Next season, style or substance?

[Mark]

No-one would rather play entertaining football and finish 12th than play a bit more boring and win the league. No fan anyway.

This entertaining football you speak of, we played it for what one season and finished 10th. It was fantastic to watch, and was a great platform to build upon. Pearson has ripped that up and we've gone backwards IMO.

Admittedly, the only success we did have in the past 10 years we successfully played boring football and finished 5th. But we also suffered a previous 6/7 years in this division played truly dire football and finishing bottom half of the table.

We've had no success apart from winning League one. We've clearly been doing something wrong.

[Mark_w]

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

No because it's about style of football, not how much you like a certain manager.

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 so which would you choose if you knew ultimately you'd win bugger all?

No one is saying that you are guaranteed success playing hoofball and doomed for failure playing attractive football. This is just about if you had to choose between 'boring' winning football and mid-table 'attractive' football which would you prefer because some have suggested they would rather be finishing mid table playing attractive football than winning promotion playing hoofball. It's not just about Pearson.

[foxesfan1989]

This entertaining football you speak of, we played it for what one season and finished 10th. It was fantastic to watch, and was a great platform to build upon. Pearson has ripped that up and we've gone backwards IMO.

Admittedly, the only success we did have in the past 10 years we successfully played boring football and finished 5th. But we also suffered a previous 6/7 years in this division played truly dire football and finishing bottom half of the table.

We've had no success apart from winning League one. We've clearly been doing something wrong.

Hey look, I agree! Nothing wrong with attractive football, i say in a previous post you CAN win the league and play attractive football! Its def possible. But that wasn't what the poll asked was it...

[Grey Fox]

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.

Morning Mike. I was counting on your vote for option 2.

I don't agree that it is biased. For me it's simple. If it came down to it, which would people rather see?

We all know that in the real world that things are never so black and white as all one or the other. No matter who the manager is there will probably be periods of the season when both occur. I just wanted to see how many people thought in the same way as you did.

[fleckneymike]

No because it's about style of football, not how much you like a certain manager.

No one is saying that you are guaranteed success playing hoofball and doomed for failure playing attractive football. This is just about if you had to choose between 'boring' winning football and mid-table 'attractive' football which would you prefer because some have suggested they would rather be finishing mid table playing attractive football than winning promotion playing hoofball. It's not just about Pearson.

At the risk of sounding overly argumentative that is not what the poll asks. Option 1 makes no mention of dull hoofing, it merely states the side is well organised. Man City are well organised, Barcelona are well organised etc.

[Mark_w]

This entertaining football you speak of, we played it for what one season and finished 10th. It was fantastic to watch, and was a great platform to build upon. Pearson has ripped that up and we've gone backwards IMO.

Admittedly, the only success we did have in the past 10 years we successfully played boring football and finished 5th. But we also suffered a previous 6/7 years in this division played truly dire football and finishing bottom half of the table.

We've had no success apart from winning League one. We've clearly been doing something wrong.

It is funny how all those 'rare' seasons of success playing 'boring' football have coincided with Nigel Pearson being our manager though isn't it.

At the risk of sounding overly argumentative that is not what the poll asks. Option 1 makes no mention of dull hoofing, it merely states the side is well organised. Man City are well organised, Barcelona are well organised etc.

Oh come on, it's quite obvious that in this sense we're talking about 'dull' winning football.

[fleckneymike]

It is funny how all those 'rare' seasons of success playing 'boring' football have coincided with Nigel Pearson being our manager though isn't it.

Oh come on, it's quite obvious that in this sense we're talking about 'dull' winning football.

All one of them.

[Mark_w]

All one of them.

We've performed above expectations every season he was manager from the start of the season to the end of the season.

[Grey Fox]

This entertaining football you speak of, we played it for what one season and finished 10th. It was fantastic to watch, and was a great platform to build upon. Pearson has ripped that up and we've gone backwards IMO.

Admittedly, the only success we did have in the past 10 years we successfully played boring football and finished 5th. But we also suffered a previous 6/7 years in this division played truly dire football and finishing bottom half of the table.

We've had no success apart from winning League one. We've clearly been doing something wrong.

What about the 2nd place finish under Adams, did you enjoy that season? Because I know at least one who voted for option 2 that didn't as much as the Sousa/Sven season.

[Grey Fox]

At the risk of sounding overly argumentative that is not what the poll asks. Option 1 makes no mention of dull hoofing, it merely states the side is well organised. Man City are well organised, Barcelona are well organised etc.

I wasn't trying to be biased at all. I was genuinely interested to see how many people thought like you. Indeed I asked the wording of the poll in another thread before I made it, because I wanted people on both sides to agree to it. I'm not changing the wording now because it's unfair on those that have already voted. But I do take your point on board.

