Next season, style or substance?

[Bluetintedspecs]

I'd rather win ugly and nick a 1-0 win every time then play attractive passing football and loose 4-3.

Yes love seeing us score but a win is better then loads of goals. It's wins that get u promoted.

Agree totally ie the 79/80 Jock Wallace promotion side was pretty dire football most the time but the celebrations at Orient and end result were oh so sweet !

[Leicester_Numan]

I agree, I too would like to play exactly as you describe. But what sparked the poll is when a couple of people started to say they would actually prefer not to get results as long as we were playing attractive, passing, entertaining football. So for the sake of simplicity, those are the only two options.

Yes i read some of them and couldn't believe it. They'd soon want the manager sacked if we played nice football but weren't getting results. As I said in other threads, the only thing I care about is that the football we play works. If this squads strength is passing then great, if it's boring 1-0 wins then so be it. You won't find me complaining about it

[Grey Fox]

Yes i read some of them and couldn't believe it. They'd soon want the manager sacked if we played nice football but weren't getting results. As I said in other threads, the only thing I care about is that the football we play works. If this squads strength is passing then great, if it's boring 1-0 wins then so be it. You won't find me complaining about it

Well most people seem to agree with you so far.

[m00nie]

at the minute we want promotion so we need to win..

but if we was promoted scrapping ugly wins to just survive would soon get boring..

[Leicester_Numan]

I'd love to know how many of us would take a Champions League win by parking the bus just like Chelsea, or Forest against Malmo in the old European Cup. I bet they're not complaining about it

[foxesfan1989]

The wording of this poll makes it too bias for me to vote on. OBVIOUSLY option one...but the 2 options aren't mutually exclusive, you CAN be entertaining and still win, it is possible.

[Mark_w]

The wording of this poll makes it too bias for me to vote on. OBVIOUSLY option one...but the 2 options aren't mutually exclusive, you CAN be entertaining and still win, it is possible.

No one is denying that, but the poll is about choosing one or the other, because in the Futacs thread some aluded to the fact they would rather play 'attractive' football than gain promotion playing dull effective football. Obviously it is possible to have both, but this is about what people would choose if they had to make a choice. It's really not that complicated.

[Leicester_Numan]

The wording of this poll makes it too bias for me to vote on. OBVIOUSLY option one...but the 2 options aren't mutually exclusive, you CAN be entertaining and still win, it is possible.

That point has already been made and that's what we'd all prefer but whatever works with this squad

[carlhltid]

at the end of the day if you watch a great game of football with city paying superb sometimes the great football overshaddows a defeat so maybe option 2

[Christoph]

Mid table is probably more realistic though

[Mark_w]

at the end of the day if you watch a great game of football with city paying superb sometimes the great football overshaddows a defeat so maybe option 2

[Legend_in_blue]

In order to be successful this season we need to be good at both.

The games which are more entertaining tend to be against the better sides and normally we come out on top of these.

The ones where we need to be more disciplined and organised tend to be against tin pot who park everyone and their bus in front of the goal, nick something and we end up losing or at best drawing in an abysmal game of football.

We need to raise the bar against tin pot and try not to sink to their level of play, then we might be successful.

It's going to take a mixture of styles of play to get this right, the less predictable we are, the better imo.

[Leicester_Numan]

I don't think we'll be playing hoof ball anyway. If Pearson actually wanted us to play like that he'd have signed hoof ball merchants. People are just assuming we're going to do that because we've signed a big target man. What's the point of playing wingers if we had no one that could win the ball in the air from crosses. People still want the Nugent & Beckford partnership to start the season despite their obvious weakness in the air, their tendancy to be quite static or their failure to hold on to the ball for more than 2 seconds with their back to goal. Makes no sense to me. I'd start with Futacs and A.N.Other. It's inevitable that there will be some long balls out of defence but I really don't think that'll be the main style of play. The friendlies start soon so we'll have a better idea.

