybe, just Maybe, I'm a little bit happier that i live in England 😂

[hovewhite]

Ream suffered a lot of managers that weren't convinced as well,now he's a club legend.Dempsey should be mentioned in same breath.

[Somerset Fulham]

Honestly Perry, there is not one thing I am even remotely jealous of when it comes to the US at the moment...

[cookieg]

It's mainly just anti American rhetoric that you'll come across quite a bit in the UK, generally comes from a hint of jealousy

There's no denying that Clint was top top draw

Moving to the Spurs was his only downside

Given that we have a history of US players playing at Fulham I would suggest that Fulham fans are very appreciative of the US link. But I am intrigued as to what we are jealous of?

[SimonDaviesEnjoyer]

I often think about the fact that Dempsey was left on the bench for the final when Zamora was clearly unfit (as in pretty badly injured). In spite of that, legendary manager Woy elected to go with Bobby for an hour or so before swapping them over, and it didn't seem to me that he'd made the wrong decision.

My memory may be hazy at this stage, but I think Dempsey properly came good after all of that... then left us for Spurs, blaming the club for his pretty bad behaviour over the transfer.

[Chi_FFC]

'Demoted' was an auto correct. It should say 'Dempsey'

And in the mcbride injury, that was with Hodgson,

You're the one who seems to have a memory block. McBride was injured against 'Boro in our 3rd match of the season while Sanchez was still in charge. Dempsey deservedly hadn't been starting prior to that injury and only got into the starting line up under Lawrie because of that injury. Roy wouldn't take over till like week 21 (McBride would return three or four weeks after that).

Bullard and mcbride returning from injury is pretty much what kept us up. Before that with the two players missing and dempsey out of position, we were very toothless. When everyone returned, thats when our great escape began.

Certainly was nice to have them back but if we're being honest the biggest reason for us staying up is adding Hangeland in the winter window and Roy tightening up our defense. We were actually slightly more prolific offensively under Sanchez that season, 21 goals in 20 matches vs 17 goals in 18 under Roy (and Bullard didn't play a single match under Sanchez while McBride only played a little over two). However our defense got considerably better under Roy. We went from conceding 35 in 20 under Lawrie (1.75 per game) to 25 in 18 under Roy (1.39 per game).

[Willham]

'Demoted' was an auto correct. It should say 'Dempsey'

And in the mcbride injury, that was with Hodgson,

You're the one who seems to have a memory block. McBride was injured against 'Boro in our 3rd match of the season while Sanchez was still in charge. Dempsey deservedly hadn't been starting prior to that injury and only got into the starting line up under Lawrie because of that injury. Roy wouldn't take over till like week 21 (McBride would return three or four weeks after that).

Bullard and mcbride returning from injury is pretty much what kept us up. Before that with the two players missing and dempsey out of position, we were very toothless. When everyone returned, thats when our great escape began.

Certainly was nice to have them back but if we're being honest the biggest reason for us staying up is adding Hangeland in the winter window and Roy tightening up our defense. We were actually slightly more prolific offensively under Sanchez that season, 21 goals in 20 matches vs 17 goals in 18 under Roy (and Bullard didn't play a single match under Sanchez while McBride only played a little over two). However our defense got considerably better under Roy. We went from conceding 35 in 20 under Lawrie (1.75 per game) to 25 in 18 under Roy (1.39 per game).

Mcbride played a grand total of of 13 starts and (3) substitute appearances that season, I think you mis understand how long he aas out for. (Cup included)

Dempsey on the other hand 28 (6)

Very clear with that then, that my eyes didn't decieve me when I watched the whole season :)

[Chi_FFC]

'Demoted' was an auto correct. It should say 'Dempsey'

And in the mcbride injury, that was with Hodgson,

You're the one who seems to have a memory block. McBride was injured against 'Boro in our 3rd match of the season while Sanchez was still in charge. Dempsey deservedly hadn't been starting prior to that injury and only got into the starting line up under Lawrie because of that injury. Roy wouldn't take over till like week 21 (McBride would return three or four weeks after that).

Bullard and mcbride returning from injury is pretty much what kept us up. Before that with the two players missing and dempsey out of position, we were very toothless. When everyone returned, thats when our great escape began.

