Cyrus Christie

[Mince n Tatties]

Serious Question,I watched the Championship games last season on TV, how many RB's did I see were any or much better than Cyrus...
Can you name any?

[RaySmith]

I think he's a decent player - has faults, but so does every player. I think he always gives his all.

The other night v Porto, I thought he was good - the pen appeal- I thought he showed good strength as a defender, as he did on other occasions.

He will do better a) in the Championship and b) if the team is performing better, and getting good results c) if the fans get behind him.
.
In the past was Fred Callaghan faultless as a full-back? Moriz Volz? Liam Rosenior? Jim Langley?
But we got behind them and respected them as Fulham players who did their best.

It's obviously fine to criticise a player's performance, but these days it goes over the top, and certain players become scapegoats on social media.

[Holders]

He seems a thoroughly decent person off the pitch and if he's man enough to brush aside abuse then he has my support so long as he gives of his best.

I hate to see players become scapegoats when the mob mentality sets in. It happened to Baird at the outset - and what a hero he became - also to McAnespie in his first game and he was scarcely seen again. Personally, I was no fan of Steve Earle when he failed to get stuck in but I'd never have booed him, though some did.

[JoelH5]

Ive got a tip for you. When trying to argue a point, try not to use phrases such as 'devoid of logic.' It tends to make you look childish and detract from your argument.

My apologies for putting forth a childish looking argument, I agree that such phrases were not needed to put forth my point.

So, in order to be able to have a non childish argument, instead I ask you this: Do you believe that Fredericks anno 17/18 was the absolute minimum required standard of a championship right back (assuming the team wants a fair chance at promotion)?

It's a question which is impossible to answer as it's down to opinion. Not to sound like a politician however, no, I agree we could potentially get away with someone who wasnt as strong at the back. I dont actually believe Fredericks was better at marking or tackling than Christie however, he was so fast, he could get back and cause problems for attackers if he made a mistake whereas Christie cant.

My point; I feel RB is currently our weakest position. Could we get away with using Christie? Who knows but it's definitely a possibility.

Should we look to improve, what is in my opinion our weakest position? Of course.

[The Rational Fan]

I don't like it, but I understand scapegoating a player that comes on a huge salary as first team player. But, Christie was never meant to be a premier league first team right back, he was the backup behind TFM and Chambers when we failed to get Montana. He was in the team because he was a decent backup nothing more and the season first choice right backs were worse. To make matters worse, the poor guy had a backup inside him with Odoi and in front of him Schullre had decided he was an attacker only.

[Chutney]

He seems very sensitive, if the fans that pay his wages don't think he's good enough he should try to prove them wrong, not post drivel on social media.

Its quite obvious that he isn't good enough to be our starting right back and is very lucky to currently have the honour.

Fans have every right to say when a player is letting their team down.

[FFC1987]

I don't like it, but I understand scapegoating a player that comes on a huge salary as first team player. But, Christie was never meant to be a premier league first team right back, he was the backup behind TFM and Chambers when we failed to get Montana. He was in the team because he was a decent backup nothing more and the season first choice right backs were worse. To make matters worse, the poor guy had a backup inside him with Odoi and in front of him Schullre had decided he was an attacker only.

Again, regular constructive criticiser of Christie last year but I made this point too. It's really not his fault that to myself and others, he wasn't up to the task of being an EPL full back. That doesn't warrant abuse BUT that doesn't warrant unquestionable support, devoid of criticism.

I'll repeat this again, personally, I'd like a better RB but if he starts the season for us, does amazing and supersedes all expectations, awesome. BUT if he doesn't play well, hold his place or just looks out of sorts in one of the best (on paper) championship teams, you can betcha dollar i'll be here saying I still don't rate him and think we should of bettered the last two windows, not just this current one.

Long story short, not a scapegoat, not unwarranted criticism, don't be abusive in criticism and support him when he puts on the shirt.