[peterborofox]

Supid question, surely anyone wants 3 points over anything else?!

[Grey Fox]

So far 4 out of 63 have said they would rather be entertained and finish mid table. I respect your opinions, but I really struggle to understand that point of view, sorry. I just don't feel happy if we don't win games, it could be 4 all every game for all I care, I would rather a 1-0 win and the 3 points.

[Grey Fox]

I don't think we'll be playing hoof ball anyway. If Pearson actually wanted us to play like that he'd have signed hoof ball merchants. People are just assuming we're going to do that because we've signed a big target man. What's the point of playing wingers if we had no one that could win the ball in the air from crosses. People still want the Nugent & Beckford partnership to start the season despite their obvious weakness in the air, their tendancy to be quite static or their failure to hold on to the ball for more than 2 seconds with their back to goal. Makes no sense to me. I'd start with Futacs and A.N.Other. It's inevitable that there will be some long balls out of defence but I really don't think that'll be the main style of play. The friendlies start soon so we'll have a better idea.

I don't think we will either, as you know. But for those that assume that we will, would you take that if it meant winning over not?

[Jordan]

Wins. Points. Promotion.

Those are the only things we should care about.

We need whatever amounts of "style" and "substance" provide the right balance to have an excellent team. This division is not easy, and we won't win promotion by being a one-trick pony.

[Fox92]

I'd obviously like us to play football on the ground, but it can't always be done. Sousa tried it and look where we were in the table. I'd soon rather us have points, goals and promotion!

[fleckneymike]

The poll is incredibly biased and over simplifies the point many of us were making about attempting to play entertaining football rather than sticking with a system which has failed to see us return to the top flight for the best part of a decade.

I have voted for option 2 and will always vote for option 2.

[Mark_w]

The poll is incredibly biased and over simplifies the point many of us were making

[fleckneymike]

I fail to see what is so annoying about the point I made. Would you be so kind as to explain why it has enraged you so.

[Mark_w]

I fail to see what is so annoying about the point I made. Would you be so kind as to explain why it has enraged you so.

Because it has been pointed out quite a few times that this thread is not about that, obviously we would all like both but that isn't the question. This thread was I assume set up as a result of Jimmy saying he preffered the Sousa/Sven to the Pearson season, it's about which of the two you'd prefer if you had to choose, there would be no point in adding a both option it's about whether people prefer winning football or attractive football. My frustration was due to the fact that point has already been made quite a few times though.

[foxesfan1989]

No one is denying that, but the poll is about choosing one or the other, because in the Futacs thread some aluded to the fact they would rather play 'attractive' football than gain promotion playing dull effective football. Obviously it is possible to have both, but this is about what people would choose if they had to make a choice. It's really not that complicated.

I don't find the poll complicated, just not worth voting on. No-one would rather play entertaining football and finish 12th than play a bit more boring and win the league. No fan anyway.

[fleckneymike]

Because it has been pointed out quite a few times that this thread is not about that, obviously we would all like both but that isn't the question. This thread was I assume set up as a result of Jimmy saying he preffered the Sousa/Sven to the Pearson season, it's about which of the two you'd prefer if you had to choose, there would be no point in adding a both option it's about whether people prefer winning football or attractive football. My frustration was due to the fact that point has already been made quite a few times though.

Well would it not have been easier to create a poll which asked whose side do you prefer to watch, Sousa/Sven V Pearson?

Once again these debates begin from the false assumption that attractive equates failure whilst pragmatic equates success. We've won 11 'things' in 129 years so I'd hypothesise that neither style brings us much success. Which style would you choose if you knew ultimately you'd win bugger all regardless of what you chose?

[Grey Fox]

I don't find the poll complicated, just not worth voting on. No-one would rather play entertaining football and finish 12th than play a bit more boring and win the league. No fan anyway.

Yes they would. 7 people so far have voted for just that.