MC Prussian Posted 2 August 2013 Share Posted 2 August 2013 I don't want a messiah I just want attractive football. I see no point in building anything unless it is an attractive footballing side. We undoubtedly played attractive stuff at the start of last season, then for what ever reason we stopped just as abruptly as we had began. A decent side doesn't cost millions it takes good coaching. Getting into the play offs is not my idea of success, playing attractive football is success as it is more difficult. And what if the attractive football you're advertising ultimately gets us relegated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 2 August 2013 Author Share Posted 2 August 2013 And what if the attractive football you're advertising ultimately gets us relegated? Then fair enough. We've been relegated enough times playing shit football after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zingari Posted 2 August 2013 Share Posted 2 August 2013 I don't want a messiah I just want attractive football. I see no point in building anything unless it is an attractive footballing side. We undoubtedly played attractive stuff at the start of last season, then for what ever reason we stopped just as abruptly as we had began. A decent side doesn't cost millions it takes good coaching. Getting into the play offs is not my idea of success, playing attractive football is success as it is more difficult. I'm somewhat confused now Mike. ( for me that's nothing new though ) The original thrust of the thread seemed to be about lack of "success". I took that to mean you were disappointed we hadn't got promoted or won a trophy etc and that success usually comes fairly soon after a new man is appointed. And you were sort of using statistics/points gained /league position etc etc to back this up Are you now just saying that it's an attractive footballing side that is paramount with results and league position somewhat irrelevant? Do you just want a manager who you believe will get us playing more attractive football and this will be the "success" you want ? From the handful of live games and many more on tv foxesplayer etc, i think we are playing some attractive football . OK it's not "Bloomfield" but it's not bad . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 2 August 2013 Author Share Posted 2 August 2013 I'm somewhat confused now Mike. ( for me that's nothing new though ) The original thrust of the thread seemed to be about lack of "success". I took that to mean you were disappointed we hadn't got promoted or won a trophy etc and that success usually comes fairly soon after a new man is appointed. And you were sort of using statistics/points gained /league position etc etc to back this up Are you now just saying that it's an attractive footballing side that is paramount with results and league position somewhat irrelevant? Do you just want a manager who you believe will get us playing more attractive football and this will be the "success" you want ? From the handful of live games and many more on tv foxesplayer etc, i think we are playing some attractive football . OK it's not "Bloomfield" but it's not bad . My point is what are clubs building for? Success tends to arrive very quickly, very few managers or clubs build anything of note. Bloomfield stayed in post because he played attractive, expansive football, we got rid as we wanted 'success' and relegation followed. There is this idea that if you give a manager time he will win something, truth is he doesn't. As it is so hard to 'win' things why not stick to trying to play beautiful football and wait for the random pockets of success/disaster and enjoy them playing beautiful football. We have this strange belief that playing football equals relegation. Everyone always say 'yeah but what if we get relegated?' No one ever asks that question of any other style of play. This desperation to play one league higher is baffling, those who want to keep Pearson do so because they believe if he just has time we'll get promoted (irrespective of style of play) and likewise those who want him out believe his replacement could get us promoted (again irrespective of style of play). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxhateram Posted 3 August 2013 Share Posted 3 August 2013 So you would swap results with attractive football? We play a passing game but lose you will be happy? This league is about adaptability you have to play in different ways dependent on your current situation and the teams you are playing. Some games if you turned up and played a passing game you would just get trashed as some teams will just get physical, this is exactly what stopped our attractive style of play last year, one team pressed us and got physical we didn't like it and ultimately every other team followed suite. Last season we didn't have anyone to play the dirty game, we still don't. So we will have to play how we did last season and hope that teams will try and pla against us rather than chop and press. On the bright side the prem teams that have come don will play good stuff I'm sure. These are the teams we will beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 3 August 2013 Share Posted 3 August 2013 Agree with Dan about Swansea. Amazed by what they've done and I admit to being rather jealous of