Jump to content

Style or success?


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Pablo Bonvin said:

Exactly this. We weren't the most stylish under Wilkinson but they were good times on the whole.

 

Oh for those days again !!.

 

I watched most of the games played under HW and was never bored. The excitement is surely in watching the goals go in, winning matches, and gaining promotion.

 

OH FOR THOSE DAYS AGAIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hougoumont said:

Yes they were...until teams worked us out and we got bored poo-less by the same old same old same week after week.

if they'd worked wilkinson out, how come he won promotion the following year? and the title within 4 years?

we got 'sniped' at by all the 'experts' on tv, until sufficient numbers of our supporters bought into the 'we ought to be playing better' shyte, that undermined wilkinson, the team, and the club, he moved forward, and the rest is history. 

empires are brought down from within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dorian gray said:

if they'd worked wilkinson out, how come he won promotion the following year? and the title within 4 years?

we got 'sniped' at by all the 'experts' on tv, until sufficient numbers of our supporters bought into the 'we ought to be playing better' shyte, that undermined wilkinson, the team, and the club, he moved forward, and the rest is history. 

empires are brought down from within.

Oh! Rubbish. We got promoted by battering teams with long balls then had a good season in Division one. We got worked out and eventually the tactics were "give the ball to Brian...and Brian, when you get the ball...cross it for Lee"

Wilkinson did what he could with very limited players and went to Leeds because the board there showed some ambition and recruited good players to work with. He pinched Strachan and Cantona from under our noses because our board hadn't got the foresight to compete at that level. We're still suffering today from the lack of ambition of successive chairmen in the past. Wilkinson won a title because he was a good manager and motivator and could have done it here if he had gotten the backing he needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an aggressive /attacking  way of playing and reaching play-offs would be my ideal scenario but if that way of playing made the play offs unattainable then like most others i'd take the boring route if it keeps the interest alive till the end of the season …...theres nothing worse than the seasons hopes  ending around February .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has to be promotion, but with an inspired choice of manager, the two needn't be mutually exclusive. My concern with success at all costs is the assumption that, after winning promotion, we can then somehow buy more attractive football with Premier League money and turn the ugly duckling into a swan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think want is the wrong word, we need promotion to get us out of the financial hole we are in. I'd go for boring football if that's what it takes to get promotion.

 

I'm not that bothered about us being in the Premiership. Too many prima donnas. It's a bit of a soap opera with all the coverage of every aspect of everything. I'd be happy just to get there so we could refill the coffers with failure payments then come back down to play real proper attractive football.

 

Sorry if that's not a popular view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Success over style every day.

 

Whilst you can have both, you can also have neither. That's why people dismiss the likes of Pulis. Do we want his dour style of play AND failure (miss out on play offs)?

 

At least with a manager known for an attacking, entertaining, style like Holloway, we know that we're likely to get one of the two options, hopefully both. 

With a Pulis type, we know we're likely to be bored, but the "compensation" of success is far from guaranteed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't mind what style of play we have, as long as it's structured and gets results. Why can't we be more attacking, dynamic and stylish, and go up? Who cares one way or the other, just as long as we get results and finally go back up. I don't necessary think there is a right way of playing or a right way of going up. I'd mix it up, I think that's a better way for success at this level to have some flexibility, to change things up when needed and to be able to grind out results but also be able to kill games off. If that's done by being more direct and intense or by being dynamic and stylish, who cares really, just as long as Sheffield Wednesday survives and does well. I just want the best for the club and despite disliking the PL, I'd love to see us finally return and how we get there or what style of play we play is immaterial to me.

Edited by The Night-Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, prowl said:

I think want is the wrong word, we need promotion to get us out of the financial hole we are in. I'd go for boring football if that's what it takes to get promotion.

 

I'm not that bothered about us being in the Premiership. Too many prima donnas. It's a bit of a soap opera with all the coverage of every aspect of everything. I'd be happy just to get there so we could refill the coffers with failure payments then come back down to play real proper attractive football.

 

Sorry if that's not a popular view.

May be more popular than you think. 

Winning is everything. It doesn’t matter which league you’re in.

The joy is in getting promotion.

That soon disappears when you’re getting battered every other week.

I hate everything about the PL circus. Football lost its soul as soon as it began 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hougoumont said:

Oh! Rubbish. We got promoted by battering teams with long balls then had a good season in Division one. We got worked out and eventually the tactics were "give the ball to Brian...and Brian, when you get the ball...cross it for Lee"

Wilkinson did what he could with very limited players and went to Leeds because the board there showed some ambition and recruited good players to work with. He pinched Strachan and Cantona from under our noses because our board hadn't got the foresight to compete at that level. We're still suffering today from the lack of ambition of successive chairmen in the past. Wilkinson won a title because he was a good manager and motivator and could have done it here if he had gotten the backing he needed.

it isn't 'rubbish' it's still happening now.

we have 'an element' in our crowd to whom 'type of build up play' counts as much as 'result' (if not more).

they (still) have an affinity to carlos for bringing 'tiptap' to the club, the same 'tiptap' that failed us miserably 3 years running, and left us with a bank balance as full as the trophy cabinet.

'DINOSAUR FOOTBALL', and 'MODERN FOOTBALL' are their 'hates' and 'desires', whilst 'modern football' brought us ****ing about in our own half and on the half way line instead of attacking the opposition.

the first half's at hillsborough under ole coke were absolute 'dire' with us having little or no intent, and his 'tiptap' thinking left no room for any other system to be considered, so with 3 minutes remaining at wembley v 'ull, and 1-0 down our keeper was still rolling it out to the full backs, and 90 seconds and numerous square balls later we crossed half way.

as for wilkinson's side, it 'crushed' and 'brushed' a great many 'better' teams than us away, it wasn't liked by the 'establishment' we weren't willing to 'know our place' and dutifully stand in it. every time we went away, there was a serious chance of winning.

wilkinson's side started to falter under the pressure of not having the financial support to improve, players lost faith in the club, and both wilkinson and a number of players left to win glory with l**ds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utterly pointless question! Which would you like success or failure. Of course everyone wants success. Dinosaur football keeps you in a division because it means you leak less goals but today it's not good enough to be successful. Pulis at Middlesbrough point proved. If the old dinosaur couldn't do it with one of the best squads in this league then who could. I don't like slow passing football either because that too is ineffective. Needs to be pressing football. But we have to watch this week in week out. You could have said which would you prefer if we fall short entertainment or longball cross. The question is fixed to promote crap football with the illusion it brings success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with going a bit more direct if it brings you the rewards. 

 

What does my head in is the nothing, hoof ball style which the likes of Pulis adopt. 

 

Direct is fine, hoofball isn't imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ferkorf

I'd rather play hoof ball football, win 1-0 every game and wee wee the league than play the 'Attractive free flowing attacking football' that Wednesday have never played anyway and end up finish 8th in the League or getting dumped out of the play offs

I've a funny feeling we will get neither though lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...