[Nero]

I don't like it, but I understand scapegoating a player that comes on a huge salary as first team player. But, Christie was never meant to be a premier league first team right back, he was the backup behind TFM and Chambers when we failed to get Montana. He was in the team because he was a decent backup nothing more and the season first choice right backs were worse. To make matters worse, the poor guy had a backup inside him with Odoi and in front of him Schullre had decided he was an attacker only.

Again, regular constructive criticiser of Christie last year but I made this point too. It's really not his fault that to myself and others, he wasn't up to the task of being an EPL full back. That doesn't warrant abuse BUT that doesn't warrant unquestionable support, devoid of criticism.

I'll repeat this again, personally, I'd like a better RB but if he starts the season for us, does amazing and supersedes all expectations, awesome. BUT if he doesn't play well, hold his place or just looks out of sorts in one of the best (on paper) championship teams, you can betcha dollar i'll be here saying I still don't rate him and think we should of bettered the last two windows, not just this current one.

Long story short, not a scapegoat, not unwarranted criticism, don't be abusive in criticism and support him when he puts on the shirt.

All our right back where useless last season, think its more so to with the fact the RCB needs filling with a player that plays that role naturally not throwing a RB who can play there but who was bloody useless there last year

[FFC1987]

I don't like it, but I understand scapegoating a player that comes on a huge salary as first team player. But, Christie was never meant to be a premier league first team right back, he was the backup behind TFM and Chambers when we failed to get Montana. He was in the team because he was a decent backup nothing more and the season first choice right backs were worse. To make matters worse, the poor guy had a backup inside him with Odoi and in front of him Schullre had decided he was an attacker only.

Again, regular constructive criticiser of Christie last year but I made this point too. It's really not his fault that to myself and others, he wasn't up to the task of being an EPL full back. That doesn't warrant abuse BUT that doesn't warrant unquestionable support, devoid of criticism.

I'll repeat this again, personally, I'd like a better RB but if he starts the season for us, does amazing and supersedes all expectations, awesome. BUT if he doesn't play well, hold his place or just looks out of sorts in one of the best (on paper) championship teams, you can betcha dollar i'll be here saying I still don't rate him and think we should of bettered the last two windows, not just this current one.

Long story short, not a scapegoat, not unwarranted criticism, don't be abusive in criticism and support him when he puts on the shirt.

All our right back where useless last season, think its more so to with the fact the RCB needs filling with a player that plays that role naturally not throwing a RB who can play there but who was bloody useless there last year

I don't disagree to some extent but going down a league and with the quality we have now, you'd like to think our defence will fare better than last. Less pressure during the game should help stabilise the back line somewhat. If our midfield dominates games in the middle like it should and provides ample support to back line, we should see better defensive stats (i hope). I'm hoping Christie pleasantly surprises me next year but I have my reservations.

[toshes mate]

I was intrigued by the references to the fastest players, statistically speaking, and wondered how this is actually measured in football.  It seems there are a multitude of ways upon which, statistically speaking, speed is measured but none of them actually deal with or measure acceleration - the ability to move from a standing start to maximum velocity in the shortest space of time - which is another way at looking at speed in terms of a footballer's skill.  Now if maximum velocity is low then acceleration may be brief but speed will be low.  But if acceleration is high and maximum velocity above average then you have a fast player at close to top speeds. 

In other words speed, statistically speaking, appears to be fastest over a given distance, or at final top rate velocity, but nowhere does acceleration make an appearance in the figures.  This may account for the reason why statements about who is fastest are actually not worth the paper they are written on.  Only a measure at intervals of speed at given increments - 10metres, 20m, 30m ... and so on, actually measure what skills the athlete actually has in getting up to an above average maximum pace in the shortest time and maintaining it. 

I'll leave it to others to pontificate on why the wrong measures and statistics may be terribly misleading when it comes to determining which players are fast and would be the best fit replacement for another player noted for pace.

