Managers that produced the sexiest football ever seen live

[Ric Flair]

Why are so many people equating attacking and attractive football with losing? It's not as though all the relegated teams attacked and mesmerised their way down.

At best those teams that do set out to entertain achieve success and at worst they retain mid-table mediocrity. Leicester is doing neither and instead flirts with relegation playing the most dour and mind numbingly boring form of the beautiful game.

What would you say if someone asked you for 30 quid every week to sit through a rubbish movie? All we're asking for is a little bit of passion and entertainment!

That's what I can't understand. It's fairly simple. History and statistics show that you can't win trophies on a consistent basis by playing badly. I also believe that it would be fairly impossible to be successful by playing un-attractive football also. The teams that play crap football are the teams that struggle, like ourselves.

The teams that pass the ball and attack with conviction, are the teams that achieve promotions, win leagues and cups.

There are exceptions to the rule of course, but I never understand fans who link attacking football with teams getting turned over 6-0 for being too gung ho. There are very few teams that have ever fallen in to this trap, but there are plenty of teams who have churned out dross football and been beaten heavily on a regular basis.

Until we get a manager who has the vision and idea's to bring us up to speed with the best teams in this league and above, then we can forget about any type of football other than the football most lower league teams play. Football that will never win matches on a regular basis, due to never having the ball long enough to do anything with it in dangerous areas.

[Geo V]

That's what I can't understand. It's fairly simple. History and statistics show that you can't win trophies on a consistent basis by playing badly. I also believe that it would be fairly impossible to be successful by playing un-attractive football also. The teams that play crap football are the teams that struggle, like ourselves.

The teams that pass the ball and attack with conviction, are the teams that achieve promotions, win leagues and cups.

There are exceptions to the rule of course, but I never understand fans who link attacking football with teams getting turned over 6-0 for being too gung ho. There are very few teams that have ever fallen in to this trap, but there are plenty of teams who have churned out dross football and been beaten heavily on a regular basis.

Until we get a manager who has the vision and idea's to bring us up to speed with the best teams in this league and above, then we can forget about any type of football other than the football most lower league teams play. Football that will never win matches on a regular basis, due to never having the ball long enough to do anything with it in dangerous areas.

Playing sexy football becomes a problem when managers start buying defenders who can run with the ball or being really good at passing the ball or bringing it out of defence. Newcastle had players like Phillipe Albert who was attack minded from the back and that Brazil team in 1982 had amazing attacking fullbacks and seem to almost demand that of there fullbacks to this day. I`d say the best manager that I can think of to have defenders who defend and midfielders and strikers who are attack commited would be Sir Alex and Manu. When they had players like Cantona, Kanchelkis and Giggs running forward, players like Pallister and Bruce wouldnt cross the halfway line unless it was for a set-piece. The importance of a ball winner in central midfield is so important these days and thast why even Brazil have had one since Dunga and now players like Gilberto and loads of sides have players like Makelele in there squads which makes great football more difficult to produce, unless of course you have a player like Stevie Gerrard who has the lot!

[The People's Hero]

Some of my most loved players over the years... Mike Whitlow, Steve Walsh, Ian Marshall, Tony Cottee, Neil Lennon, Steve Guppy, Garry Parker, Matty Elliott, Steve Claridge, Les Ferdinand....

With the exception of Garry Parker, most of these players kept it simply, did a job and didn't concern themselves with what it looked like or whether they did enough stepovers to warrant an appearance on showboat.

I love good football, don't get me wrong... but it's not the be all and end all. I love to watch a side working together, honest endeavour, organisation and togetherness.

[Ric Flair]

Some of my most loved players over the years... Mike Whitlow, Steve Walsh, Ian Marshall, Tony Cottee, Neil Lennon, Steve Guppy, Garry Parker, Matty Elliott, Steve Claridge, Les Ferdinand....

With the exception of Garry Parker, most of these players kept it simply, did a job and didn't concern themselves with what it looked like or whether they did enough stepovers to warrant an appearance on showboat.

