Proper football, Wilder and Basset

[lingsbord]

Because there becomes a point when it isn't enough. Football is about entertainment as well as winning. Would you rather us finish eighth in the championship playing Blackwell style football or twelfth playing Wilder style?

When Harry took over we'd been out of the top flight for a long time and we had a fanbase that felt we should be in Div 1 and demanded it happened soon. We had neither the time to slowly build a footballing side good enough for promotion or the finances to buy one. So Bassett did what he knew worked for him. It wasn't pretty and before we got into div 1 was mainly kick and rush football. The style improved as players like Deane developed and we added Hodgy and the kids coming through, Whitehouse, Ward, who could play a bit.
Had we had stable leadership above and kept Deano, or given Harry enough money to replace him, I think we'd have continued to improve our play. But we didn't.

It was right at the time but I don't want to see us playing like that again. Watching Leicester v Atletic when they reverted to that in the second half reminded me of watching us losing to one of the bigger clubs during the Bassett days and I realised I'd rather watch us play passing football in the championship than be a West Brom type of team, dull as fuck and whose only ambition is to stay in the PL.

I want us to build a team, using good recruitment and the academy, that plays purposeful passing football and I'd rather us take five years to do so and challenge at the top than to try to shortcut it by getting a big man and launching balls at him.

Bushy mate I would take the Wilder way every time but too many people are missing my point. I want us to play the Wilder way forever, BUT whatever is successful is the "proper" way at the time. It's fluid. Leicester won the PL playing "proper" football (who could doubt it?) but they also nearly fell out of the League supposedly playing the same way.

The loss of Deane/Fjortfoft and therefore Spackman robbed us of what could have become a serious footballing dynasty imho. I loved watching us play great football like he had us playing, and with bigger cojones we could have become serious players in the years that followed, but in the end it ended in tears.

To answer your point I would prefer to watch great football with a team that just about survived than watching a side that clogged its way to 8th place, but I'd rather clog our way to promotion than pass our way to survival.

 

[seanbeenstattoo]

So 90+% of posts or posters talk bollux then ?

And it's your duty to let them know as such !

Our views differ. No problem. Stating a posters comments are bollux without giving ANY evidence as to why, frankly, tells its own story.

Not looking for a row fella. All Blades.

UTB

Er no. I was referring to yours. No-one elses.
And I have given ample reasons as to why I think your arguement is flawed so I've no idea why you claim I've given no evidence. I also don't see why you bring up the "row" thing.
I disagree with you,nothing more,and I would wager good money so would Wilder and every other professional manager whose job invariably is results driven.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Point is mate, 46 dogshit performances that get promotion will always be better than 46 scintillating performances that leave us struggling at the bottom. I GUARANTEE "Tufty" would agree.

Still, you and pinchy are the footballing visionaries on here, so I doff my cap as appropriate.

I have never been an advocate of the "gerrit forrerd" style of football, but regardless of what's on the pitch, I prefer going home with 3 points in the bag first. How we got them is next on the priority list. You football geniuses have to try to accommodate or otherwise try to suffer the complete lunatics and fuckwits like the rest of us who just want to win first, and analyse it later

I'm no visionary. Neither is Pinchy. Not the point.

And I agree. If Tufty goes 10 games with 0 points in the bag, even though he has been pleased with performances, he will seriously start to question the players and the method. No doubt.

I just seriously believe that a more direct approach, that is advocated by some, will lead to less of a points haul over the course of a season. It's exactly what's held the National side back and what has led to Spain,Germany, Portugal et al leaving us miles behind. They teach football technique, we do the bleep test !!

I could be wrong and it could be that a more direct approach will bring more points in the Championship.

Time will tell.

UTB

 

[DronnieBlade]

Er no. I was referring to yours. No-one elses.
And I have given ample reasons as to why I think your arguement is flawed so I've no idea why you claim I've given no evidence. I also don't see why you bring up the "row" thing.
I disagree with you,nothing more,and I would wager good money so would Wilder and every other professional manager whose job invariably is results driven.

Agreed. See #63.

