Are you a 'Results' person or a 'Performance' person?

[carled]

Does the result count over the performance or would you be happy with us playing brilliantly and not getting the results? Do you go to matches to be entertained or see "win at all costs"? Remember how effective Cambridge Utd. (briefly) were playing a horrible brand of football, but it got results?  How about the early days of Wimbledon with their mk. 1 "hoofball" up to Fash the Bash?  Horribly unpretty but it got results.

 

Thinking back, I'm pretty sure I've been happier when the team has played some scintillating football but we've conceded a goal or just not managed to put away chances and have drawn than when we've ground out a nervy, nasty 1-0 win with 1 chance and then backs to the wall for 80 minutes. The thing is that when the team is at least playing well, you can see hope for results even if you're not getting them right then.  When we're playing terribly then you start to wonder if this is the start of the slippery slope.  This isn't an "everyone panic!" post at all, but those of us old enough to have lived through the Peter Taylor era may see a few parallels with the way that team flattered to deceive and then crashed and burned.  Ranieri is, of course, better than Taylor, but you do have to wonder what dirt Schlupp must have on him to continually get a place in the team ;-)  I'd love to be able to ask Ranieri what the (his?) problem is with Gray though. To me he seems to inject a real spark in the team when he comes on.

 

This season there have been very few games (against decent opposition, at least) when we've actually played well. We've had the odd few minutes here and there but generally it's been very hard for us to string any kind of fast, flowing attacking football together and with Mahrez & Vardy continuing to underperform to what we know they can do, it is a bit worrying. Maybe Mendy will make a difference - we'll see.  It would be nice to see a bit more control and attacking flair again rather than the dour stuff we seem to revert to at present with Morgan and "Hoof" at the back thinking they are capable of spraying 60 yard balls forward accurately to Vardy.

[AKCJ]

'Performance' over results = Spurs

Results over performance = Leicester City the Champions of England.

 

Enough said.

[filbertway]

Seems to be pretty split on here, personally I prefer consistently good performances as I believe they will eventually lead to success.

 

More often than not i'm going to football week in week out hoping to see my team play some good football and not feel like I could do as good a job as them. Unless it's a one off cup game, in which case, any performance will do as long as we win.

[Arriba Los Zorros]

I prefer performances, prefer to be entertained because that's the name of the game and as filbertway said eventually that leads to good results.

 

Would not even take if offered a guarantee we'd grind out 1-0s in every game until the end of the season, scoring from a defensive error every game and spending 80% of the game camped in our own half - even if that guaranteed the title and CL. Because I don't think playing like that gets you and glory and plus, I pay to watch that.....

 

 

[leicesterlad1989]

I love to go to football and be entertained but ultimately football is a results business, so I'd rather us win games.

 

I think at Leicester over the last few seasons we have been lucky as we have had a mixture of good results and good performances. Over the years we have all had to listen to West Ham and Newcastle fans ramble on about "their way" of playing football. Ultimately, what have they achieved recently?

This season, I'd certainly accept us to claw our way through as far as we can go in the Champions League, playing unattractive football at times. With this being perhaps our only opportunity for the foreseeable future, I want us to get as far as we possibly can. Last night was a terrible game and we didn't play particularly well but it's a point away from home in Europe, where teams throughout the years struggle.

[davieG]

I always love to see a great performance where I have to keep getting out of my seat or jumping up and down if standing.

 

That said I'm ok with grinding out results if there's logic to it and a vision of better things to come.

 

At the moment I think we're in a transition phase where we've achieved way beyond expectations with a 'team' and therefore have been in a catch up situation regarding individual player capability. The current squad were never expected to achieve what they have done and continue to do so but I think we will see a gradual improvement in quality and the team will evolve and improve. This can't be done in a hurry as we need to maintain the 'spirit' within the club whilst making those improvements.

 

To do so we need the current squad to continue to get results whether by scintillating football, grinding out results or anything in between to maintain our status at the highest possible level to give us a greater chance of attracting the best to LCFC.

[Izzy]

I thought this topic might get its own thread eventually....

The thing is that Leicester fans want their cake and eat it. They pay their money and rightly want to be entertained, whilst also wanting the three points as well.

I got crucified on the Copenhagen home post match thread for suggesting that those criticising the performance (even though we WON the game) should go support Arsenal if they want to be 'entertained' every week. We won the game and achieved our objective yet people were still disgruntled by the manner in which we won. 

Of course we demand and expert performances but ultimately it's all about results. We'll play well and lose but also play crap and win - that's football and always will be.

Ranieri set up for a draw and got it last night. Fans on here called it 'negative' whilst Martin Samuel in the Mail called it 'tactical genius' so go figure it out.

We're having the time of our lives right now and rewriting European football history as we speak, yet some still demand more. 

