By its very nature, analysis of such definitions is intrinsically nebulous. Indeed, any considered scrutiny tends to be as fleeting as a Richard Dunne sighting of Thierry Henry. The very precision crucial for arguments to be properly sustained and understood becomes hard to sustain as the pendulum of discussion swings towards those extremes whence hackles are raised and polarisation reigns.
For my own part, I have to say I find what is emerging to be truly fascinating. More significantly I find it also to be grievously dispiriting.
What is certain is that, whatever anyone's take may happen to be on it all, what we are witnessing within the cameo scenario developing between some Liverpool supporters and Gerard Houllier undoubtedly reflects the times in which we live. Beseiging us from every direction you care to glance is the culture of 'self' that our current age seems to have invoked within the psyche of so many of us. We live in a time where expectancy and the gratification of such expectancy as something of a personal right have become prevailing forces. For sure, they are forces both looming uncomfortably large around Anfield just now.
I'll begin my own analysis with the most contentious of the extremes on offer by stating that the core tenet of the Houllierites - that a supporter cannot be classed as such unless they maintain such support at all times - is irrefutably correct if applying the most rigorous of definition criteria.
The reason why it is correct is because quite starkly it HAS to be. In its strictest sense a 'supporter' of something simply has to 'support' or else they are no longer 'supporting'. Put another way, if a 'supporter' withdraws their 'support' then they can no longer be a 'supporter'. It is an extreme and simplistic slant on what is a complex matter but does at least provide us with a base line from where the rest of the spectrum of such support may be considered.
Now whether the term 'supporter' - in such a strict purist sense - has any relevance in the arena in which football teams and their 'followers' operate is very questionable. A brief reflection on how the term came to slot into its footballing context might help clarify this point.
In football's early years a follower of a football team was actually termed an 'enthusiast'. In those times, there was little, if any, inherent moral obligation on the part of such enthusiasts to stick by their team through thick and thin. Such a concept of loyalty and attachment had not developed back then as the enthusiasts were the pioneering generation of football followers defining the rules and criteria as they went along. The enthusiasts attended the games more to be royally entertained for the relative pittance they had to cough up than to demonstrate their loyalty. Of course, as time went on the relationship between the enthusiasts and the clubs over which they enthused developed into what could fittingly be termed a bond. It was the evolution of this 'club-club follower bond' that saw the application of the term 'supporter' become the vogue and for a long time now the term in its broadest sense has been very relevant in relation to such club-supporter bonds. Quite simply you support 'your team'. It is what football supporters do.
Of course, being such an ongoing state of existence, for your average supporter to fulfill the stringent dictionary definition of unflinching support without ever demurring is, in the real world of the football's unending dramas, manifestly impossible. Inevitably, relentlessly, there will occur some degree of hiatus in that support. It is, quite simply, the nature of the beast and it can take many forms. It may be a moan, it may be a groan. It may be a sigh, it may even be a cry. It can encompass writing to a newspaper or phoning a radio station. Posting on a Forum or losing your decorum. Whichever way it happens to manifest itself, what it cannot encompass is a withdrawal of support.
The bonds between a football supporter and club are first and foremost shrouded in emotion. As such they are subject to the stresses and strains that emotions can unleash. From time to time there can be, shall we say, a falling out; a disillusionment as it were. It can be with the manager, a player or players, the club itself. In the overall scheme of things, if originating merely from some heartfelt concern that the well-being of the club is under threat from within or without, then such temporary disillusionment amounts to scarcely anything. It certainly does nothing to alter the integrity of the underlying attachment.
As one who, on the whole, values and supports Gerard Houllier - though remaining somewhat unconvinced by his cautious approach and some of his other well-documented shortcomings - I can certainly understand why an exceedingly devoted Houllier supporter would want to discredit the stance of those who so much as question the manager's suitability for retaining the job. I can also see why that same Houllierite might perhaps want to interpret such lack of support for the manager as constituting a corresponding lack of support for the club. That said, I am not so short-sighted that I cannot see at the same time that any such show of dismay or frustration with the regime in charge of a club might well be every bit as well-founded as it is ill-founded. Such a view may well not correspond with that of the Houllierite but that by no means renders it necessarily wrong. Nor is it inconsistent with still retaining support for the club itself. Indeed, the only certainty in all this is that, at this juncture, NOBODY can be certain as to whether the current relative ineffectiveness of Gerard Houllier's management regime is a short or long term problem.