UTB

 

[lingsbord]

I'm no visionary. Neither is Pinchy. Not the point.

And I agree. If Tufty goes 10 games with 0 points in the bag, even though he has been pleased with performances, he will seriously start to question the players and the method. No doubt.

I just seriously believe that a more direct approach, that is advocated by some, will lead to less of a points haul over the course of a season. It's exactly what's held the National side back and what has led to Spain,Germany, Portugal et al leaving us miles behind. They teach football technique, we do the bleep test !!

I could be wrong and it could be that a more direct approach will bring more points in the Championship.

Time will tell.

UTB

Just to be clear mate, I have never advocated us playing a more direct approach. I love football and I love to watch great football, but I want success for my team - however it's achieved.

BTW I took the claim that you were a visionary from your own post...................

Edit: Perhaps you were referring to CW as the visionary. Apologies DB.

 

[BushBlade]

Bushy mate I would take the Wilder way every time but too many people are missing my point. I want us to play the Wilder way forever, BUT whatever is successful is the "proper" way at the time. It's fluid. Leicester won the PL playing "proper" football (who could doubt it?) but they also nearly fell out of the League supposedly playing the same way.

The loss of Deane/Fjortfoft and therefore Spackman robbed us of what could have become a serious footballing dynasty imho. I loved watching us play great football like he had us playing, and with bigger cojones we could have become serious players in the years that followed, but in the end it ended in tears.

To answer your point I would prefer to watch great football with a team that just about survived than watching a side that clogged its way to 8th place, but I'd rather clog our way to promotion than pass our way to survival.

That's just semantics though. I'm not interested in whether the style of play we had last season is 'proper' or not, but when managers and players talk about 'proper football' or 'playing the right way' they mean a possession based game.

Leicester didn't play 'proper' football if you accept my definition above. They didn't retain the ball, they didn't pass from front to back, they didn't have good possession stats when they won the league. Ranieri then tried to change it to a slightly more possession based style, which they couldn't play, which is why he got the sack. Shakey went back to the previous style of balls over the top on the counter and improved their form greatly, despite them not having Kante, one of the best defensive midfielders I've ever seen.

Please don't get me started on that charlatan Spackman, a better manager would have had us top of the league and MacDonald might have held his nerve. Although I do accept that when we were good under him, we were very good. Very good.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Just to be clear mate, I have never advocated us playing a more direct approach. I love football and I love to watch great football, but I want success for my team - however it's achieved.

BTW I took the claim that you were a visionary from your own post...................

Edit: Perhaps you were referring to CW as the visionary. Apologies DB.

Was just about to put you straight.

I can't see fuck all these days without me specs so visionary is most definitely out !

UTB

 

[Jon Bon II]

I'd love it if this thread just became Pinchy arguing with himself in some wierd paradox that he can't escape

 

[lingsbord]

That's just semantics though. I'm not interested in whether the style of play we had last season is 'proper' or not, but when managers and players talk about 'proper football' or 'playing the right way' they mean a possession based game.

Leicester didn't play 'proper' football if you accept my definition above. They didn't retain the ball, they didn't pass from front to back, they didn't have good possession stats when they won the league. Ranieri then tried to change it to a slightly more possession based style, which they couldn't play, which is why he got the sack. Shakey went back to the previous style of balls over the top on the counter and improved their form greatly, despite them not having Kante, one of the best defensive midfielders I've ever seen.

Please don't get me started on that charlatan Spackman, a better manager would have had us top of the league and MacDonald might have held his nerve. Although I do accept that when we were good under him, we were very good. Very good.

I completely get the idea that Leicester didn't play "proper" football in the sense of what you or I would mean by the term. I just think there isn't a Leicester fan in the world who would accept the suggestion that they should have played any other way

 

[lingsbord]

Was just about to put you straight.

I can't see fuck all these days without me specs so visionary is most definitely out !

UTB

Oh it's the specs is it? Nothing to do with self abuse then?

 

[DronnieBlade]

Oh it's the specs is it? Nothing to do with self abuse then?