them, really hope we do something similar. Encouraging that they're a smaller club than us, makes you wonder how much Leicester can achieve if we fulfill our potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zingari Posted 3 August 2013 Share Posted 3 August 2013 My point is what are clubs building for? Success tends to arrive very quickly, very few managers or clubs build anything of note. Bloomfield stayed in post because he played attractive, expansive football, we got rid as we wanted 'success' and relegation followed. There is this idea that if you give a manager time he will win something, truth is he doesn't. As it is so hard to 'win' things why not stick to trying to play beautiful football and wait for the random pockets of success/disaster and enjoy them playing beautiful football. We have this strange belief that playing football equals relegation. Everyone always say 'yeah but what if we get relegated?' No one ever asks that question of any other style of play. This desperation to play one league higher is baffling, those who want to keep Pearson do so because they believe if he just has time we'll get promoted (irrespective of style of play) and likewise those who want him out believe his replacement could get us promoted (again irrespective of style of play). Sorry Mike but I think it's easy to fool ourselves into thinking that's all we want. If it's true that all we want to see is clever skilful football we have in Knockaert and Dyer two incredibly skilful players.And they are by no means the only ones. The problem is, what they do, more often than not , doesn't translate into goals. ( which is what we really want ) we soon bemoan a poor final pass but overlook the artistry preceding it .If all we want is flair and entertainment we should be satisfied with watching the skills even if the end result is not a bulging net. I do understand what you're saying though and on a personal level I do agree with the sentiments. But football is a very different world today , And Pearson has to work with the demands of today. I've watched us play on TV in pubs in other parts of the country , and neutral fans are quite often giving us glowing praise for our style of play . It's a bit like not realising how attractive your missus might be to other blokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleckneymike Posted 3 August 2013 Author Share Posted 3 August 2013 Sorry Mike but I think it's easy to fool ourselves into thinking that's all we want. If it's true that all we want to see is clever skilful football we have in Knockaert and Dyer two incredibly skilful players.And they are by no means the only ones. The problem is, what they do, more often than not , doesn't translate into goals. ( which is what we really want ) we soon bemoan a poor final pass but overlook the artistry preceding it .If all we want is flair and entertainment we should be satisfied with watching the skills even if the end result is not a bulging net. I do understand what you're saying though and on a personal level I do agree with the sentiments. But football is a very different world today , And Pearson has to work with the demands of today. I've watched us play on TV in pubs in other parts of the country , and neutral fans are quite often giving us glowing praise for our style of play . It's a bit like not realising how attractive your missus might be to other blokes Again people deal in straw men when it comes to attractive football. 11 Knockaert's is not what I'm advocating, simple passing football, retention of the ball and no hoofing it. You only need a tough, hard tackling midfielder if you're constantly giving the ball away. If you look through this thread the amount of posters who automatically bring up relegation and inevitable defeat when discussing passing football. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zingari Posted 3 August 2013 Share Posted 3 August 2013 Again people deal in straw men when it comes to attractive football. 11 Knockaert's is not what I'm advocating, simple passing football, retention of the ball and no hoofing it. You only need a tough, hard tackling midfielder if you're constantly giving the ball away. If you look through this thread the amount of posters who automatically bring up relegation and inevitable defeat when discussing passing football. Why? I admit it's a good many moons since i kicked a ball in anger, but the game looks a lot faster now, defenders are much more adept at neutralising skills. I'm not sure it's that easy any more to stroke the ball around while we all shout OLE after every pass . Perhaps you could give us some examples of teams that regularly do this ( at our sort of level) I don't see "attractive football meaning inevitable defeat" , i just see it as being much harder to put into practice than you realise. When we do get to see attractive football it's invariably in quick flashes and the opposition soon devise a way to snuff out creativity. ( this is sounding more doom laden than i intended) As I said before I agree with you to a great extent and I'd love the game to be played with entertainment as paramount. But I do want to back NP to get the balance right. And I truly thinks he is the best bloke for the job in our given circumstances . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.