Where the current anti-Houllier stance does begin to become questionable is when it fails to acknowledge the weight of evidence supporting the manager's capability and achievements to date or where it strays into vexatious territory by pillorying a man who, irrevocably, has given his heart and soul to the cause. As, indeed, Gerard Houllier has done in huge dollops since he began managing Liverpool Football Club.
Even worse is when that stance would seem to be governed purely and simply by the craving for success either in silverware, Champions League qualification or scintillating football. Or all three simultaneously. It is then that the motives behind such a stance deserve to be questioned. It is then that the demands for Gerard Houllier's removal do begin to leave an extremely rancid taste. For it is at such a point that such a stance becomes incongruous with some of the underlying tenets of what supporting a football club should still constitute.
Indeed, we can take this point further because in the case of much of what I have heard and read in this connection recently it does appear to lie at the very heart of the entire issue. The fact is if the criterion for a supporter's support is principally the past and, more pertinently, the potential success/glamour of the particular club in question then it could perhaps be construed that such a follower is more of a follower of those particular attractions rather than a supporter of the actual club itself. It is a fine point, I know only too well. An extremely sensitive one, too. But, in the current circumstances in which we find ourselves, perhaps it is one we as supporters should care to reflect upon with unprecedented fastidiousness, particularly having regard to the aforementioned 'expectancy/gratification culture' which is now so prevailing amongst us.
At some stage in our recent past, certain prominent personnel at Liverpool Football Club may well have uttered that extravagant yet frankly preposterous statement that this club of ours exists only for success. The fact that there are those currently following the fortunes of the club who have actually taken such tripe literally is, I'm afraid, a major factor here.
Bill Shankly once said he was building Liverpool into a bastion of invincibilty. That was not too long before we were humbled at Vicarage Road in an FA Cup tie. And, as one of those unfortunate enough to witness that humiliation, I really do mean 'humbled'.
The lesson is clearly there to be drawn. There is NO divine right here. Liverpool Football Club may well have enjoyed unprecedented success in the past. The name may well be inextricably linked with the glory that accompanied that success. Great footballers, magnificent football and peerless glory may well be synonomous with the club. At heart, however, this club is still just another football club competing like all the rest for the few prizes on offer. As special as we may consider it to be, so too do the fans of other football clubs regard their own clubs. Sure, attempting to repeat our bygone successes is where any club with great pride sets its sights. Whether it achieves such goals is quite another matter. More pertinent in this instance is whether it achieves such goals to order.
Less than two years ago Gerard Houllier managed to live up to the absurdity of that claim of this club existing solely for success. The fact that currently his team is apparently falling considerably short of that same level is something he will clearly in time attempt to address and rectify. Such time, moreover, he has more than earned by his managerial success with us to date.
Likewise, those fans with a genuine concern and regard for the Liverpool Football Club have the right to the opinion that Gerard Houllier may not be the right man to make those rectifications and lead this club any further. So be it. They, too, it must be said, have earned such a right. Provided such opinion is borne from a bona fide dissatisfaction stemming from considered evaluation of the man's track record then few can question their right to such a view no matter that many shrewd observers might view it with scepticism.
If, however, such opinion stems principally from an expectancy and craving for further success and glory following Gerard Houllier's initial premature successes rather than from an undying 'warts and all' love of, respect for and loyalty to the football club and regime attempting to achieve them, then - whether successful, scintillating or otherwise - it may just be the case that this club is better served without followers with such shallow tenets and supporting principles. Certainly, it would seem the time is right for all those demanding the removal of Gerard Houllier to search their collective conscience to determine the origins and motives behind their respective attachments to this football club. The gravity of what they are baying for - i.e. the removal of a manager who is experiencing an unsuccessful period in what is a long term and radical and up to now reasonably successful transformation of their football club - demands that they conduct such self examination honestly and thoroughly. The stakes involved here are far too high and the consequences far too grievous - for both the club and personally for Gerard Houllier - for them to do otherwise.