I love good football, don't get me wrong... but it's not the be all and end all. I love to watch a side working together, honest endeavour, organisation and togetherness.

Absolutely. As far as i'm concerned I want to support a team I can be proud of. I don't expect ridiculously good football all the while, but I do crave to see us achieve success once again. And to achieve success we'll have to play good football to do so. I can't see how we'll ever replicate football like Arsenal, Man United and the other so called pioneer's of attractive football.

But there's no reason why we can't attack with conviction and defend resolutely as a unit. We need a manager to enforce this and a manager with new idea's and who's as brave as they come.

[davieG]

To quote TPH,

I love to watch a side working together, honest endeavour, organisation and togetherness.

Assuming that encompasses passing the ball to a team mate, Isn't that pretty much how Arsenal play for 99% of the time, to me that is sexy football, show-boating cameos are fine but on their own wont win you many games

[The People's Hero]

To quote TPH,

Assuming that encompasses passing the ball to a team mate, Isn't that pretty much how Arsenal play for 99% of the time, to me that is sexy football, show-boating cameos are fine but on their own wont win you many games

Well, to a degree, yes it is.

Arsenal create space (when the onus is on them) through simply keeping the ball and probing. To do this you need to have a lot of players with good football brains with good passing ability.

As soon as they are ahead and their opponents need to attack them, well, they are the finest exponents of counter attacking football in the world. In fact, I often think their team is set up as a counter-attacking unit.

[The People's Hero]

Sorry - I went a bit off topic there.

Look at our players when we don't have the ball. Half of them are looking nervously around. Anyone forward in the previous attack (apart from Hume) have their heads down and are simply jogging back.

I don't want to harp on about the MON team.. and some games even then we were abysmal... but if we didn't have the ball then, each player, even the likes of Stefan Oakes, Muzzy Izzet and Steve Guppy who were hardly defensive minded or particularly good tacklers would be busting a gut to close down, get back, help out... and then would ALL be looking for the ball when we got it back (probably via Lennon/Savage).

Now, when we do get the ball... Hughes, Hume and Porter want it. The problem being, they get it, maybe get in a good position and face the problem that they have no one is space to pass the ball to who wants it... oh and if Hughes has it, he can't do fu ck all with it cos he's sh it.

[blue blood]

Lots of managers have won things with quality football - in fact it is generally the best way to win things at each and every level, professional, semi-professional and amateur.

And anyone at any level can take inspiration from the best teams.

One Loughborough side I recall went two years without defeat playing one and two touch football, scoring stacks of goals and winning every single trophy they contested including one final 6-0.

Their ideas came from Eric Worthington (still to be found on the net) who took his inspiration from the best in the game. City's top notch side of the time used to regularly have a kick about in Eric's garden! Pass? That "two years" team used to keep the ball for minutes at a time quite regularly emphasising that it can be attempted and achieved at any level.

Winning is not the only thing that matters. Football should be a celebration, an expression of joy and skill by all who take part. To win without style and panache is to insult or dilute the game. It gives no lasting satisfaction whatsoever.

Gillies' Leicester side of the 60's was wonderfully entertaining and for us to reach FA Cup Finals and win the League Cup during that era was a marvellous achivement.

Look what Forest won and how well little Ipswich did. The examples are endless and, as I say, at all levels.

Simply being combative and organised will only get you so far for the most part.

It's true poor players won't win anything but it amazing how capable apparently ordinary players become when properly inspired and when people show some belief in them and put the right people around them.

So often football teams take on a character that is from within itself and the influences around them.

If those influences are entirely positive, entirely committed to a belief and entirely committed to each other it is extraordinary what can be achieved. Ipswich and Leeds epitomised all that at one time, as did Forest.

Among the best though for total football: Cruyff's Ajax, Di Stefano's Real Madrid, Shankly's Liverpool, Busby's Manchester United, Wenger's Arsenal, Nicholson's Spurs, 60's Chelsea, Revie's Leeds, Paisley's Liverpool, Keegan's Newcastle and Ferguson's United.

i couldnt have written it better myslf, so thracian, which team is or was the best of the best?

