Winning ugly.

[Harry's Game]

Long may it continue, you can stick your fancy Weir, S.O.D passing game up your arse, we need wins any which way and if it takes ten games won by one (own) goal I will take it.

Well done Nigel, we would have lost that game under Weir, same again Tuesday please.

 

[Living In a Fantasy World]

Winning is the best feeling in football.
Away from home I couldn't careless how we win, has no game is easy away from home.
Leave the pretty football for the home games, but only if we are comfortable enough to play it.
3 points in the bag just puts a smile on my face.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Yep, if winning ugly is the way then win hideously for me.

Let's entertain when we're good enough.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

As a performance, I'd say it was reminiscent of the type of scrappy single goal victories we used to get under Wilson. Mostly solid defensively, with one of the few chances we had converted. But boy did that feel good - which really highlights just how bad the horrendous stuff we've had to watch lately has been.

The back 4 were excellent. The midfield were what they were - 4 mostly defensive midfielders, low on creativity but generally solid. I thought Porter did ok with what little was given him (ref gave him absolutely nothing), and while Taylor didn't quite react quick enough as Miller does, when he was on the ball he had a few good moments. Awful game to watch tbh, but just enough to win. Heard City fans outside the ground describe it as 'a perfect away performance'. Wouldn't go that far. The game had 0-0 written all over it and the first half was very poor. We were marginally better going forward in the second - the goal was from one of two good moves we put together.

 

[dublin 10 blade]

A wins a win , will take 1-0 every game in this godawful league , clean sheet as well , pigs shown up yet again , long may it continue , JETS to win tomorrow and I'll be one happy camper , going to see Ireland v the all blacks tomorrow , what a fooking w-end . UTB .

 

[Bergen Blade]

As a performance, I'd say it was reminiscent of the type of scrappy single goal victories we used to get under Wilson. Mostly solid defensively, with one of the few chances we had converted. But boy did that feel good - which really highlights just how bad the horrendous stuff we've had to watch lately has been.

The back 4 were excellent. The midfield were what they were - 4 mostly defensive midfielders, low on creativity but generally solid. I thought Porter did ok with what little was given him (ref gave him absolutely nothing), and while Taylor didn't quite react quick enough as Miller does, when he was on the ball he had a few good moments. Awful game to watch tbh, but just enough to win. Heard City fans outside the ground describe it as 'a perfect away performance'. Wouldn't go that far. The game had 0-0 written all over it and the first half was very poor. We were marginally better going forward in the second - the goal was from one of two good moves we put together.

McMahon made more overlapping runs than normal against Colchester (set up Porter's "sitter" and more) when he also had Coady in front of him. Did that happen again today? I noticed McMahon was the one who crossed the ball for the own goal. Was it a fairly narrow midfield with the full backs providing the width?

 

[Silent Blade]

As a performance, I'd say it was reminiscent of the type of scrappy single goal victories we used to get under Wilson. Mostly solid defensively, with one of the few chances we had converted. But boy did that feel good - which really highlights just how bad the horrendous stuff we've had to watch lately has been.

The back 4 were excellent. The midfield were what they were - 4 mostly defensive midfielders, low on creativity but generally solid. I thought Porter did ok with what little was given him (ref gave him absolutely nothing), and while Taylor didn't quite react quick enough as Miller does, when he was on the ball he had a few good moments. Awful game to watch tbh, but just enough to win. Heard City fans outside the ground describe it as 'a perfect away performance'. Wouldn't go that far. The game had 0-0 written all over it and the first half was very poor. We were marginally better going forward in the second - the goal was from one of two good moves we put together.

Did Bristol City carry on trying to play football after our goal? SOD has always made his team play tippy tappy football, but didnt really have a plan B when his team needed to score

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

Remember that for the majority of the season Bristol have been even worse than us.

If we got the first goal today we were always going to be massive favourites to get all three points. They were poor.

 

[bartman]

Did Bristol City carry on trying to play football after our goal? SOD has always made his team play tippy tappy football, but didnt really have a plan B when his team needed to score

They played the SOD way...loads of passes but very little penetration.

Very good team work ethic,stuck to an obvious game plan(they left them have the ball in their own half waiting for them to come to us rather than us chase them) and I thought we deserved at least a point.

There fans seemed bored of the way they were playing.

Good following today and the fans were very vocal. To top it all,bumped into the players at Solihull services and they were please with their effots whilst I understand other fans kept Matt Hill company on the train from Bristol

 

[Living In a Fantasy World]

They played the SOD way...loads of passes but very little penetration.

Very good team work ethic,stuck to an obvious game plan(they left them have the ball in their own half waiting for them to come to us rather than us chase them) and I thought we deserved at least a point.

There fans seemed bored of the way they were playing.
l

Sounds just like how England play, can understand Bristol City fans being bored if that is how they play.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Remember that for the majority of the season Bristol have been even worse than us.

If we got the first goal today we were always going to be massive favourites to get all three points. They were poor.

I couldn't give a shit if their legs were tied together, it's three points.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

They played the SOD way...loads of passes but very little penetration.

This is how his teams always play. It worked for a couple of years at Donny because they had 2 or 3 very good players that gave them a bit of thrust in the final third but could play within his very rigid, boring system.