Ooooooh Matron

UTB

 

[1danewhitehouse]

That's just semantics though. I'm not interested in whether the style of play we had last season is 'proper' or not, but when managers and players talk about 'proper football' or 'playing the right way' they mean a possession based game.

Leicester didn't play 'proper' football if you accept my definition above. They didn't retain the ball, they didn't pass from front to back, they didn't have good possession stats when they won the league. Ranieri then tried to change it to a slightly more possession based style, which they couldn't play, which is why he got the sack. Shakey went back to the previous style of balls over the top on the counter and improved their form greatly, despite them not having Kante, one of the best defensive midfielders I've ever seen.

Please don't get me started on that charlatan Spackman, a better manager would have had us top of the league and MacDonald might have held his nerve. Although I do accept that when we were good under him, we were very good. Very good.

Possibly the most talented blades side I've seen. Deane, Fjortoft, Whitehouse, Hutchison, Stuart, McGrath, Saunders, Holdsworth, Borbokis, Quinn, Kellly, Tracey, Patterson, Marcelo etc. What an incredible bunch of players. To think we started the season something like

---------------------------Kelly

----------Holdsworth-McGrath- Tiler
Borbokis-----------------------------------------Quinn
---------Hutchison--Patterson--Whitehouse

----------------------Deane-----Fjortoft

and finished something like

---------------------------Kelly
Wilder------Holdsworth-Jacobsen------Quinn

Devlin---------Marker---Hamilton----Woodhouse

--------------------Marcelo--Saunders


Still a few good players in that 2nd team but the difference is unbelievable.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

What did the Bassett double-promotion team of 88-90 and the Wilder promotion team of 2017 have in common?

Attackiing football. Going out to win games rather than avoid losing them.

Taking the game to the opposition and letting them worry about us rather than trying to nullify them.

Creating lots of chances. Scoring lots of goals. Winning lots of matches.

That's the type of football I like to watch.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

What did the Bassett double-promotion team of 88-90 and the Wilder promotion team of 2017 have in common?

Attackiing football. Going out to win games rather than avoid losing them.

Taking the game to the opposition and letting them worry about us rather than trying to nullify them.

Creating lots of chances. Scoring lots of goals. Winning lots of matches.

That's the type of football I like to watch.

Spot on. Plenty of action and victories. Will we keep our nerve if the victories don't come, though? Took me months last season to relax and think 'This will turn out well'. I suspect I'm not the only one whose nerves will return in August. Comes of years of failure.

 

[alcoblade]

I'm no visionary. Neither is Pinchy. Not the point.

And I agree. If Tufty goes 10 games with 0 points in the bag, even though he has been pleased with performances, he will seriously start to question the players and the method. No doubt.

I just seriously believe that a more direct approach, that is advocated by some, will lead to less of a points haul over the course of a season. It's exactly what's held the National side back and what has led to Spain,Germany, Portugal et al leaving us miles behind. They teach football technique, we do the bleep test !!

I could be wrong and it could be that a more direct approach will bring more points in the Championship.

Time will tell.

UTB

This is a good and relevant point, but I disagree. England would be much better by being more direct. We don't have the players to compete, but we try to in a footballing way. The results speak for themselves, England are both shite to watch, and shite results wise. It's the not being honest about what we've got that has left us in a mess.

The root cause is because we don't develop technically good footballers. On that we'd agree.

But playing to your strengths, and not to your opponents, is exactly what managers like Bassett and Warnock understood. Their style and relative success was fashioned by the lack of resource they had.

Given lots of resource, everyone would want to play a more passing game. Nobody disputes that the best teams play the best football - but they also have the best resource - this is the point lost on Pinchy.

 

[DronnieBlade]

This is a good and relevant point, but I disagree. England would be much better by being more direct. We don't have the players to compete, but we try to in a footballing way. The results speak for themselves, England are both shite to watch, and shite results wise. It's the not being honest about what we've got that has left us in a mess.

The root cause is because we don't develop technically good footballers. On that we'd agree.

But playing to your strengths, and not to your opponents, is exactly what managers like Bassett and Warnock understood. Their style and relative success was fashioned by the lack of resource they had.