[Geo V]

Sorry - I went a bit off topic there.

Look at our players when we don't have the ball. Half of them are looking nervously around. Anyone forward in the previous attack (apart from Hume) have their heads down and are simply jogging back.

I don't want to harp on about the MON team.. and some games even then we were abysmal... but if we didn't have the ball then, each player, even the likes of Stefan Oakes, Muzzy Izzet and Steve Guppy who were hardly defensive minded or particularly good tacklers would be busting a gut to close down, get back, help out... and then would ALL be looking for the ball when we got it back (probably via Lennon/Savage).

Now, when we do get the ball... Hughes, Hume and Porter want it. The problem being, they get it, maybe get in a good position and face the problem that they have no one is space to pass the ball to who wants it... oh and if Hughes has it, he can't do fu ck all with it cos he's sh it.

Fair enough but alot of the blame should be aimed at RK. Worse quality players than ours are organised and know there roles within the team and play to the best of there abilities. Our lads at times look clueless and end uplooking like even worse players than they really are.

[blue blood]

Some of my most loved players over the years... Mike Whitlow, Steve Walsh, Ian Marshall, Tony Cottee, Neil Lennon, Steve Guppy, Garry Parker, Matty Elliott, Steve Claridge, Les Ferdinand....

With the exception of Garry Parker, most of these players kept it simply, did a job and didn't concern themselves with what it looked like or whether they did enough stepovers to warrant an appearance on showboat.

I love good football, don't get me wrong... but it's not the be all and end all. I love to watch a side working together, honest endeavour, organisation and togetherness.

this is also a form of sexy football in my eyes, beating villa in the semis of coke cup was sexy football.

[Geo V]

As fans we dont ask for much, just an identity and some players on the pitch who are trying, maybe with a hero or two thrown in but we dont neccasarily need sexy football. I can remember some of teh donkeys that Brian Little had in his squad when we went up and that wasnt great football but you were still proud of the lads that were trotting about the park. Some of the donkeys we have trying at the moment are embarrassing at best.

[moseeds]

As fans we dont ask for much

That's our problem. Until Leicester fans demand a modicum of interesting and attacking football all we will be served is the rubbish we have witnessed for the past 7 (?) odd years.

The one time I remember seeing attacking, attractive-ish football was the victory over sheffield united under Levien - and how much of a buzz did that one victory generate? Imagine that level of football being played on (at the minimum) a monthly basis? Is that too much to ask?

[The People's Hero]

Fair enough but alot of the blame should be aimed at RK. Worse quality players than ours are organised and know there roles within the team and play to the best of there abilities. Our lads at times look clueless and end uplooking like even worse players than they really are.

Oh, entirely, RK is hapless, hopeless and helpless.

Hopefully soon he'll be jobless too.

[Geo V]

That's our problem. Until Leicester fans demand a modicum of interesting and attacking football all we will be served is the rubbish we have witnessed for the past 7 (?) odd years.

The one time I remember seeing attacking, attractive-ish football was the victory over sheffield united under Levien - and how much of a buzz did that one victory generate? Imagine that level of football being played on (at the minimum) a monthly basis? Is that too much to ask?

You need to be an exceptional manager to have done great things with your squad on a shoestring budget, something that we have had to live with since coming out of administration. You also need a large slice of luck so have real first class quality kids to introduce and to make it as well as great judgement in the transfer market to attract the Bosmans here or by getting players for double figure transfer fees. Unfortunately, despite the board trying with the likes of Levein, Adams and RK, none of them have managed to show more than the odd bit of decent management to be able to compete. Not many managers would have been able to achieve great things with what they had to play with financially and the end product is what we have on our pitch today.

[moseeds]

You need to be an exceptional manager to have done great things with your squad on a shoestring budget, something that we have had to live with since coming out of administration. You also need a large slice of luck so have real first class quality kids to introduce and to make it as well as great judgement in the transfer market to attract the Bosmans here or by getting players for double figure transfer fees. Unfortunately, despite the board trying with the likes of Levein, Adams and RK, none of them have managed to show more than the odd bit of decent management to be able to compete. Not many managers would have been able to achieve great things with what they had to play with financially and the end product is what we have on our pitch today.

