Just thinking of Dawson, who we all seem to view very highly even though we recognise his faults. For me its his commitment and seeming genuine affinity with Spurs. Discuss.
I try not to have favourites as I'd like to stay as objective as possible when assessing players development. But if I were a football manager then commitment would be something very important to me in a player. But my experience in my own life has taught me that my behaviour as a manager is crucially important to whether staff are committed. the odd person will be lazy whatever you try but most commitment problems are soluble imho.
first off you have to be decent. If you aren't good enough you will never be a FF. Then, as you say, loyalty/commitment. Dawson wins on both of those. Like PS though, i try not to have a fave. You are just asking for trouble as said player is bound to **** you over sooner or later nowadays
It varies, I think. Players like Michael Dawson, Gary Mabbutt or Scott Parker are valued for their battling qualities and apparent old-school outlook. They seem to be honest, down to earth, hard working and committed. A related type would be that long term squad player that's never quite good enough, but always gives 100% in every game when selected and never makes a fuss of being dropped. The other extreme is probably someone like Gazza, Ginola or van der Vaart, who can just pull out a bit of magic that 99% of other players can't. The whole 'fine line between genius and madness' thing tends to lend this kind of player an air of unpredictability and that wow factor that others don't have. A third option would be the unique or outlandish, I think. Someone that's just completely different to everyone else around.
True but it just seems that some people you can't help but like and want to do well. Lennon's the same for me, every poor cross he puts in, im always making an excuse for it (I do find he has improved on that front, even though I know some disagree).
As others have said commitment is important. Also loyalty to the club (rare, I know) is key. I tend to think captains or those with captain-abilities make good FF's, like King, Daws and Parker. Goals against rivals/ important goals (Crouch v City to ensure CL) adhere players to fans forever imo. I enjoy having a favourite, without getting too attached because they will eventually leave/retire.
Crouch was never a fan favourite, despite important goals against City and Milan. Daws is a strange one, because a few seasons ago he was getting all manner of stick and there were comments about him being unworthy to wear the shirt, even though he was playing injured in a team with a midfield incapable of screening the back four (i.e. the pairing of Jenas and Zokora) - he's been loved since Palacios/Sandro/Livermore/Parker came into the side, which coincided with him looking like a reliable defender once more. Reliability also helps make a fan favourite - that would explain why Pavluychenko was a favourite, because even if he was lazy and had a terrible first touch, he could still stick the ball into the net when it mattered most.
Does a player have to stay here for many seasons to be a favourite? I don't think so, Berbatov was a favourite with everyone while he played. VdV when he signed was a favourite, Bale is no doubt currently a lot of peoples favourite, none of these are or will be one club players. And then you have everyones favourite who did stay, Ledley. I think its more about what the player does on the green stuff to endear him to fans. Loyalty and club commitment on and off the pitch are reasons to like a player in a different way. Good player + loyalty = Legend, not Favourite imo.
Honestly? I'd say he was due to the goals he scored and his quirkiness in a way. Admittedly his red against Madrid soured his goal against Milan somewhat?
On reflection I can see he wasn't a fan favourite, because he got a fair bit of stick from fans but he was a personal favourite of mine
I expect Stoke's fans have some favorites we all think are monsters. Man U have Scholes who is a hero in many eyes but an animal when it comes to tackling in the view of others. I like players like Steve Perryman, Gary Mabbut, and Matt LeTissier for their loyalty to a club, but it's very difficult now to be loyal when there is so much money sloshing about and your agent is touting you here there and everywhere.
Gomes was forgiven for his howler in the second leg, unless Crouch for his red in the first leg. On the one hand I can agree up to a point with the anti-Crouch sentiment, given his height meant a lot of players switched off and played hoof ball (especially Daws and the long diagonal), but on the other he's one of the players everyone seems to single out as being crap long before a ball has been kicked.
Given the opinions of other Spurs fans I've seen on Zokora's ability, a good song and a bit of participation with the crowd goes a long way. I think I was the only one that actually rated him.
Zokora did get an easier ride than some players - but as soon as Palacios arrived, everyone forgot him and barely noticed we'd shipped him out.
This also explains the fans' love of Steffen Freund, doesn't it? As far as I could see the most tangible contributuion he ever made was shouting at and geeing up the crowd. Always plenty of effort and he looked like he cared too I guess. But not terribly good as a footballer.
He did break up the opponents' play, which we needed at the time - but, oddly, so did Michael Brown and he was never a fan favourite.
PNP has a good summary. Toughness/determination/loyalty (favorite bulldog sort of player like Parker) Blinding ability like Bale. Or oddity. Sometimes oddity may consist simply in having an odd name. A moment looked forward to all game by seventies era NY Knicks basketball fans was the big announcement: AnDDDDDD CCCCOMMMMMMMINNNNNNGGGGG INTOOOOO THEEEEEEE GAAAAAAMMMMMMEE.......................................HAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWTHORNE WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNGOOOOOOOOO! The crowd always went wild.