Given lots of resource, everyone would want to play a more passing game. Nobody disputes that the best teams play the best football - but they also have the best resource - this is the point lost on Pinchy.

I don't think it is lost on Pinchy, although you would have to ask him !

Some of the points made on this thread have been somewhat skewed.

The only real point I wanted to make is this.

Let's pretend YOU (yes you, whoever is reading this) is now the Manager.

Your brief is to achieve winning football. That's a given and the bit that I think has been the most skewed. The winning brief is something I think we can all agree on.

The only point I am making is that the best, most reliable and most likely way of achieving this objective is the proper way. So what's the proper way ?

As another poster has said earlier in the thread, this is based on possession. The same poster has said when players and managers speak of the proper way, they refer to possession based. I whole heartedly agree. They do not refer to a more direct approach. A percentage approach.

Players and managers do this for a living and are experienced / expert in their field. Make the connection !

It's very very easy to say we aspire to winning football. That's a given.

I have complete faith that our current manager both aspires to this mantra and has the expertise to formulate a strategy to achieve it.

UTB

 

[Woodwardfan]

The most effective football at upper levels is : strong defence, pace, brainpower and clinical finishing, mostly on the break. Add to that effectiveness at dead ball situations always.

In the Championship it is: strong defence, strong midfield with pace and at least one top goalscorer. Effectiveness at dead ball situations.

League 1: Strong defence, busy midfield and a goalscorer. Effectiveness at dead ball situations.

 

[lingsbord]

It's very very simple.

Play the ball in 30 degree and 60 degree angles. Get intelligent footballers to understand this and almost instinctively know where their colleagues are. Probe and test, and if there's no way through, recycle, move across, play the angles and look again for the crack in the opposition armour. Spray it out wide and let the wingers try to unlock the door, with wing-backs over-lapping or providing a secure out-ball behind. Stay on message, remember you are better than your opposition, maintain the strategy, maintain the quality.

And if that doesn't work, whack the fucker and gerrafterit!

 

[Woodwardfan]

It's very very simple.

Play the ball in 30 degree and 60 degree angles. Get intelligent footballers to understand this and almost instinctively know where their colleagues are. Probe and test, and if there's no way through, recycle, move across, play the angles and look again for the crack in the opposition armour. Spray it out wide and let the wingers try to unlock the door, with wing-backs over-lapping or providing a secure out-ball behind. Stay on message, remember you are better than your opposition, maintain the strategy, maintain the quality.

And if that doesn't work, whack the fucker and gerrafterit!

And defensively?

 

[DronnieBlade]

The most effective football at upper levels is : strong defence, pace, brainpower and clinical finishing, mostly on the break. Add to that effectiveness at dead ball situations always.

In the Championship it is: strong defence, strong midfield with pace and at least one top goalscorer. Effectiveness at dead ball situations.

League 1: Strong defence, busy midfield and a goalscorer. Effectiveness at dead ball situations.

I'll make it easier.

The most successful sides are the ones that are most effective with the possession they have in any given game.

Effectiveness can be variable. Possession is the constant.

I have played in / coached / managed / watched thousands and thousands of football matches.

Freak instances aside, which are rare, i have yet to see a team score when not in possession of the ball. Nor do you see teams concede when they have possession.

Possession is the constant and it should be cherished. The good news is that our manager is well aware of this

UTB

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

This is a good and relevant point, but I disagree. England would be much better by being more direct. We don't have the players to compete, but we try to in a footballing way. The results speak for themselves, England are both shite to watch, and shite results wise. It's the not being honest about what we've got that has left us in a mess.

The root cause is because we don't develop technically good footballers. On that we'd agree.

But playing to your strengths, and not to your opponents, is exactly what managers like Bassett and Warnock understood. Their style and relative success was fashioned by the lack of resource they had.

Given lots of resource, everyone would want to play a more passing game. Nobody disputes that the best teams play the best football - but they also have the best resource - this is the point lost on Pinchy.