That's true to an extent but we have seen with our own eyes city producing some excellent football on certain occasions with all the necessary ingredients to make the crowd appreciate the team - effort, passion and skill. The issue I have is that these performances are not encouraged but rather reserved for "special occasions" or on the odd occasion the manager is feeling a bit confident - which is very rare.

On a weekly basis the team is geared towards playing un-attractive and dour football. This is further compounded by statements from the manager indicating the type of football which we are likely to see in the following game ("we will try and get a result" type statements). The players we have are capable of passing a football and playing attacking football (I do not mean to the same level as Arsenal or Man U).

The manager believes the only way forward for city is to scrap the odd victory to stave off relegation. The whole mindset of the management team is wrong in my opinion.

[Thracian]

i couldnt have written it better myslf, so thracian, which team is or was the best of the best?

Extraordinarily difficult question.

I've just spent 10 minutes trying to compose a defensible argument for one or the other but it is hard because the pace of the game has become quicker and for Arsenal to have gone unbeaten playing such exhilerating football in that environment has to be compared with the visual delight provided by Ajax and company in a byegone era.

My conclusion was I couldn't decide. I just know that all those teams were special - and a few more - and have entertained me in a way I would love to see one day at Leicester.

True City have never had a team of consequence on the European stage but their 6-0 defeat of United's Law, Best, Charlton, Crerard etc in the 60's was an occasion to savour - and not the only one at that time - proving that it is possible and, to me, still remains so.

[blue blood]

so my conclusion,

with the modern game and money, the pressure is to produce winning football. Managers bow to this pressure.

It takes a once in a generation manager, with vision, determination, a willigness and pride to produce winning sexy football, when he comes along the only winner is the game of football itself.

The odds on leicester having one of these managers, very very slim indeed. It does not stop us hoping though.

the manager that has produced the most sexy football, wenger and aresnal.

[Geo V]

That's true to an extent but we have seen with our own eyes city producing some excellent football on certain occasions with all the necessary ingredients to make the crowd appreciate the team - effort, passion and skill. The issue I have is that these performances are not encouraged but rather reserved for "special occasions" or on the odd occasion the manager is feeling a bit confident - which is very rare.

On a weekly basis the team is geared towards playing un-attractive and dour football. This is further compounded by statements from the manager indicating the type of football which we are likely to see in the following game ("we will try and get a result" type statements). The players we have are capable of passing a football and playing attacking football (I do not mean to the same level as Arsenal or Man U).

The manager believes the only way forward for city is to scrap the odd victory to stave off relegation. The whole mindset of the management team is wrong in my opinion.

Its an age old war cry from managers and in particular chairmen and supporters who cant get there heads around the fact that players can raise there games for say cup matches or big "derbies" but when it comes down to the week in week out football, the players just go back to the same old routine. IMO its down to the manager. Players motivate themselves for these big games so its down to the manager to do the right things in training and to say the right things in the changing room to get that response from there players consistantly. RK is typical of a manager who hasnt got a clue. If you look at our results, its one month good, one month pants and so on. It needs one win to trigger a decent run of results and one stinker to send things back to rubbish results and football.

[TrickyTrev]

That's what I can't understand. It's fairly simple. History and statistics show that you can't win trophies on a consistent basis by playing badly. I also believe that it would be fairly impossible to be successful by playing un-attractive football also. The teams that play crap football are the teams that struggle, like ourselves.

The teams that pass the ball and attack with conviction, are the teams that achieve promotions, win leagues and cups.

There are exceptions to the rule of course, but I never understand fans who link attacking football with teams getting turned over 6-0 for being too gung ho. There are very few teams that have ever fallen in to this trap, but there are plenty of teams who have churned out dross football and been beaten heavily on a regular basis.

