Next season, style or substance?

[Fox42]

How about do both in one season like Reading - first half of the season was option two and second half was option one...

[Leicester_Numan]

As has been repeatedly stated we would all prefer both but at the end of the day, sportsmen, teams and clubs all compete to win, in every sport. Those that compete for fun, their own or others entertainment will never be a professional and that's what this is, professional football. Like it or not, it's all about results and ultimately that's what Pearson will be judged on, not how we play

[Grey Fox]

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?

I don't have the time to watch that video right now. Brazil and Cruyff etc happen to play a different style, a more passing style, I agree. However is the reason they do because they want to entertain? Or is it because they believe that is a better way of them getting results anyway?

What we are discussing now is if entertainment is the initial aim, and not the results. I think Cruyff, Brazil, Barcelona etc, all play that way because they believe that is their best chance of getting results, not just because it's more entertaining.

[blueblood88]

I will be interested to see the results of this poll, just to see if I am in the minority if nothing else.

It's not really a question, top 2 without doubt, we have already had a season, 2010-11, where we played most teams off the park, especially at home, where we scored a stupid amount of goals! People still moaned about the season because we finished 10th. You need to be physical and hard to beat to get out of this league, but also need 1 or 2 players who can create chances, or score a few goals. Start thinking about playing brilliant football and scoring loads of goals when we are a established prem side.

[fleckneymike]

I don't have the time to watch that video right now. Brazil and Cruyff etc happen to play a different style, a more passing style, I agree. However is the reason they do because they want to entertain? Or is it because they believe that is a better way of them getting results anyway?

What we are discussing now is if entertainment is the initial aim, and not the results. I think Cruyff, Brazil, Barcelona etc, all play that way because they believe that is their best chance of getting results, not just because it's more entertaining.

And that gets to the nub of the issue. The most successful sides believe the way to be successful is to play entertaining football, they don't choose to play like Pearson likes to play, like Pulis likes to play etc. All these sides and nations began with a philosophy and trained and recruited to fulfil that philosophy and have reaped the rewards. We've resolutely stuck to win at all costs and have reaped virtually nothing.

Swansea began in division four with a philosophy that they were going to play football, Martinez was the man to lay those foundations and look at them now. Holloway, after failing miserably here, went away and reappraised how he set out to play, wound up at Blackpool and on a budget a fraction of ours gained promotion. Di Matteo at WBA did the same, Di Canio at Swindon is doing the same.

Oh and you need only watch the first 2 mins.

[Grey Fox]

And that gets to the nub of the issue. The most successful sides believe the way to be successful is to play entertaining football, they don't choose to play like Pearson likes to play, like Pulis likes to play etc. All these sides and nations began with a philosophy and trained and recruited to fulfil that philosophy and have reaped the rewards. We've resolutely stuck to win at all costs and have reaped virtually nothing.

Swansea began in division four with a philosophy that they were going to play football, Martinez was the man to lay those foundations and look at them now. Holloway, after failing miserably here, went away and reappraised how he set out to play, wound up at Blackpool and on a budget a fraction of ours gained promotion. Di Matteo at WBA did the same, Di Canio at Swindon is doing the same.

I don't disagree with any of this. But what I can't get my head around, and the reason for this poll in the first place, is if you could only have one or the other, why anyone would chose not to win?

You admitted that you preferred the the mid table Sousa/Sven season over the Adams 2nd place finish season. That I just don't get. Sorry.

[Leicester_Numan]

I don't have the time to watch that video right now. Brazil and Cruyff etc happen to play a different style, a more passing style, I agree. However is the reason they do because they want to entertain? Or is it because they believe that is a better way of them getting results anyway?

What we are discussing now is if entertainment is the initial aim, and not the results. I think Cruyff, Brazil, Barcelona etc, all play that way because they believe that is their best chance of getting results, not just because it's more entertaining.

Well it would be wouldn't it. They were brought up with a completely different football philosophy. Technical ability was put before the physical side of the game from an early age. We as a football mad country are hopefully taking the steps necessary to change our style of play to emphasise technical skills. We may see some results in about 20 years. For now, we're stuck with what we've got. The primary goal of clubs and teams will always be to try to win trophies and the primary goal of every sportsman will be to try to win every game. No point in playing if that ever changes. How many times have we had a go at players for lack of effort, commitment or desire to win? That because it's what it's all about in the end. Besides, I really don't think we'll be as dull and boring next season as some think we will. Solid and organised does not always equal dull but i'll gladly take dull football to get out of this division if it comes to it. I wonder if Mike ever played any sport and if entertainment ever entered his mind when he crossed the white line so to speak

[fleckneymike]

Because there has to be a point to 'winning', there has to be a legacy. What was Mickey Adams' legacy, what great players were we left with, what foundations were put in place to see the club progress?