However I think that in the context of the question, being well organised and winning games by the odd goal doesn't suggest we will be playing much like Barcelona or Man City. At least not for me anyway.

[fleckneymike]

We've performed above expectations every season he was manager from the start of the season to the end of the season.

Again at the risk of sounding like an argumentative so and so this poll shows what many believe success to be, and that is promotion. Using that criteria we've experienced 'success' once.

In terms of above expectations that's rather subjective, I expected to gain promotion from division 1 and all credit to Pearson he achieved that (albeit in a manner which was a tad industrial). In terms of leaving the championship we finished higher than I expected under NFP but we ultimately remained in the league playing in a similar fashion to a Mickey Adams side.

[Grey Fox]

Again at the risk of sounding like an argumentative so and so this poll shows what many believe success to be, and that is promotion. Using that criteria we've experienced 'success' once.

In terms of above expectations that's rather subjective, I expected to gain promotion from division 1 and all credit to Pearson he achieved that (albeit in a manner which was a tad industrial). In terms of leaving the championship we finished higher than I expected under NFP but we ultimately remained in the league playing in a similar fashion to a Mickey Adams side.

If the aim of the season is promotion, then surely a manager should try and set the team up to gain as many points as they can in order to achieve that?

I see what you are saying, that if we then fail to gain promotion, then the less attractive football was then not worthwhile, and therefore we could have just played in any style with the same result. However if we had just started playing like that in the first place, under the poll scenario we would have been guaranteed not to go up. I would rather us give it our best shot, that's all.

[fleckneymike]

If the aim of the season is promotion, then surely a manager should try and set the team up to gain as many points as they can in order to achieve that?

I see what you are saying, that if we then fail to gain promotion, then the less attractive football was then not worthwhile, and therefore we could have just played in any style with the same result. However if we had just started playing like that in the first place, under the poll scenario we would have been guaranteed not to go up. I would rather us give it our best shot, that's all.

As would we all, it's just some of us (rightly or wrongly) believe our best shot would always involve playing attractive football.

[Leicester_Numan]

In terms of this poll, surely it's better to win as many games as possible. If all we did was play nice football, there would be no reason for LCFC to exist at all. It is a professional football club which exists to compete and try to win as many games as possible in order to try and win trophies, they do not exist to entertain us, that's just a bonus that we'd all like

[Dr The Singh]

I feel under Pearson, strong organisation, character and hard work will preside over glamour and style. At the end of the day as a fan I enjoy the passion and most of all the win!! It's losing I hat the most or drawing by playing drab football!!

[fleckneymike]

In terms of this poll, surely it's better to win as many games as possible. If all we did was play nice football, there would be no reason for LCFC to exist at all. It is a professional football club which exists to compete and try to win as many games as possible in order to try and win trophies, they do not exist to entertain us, that's just a bonus that we'd all like

I couldn't disagree more. The club exist to entertain us, that is the point of professional sport and dare I say it football.

[Leicester_Numan]

I couldn't disagree more. The club exist to entertain us, that is the point of professional sport and dare I say it football.

No it's not, no sportsman competes to entertain, they compete to win. I was a darts player for 21 years and I can assure you that no one in my team played to entertain, they played to win. 2 of that team are currently playing in the PDC. Jamie Caven and Tony Littleton, maybe you've heard of them? Ask them or any sportsman why they compete, you'll get the same answer. Expecting them to entertain is a fans point of view only

[indierich06]

I couldn't disagree more. The club exist to entertain us, that is the point of professional sport and dare I say it football.

Professional sport IS entertaining and obviously fans are the lifeblood of any sport, but the club exists to play games, to win as many as possible and to compete for trophies and prestige. Entertainment is a consequence of that and people watch football because it is entertaining, but entertainment is not the sole reason the club exists. A lot of the time, it isn't that entertaining anyway - I remember when we played Hereford at home in League One. If that was entertaining, please shoot me now.

No it's not, no sportsman competes to entertain, they compete to win. I was a darts player for 21 years and I can assure you that no one in my team played to entertain, they played to win. 2 of that team are currently playing in the PDC. Jamie Caven and Tony Littleton, maybe you've heard of them? Ask them or any sportsman why they compete, you'll get the same answer. Expecting them to entertain is a fans point of view only

This. Entertainment is a by-product of good performance.

[Raw Dykes]

I think it would be great to see a Leicester side play a progressive, fluid passing style, but I still think the main priority has to be getting to the top division.