Until we get a manager who has the vision and idea's to bring us up to speed with the best teams in this league and above, then we can forget about any type of football other than the football most lower league teams play. Football that will never win matches on a regular basis, due to never having the ball long enough to do anything with it in dangerous areas.

Too true.

There is nothing gung-ho or irreponsible about passing the ball and moving to create space. Its just good football. A side hasn't come close to winning the premiership without beign very good at these fundamentals.

Stepovers and other showboat tricks are a completely different matter. They are only good if the player is able to use them to the teams advantage in theway Ronaldinho does. Otherwise you are left with Arni Gunlaugson and we all know there is nothing sexy about that.

The most attractive to watch side I have ever seen? The Cesc Fabregas led Arsenal sides, on their day reach a preiously unreached high. I can only imagine how good the Arsena side of 2 years time will be when Diaby, Denilson and Walcott are ready to play in the first team as regulars.

[Fez of Mahrez]

It's not the attacking football that people take issue with, it's the personnel that we have to use in order to achieve it.

Unless they've been given strict instructions to go out and play for a draw, which would never happen in a home game, every single football team ever put out onto a football field has goalscoring as its main aim. A lot of our fans don't seem to get this at all. If we get turned over by a better team, it gets blamed on us sitting back or playing too many defensive players when the majority of the time, it's just because our players can't pass, can't control a ball and aren't quick enough. And playing high-risk attacking football when you have players who are slow, stupid and generally useless will inevitably end in embarrassment to the point where you can't actually recognise that they are trying to play attacking football at all.

[lcfc_jme]

I've said it many a time, and I'll say it again. The football that Arsenal play is, at times, awesome to watch. Especially in the season they went unbeaten. Truly amazing and so easy on the eye at times.

[l444ry]

It's not the attacking football that people take issue with, it's the personnel that we have to use in order to achieve it.

Unless they've been given strict instructions to go out and play for a draw, which would never happen in a home game, every single football team ever put out onto a football field has goalscoring as its main aim. A lot of our fans don't seem to get this at all. If we get turned over by a better team, it gets blamed on us sitting back or playing too many defensive players when the majority of the time, it's just because our players can't pass, can't control a ball and aren't quick enough. And playing high-risk attacking football when you have players who are slow, stupid and generally useless will inevitably end in embarrassment to the point where you can't actually recognise that they are trying to play attacking football at all.

Arise Sir Fez. Accept a knighthood for the most accurate and precise description of Leicester City that I have read on this forum.

[Steven]

Zagallo and the brilliance that was the 1970 Brazilians. Rinus Michels (who I met very briefly in the early 90's in Amsterdam) the inventor of Total Football and the brilliance that was Ajax European Cup winning side of the early Seventies.

[blue blood]

total football, any player in any position at any time, surley that has to be perfection in the game of football. Surely the bar cannot be raised any higher.

[Thracian]

It's not the attacking football that people take issue with, it's the personnel that we have to use in order to achieve it.

Unless they've been given strict instructions to go out and play for a draw, which would never happen in a home game, every single football team ever put out onto a football field has goalscoring as its main aim. A lot of our fans don't seem to get this at all. If we get turned over by a better team, it gets blamed on us sitting back or playing too many defensive players when the majority of the time, it's just because our players can't pass, can't control a ball and aren't quick enough. And playing high-risk attacking football when you have players who are slow, stupid and generally useless will inevitably end in embarrassment to the point where you can't actually recognise that they are trying to play attacking football at all.

Whether there are enough attackers in a team from the off is easy to assess. Just count up how many goals the players in each position have scored or made.

Embarrassingly often we take the field with only two or three potential scorers and another 1 or 2 who might score very occasionally.

I believe you should have potential scorers in an many positions as possible.

And certainly four genuinely dangerous attackers.

You like others persist in airing the myth that attacking football is somehow more dangerous than defensive football but defensive football has constantlty let Leicester down and been extremely risky, leaving us for the last two seasons running, in a nail-biting fight against relegation.

If managers sign and select players who are not capable of playing football properly, they shouldn't be managers.