If you view that one season in isolation you miss the point of Micky Adams.

[wakeyfox01]

Because there has to be a point to 'winning', there has to be a legacy. What was Mickey Adams' legacy, what great players were we left with, what foundations were put in place to see the club progress?

If you view that one season in isolation you miss the point of Micky Adams.

Exactly if we bored and ground out our way into the Premier League what do we do next. Teams that play that style of football generally struggle and come straight back down with Stoke the exception.

You have to think long term and establish a philosophy of playing to ultimately achieve consistent success.

I obviously appreciate different things to the average fan: skill, artistry and ability over blood and guts and 'passion'.

[fleckneymike]

Well it would be wouldn't it. They were brought up with a completely different football philosophy. Technical ability was put before the physical side of the game from an early age. We as a football mad country are hopefully taking the steps necessary to change our style of play to emphasise technical skills. We may see some results in about 20 years. For now, we're stuck with what we've got. The primary goal of clubs and teams will always be to try to win trophies and the primary goal of every sportsman will be to try to win every game. No point in playing if that ever changes. How many times have we had a go at players for lack of effort, commitment or desire to win? That because it's what it's all about in the end. Besides, I really don't think we'll be as dull and boring next season as some think we will. Solid and organised does not always equal dull but i'll gladly take dull football to get out of this division if it comes to it. I wonder if Mike ever played any sport and if entertainment ever entered his mind when he crossed the white line so to speak

I don't see the point of getting out of this league if it's just to see how successfully we can kick the ball in the air against 'better' sides. All this bollocks about effort and commitment, we've lived off the myth that the English footballer is somehow more committed and has greater desire than Johnny foreigner with their goalkeepers who punch the ball, players who dive, sides who just pass the ball around etc. Effort and commitment are a minimum expectation, they're not an either or choice when it comes to playing technically proficient football. How many times do you hear players comment on how they were surprised to see the talented foreign bloke stop behind after training to do more...training.

We're where we are because we too obsessed with winning, we ignore the fundamentals. We've had youth football where we've confused winning with actually being any bloody good at football. We bang on about having a plan B, bollocks to plan B, make plan A better.

I do play sport and I do play football but I play to get better at football not to win. Everything I do, I do in order to improve, that is the be all and end all and that is how I measure success.

[Grey Fox]

Because there has to be a point to 'winning', there has to be a legacy. What was Mickey Adams' legacy, what great players were we left with, what foundations were put in place to see the club progress?

If you view that one season in isolation you miss the point of Micky Adams.

Sousa/Sven didn't exactly do that either though did they?

I happen to believe that Pearson is building for the future and not just the short term anyway. He has signed some talented young players that have a chance of becoming future greats.

Considering we disagree on this main point, there seems to be a lot that we do agree on. Maybe not the style, but the legacy is another of them.

For the record, Pearson's style didn't/doesn't bore me anyway. I think people exaggerate about how boring the football under his management actually is.

[Leicester_Numan]

Exactly if we bored and ground out our way into the Premier League what do we do next. Teams that play that style of football generally struggle and come straight back down with Stoke the exception.

You have to think long term and establish a philosophy of playing to ultimately achieve consistent success.

I obviously appreciate different things to the average fan: skill, artistry and ability over blood and guts and 'passion'.

My opinion of that is that it's better to try to do that in the premiership rather than the championship under the FFP restrictions. For this season, whatever works to try to get out of this division

[Babylon]

And that gets to the nub of the issue. The most successful sides believe the way to be successful is to play entertaining football, they don't choose to play like Pearson likes to play, like Pulis likes to play etc. All these sides and nations began with a philosophy and trained and recruited to fulfil that philosophy and have reaped the rewards. We've resolutely stuck to win at all costs and have reaped virtually nothing.

Swansea began in division four with a philosophy that they were going to play football, Martinez was the man to lay those foundations and look at them now. Holloway, after failing miserably here, went away and reappraised how he set out to play, wound up at Blackpool and on a budget a fraction of ours gained promotion. Di Matteo at WBA did the same, Di Canio at Swindon is doing the same.

Oh and you need only watch the first 2 mins.

Di Matteo got sacked, Holloway ended up back in this league and I'd put a few quid on Swansea joining him again next year.

People make out like we're John Becks Cambridge but in 2012, which is rubbish. I've seen Pearsons teams play plenty of decent football, but yes it's functional when it has to be. We need to be a bit more expansive, we need to score more goals, but we aren't that far away from that. Think back to how many chances we missed in out play off season and we were creating loads, we just couldn't put them away half the time.

