Too simplistic an argument. We move the ball quickly up the pitch, take it down the wing to the byline and get crosses in. We overlap with full-backs. It's not the same style as Blackwell who played a much more rigid, controlled system.
It's like the people who ring phone ins up and complain wanting to sack a manager, but offer nothing more than he's rubbish. No appreciate of the tactical nuances just "It's hoofball Seth".
Thought a brief would be able to construct a more sophisticated argument than that Pinch. You're not personal injury are you?
No, but my aesthetic senses are personally injured by hoofball.
You have read too much into my post. I nowhere said that we have played unmitigated Semi-Pro hoof in the last two games. We haven't. However, once the extra intensify and fervour instilled largely by 'new manager syndrome' subside (and rest assured, it will) what else have we to offer?
In fact, I was merely responding to the Archduke of Hoof, Alco, who would have us Gerritintbox any which way we can [Yes, he pays reluctant lip-service to proper football but makes it clear it doesn't really matter]. A sure recipe for failure, sooner rather than later.
Only Blades have this nonsensical debate. Other clubs, even Wimbledon and Watford, have been dragged into the Twentieth Century. Only in s2 do we still wallow in the grotesque glory of 'ave it' ball.
As to a more sophisticated version, well this was shorthand. I have presented the longer argument on countless occasions, most recently on 11 April, on the "Thanks Danny" thread thus:
bladesadviser said: ↑
For all the plaudits for attractive football last season and complaints of negative football this season, we are in the still in the same place as when he took over. Who cares if its attractive as long as we win, no points in this game for looking good
Here we go again with the classical nonsense so beloved of the now disgraced 'We ❤ Hoof Brigade'.
Let's go through it one more time. The teams that play proper pass and move football succeed. They are the ones that win trophies. Apart from the anomalous, wretched and never to be repeated Wimbledon/Watford era it was ever thus and will always be so.
The reason is that it's basically a simple game. Pass the ball to a team-mate and move immediately into space to receive it again. When the opposition have it, press them hard and deny them room. It works very well. This is to be contrasted with a deliberate, long, high and hard agricultural kick of the football in the general direction of the opposition goal, in the hope that the next player to touch it will be a team-mate. This is known as Hoofball. It's rubbish. It's discredited. It's as dead as a Thatcher. Good teams have worked it out. They combat and overcome it with ease. Even Crawley Town can comfortably cope with it for half an hour or so. No-one except Dinosaur Dave, Semi-Pro and a few Neanderthal SUFC fans believe in it any more.
There is no valid Attractive Football v Winning Football debate to be had. It was won and lost many years ago. It lingers only in the backwaters of Sheffield 2 where the natives remember only Brian Deane and conveniently forget Jostein Flo and Paul Williams. The sad truth for the Disciples of Hoof [Doh!] is that attractive football is also the football that wins matches and trophies. Attractive Football and Winning Football are one and the same. They are twins. The ugly Wimble sisters no longer go to the ball.
Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich, to name but three, have their choice of the elite of football players. They could, were they so inclined, recruit the hardest, most aggressive, most committed, most physical, most upanatem hoofers the world has ever seen. They haven't, they don't and they won't. That really tells us all we need to know.
Let's at least move into the 21st century. We can work on the decades later.
