Fickle is a word that comes up with more regularity these days.
If one section of supporters take umbrage to a run of poor results over the course of a few weeks, there is another set of fans equally as vociferous at hand to put them in their place.
Similarly, if a once lauded darling of the playing squad experiences a dip in form so drastic that onlookers begin to voice discontent, there will be a loyal brigade of devotees who will not allow a bad word to be said.
Was it always like this?
Was there always a deep rooted sense of immediacy, entitlement and opinion that fostered such heated debate on the terraces?
I say terraces loosely. The sort of conversational disagreements associated with football spend more time being played out relentlessly on social media and message boards then they do in the back rooms and urinals of a worn down Arthur Wait Stand.
It is a word that has been thrown between Palace supporters of late. The woeful run of form that has burst the Crystal Palace bubble has seen an increased rise in debate about the state and depth of the current squad, or indeed a debate about being allowed to have an opinion at all.
To brand someone fickle or belligerent for questioning the form, tactics, ability or health of the current Palace side is a grossly unfair criticism. To simply palm away a supporters genuine concerns as reactionary fickleness is disrespectful not just to the opinion itself, but to any individual history of devotion to the club that person might have.
Myself and others at TEB HQ are of the opinion that things will balance themselves out – injuries, player performance peaks and individual errors conspiring to give Palace a truer reflection of their ability in the wider Premier League. But it is important to question decisions – important to challenge and expect more from those running the club or representing the club.
Is it fickle to expect Crystal Palace to constantly strive to be better and as good as they can be?
Is it fickle to not want to settle for mediocrity, in a season where Leicester City are showing the rest why the expected controlling order of the top spots can be so spectacularly turned on its head?
For me, that is not fickleness. That is a healthy challenging of the status quo and an aspirational belief that this wonderful club in South East London, ‘South London’s Number 1’, can nurture and develop its fantastic potential to become a mainstay in the upper echelons of English football.
Sure, Pardew’s arrival twelve months ago has helped the continued rejuvenation of the once hapless Eagles, but the goodwill and thus far good job still should not shield him from criticism about player selection, or persistence with once leading men like Jason Puncheon who’s consistently poor form has to be as glaring to him as it is to supporters.
Challenging Pardew on matters of selection and substitutions is not disrespectful. It is healthy. Regardless of legend or loyalty, facilitating a power vacuum where one cannot raise issue with decisions in itself is what can lead to stagnation and decline. It will not be rapid or spectacular, but debilitating over time. Like brushing matters under the carpet for years before realising the scale of the mess accrued and not having a skip not big enough to clear it sufficiently.
TEB is no clairvoyant. This is not an eery prediction of the future state of Crystal Palace should Pardew stay in charge. It would be fickle of us to call for his head in what is clearly not rational thinking. It is merely a point to be made about how negligent it can be should questions about under-performance not be asked.
The same logic applies to strategy in recruitment, as was the case with many questioning in a similar fashion the thinking behind Palace not desperately splurging cash in January like those below them fighting for their lives.
Palace supporters are a vibrant bunch, and given recent history are not likely to passively sit by with a box of popcorn and watch a catastrophic deterioration unfold.
Given the way in which fans galvanised in 2010 to take the fight to save the club to the streets outside Lloyds Bank, we should be proud of the passion and refusal to be silenced that flows through the stands. Amazingly, this is a brush that many use to beat those who question or bemoan the current situation with.
‘I would have taken this in 2010 – pipe down’
Of course you would. We all would have. But it is immaterial and frustratingly ironic.
Those events were massively important and there would not be a Crystal Palace had fans remained bent over a wall taking a pummeling from banks and administrators and decision men in the board room with a competency in incompetency. We challenged authority and demanded a just solution. Raising issue in 2016 has nothing to do with 2010.
Sentiment generally is that Palace will get through this run of form as some key players get themselves off the treatment table and Pardew for the most part is still doing a decent job. The goodwill that exists between supporters, management and players should not foster infallibility though, and sentimentality towards the players who got us here over the past couple of years should not create a polarised view on their merits. Things are beginning to look bleak.
We need to ask questions. Where do we envisage Pardew and his players coming up with the answers if there is no proposition put in front of them? How in the hell do we stop the rot if we facilitate a free ride?
Let us not lump those who question or expect more of the club into the fickle pile in the corner. We may be glad to be here, but what is football without aspiration and where will we end up if we stop being passionate about the decisions being made at our club?
I know the answer to the last question – it is not too dissimilar to the fickle pile in the corner, but the stench is considerably worse.
