Can we not defend one of our players?

[70sPimlico]

I happen to think that many of the anti RLC posts are from people that don't really understand the game.

I get wound up when I see people having a go at a player in a white shirt, who I think have the same sort of knowledge of the game as a parent at an under 8's. (I run a football club)

This is just my pov. But I've now had 2 posts defending a player in a white shirt deleted.

Is it only certain players that we can defend?

[cookieg]

RLC is this season's scapegoat. If ex-pros who are commentating on the game say he has had a good game then so be it. I'd rather listen to them than the armchair managers who constantly pick holes in our players.

[Baszab]

Look at Bobby Zamora's reaction on Sky while talking about LC
He just stopped himself from saying he was crap - still said he was poor

[Twig]

You can defend who you like but I'd ask you not to hand out unwarranted insults by saying that those of us who take the opposite view don't understand the game.  That's downright condescending.

[70sPimlico]

Look at Bobby Zamora's reaction on Sky while talking about LC
He just stopped himself from saying he was crap - still said he was poor

He didn't have a great game. He was denied space. But, he did a lot of good things. Not his best game on a pitch but he did ok.
No posts about Reid. Or Reed. Or Lemina.

It was clearly RLC that deserves all the venom.

OK

[Friendsoffulham]

I happen to think that many of the anti RLC posts are from people that don't really understand the game.

I get wound up when I see people having a go at a player in a white shirt, who I think have the same sort of knowledge of the game as a parent at an under 8's. (I run a football club)

This is just my pov. But I've now had 2 posts defending a player in a white shirt deleted.

Is it only certain players that we can defend?

You have not had two post removed for defending a player in a white shirt, they've most likely been removed, because they've got out of hand, political, or abusive.

Also, you were sent a PM recently, about addressing the Forum directly, and to pop any issues about rules etc in a PM.

[filham]

You have to remember that Loftus Cheek is a Chelsea player and an Englgish international on huge wages and therefore to  get us Fulham fans right behind him he has to be better than average. That is not entirely unreasonable.

He has had a lot of game time and it really is time we saw something special from him.

[70sPimlico]

You can defend who you like but I'd ask you not to hand out unwarranted insults by saying that those of us who take the opposite view don't understand the game.  That's downright condescending.

My friend. It is not the opposite view that offends me.

[70sPimlico]

I happen to think that many of the anti RLC posts are from people that don't really understand the game.

I get wound up when I see people having a go at a player in a white shirt, who I think have the same sort of knowledge of the game as a parent at an under 8's. (I run a football club)

This is just my pov. But I've now had 2 posts defending a player in a white shirt deleted.

Is it only certain players that we can defend?

You have not had two post removed for defending a player in a white shirt, they've most likely been removed, because they've got out of hand, political, or abusive.

Also, you were sent a PM recently, about addressing the Forum directly, and to pop any issues about rules etc in a PM.

You are mistaking me with someone else

[Bassey the warrior]

Look at Bobby Zamora's reaction on Sky while talking about LC
He just stopped himself from saying he was crap - still said he was poor

He didn't have a great game. He was denied space. But, he did a lot of good things. Not his best game on a pitch but he did ok.
No posts about Reid. Or Reed. Or Lemina.

It was clearly RLC that deserves all the venom.

OK

He was worse than them, Lookman had a similarly poor game.

[70sPimlico]

I happen to think that many of the anti RLC posts are from people that don't really understand the game.

I get wound up when I see people having a go at a player in a white shirt, who I think have the same sort of knowledge of the game as a parent at an under 8's. (I run a football club)

This is just my pov. But I've now had 2 posts defending a player in a white shirt deleted.

Is it only certain players that we can defend?

You have not had two post removed for defending a player in a white shirt, they've most likely been removed, because they've got out of hand, political, or abusive.

Also, you were sent a PM recently, about addressing the Forum directly, and to pop any issues about rules etc in a PM.

You are mistaking me with someone else

If you are prepared to say that publicly, then I give you the permission to show that message publicly on this thread

[FFC In Oz]

RLC has a clause in his loan agreement stipulating he must be played for 90 minutes each and every game regardless of form

[davew]

I think we should be voting for WMOTM (worst man of the match), I would be struggling to decide between about 4 or 5 of our players tonight, RLC would be 1 of them though as he often is!

[70sPimlico]

RLC has a clause in his loan agreement stipulating he must be played for 90 minutes each and every game regardless of form

OK. So, he also has a clause saying saying he can be on the bench as both a used and unused sub?

Is this our choice, his choice or when chelsea choose?

Honestly, Mr Aus, you're posting nonsense

[Plodder]

I have given it a good hour to try to take the emotion out of my view.  I have to disagree with you, 70sPimlico, on this one. I have not criticised RLC on this board to date (as far as I can recall) and I don't do it lightly, but I thought that game was RLC's worst for us - I think he had an absolute stinker tonight.  I lost count of the misplaced passes, the losses of possession, and it was capped by both the challenge early on for which he might have been sent off (just about the only time Jon Moss gave us anything) and his bad miss with a header in the second half when unchallenged close to goal.  Unusually for me and my younger son, we were shouting at the TV in frustration every time he lost the ball, and I am flummoxed by Scott Parker's decision to keep him on the pitch for 90 minutes. I appreciate everyone has different opinions, and I would not use personally abusive terms to him or anyone either in person or on the internet, but in my opinion his performance was terrible tonight.  Somewhere in there may lurk a good Premier League player, but it just has not emerged to date in a Fulham shirt.

[FFC In Oz]

RLC has a clause in his loan agreement stipulating he must be played for 90 minutes each and every game regardless of form

But he has a clause in the clause saying he can be on the bench as both a used and unused sub.

Is this we he chooses, or when chelsea do?

My comment was tongue in cheek mate I wasn't being serious.

My problem with RLC is that he shows glimpses of quality in every game but doesn't seem to be putting in requisite effort when we don't have the ball.

And for a lad his size, he should be a lot more physical with his opponents and winning more balls in the air.

[Dodger53]

You can defend who you like but I'd ask you not to hand out unwarranted insults by saying that those of us who take the opposite view don't understand the game.  That's downright condescending.

PLUS 1!
In my opinion Ruben stops a lot of our play, he loses the ball,, his passing is dreadful and his first tackle in 15+ games could have been a red card.

[The Rational Fan]

If a player is good enough to make the XI even as the weakest link, then he deserves some praise. I am sick of players getting abused, when they are better than 14 other players in the squad (ie not starting) and worse than the other 10 players in the starting XI.

We should stop criticising the 11th best player out of a squad of 25 players, especially as the 15th player is so often getting praise with comments he should play. Most of the time the players we criticise as crap would make decent squad players; hopefully we can bring a players so weaker players get more  rests.

[FFCFOREVER]

RLC has been the biggest let down of all the new signings. As I said in another thread he just frustrates me so much. It's not that he is pants or anything, it's just that he can be so much better and more capable than he has produced thus far.

[Twig]

If a player is good enough to make the XI even as the weakest link, then he deserves some praise. I am sick of players getting abused, when they are better than 14 other players in the squad (ie not starting) and worse than the other 10 players in the starting XI.

We should stop criticising the 11th best player out of a squad of 25 players, especially as the 15th player is so often getting praise with comments he should play. Most of the time the players we criticise as crap would make decent squad players; hopefully we can bring a players so weaker players get more  rests.

Your assumption that RLC starting makes him our 11th best player is so questionable that the rest of your post isn't even worth reading.