Our style of play isn't much different to that of an Everton or a Sunderland, or a West Brom and Fulham under Hodgson. Keep it tight, play football when we can, but be fully committed and work your balls off when it ain't going your way.

[fleckneymike]

Sousa/Sven didn't exactly do that either though did they?

I happen to believe that Pearson is building for the future and not just the short term anyway. He has signed some talented young players that have a chance of becoming future greats.

Considering we disagree on this main point, there seems to be a lot that we do agree on. Maybe not the style, but the legacy is another of them.

For the record, Pearson's style didn't/doesn't bore me anyway. I think people exaggerate about how boring the football under his management actually is.

I think Kasper is a fine keeper, Nugent is a serviceable championship striker, Beckford is very good at this level (and I know such a comment will draw much scorn and derision), Bamba was/is a very decent championship defender (who is now about to play in the Champions league), I think Schlupp's early blooding into the squad will reap benefits, Danns is a great squad player and that those players can play in a variety of systems (and obviously many other couldn't).

I think the vast majority of the squad left by Pearson mk1 could only play in a Pearson set up as we witnessed as we attempted to play in a slightly more adventurous style. Unlike most I don't believe he buys just hoofers but I do think his penchant for clogging centre backs is to the detriment of the whole set up as it invariably leads to longer passes which completely negate any ability his midfield might have.

[Leicester_Numan]

I don't see the point of getting out of this league if it's just to see how successfully we can kick the ball in the air against 'better' sides. All this bollocks about effort and commitment, we've lived off the myth that the English footballer is somehow more committed and has greater desire than Johnny foreigner with their goalkeepers who punch the ball, players who dive, sides who just pass the ball around etc. Effort and commitment are a minimum expectation, they're not an either or choice when it comes to playing technically proficient football. How many times do you hear players comment on how they were surprised to see the talented foreign bloke stop behind after training to do more...training.

We're where we are because we too obsessed with winning, we ignore the fundamentals. We've had youth football where we've confused winning with actually being any bloody good at football. We bang on about having a plan B, bollocks to plan B, make plan A better.

I do play sport and I do play football but I play to get better at football not to win. Everything I do, I do in order to improve, that is the be all and end all and that is how I measure success.

Nothing wrong with trying to improve, that's what practice and training is all about. But you play sport to win, even if it's just playing pool against your mates down the pub. You don't play to lose or to entertain them you play to win. If you lose, you practice so you get better and win. That is the very nature of sport and sportsmen.

[fleckneymike]

Di Matteo got sacked, Holloway ended up back in this league and I'd put a few quid on Swansea joining him again next year.

People make out like we're John Becks Cambridge but in 2012, which is rubbish. I've seen Pearsons teams play plenty of decent football, but yes it's functional when it has to be. We need to be a bit more expansive, we need to score more goals, but we aren't that far away from that. Think back to how many chances we missed in out play off season and we were creating loads, we just couldn't put them away half the time.

Our style of play isn't much different to that of an Everton or a Sunderland, or a West Brom and Fulham under Hodgson. Keep it tight, play football when we can, but be fully committed and work your balls off when it ain't going your way.

You're quite right Holloway did end up back here, but I'd much rather be relegated playing like Blackpool than playing like we did under Adams. Our history shows we flick between the top two divisions, I'd just prefer to flick between the two playing football.

I don't think anyone would go so far as to compare us to John Beck, much in the same way I don't compare passing football to wanting to play like Barca or Arsenal, I do still maintain that I find watching us under Pearson somewhat dull more often than not and I still maintain I don't see the point in playing that way if ultimately it proves no more successful that the more elegant style I espouse.

[fleckneymike]

Nothing wrong with trying to improve, that's what practice and training is all about. But you play sport to win, even if it's just playing pool against your mates down the pub. You don't play to lose or to entertain them you play to win. If you lose, you practice so you get better and win. That is the very nature of sport and sportsmen.

You've clearly never seen me play pool. Perhaps like Clough I too am 'an idiot' (his words before anyone thinks I am accusing them of being insulting) but winning isn't enough and never will be.

[Babylon]

You've clearly never seen me play pool. Perhaps like Clough I too am 'an idiot' (his words before anyone thinks I am accusing them of being insulting) but winning isn't enough and never will be.

When you go to the bookies and put a bet on, do you fill out the form artistically and then dance up to the bookie with your slip?

[Grey Fox]

I think Kasper is a fine keeper, Nugent is a serviceable championship striker, Beckford is very good at this level (and I know such a comment will draw much scorn and derision), Bamba was/is a very decent championship defender (who is now about to play in the Champions league), I think Schlupp's early blooding into the squad will reap benefits, Danns is a great squad player and that those players can play in a variety of systems (and obviously many other couldn't).