Ideally, we will get to the PL and stay there as soon as possible. I think, if we've established ourselves as a PL club after a few seasons up there, then we should look to gradually change the passing style to something more pleasing on the eye. I don't think it's something that's easy to change overnight - Sousa's short reign being a great example of what can go wrong.

This is the longest we've been outside the top flight, and that's exactly why the way we go about winning matches is the least important it's ever been. We have to find a way of winning matches on a regular basis, even if it means some fans are bored.

[Grey Fox]

I couldn't disagree more. The club exist to entertain us, that is the point of professional sport and dare I say it football.

If you go right back to when football was first invented, no clubs existed, it was purely a competitive game between two teams to win. Fans came later as a result of the sport, not the other way around.

However as sport continues to evolve, and now with so much television money involved, it is actually becoming a form of entertainment, for better or for worse. If you were to look at it purely from a neutral television audience point of view, I'm sure Mike is right. They would prefer to see 4-3's, 4-4's, great quick passing, loads of goals, sending's off, late drama, tears, the lot.

As a fan of Leicester though, I am most entertained when we get the 3 points, and as I have said many times, I don't really care how that is done.

[fleckneymike]

No it's not, no sportsman competes to entertain, they compete to win. I was a darts player for 21 years and I can assure you that no one in my team played to entertain, they played to win. 2 of that team are currently playing in the PDC. Jamie Caven and Tony Littleton, maybe you've heard of them? Ask them or any sportsman why they compete, you'll get the same answer. Expecting them to entertain is a fans point of view only

I like darts as much as the next man but it's not really an accurate comparison in terms of philosophy and at the risk of sounding an outrageous pedant you never mentioned sportsmen, you mentioned the club's reason for existence. Darts has been branded (brilliantly I might add) to make it entertaining, the nicknames, the entrances, the music etc, the PDO blazed a trail which the BDO was all too slow to follow, the PDO now offers a vastly more attractive product than the BDO because of the entertainment factor

Anyway we're still starting from the false assumption that entertainment is incompatible with success. The top clubs (the clubs I assume many aspire to play against) all have a philosophy and an expectation for how they want their sides to play, success is not enough for them, there must be substance and legacy. Brian Clough produced outstanding sides at unfashionable clubs by playing football and this interview speaks volumes (go to 5 mins 41 secs)

[Leicester_Numan]

LCFC do not exist as an entertainment business they exist as a professional football club, employing professional footballers in order to try to win. If entertainment ever becomes more important than winning to sportsmen, their teams or their clubs then that's the time to quit. The same winning mentality applies to all sportsmen, teams and clubs that ever get anywhere in any sport. The last thing on their minds is entertainment. It's us, the fans, that decide whether we are entertained or not.

[Grey Fox]

I like darts as much as the next man but it's not really an accurate comparison in terms of philosophy and at the risk of sounding an outrageous pedant you never mentioned sportsmen, you mentioned the club's reason for existence. Darts has been branded (brilliantly I might add) to make it entertaining, the nicknames, the entrances, the music etc, the PDO blazed a trail which the BDO was all too slow to follow, the PDO now offers a vastly more attractive product than the BDO because of the entertainment factor

Anyway we're still starting from the false assumption that entertainment is incompatible with success. The top clubs (the clubs I assume many aspire to play against) all have a philosophy and an expectation for how they want their sides to play, success is not enough for them, there must be substance and legacy. Brian Clough produced outstanding sides at unfashionable clubs by playing football and this interview speaks volumes (go to 5 mins 41 secs)

What about the bit around 6 mins 30 where Clough says that Don's view on the game is different, and his results prove he might be right?

Clough admits himself that the way he likes to play is utopian. I don't even disagree with Clough, I prefer his style over Don's. However I prefer results over style. We have already said we'll agree to disagree. I wont change your view, and neither is that my aim. Equally you wont change mine.

[Grey Fox]

LCFC do not exist as an entertainment business they exist as a professional football club, employing professional footballers in order to try to win. If entertainment ever becomes more important than winning to sportsmen, their teams or their clubs then that's the time to quit. The same winning mentality applies to all sportsmen, teams and clubs that ever get anywhere in any sport. The last thing on their minds is entertainment. It's us, the fans, that decide whether we are entertained or not.

Exactly, with the Olympics starting at the end of next week, there is no finer example of this. Ask any athlete at the games if they are there to entertain, or to win, I think I know what most will say.

[fleckneymike]

Again I would respectfully disagree on certain issues. I don't dispute that the vast majority of footballers want to win, but I would dispute that they don't consider entertainment.

Why do Brazil play the way they do if entertainment is not a consideration? Why does Cruyff say this?

http://youtu.be/wawtVQrxVWE