Results all day long for me please and if we play great football in the process, well that's a nice added bonus.

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

I get nostalgic for last season's balance with a good mix of outstanding performances and ground out results, long ball mixed with scintillating first touch sequences.

 

I really don't think it's an either/or situation. In the longer term the dour football we are playing at the moment won't yield results anyway.

[foxy boxing]

results need to come first and then they can focus on the performances, obviously it would be nice to win every match dominating the opposition and spreading passes around and all the front players running into space and scoring brilliant goals but it all starts with results so you have something to build on

[carled]

34 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

results need to come first and then they can focus on the performances, obviously it would be nice to win every match dominating the opposition and spreading passes around and all the front players running into space and scoring brilliant goals but it all starts with results so you have something to build on

That's interesting. Others are arguing that the performances come first and then the results flow from that! It is possible to play well and lose and play poorly and win, I accept that entirely.  I also accept that in some matches it's necessary to only get the result and screw the performance - fine.  However the ultimate "results" business is, I guess, Formula 1 and look how many viewers and fans it's haemorrhaging now the result is largely a foregone conclusion. If you knew we were always going to play crap and scrape a win, how soon before you got bored with going to watch? 

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, carled said:

 If you knew we were always going to play crap and scrape a win, how soon before you got bored with going to watch? 

And if you knew we were always going to play nice football but always lose, how soon before you got bored with going to watch?

[carled]

2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

And if you knew we were always going to play nice football but always lose, how soon before you got bored with going to watch?

Seriously, a lot longer!  It may just be me (obviously not - someone else above said pretty much the same) but I don't think football (for us, anyway) is just a results business. It's also meant to be entertaining. It's rare that a team playing well will continually lose.  A team playing poorly can fluke results, but won't do so for long.

[Churchill]

I don't think so far this season its been constant hoof and no entertaining football. Burnley, Swansea, Brugge away, Palace, Arsenal and to some extent even though we lost Hull away were good performances where we created chances (Arsenal second half). The only games where i have sat there n thought this is awful would be Liverpool,Chelsea, United and Southampton. Unfortunately i think there will be games where Claudio will set up to get a point n be a little bit negative but if you can see the logic and it pays off then i suppose we just have to grin n bare those type of games, on the plus side we have played well in certain games so it isn't just doom n gloom every game!

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, carled said:

Seriously, a lot longer!  It may just be me (obviously not - someone else above said pretty much the same) but I don't think football (for us, anyway) is just a results business. It's also meant to be entertaining. It's rare that a team playing well will continually lose.  A team playing poorly can fluke results, but won't do so for long.

It's funny really. We often hear football is a 'results' business but also hear it's an 'entertainment' business - so I guess it's both. The problem I think is that we set such high standards last season and because we're not living up to them (yet) this season, fans are getting frustrated with the performances because they know we can play better.

Personally, I'm quite happy to keep grinding it out, and if we never hit the heights of last year again well, it was good while it lasted. Maybe the loss of Kante has hit us harder than we thought. I'd suggest most teams who lose possibly their most influential player would all initially suffer as a result. I trust CR will sort it out, but if we ONLY end up as a mid table PL side after all this, it's still better than the years of relegation and yo-yoing we've suffered. 

[Merging Cultures]

I want to see effort. Not fancy pants passing it around and not scoring, or walking slowly around the pitch and not attacking each ball.

Last season, at least the first part, we attacked the ball, we pressed the opposition and forced errors. We didn't play pretty football, but we tried hard. I'm not seeing that this season.

[murphy]

Results for me.

 

Winning, however ugly, will always put a spring in my step and a loss will ruin my weekend.

[Guest Lako42]

Really, there is only one answer that makes sense as a Leicester fan.

 

 

Results are all that matter.

[Biggus]

These times are almost as good as it gets - only need the Champions League trophy to top it all.

 

I take a balanced view.  We are not going to win every game with exhibition football. We win some that way - and what happy days they are.  To get any win or an away draw against a difficult team is entirely satisfactory and positive.  To win at home with a poor performance is OK.  To lose at home with a poor performance is the worst (when was that then?).

 

I just don't get those fans who moan after a night like last night.  100% perfection all the time just does not happen.

[FraserSorensen]

I think Leicester learned very quickly in the first year back in the Premier League that good performances and little return left you rooted to the bottom of the league - since that point both results and performances have largely gone hand in hand. I personally wouldn't want to watch an entire season of performances like last night, but similarly to win anything/stay in the league you ultimately do need to dig in and grind out results. A mixture is ideal but when not possible you have to want the result over performance.

[Koke]

The 4 CL games so far the performances have been underwhelming

 

Bruges away - We hardly got out of second gear cos they were shocking. 

 

Porto home - The one game that I actually thought we played decent. 