[simplyfulham]

He seems very sensitive, if the fans that pay his wages don't think he's good enough he should try to prove them wrong, not post drivel on social media.

Its quite obvious that he isn't good enough to be our starting right back and is very lucky to currently have the honour.

Fans have every right to say when a player is letting their team down.

To be fair, the idea that fans pay the wages of the players these days doesn't really hold much water.

I haven't seen the numbers lately but I'm pretty sure that match day revenue pails in comparison to TV and Advertising these days.

[Sting of the North]

He seems very sensitive, if the fans that pay his wages don't think he's good enough he should try to prove them wrong, not post drivel on social media.

Its quite obvious that he isn't good enough to be our starting right back and is very lucky to currently have the honour.

Fans have every right to say when a player is letting their team down.

Kind of ironic that you describe Christie's short positive post as "drivel", given the contents of your own post.

In any case, where is the contradiction between posting on social media and trying to prove someone wrong? Further, do you believe that Christie just walked by one day and happened to be given a contract? Just like everyone else at this level, he has worked very hard for many years in order to come as far as he has. That's not luck, but determination.

[Sting of the North]

It's a question which is impossible to answer as it's down to opinion. Not to sound like a politician however, no, I agree we could potentially get away with someone who wasnt as strong at the back. I dont actually believe Fredericks was better at marking or tackling than Christie however, he was so fast, he could get back and cause problems for attackers if he made a mistake whereas Christie cant.

My point; I feel RB is currently our weakest position. Could we get away with using Christie? Who knows but it's definitely a possibility.

Should we look to improve, what is in my opinion our weakest position? Of course.

Thanks, well argued. I agree to an extent even though I believe that Christie is more than fine for this level, and think that defensively it is more important that we get the DM and CBs right.

[ALG01]

scapegoat
/ˈskeɪpɡəʊt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: scapegoat; plural noun: scapegoats

    1.
    a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.

Tha was the definition and that is not what I think anyone is saying here. Christie was not resposible for all the ills of the team last season. Christie is being critisised for his playing. I can see like many others he has some ability and he certainly has pace but his defensive positioning is often very poor, his decision making extremely poor in knowing when to back off and when to commit, in possession going forward he retains possession way too long and generally makes the wrong choice of delivery at the wrong time  (against Porto there was a very obvious error in the first half when he should have rolled and easy ball to the overlapping play but ignored, kept possesion for too long and then just lumped it into Mitro). This is not scapegoating which is a lazy term, the critical analysis is a judgement call based on seeing a player many of us feel needs an urgent upgrade.

[Statto]

To be fair, the idea that fans pay the wages of the players these days doesn't really hold much water.

I haven't seen the numbers lately but I'm pretty sure that match day revenue pails in comparison to TV and Advertising these days.

Clubs' TV and advertising revenues are still ultimately coming from "fans".

Perhaps in other contexts one could argue that fans are only people who go to matches regularly, but by "fans" in this context, we're clearly referring to a broad body of people encompassing all the people giving feedback on Christie's performances on social media, Friends of Fulham etc, many of whom won't go to games.

They're the same people who pay to have Sky so they can watch Fulham on TV, so they're still paying Christie's wages, one way or another.

[simplyfulham]

To be fair, the idea that fans pay the wages of the players these days doesn't really hold much water.

I haven't seen the numbers lately but I'm pretty sure that match day revenue pails in comparison to TV and Advertising these days.

Clubs' TV and advertising revenues are still ultimately coming from "fans".

Perhaps in other contexts one could argue that fans are only people who go to matches regularly, but by "fans" in this context, we're clearly referring to a broad body of people encompassing all the people giving feedback on Christie's performances on social media, Friends of Fulham etc, many of whom won't go to games.

They're the same people who pay to have Sky so they can watch Fulham on TV, so they're still paying Christie's wages, one way or another.

In one context, yes the fans will pay to watch Fulham on a match day or on the telly.