The added problem for the England manager is that he can only deal with the players at his disposal; it is different for a club manager, who, if given time, can shape a squad to suit a pattern of play. For a club manager (as opposed to a coach), the knack is to find players to fit a pattern of play, or to find a pattern of play to suit his players.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I don't think it is lost on Pinchy, although you would have to ask him !

Some of the points made on this thread have been somewhat skewed.

The only real point I wanted to make is this.

Let's pretend YOU (yes you, whoever is reading this) is now the Manager.

Your brief is to achieve winning football. That's a given and the bit that I think has been the most skewed. The winning brief is something I think we can all agree on.

The only point I am making is that the best, most reliable and most likely way of achieving this objective is the proper way. So what's the proper way ?

As another poster has said earlier in the thread, this is based on possession. The same poster has said when players and managers speak of the proper way, they refer to possession based. I whole heartedly agree. They do not refer to a more direct approach. A percentage approach.

Players and managers do this for a living and are experienced / expert in their field. Make the connection !

It's very very easy to say we aspire to winning football. That's a given.

I have complete faith that our current manager both aspires to this mantra and has the expertise to formulate a strategy to achieve it.

UTB

Surely any successful manager gets his defence and cover for his defence right first.

Wilder did with his defensive signings and his goalkeeper. Without the ruthless assessment of George Long we would have been nowhere. Add to that E-Banks, Wright and O'Connell with the sensible use of Basham, Fleck and Laffery covering when needed at the back and you have it.

 

[DronnieBlade]

It's very very simple.

Play the ball in 30 degree and 60 degree angles. Get intelligent footballers to understand this and almost instinctively know where their colleagues are. Probe and test, and if there's no way through, recycle, move across, play the angles and look again for the crack in the opposition armour. Spray it out wide and let the wingers try to unlock the door, with wing-backs over-lapping or providing a secure out-ball behind. Stay on message, remember you are better than your opposition, maintain the strategy, maintain the quality.

And if that doesn't work, whack the fucker and gerrafterit!

You've got your angles wrong but I agree with your points. Triangles (which is what I assume you meant). Football is a game of triangles. Which is why all my teams have always played 3:5:2 (or like variations thereof).

UTB

 

[1danewhitehouse]

What did the Bassett double-promotion team of 88-90 and the Wilder promotion team of 2017 have in common?

Attackiing football. Going out to win games rather than avoid losing them.

Taking the game to the opposition and letting them worry about us rather than trying to nullify them.

Creating lots of chances. Scoring lots of goals. Winning lots of matches.

That's the type of football I like to watch.

Whilst I agree with you, George Graham's Arsenal, Jaap Stam's Reading, Clough's first season with us, Foghorn Pighorn's West Brom, Big Sam's Bolton etc. have shown that you can also be successful even whilst playing boring, negative football (Clough and Stam didn't hoof but were very negative, the rest enjoyed a hoof). Fact is, there are a million different permutations of possession, hoof, attacking, defensive, wing play, through balls, pacey forwards, target men, poachers, through balls etc. that can, if you get the balance right for the players you have available, yield results. Personally, I have loved our way of playing last season. My own personal preference is to see teams play passing football, at a high tempo, with lots of attacking intent. One thing we haven't had a lot of which I enjoy watching is a couple of players in the team who make something from nothing. Who can go past 2 or 3 players or smash one in from distance. There has been a little of that but not in abundance. Still, can't complain, the football has been of very good quality and whilst I enjoy watching that individual flair, it's probably better in the long term to not be so reliant on 1 or 2 individuals.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

I don't think it is lost on Pinchy, although you would have to ask him !

Some of the points made on this thread have been somewhat skewed.

The only real point I wanted to make is this.

Let's pretend YOU (yes you, whoever is reading this) is now the Manager.

Your brief is to achieve winning football. That's a given and the bit that I think has been the most skewed. The winning brief is something I think we can all agree on.

The only point I am making is that the best, most reliable and most likely way of achieving this objective is the proper way. So what's the proper way ?