 

Copenhagen home - We did enough to win but it was turgid to watch. Poor Slimani and Vardy had to deal with constant aimless hoofing.

 

Copenhagen away - Another turgid painful viewing. 

 

We're sitting on 10 points because we've got an excellent keeper and a back four that hasn't been properly tested the way Chelsea and United tested it. Bruges are a Championship outfit. Copenhagen can huff and puff all they like but they're so average. Porto are not all that either. 

 

Let's be honest, it's an average group. We are the best team in that group without even playing at our best. 

 

Says a lot of where we are that City fans are complaining about performances in a Champions League group we are top of.

[sm1]

Teams like Wimbledon and the Oldham team of the

2 hours ago, carled said:

Does the result count over the performance or would you be happy with us playing brilliantly and not getting the results? Do you go to matches to be entertained or see "win at all costs"? Remember how effective Cambridge Utd. (briefly) were playing a horrible brand of football, but it got results?  How about the early days of Wimbledon with their mk. 1 "hoofball" up to Fash the Bash?  Horribly unpretty but it got results.

 

Thinking back, I'm pretty sure I've been happier when the team has played some scintillating football but we've conceded a goal or just not managed to put away chances and have drawn than when we've ground out a nervy, nasty 1-0 win with 1 chance and then backs to the wall for 80 minutes. The thing is that when the team is at least playing well, you can see hope for results even if you're not getting them right then.  When we're playing terribly then you start to wonder if this is the start of the slippery slope.  This isn't an "everyone panic!" post at all, but those of us old enough to have lived through the Peter Taylor era may see a few parallels with the way that team flattered to deceive and then crashed and burned.  Ranieri is, of course, better than Taylor, but you do have to wonder what dirt Schlupp must have on him to continually get a place in the team ;-)  I'd love to be able to ask Ranieri what the (his?) problem is with Gray though. To me he seems to inject a real spark in the team when he comes on.

 

This season there have been very few games (against decent opposition, at least) when we've actually played well. We've had the odd few minutes here and there but generally it's been very hard for us to string any kind of fast, flowing attacking football together and with Mahrez & Vardy continuing to underperform to what we know they can do, it is a bit worrying. Maybe Mendy will make a difference - we'll see.  It would be nice to see a bit more control and attacking flair again rather than the dour stuff we seem to revert to at present with Morgan and "Hoof" at the back thinking they are capable of spraying 60 yard balls forward accurately to Vardy.

The problem with teams like Cambridge and Wimbledon, they really didn't have the talent to play great football, so played a game to suit. We on the other hand can mix it up and play different styles. That's what was so great about last year, we played incisive one touch football at times, others we played long balls over the top. On other occasions it was backs to the wall defending. This season we've just seemed to play to the stereotype that we're a long ball team. Recently, with Okazaki and King coming into the team it has changed, but yesterday we went backwards. The result was good, but the performance was dire. The issue i have is that we are better then this, better then just long balls over the top. Therefore when we play this way, its through choice not because thats the only way we know how to play, unlike teams like Wimbledon. That's what irrates me, when you play Musa out of position, play Schlupp and Amartey, Ranieri is saying we choose to play shit long ball football. We don't have to, we choose to. Honestly how many thought we were going to play good football when they saw the team sheet. I remember telling my son when i saw the team, that its going to be a poor game, with City playing long balls to nobody.

[Ted Maul]

You just have to play to your strengths. If you feel that you're going to struggle to go toe to toe with a big club, and setting out defensively is your best chance of a result, then who is anybody to criticise that? Saying that, when you're playing teams weaker than yourselves, there is a bit of an expectation to entertain a bit more- that's why West Brom fans are so disinterested at the moment, despite being established in the PL.

 

It's all subjective anyway, perceptions on style are different- Spurs fans thought us to be 'anti-football' last season, but give me quick, incisive, direct football over possession football any day. Heynckes' 2012-13 Bayern are my favourite side of the modern era (LCFC aside, of course), far more entertaining than Pep's Barca- other people will obviously feel differently.

 

[Marshall Cockney Fox]

If it were 4am in a club and I was truly battered I'd take any lass / result and be grateful for it. 

 

But as a champion, I feel my standards are now higher and I am naturally looking for both a result and performance (aesthetic) that befits my expectations. I will therefore aspire to the attracive ladies in the corner until either 4am or my Google's come first.

[worthosoriginals]

Results really...

Trophies don't  say

The winning club name..on them,

then... engraved on a cup  with...(had a bit of luck really with the draw/group/ground a result out/spurs were unlucky/didn't entertain enough, etc etc) 

You win them or fail to get your name on them.     achievement is the  ultimate aim of the game. 

 

 

 

[smudgerfox]

I'm with Claudio - it's all about the "pear=four-mance"