Leaping Lannys Perm Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 (edited) If you could only have one in the short term (say next two years) which would you choose? A lot of managers are being automatically ruled out because they play boring football. To be honest I agree with a lot of them but when people don't want David Wagner because of his style of play it seems a little extreme to me. So if you could only have one in the next two seasons which would you choose: A) Stylish football but fall short of promotion. B) Less attractive football but succeed in getting promotion. I'm not suggesting it can only be one or the other but sometimes managers seem to be dismissed as successful but boring. For me I'd be happy with boring but successful football for a couple of seasons if it meant getting up and getting some PL money. Then hope to use said PL money to build a more attractive side. But I can see the argument the other way as well. Edited July 22, 2019 by Leaping Lannys Perm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Not mutually inclusive. I don’t want to play. Feeling grumpy this morning so there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatzooma Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 If the goals are going in I don’t think anyone would argue against a more direct approach to winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Bonvin Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Just now, fatzooma said: If the goals are going in I don’t think anyone would argue against a more direct approach to winning. Exactly this. We weren't the most stylish under Wilkinson but they were good times on the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest domSWFC Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I don't care about our style of play. I just want to see the team play with a high tempo and intensity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Success Something we’ve rarely had.. Give me Mourinho grinding out a title rather than Keegan having a meltdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torres Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Success every time - but then you build on it Most supporters want progression from their club - even Man City Get a winning base then improve on style Never the other way round 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarn owl Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Success. Don’t care about arguments about ‘who plays the better football’. Win games by whichever way works. Tika taka and high press football are just ways the best teams in the world play, it doesn’t mean we need to copy as that doesn’t necessarily work lower down. Play to our strengths to win games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopparberg Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I’d take option B - winning is everything when it comes to building the club - we’ve been the bridesmaid long enough. However, if you look at someone like Brentford, they always get praised for their football but it’s not getting them anywhere. Which is fair enough if that’s the plan. Brentford probably make a lot of player sales though (?) but therefore won’t get that major money you get for promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurujuan Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Depends what you mean by success, winning the league by a mile, then yes I might be prepared to sacrifice a bit of style 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wilyfox Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Success. Doesn't need to be sexy football in the championship. Be beast, then add some beauty in the prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Neg Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 On balance I'd probably take Option B but I'm just remembering how fed up half the fans were when we ground out our way to 4th place in league under Carlos playing boring football! It's a tough one, play like that and get to 4th people will always accuse the team of fearing the opponent and showing a lack of ambition unless you win the league. I often agreed with them. All about body language and some swagger for me, something we only showed was strong at times in our 1st season under Carlos. Being able to do that and change the tactics up when needed. That's what inspires confidence amongst the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areNOTwhatTHEYseem Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 20 minutes ago, domSWFC said: I don't care about our style of play. I just want to see the team play with a high tempo and intensity. Wouldn't that be a style of play? For me, I'm more than happy playing whatever kind of football, as long as we're winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 (edited) Somewhere in the middle is the ideal I think we had plenty of style in 2015/16 but came up short against physical sides. A more pragmatic approach the following season saw us finish higher but then a lack of ability to take the shackles off/reliance on two key link players in lee and Hooper saw us fail again. However there isn’t an ideal situation given that the league starts in 2 weeks. With the squad we have and the need to punch above id go for Rowett. Edited July 22, 2019 by Bluesteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteG_1984 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Anyone wanting style over promotion wants their head checking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hougoumont Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 29 minutes ago, Pablo Bonvin said: Exactly this. We weren't the most stylish under Wilkinson but they were good times on the whole. Yes they were...until teams worked us out and we got bored poo-less by the same old same old same week after week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Cosby Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Think the fact that pretty much everyone got behind Bruce answers the question. He wasn't known for champagne football, but he is a proven winner at this level. Most seem to be against the idea of Pulis, but if he got us promoted with the most eye bleedingly, negative football in history, he'd still be hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthefish2002 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 I dont think they is dull and boring style if it wins matches. If Tony Pulis style puts you top of the league I am sure most people would enjoy it. But when Tony Pulis style is not working well it can look awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorian gray Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 45 minutes ago, Leaping Lannys Perm said: If you could only have one in the short term (say next two years) which would you choose? A lot of managers are being automatically ruled out because they play boring football. To be honest I agree with a lot of them but when people don't want David Wagner because of his style of play it seems a little extreme to me. So if you could only have one in the next two seasons which would you choose: A) Stylish football but fall short of promotion. B) Less attractive football but succeed in getting promotion. I'm not suggesting it can only be one or the other but sometimes managers seem to be dismissed as successful but boring. For me I'd be happy with boring but successful football for a couple of seasons if it meant getting up and getting some PL money. Then hope to use said PL money to build a more attractive side. But I can see the argument the other way as well. just watched the highlights of our game in germany. 1st. and 3rd. goals opened with a long trough ball in the build up, 'dinosaur football' shouldn't have been allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthefish2002 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Bing Cosby said: Think the fact that pretty much everyone got behind Bruce answers the question. He wasn't known for champagne football, but he is a proven winner at this level. Most seem to be against the idea of Pulis, but if he got us promoted with the most eye bleedingly, negative football in history, he'd still be hero. I think if Tony Pulis got promotion with 'eye bleedingly, negative football' he would be even more of a hero because of the criticism from outside he would receive so people would rally round him even more. Sturrocks style was functional but was a big hero when we won the play offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now