Backing Players, Not The Mob

I’ll say it straight: I back the players who get criticised, but that doesn’t mean I’m blind. Some knocks on Raskin deserve a proper look, not instant dismissal.

Why I back certain players

To be fair, supporting someone like Aasgaard or defending reasonable points about Dessers doesn’t mean you’re soft-headed. It’s not about who the fans like or hate; it’s about whether a player is doing the job required. Fans are tribal by nature — once a narrative sticks, it’s hard to shift. But that doesn’t mean every criticism is born from malice. Sometimes it’s observation, not hate.

Raskin compared to Lundstram

Look, I’ll admit I prefer honesty over platitudes. For me John Lundstram often did things in games that Raskin hasn’t matched. That’s not some grand statement of betrayal, just an assessment of influence on the pitch. People say Raskin has been fine all season; I’m not convinced he’s been at his best consistently. There are matches where he looks composed and decisive, and others where he seems to be holding back.

Are players managing fitness for bigger goals?

There’s a view — and it’s a reasonable one to discuss — that some players might be managing their output to protect themselves for an international tournament in the winter. Call it being cautious. Call it pragmatic. Whatever you call it, if you start looking for signs of that, patterns jump out. Playing at 60 percent isn’t a crime, but when the title race is on you want everyone giving everything. The truth is, fans notice these things. We’re allowed to question whether it’s acceptable in the context of a title push.

At the end of the day, backing a player doesn’t mean ignoring criticism. It means being fair. If a player truly steps up and changes the narrative, great. But until then, a bit of scrutiny is part of being a supporter. It’s not hatred — it’s holding the team to the standard we all want to see.

Written by ItsNotComplicated: 2 June 2026