I think the vast majority of the squad left by Pearson mk1 could only play in a Pearson set up as we witnessed as we attempted to play in a slightly more adventurous style. Unlike most I don't believe he buys just hoofers but I do think his penchant for clogging centre backs is to the detriment of the whole set up as it invariably leads to longer passes which completely negate any ability his midfield might have.

Kasper I agree, a good young keeper, one for the future. However Nugent, Beckford, Danns I would argue are closer to the end of their careers than the start? Good for a few seasons but not very long term. Bamba I will not comment on because he seems to divide opinion quite widely and I don't want to send this off on a tangent.

So for me Kasper was the only player that Sven signed that I can see has a real longer term future at the club. When compared to the ages of the players Pearson is signing now, if we are talking legacies, I think he is doing a better job at building one.

[Leicester_Numan]

When you go to the bookies and put a bet on, do you fill out the form artistically and then dance up to the bookie with your slip?

You've clearly never seen me put a bet on . Look I never said it was enough i'm just stating that that is what sport and sportsmen are all about. We all agree that the football philosophy is wrong. At an early age there should be no focus on winning, no competitive matches and nothing but learning technical ability. The winning mentality will always be there as that is the nature of sport. We all also agree that we want to see our team winning playing attractive football. But attractive football is not enough either. The point of this poll though was would you take less attractive football if it meant getting the hell out of this division and yes I would

[fleckneymike]

Kasper I agree, a good young keeper, one for the future. However Nugent, Beckford, Danns I would argue are closer to the end of their careers than the start? Good for a few seasons but not very long term. Bamba I will not comment on because he seems to divide opinion quite widely and I don't want to send this off on a tangent.

So for me Kasper was the only player that Sven signed that I can see has a real longer term future at the club. When compared to the ages of the players Pearson is signing now, if we are talking legacies, I think he is doing a better job at building one.

Nugent is still only 27 and Beckford 28. I would say they have at least 4 years in them.

When Pearson left we had Hobbs (who I do not rate) and Morrison (who bless him is woefully out of his depth at this level). Again this isn't a Pearson v Sven topic, more a philosophy thread so lets not get sidetracked.

[Grey Fox]

You've clearly never seen me put a bet on . Look I never said it was enough i'm just stating that that is what sport and sportsmen are all about. We all agree that the football philosophy is wrong. At an early age there should be no focus on winning, no competitive matches and nothing but learning technical ability. The winning mentality will always be there as that is the nature of sport. We all also agree that we want to see our team winning playing attractive football. But attractive football is not enough either. The point of this poll though was would you take less attractive football if it meant getting the hell out of this division and yes I would

That was exactly the point of the poll. It seems that around 90% would take results over style for next season. That's all I wanted to know.

[Raw Dykes]

Nugent is still only 27 and Beckford 28. I would say they have at least 4 years in them.

When Pearson left we had Hobbs (who I do not rate) and Morrison (who bless him is woefully out of his depth at this level). Again this isn't a Pearson v Sven topic, more a philosophy thread so lets not get sidetracked.

I think it's a bit unfair to compare Pearson's signings from his first stint here to Sven's - the budgets available in each case were wildly different.

[Grey Fox]

Nugent is still only 27 and Beckford 28. I would say they have at least 4 years in them.

When Pearson left we had Hobbs (who I do not rate) and Morrison (who bless him is woefully out of his depth at this level). Again this isn't a Pearson v Sven topic, more a philosophy thread so lets not get sidetracked.

Okay bringing it back to philosophy and legacy. If we assume that an average players first team career is from around 20 until around 32. That is 12 years. If a player has around 4 years left of that time, then they have 8 years or two thirds of it behind them.

My idea of building a legacy would be a focus on youth, preferably home grown, but also bought and developed from the start of their first team career time frame, so early 20's.

You might not agree that the correct young players were/are being bought, but I don't think you can argue with the philosophy.

[fleckneymike]

Okay bringing it back to philosophy and legacy. If we assume that an average players first team career is from around 20 until around 32. That is 12 years. If a player has around 4 years left of that time, then they have 8 years or two thirds of it behind them.

My idea of building a legacy would be a focus on youth, preferably home grown, but also bought and developed from the start of their first team career time frame, so early 20's.

You might not agree that the correct young players were/are being bought, but I don't think you can argue with the philosophy.

But again we are oversimplifying things and confusing the matter at hand. Pearson has a philosophy on football and he buys footballers to fit that philosophy so their age is largely irrelevant. In fairness to Pearson I believe he buys players based on ability rather than age, it just so happens that the players he can currently afford are relatively young, if he could afford older players he'd sign them instead.

Lets not confuse youth with exuberance and flair, Steve Howard was young once.