Style or success?

[Quist]

Depends what you mean by style?

 

If you are talking about how we are set up. I would say just before start of season you go with high pressing game we are using and high tempo. To change style would be risky and would not be confident start to season.. 

 

if you mean by style we just play like fancy Dans  I am not a fan.

 

If you have a method and players who can fit that method you will be will be successful and fans always enjoy watching a winning team 

 

I think you were referring to negative tactics to deny opposition openings and not to concede. This is a styel usually adopted by teams avoiding relegation and rarely associated with a team winning things in modern game sooner or later system gets rumbled. I would not want us to go down that route.

 

[dorian gray]

1 hour ago, ashley8 said:

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.

you see you put a different description on 'dinosaur football' than some others.

'dinosaur football' is when you release the ball as early as possible to the forwards hoping to catch the opposition with men committed upfield, for a quick and heavy handed raid on their goal.

'modern football' on the other hand is the keeper rolls it out to f/b, f/b controls the ball and passes it to the c/b on his side, that c/b squares it to the second c/b, who in turn spins it out to the other f/b, whilst this multi passing manoeuvre is taking place the  ball has moved forwards as much a 5 yards in some cases. 

then the f/b spins it back to the c/b that gave it to him a few seconds ago, and so on, and on...………..

when they near the half way line the opposition (just for a laugh) pretend to show for the ball, so one of our c/b's in a panic quickly falls back so the ball can be knocked back to him, he struggles (as they all have been doing) to control it, and either gets it back to the keeper who 'humps it down the field' (just what 'modern football' objects to) or our whole backline retreats to start all over again.

all the time this 'molasses in february' series of manoeuvres has been going on, our slowest, and worst ball players in the side are in danger of being caught on the ball by their (generally) quickest players in our most dangerous area of the field.

modern football = the emperor's new clothes.

when you've got the ball, attack the opposition, when you're 4-0 up start 'knocking it abart'.

[Hougoumont]

2 hours ago, dorian gray said:

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.

 

I'm not talking about the type of football, I'm just giving a potted history of the Wilkinson era. Just pointing out it was great whilst we were battering teams the first two seasons then became very dull and boring when teams figured a way to counter it. I'm sure Wilkinson would have loved to have had the resources that Atkinson was given...but he wasn't so he went to a club that matched his ambitions. It would seem from your post that you have your own prejudices against "tiptap" football as you call it, but I don't think direct football would work at all in this day and age. Time has moved on and so have tactics and coaching.

[dorian gray]

17 minutes ago, Hougoumont said:

I'm not talking about the type of football, I'm just giving a potted history of the Wilkinson era. Just pointing out it was great whilst we were battering teams the first two seasons then became very dull and boring when teams figured a way to counter it. I'm sure Wilkinson would have loved to have had the resources that Atkinson was given...but he wasn't so he went to a club that matched his ambitions. It would seem from your post that you have your own prejudices against "tiptap" football as you call it, but I don't think direct football would work at all in this day and age. Time has moved on and so have tactics and coaching.

'tiptap' is fine IF you have a glut of money to buy the best players in the world to play it, the trouble is it's inferior sides that are trying it, and it's proper 'cack'. 

it takes your worst players for ball control and puts them on the ball for a serious period of time in the most dangerous area of the field to you.

it takes an eternity to get the ball to the forwards, by the time it gets there, your own forward line is very heavily marked up, the time you take to get the ball from keeper to attack is so long the opposition can commit more men to attack than they originally intended as you won't be getting the ball to your attackers in under 2 minutes. 

'tiptap' westwood to fletcher in 2 mins. with numerous opportunities for the opposition to get a foot in

'dinosaur' westwood to fletcher in under 4 seconds. with NO opportunities for the opposition to get a foot in.

tiptap's REIGHT STUFF, it's absolute murder watching defenders badly struggling to control the ball, and shyting themselves whilst doing it.

[Hougoumont]

1 hour ago, dorian gray said:

'tiptap' is fine IF you have a glut of money to buy the best players in the world to play it, the trouble is it's inferior sides that are trying it, and it's proper 'cack'. 

it takes your worst players for ball control and puts them on the ball for a serious period of time in the most dangerous area of the field to you.

it takes an eternity to get the ball to the forwards, by the time it gets there, your own forward line is very heavily marked up, the time you take to get the ball from keeper to attack is so long the opposition can commit more men to attack than they originally intended as you won't be getting the ball to your attackers in under 2 minutes. 

'tiptap' westwood to fletcher in 2 mins. with numerous opportunities for the opposition to get a foot in

'dinosaur' westwood to fletcher in under 4 seconds. with NO opportunities for the opposition to get a foot in.

tiptap's REIGHT STUFF, it's absolute murder watching defenders badly struggling to control the ball, and shyting themselves whilst doing it.