As another poster has said earlier in the thread, this is based on possession. The same poster has said when players and managers speak of the proper way, they refer to possession based. I whole heartedly agree. They do not refer to a more direct approach. A percentage approach.

Players and managers do this for a living and are experienced / expert in their field. Make the connection !

It's very very easy to say we aspire to winning football. That's a given.

I have complete faith that our current manager both aspires to this mantra and has the expertise to formulate a strategy to achieve it.

UTB

A genuine question: if all managers agree on the same approach, how do you gain the advantage over the others? By trying something different, or by doing the same thing better? All orthodoxies need challenging from time to time.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I'll make it easier.

The most successful sides are the ones that are most effective with the possession they have in any given game.

Effectiveness can be variable. Possession is the constant.

I have played in / coached / managed / watched thousands and thousands of football matches.

Freak instances aside, which are rare, i have yet to see a team score when not in possession of the ball. Not do you see teams concede when they have possession.

Possession is the constant and it should be cherished. The good news is that our manager is well aware of this

UTB

What about Arsenal? Mourinho teams do not dominate possession, Conte doesn't, neither do Italian teams, Argentinians, even Brazil these days, nor do Real Madrid v Barcelona. 'Proper football' may not be winiing football.

Wilder can play it both ways depending on the opposition. I hope our players are coached to believe possession is not necessarily success and I'm sure they are taught to be patient out of possession. That will happen next season.

 

[alcoblade]

The added problem for the England manager is that he can only deal with the players at his disposal; it is different for a club manager, who, if given time, can shape a squad to suit a pattern of play. For a club manager (as opposed to a coach), the knack is to find players to fit a pattern of play, or to find a pattern of play to suit his players.

Oh aye, it's different. But, for example, with the resource we had there was very definitely only one style of play that was going to get us from the third division to the premier league in the Bassett era.

Of that, there is surely no argument whatsoever?

 

[alcoblade]

I don't think it is lost on Pinchy, although you would have to ask him !

Some of the points made on this thread have been somewhat skewed.

The only real point I wanted to make is this.

Let's pretend YOU (yes you, whoever is reading this) is now the Manager.

Your brief is to achieve winning football. That's a given and the bit that I think has been the most skewed. The winning brief is something I think we can all agree on.

The only point I am making is that the best, most reliable and most likely way of achieving this objective is the proper way. So what's the proper way ?

As another poster has said earlier in the thread, this is based on possession. The same poster has said when players and managers speak of the proper way, they refer to possession based. I whole heartedly agree. They do not refer to a more direct approach. A percentage approach.

Players and managers do this for a living and are experienced / expert in their field. Make the connection !

It's very very easy to say we aspire to winning football. That's a given.

I have complete faith that our current manager both aspires to this mantra and has the expertise to formulate a strategy to achieve it.

UTB

Nobody aspires to a more direct approach, but plenty accept that it's a needs must at times. There's the world as you'd like it, and the world as it is. You're best off making plans on the latter.

 

[Woodwardfan]

A genuine question: if all managers agree on the same approach, how do you gain the advantage over the others? By trying something different, or by doing the same thing better? All orthodoxies need challenging from time to time.

That I hope is the 'S2 Way' , owner, manager, a few players from the ranks and all the fans!!!

Wilder keeps saying 'togetherness, spirit, intensity every day of the week, equality in the ranks, sense of purpose, belief in the manager, the fans and the club - if he can hold it together right up into the Prem we will have something unique up there - maybe like Brian Clough embarrassed them all that time ago. .Back then it was just such a 'closed shop' but he beat tem all. Go on Chris, do it!!

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

I'll make it easier.

The most successful sides are the ones that are most effective with the possession they have in any given game.

Effectiveness can be variable. Possession is the constant.

I have played in / coached / managed / watched thousands and thousands of football matches.

Freak instances aside, which are rare, i have yet to see a team score when not in possession of the ball. Nor do you see teams concede when they have possession.

Possession is the constant and it should be cherished. The good news is that our manager is well aware of this

UTB

But those of us of a nervous disposition note that teams do concede goals when they lose possession in the defensive third of the pitch (think Weir).