Certainly was nice to have them back but if we're being honest the biggest reason for us staying up is adding Hangeland in the winter window and Roy tightening up our defense. We were actually slightly more prolific offensively under Sanchez that season, 21 goals in 20 matches vs 17 goals in 18 under Roy (and Bullard didn't play a single match under Sanchez while McBride only played a little over two). However our defense got considerably better under Roy. We went from conceding 35 in 20 under Lawrie (1.75 per game) to 25 in 18 under Roy (1.39 per game).

Mcbride played a grand total of of 13 starts and (3) substitute appearances that season, I think you mis understand how long he aas out for. (Cup included)

No mate, I'm well aware of how long he was out for. The point is the injury happened early in the season when Sanchez was the manager (and that Dempsey was a bench player who replaced McBride under Sanchez). McBride missed 17 league matches managed by Sanchez that season and only 4 managed by Roy.

And McBride actually had 14 starts and 3 sub appearances that season.

[Willham]

'Demoted' was an auto correct. It should say 'Dempsey'

And in the mcbride injury, that was with Hodgson,

You're the one who seems to have a memory block. McBride was injured against 'Boro in our 3rd match of the season while Sanchez was still in charge. Dempsey deservedly hadn't been starting prior to that injury and only got into the starting line up under Lawrie because of that injury. Roy wouldn't take over till like week 21 (McBride would return three or four weeks after that).

Bullard and mcbride returning from injury is pretty much what kept us up. Before that with the two players missing and dempsey out of position, we were very toothless. When everyone returned, thats when our great escape began.

Certainly was nice to have them back but if we're being honest the biggest reason for us staying up is adding Hangeland in the winter window and Roy tightening up our defense. We were actually slightly more prolific offensively under Sanchez that season, 21 goals in 20 matches vs 17 goals in 18 under Roy (and Bullard didn't play a single match under Sanchez while McBride only played a little over two). However our defense got considerably better under Roy. We went from conceding 35 in 20 under Lawrie (1.75 per game) to 25 in 18 under Roy (1.39 per game).

Mcbride played a grand total of of 13 starts and (3) substitute appearances that season, I think you mis understand how long he aas out for. (Cup included)

No mate, I'm well aware of how long he was out for. The point is the injury happened early in the season when Sanchez was the manager (and that Dempsey was a bench player who replaced McBride under Sanchez). McBride missed 17 league matches managed by Sanchez that season and only 4 managed by Roy.

And McBride actually had 14 starts and 3 sub appearances that season.

Okay, fair.

Then let me revise what I said,

Every manager, barring Hodgson, who originally played dempsey out of position BUT NOT IN MCBRIDES ABSENCE, had to go through a process of not entrusting dempsey originally.

In hodgson's case, a little different but the same thing in it's entirety, hodgson dropped him when he could sign a replacement.

Until dempsey proved his masterclass again and regained his spot.

Better? I still dont understand your point, one manager of out them all doesn't prove against my point. Also Hodgson seemingly still had to have the same process as thd others with dempsey.... a test that dempsey continuingly passed

[Chi_FFC]

Stuff

Look mate, I have no idea what you're even trying to say anymore. You're regularly getting basic facts wrong and your arguments are all over the place. Anyhow, nothing you've said has contradicted (or frankly really even been responsive to) the original point I made which is that the notion that Clint had consistently been "masterclass" for Fulham and was unfairly relegated to the bench every time a new manager came was nonsense. And with that I'll leave you to attack whatever straw man argument next pops into your mind.

[Twig]

It's mainly just anti American rhetoric that you'll come across quite a bit in the UK, generally comes from a hint of jealousy

There's no denying that Clint was top top draw

Moving to the Spurs was his only downside

So Perry, you made a very provocative statement and numerous posters have responded and asked you to explain yourself. Do you have the balls or will you just run and hide?

[SimonDaviesEnjoyer]

Speaking as a Dempsey fan, the idea that he's a club legend or a "masterclass" every time he laced up for us is quite a generous assessment.

He was pretty far down the list in terms of importance to Hodgson's teams (Murphy, Davies, Duff, Zamora, even Etuhu far far more important, to say nothing of H&H), and the second he stepped up to "elite" level he forced a transfer and blamed the club.