But Chutney's point was that we have the right to have a pop or demand more because we are fans and he earns a well paid living because of fans. Which isn't be case. Firstly because I'm sure Fulham fans make up a tiny tiny tiny portion of Sky's subscribers.. or any tv service provider for that matter.

Secondly, because the money doesn't really come from subscribers, is the advertisers. Which is driven by the amount of subscribers. Which is an indirect correlation surely?

If you want to feedback on Christie's game then that's part and parcel of it all and whether that's right or wrong is a slightly different argument. But you don't have any entitlement to an opinion because you pay money into the system.

[FFC1987]

You have entitlement to opinion because you live in the West (and a lot of places in the world) and thats a right, not because you pay into a system.

[Statto]

To be fair, the idea that fans pay the wages of the players these days doesn't really hold much water.

I haven't seen the numbers lately but I'm pretty sure that match day revenue pails in comparison to TV and Advertising these days.

Clubs' TV and advertising revenues are still ultimately coming from "fans".

Perhaps in other contexts one could argue that fans are only people who go to matches regularly, but by "fans" in this context, we're clearly referring to a broad body of people encompassing all the people giving feedback on Christie's performances on social media, Friends of Fulham etc, many of whom won't go to games.

They're the same people who pay to have Sky so they can watch Fulham on TV, so they're still paying Christie's wages, one way or another.

In one context, yes the fans will pay to watch Fulham on a match day or on the telly.

But Chutney's point was that we have the right to have a pop or demand more because we are fans and he earns a well paid living because of fans. Which isn't be case. Firstly because I'm sure Fulham fans make up a tiny tiny tiny portion of Sky's subscribers.. or any tv service provider for that matter.

Secondly, because the money doesn't really come from subscribers, is the advertisers. Which is driven by the amount of subscribers. Which is an indirect correlation surely?

If you want to feedback on Christie's game then that's part and parcel of it all and whether that's right or wrong is a slightly different argument. But you don't have any entitlement to an opinion because you pay money into the system.

Not really seeing where you're coming from to be honest.

We, the body of fans in the UK and abroad, buy the tickets when we go to games, buy the shirts and other merchandise, go to the bookies and bet on the results, buy Sky so we can watch games on TV, go to the pubs that in turn pay for Sky and permission to broadcast it to their patrons, drink their beer, and we're the targets of the advertising for gambling, newer etc around the pitch, on the players' shirts, on the website, on the tele and everywhere else. It seems pretty clear and inescapable to me that the whole industry exists purely to advertise and sell us football and associated products through various channels, and we fund and drive all that.

Yes Fulham fans are a small portion of Sky's subscribers but the money Sky pays Fulham is a proportionately small portion of their total revenue from televised football. And more relevantly, Cyrus Christie is a very small portion, just one, of the many hundreds of players they cover.

[Mullers OG]

Opinions on players are inevitably subjective.  We all have our own views as to the merits, or otherwise, of certain players.  On a website such as this it is perfectly reasonable to express our comments providing they are based on the performance on the field rather than turning into personal attacks.

My own view is that right back is our weakest position.  Unlike many others I am a bit of a fan of Odoi in the middle.  If the rest of the team had shown as much fight and desire last season as he did we might not have gone down.  Christie is no doubt a decent hardworking player but he is not, in my opinion, good enough to hold down a place at right back.  Ray Smith compared his performances with those of Fred Callaghan or Moritz Volz.  It's difficult to compare players with those long ago but my memories of Moritz Volz were that he was a real premier division full back and a bit of a cult hero.  I hope I'm wrong but I can't see Christie becoming either.

[Matt10]

Said it before, but please advise of what match he struggled defensively other than Arsenal at home when he was forced into a new wingback role.

He needs to work on his crossing with his right foot. It's just that simple for me. Defensively, I think he will be fine because I genuinely can't recall a match where he struggled so terribly as the comments seem to suggest.