 

That's where we differ in our opinion. In my experience when a side launch a long ball, they lose possession seven times out of ten. A fifty yard arial punt will be met by defenders who for a start are facing the right way and have to do little more than get a header on it to send it back from whence it came. Whereas the attacker has to compete with him facing the wrong way to where he wants to go, so the odds are probably stacked 60/40 to the defender from the off. Plus the defenders will outnumber the forward by two to one so the odds go even more in their favour. The forward is trying to knock it on to his sole team mate whereas the defenders can see their own midfield players in front of them and can try to head the ball to them, they have a huge advantage. That's why I'm not in favour of Wilkinsons POMO football.

  Out of interest, the best (most effective) footballing side I saw at Hillsborough last season was dirty Leeds...and they certainly aren't a long ball side yet haven't paid fortunes for tippy tappy players. How would you describe their style?

[asteener1867]

One of the best moments I can remember is driving back over The Snake after beating City at Maine Rd...Under Wilko..

listening to the post match radio....

They interviewed the City manager or coach at the time..he said

"it was like being by a lorry load of bricks"

Not stylish..but it gave me a warm fuzzy feelin'

"

[31Dec1966]

It's not a beauty contest is it.  Theres only one reason for playing football, that is to win. I don't care how we do it.  I'd much rather be bored witless for 89 minutes then win 1-0 with a scrappy own goal than see an entertaining action packed 4-4 draw.

[adelphi1867]

11 hours 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. 

 

 

That's the way to succeed in English football.

[Simaniac Owl]

B. It’s all about winning. 

 

Now where have I heard that before?

 

 

Oh yes. 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Simaniac Owl

[sherlyegg]

8 hours ago, Hougoumont said:

It would seem from your post that you have your own prejudices against "tiptap" football as you call it, but I don't think direct football would work at all in this day and age

Norwich

Piggies

Liverpool

and even l**ds nearly made it.

 

Not exactly, long ball direct...but near enough and  loads more efficient than tip tap tip. Gerrit forad quickly and accurately ...easy

[Hougoumont]

13 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

Norwich

Piggies

Liverpool

and even l**ds nearly made it.

 

Not exactly, long ball direct...but near enough and  loads more efficient than tip tap tip. Gerrit forad quickly and accurately ...easy

The teams you quote there play nothing like the Wednesday team under Wilkinson which is what we were debating.

[sherlyegg]

27 minutes ago, Hougoumont said:

The teams you quote there play nothing like the Wednesday team under Wilkinson which is what we were debating.

ok

[dorian gray]

16 hours ago, Hougoumont said:

 

That's where we differ in our opinion. In my experience when a side launch a long ball, they lose possession seven times out of ten. A fifty yard arial punt will be met by defenders who for a start are facing the right way and have to do little more than get a header on it to send it back from whence it came. Whereas the attacker has to compete with him facing the wrong way to where he wants to go, so the odds are probably stacked 60/40 to the defender from the off. Plus the defenders will outnumber the forward by two to one so the odds go even more in their favour. The forward is trying to knock it on to his sole team mate whereas the defenders can see their own midfield players in front of them and can try to head the ball to them, they have a huge advantage. That's why I'm not in favour of Wilkinsons POMO football.

  Out of interest, the best (most effective) footballing side I saw at Hillsborough last season was dirty Leeds...and they certainly aren't a long ball side yet haven't paid fortunes for tippy tappy players. How would you describe their style?

i'd describe l**ds as (so far a one off season) seriously lacking a cutting edge, and having won last term what we won under carvalhal. 

your argument of 'the odds boing stacked 60/40 to the defence' maybe correct, BUT do tell me what you think the odds are when you have a keeper in goal, 4 defenders (they've been on the ball for two minutes in the build up), 4 midfielders (at which at best 2 will join the attack) and 2 attackers. now that attacking foursome (maybe only 3) have to break down an opposition defensive element that can now be made up of their entire team of 11 that's had the last 2/4 minutes to 'stroll' back into  position?. if your finding this example hard to visualise, it may help if you think back to our play off final at wembley v 'ull city when all day long we tried to break 'ull down by tip tapping our way through a withdrawn 11 with only the faintest sign of any success, yet we kept the 'flogging of the dead horse' up for the full 90 plus stoppage time.

quickly launched attacking football will get arses out of seats at hillsborough, whilst if the 'modern football' zealots got their way we'd all be nodding off in them again as we 'tediously' worked our way down the field once again, in a style akin to the 'dressage' at the show jumping, whilst the opposition laugh their *nackers off at out defenders struggling to control yet another 20 yard pass.

when we attack the opposition, and the ball is in their half of the field, the likelihood is this is a far better opportunity for us to score, than our defenders being on the ball in our own half, where the situation is the opposition are the likeliest to score.

how many players of the l**ds side ability have we fetched in during the last 4 years for next to nowt? and how are we suddenly going to make that happen?

[dorian gray]

16 hours ago, asteener1867 said:

One of the best moments I can remember is driving back over The Snake after beating City at Maine Rd...Under Wilko..

listening to the post match radio....

They interviewed the City manager or coach at the time..he said

"it was like being by a lorry load of bricks"

Not stylish..but it gave me a warm fuzzy feelin'

"

shout out for 'modern football' anyone who doesn't want quality opposition on 'their own turf' to think they've 'been hit by a lorry load of bricks' after they've played 'THE WEDNESDAY'.

[dorian gray]

14 hours ago, adelphi1867 said:

That's the way to succeed in English football.

the more sets of 'dumplings' that are now tipatpping it about amongst it's defenders who don't look comfortable on the ball invite you to attack them and play in their half.

[dorian gray]

10 hours ago, Hougoumont said:

The teams you quote there play nothing like the Wednesday team under Wilkinson which is what we were debating.

we are debating as to why dragging ourselves forward at the pace of one attack taking 2/4 minutes of build up play is being advantageous to us?

the teams he mentioned attack the opposition with 'mean' intent, so did wilkinson's. you cannot be 'railing' against long ball football, your champion (carlos) played it.

i'll give you an example, westwood to lb, lb to cb 1, cb1 to cb2, cb 2 to rb, and reverse sequence, do this several times over 2 minutes then when nearing the half way line one opposition forward breaks and closes one of our c/b's down, his partner drops back to offer him an out ball (which he likely is panicking about when he receives it) and as the forward shapes to close the second cb down he passes back to westwood who HUMPS IT DOWNFIELD.

now we've just spent 2 minutes plus monkeying about with it in our own half inviting danger to intervene and pressure our goal, and then HUMPED IT, why? 

[Hougoumont]

1 hour ago, dorian gray said:

we are debating as to why dragging ourselves forward at the pace of one attack taking 2/4 minutes of build up play is being advantageous to us?

the teams he mentioned attack the opposition with 'mean' intent, so did wilkinson's. you cannot be 'railing' against long ball football, your champion (carlos) played it.

i'll give you an example, westwood to lb, lb to cb 1, cb1 to cb2, cb 2 to rb, and reverse sequence, do this several times over 2 minutes then when nearing the half way line one opposition forward breaks and closes one of our c/b's down, his partner drops back to offer him an out ball (which he likely is panicking about when he receives it) and as the forward shapes to close the second cb down he passes back to westwood who HUMPS IT DOWNFIELD.

now we've just spent 2 minutes plus monkeying about with it in our own half inviting danger to intervene and pressure our goal, and then HUMPED IT, why? 

I think you're getting the wrong idea here. I'm not advocating playing out from the back with the players we've got...far from it. The never ending back passing had been doing my head in over the past couple of season's. However, I'm implacably opposed to the Wilkinson style long ball game

for the reasons I've described in previous posts. We aren't good enough to play ticky tacky football and Wilco's style belongs in a museum. So, we need to play like Leeds did last year...always with attacking intent, seldom playing the ball back when a forward pass was possible. Pass and move at pace...without the loss of bottle that they display every season of course. It was a poor man's version of Liverpool's rock n roll football and is very effective in the Championship.

[dorian gray]

1 hour ago, Hougoumont said:

I think you're getting the wrong idea here. I'm not advocating playing out from the back with the players we've got...far from it. The never ending back passing had been doing my head in over the past couple of season's. However, I'm implacably opposed to the Wilkinson style long ball game

for the reasons I've described in previous posts. We aren't good enough to play ticky tacky football and Wilco's style belongs in a museum. So, we need to play like Leeds did last year...always with attacking intent, seldom playing the ball back when a forward pass was possible. Pass and move at pace...without the loss of bottle that they display every season of course. It was a poor man's version of Liverpool's rock n roll football and is very effective in the Championship.

we need to be fit, that maybe easier said than done with the age of our squad, and the new kick in the nuts of a manager being needed (thanks brucie for that).

we have (I agree) to play at high tempo, but unlike you who is willing to omit an early longer ball from our arsenal, I say it should be our 'FIRST CONSIDERATION'.

whenever we get the ball, be it goalkeeper, defender, midfielder he should after making sure it was safe enough to do so, look to release our forwards to attack the opposition at the first opportunity.

a defender hitting a 50 yard ball from the edge of our area looks to find fletcher 10 yards from the edge of theirs, one simple knock on and his support should be in with a chance of being in on goal. YOU RULE THIS OUT, I say we cannot, and should not rule anything out other than needless 'tipytapy', as I cannot see a scenario where this utter ****ing tripe benefits us.

a year or so ago I heard one of the liverpoo' defenders from their 'pomp' say that 'early on in games they were encouraged to go long to omit the risk of opposition forwards shutting them down whilst having their first wind'.

I personally think that liverpoo' mangers of that day knew a bit more open heart surgery and rocket science than ole19 jobs knew about football.