It's a very idealistic way of playing and has managed to yield one L1 playoff win. It's no surprise to me that it got found out after a while and even less of a surprise that Bristol City are struggling with one of the best squads in the division.

Crab football, much like what we saw under Weir.

 

[Pinchy]

Winning ugly is, in the long term, a contradiction in terms. It's a Hoofer fallacy.

In the end, ugly doesn't win; proper football does. Ask Nigel Clough; he knows. In 12 months time we won't be winning ugly. It'll be one or the other. That's football.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Winning ugly is, in the long term, a contradiction in terms. It's a Hoofer fallacy.

In the end, ugly doesn't win; proper football does. Ask Nigel Clough; he knows. In 12 months time we won't be winning ugly. It'll be one or the other. That's football.

I agree Pinchy but only with proper players. The sooner we get some of those and can start playing good football the better.

In the meantime I will settle ugly wins. Staying up is priority no.1.

 

[puppet]

Winning ugly is, in the long term, a contradiction in terms. It's a Hoofer fallacy.

In the end, ugly doesn't win; proper football does. Ask Nigel Clough; he knows. In 12 months time we won't be winning ugly. It'll be one or the other. That's football.

Bloody hell Pinchy, I agree with a lot of what you say but you need a Zantac or two sometimes!! I think the general reference to winning ugly is the way we created sod all, scraped an OG out of one of two decent attacks the whole game and held on tight at the back and let's face it its what we need right now!

 

[Pinchy]

I agree Pinchy but only with proper players. The sooner we get some of those and can start playing good football the better.

In the meantime I will settle ugly wins. Staying up is priority no.1.

Yes, I understand that. I think NC would agree with every word you say. The highlighted words are crucial, though, if we ever want to do more than just survive.

The problem is, whenever we win ugly, it encourages the ludicrous Hoofer fallacy that Ugly is the way to win.

 

[JohnDenver]

Yes, I understand that. I think NC would agree with every word you say. The highlighted words are crucial, though, if we ever want to do more than just survive.

The problem is, whenever we win ugly, it encourages the ludicrous Hoofer fallacy that Ugly is the way to win.

I think you're right - it's a simple matter of walking before you can run. Clough won't care how we stay up, but will change things as and when it's possible to do so. An oversight which cost Weir his job.

 

[sitwell]

I agree Pinchy but only with proper players. The sooner we get some of those and can start playing good football the better.

In the meantime I will settle ugly wins. Staying up is priority no.1.

Did you notice one player had dropped out of the back 4 today. If he had started at left back we would have lost.

 

[Pinchy]

Bloody hell Pinchy, I agree with a lot of what you say but you need a Zantac or two sometimes!! I think the general reference to winning ugly is the way we created sod all, scraped an OG out of one of two decent attacks the whole game and held on tight at the back and let's face it its what we need right now!

Yes, I agree with that. It's just that you can sense the delight in some of the posts, not least the OP. They don't see 'ugly' as a temporary means to an end as you, Patrick and I might, but rather an aspiration and a desire. It's scary!

Just to make myself clear, I'm delighted we won; I'm backing NC 100%. Despite what some are hoping, he's a proper football man. Our team will look and play very differently in 9 months time.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

McMahon made more overlapping runs than normal against Colchester (set up Porter's "sitter" and more) when he also had Coady in front of him. Did that happen again today? I noticed McMahon was the one who crossed the ball for the own goal. Was it a fairly narrow midfield with the full backs providing the width?

I didn't think so tbh. He had a couple of moments in the first half where he crossed into nobody, and then had one or two overlapping moments in the second half. Was a dangerous cross though for the goal from a decent bit of play.

Did Bristol City carry on trying to play football after our goal? SOD has always made his team play tippy tappy football, but didnt really have a plan B when his team needed to score

They did a mix of passing and crossing from deep - I thought our defence handled it well. The City fans were getting noticeably short of patience about 15 mins into the second half, and you can understand why. Lots of passing but bugger all direction. And unlike Weir bland-but-developing style, O'Drosscoll is an experienced manager that has had a lot of time in the job to develop this Bristol City side. And yet, they are crap. I really do not understand why so many people wanted him at the Lane not too long ago.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Did you notice one player had dropped out of the back 4 today. If he had started at left back we would have lost.

Yes and I was pleased to see it because despite the fact that he is "a good pro" as we keep being reminded....he's been frankly awful all season. He's not the only one though to be fair to him.

Sounded like White started at left back? Which is where he should be playing as I don't see him as a left mid personally.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

Yes, I agree with that. It's just that you can sense the delight in some of the posts, not least the OP. They don't see 'ugly' as a temporary means to an end as you, Patrick and I might, but rather an aspiration and a desire. It's scary!

Just to make myself clear, I'm delighted we won; I'm backing NC 100%. Despite what some are hoping, he's a proper football man. Our team will look and play very differently in 9 months time.

I think as confidence builds and we get further away from the drop zone, the performances and style will slowly improve along with it.

There has been no continuity on the playing side for about 6 months. Two permanent managers, one caretaker twice, loads of ins and outs amongst the playing staff and at least two changes in playing style. No wonder we're so disjointed.

 

[Sirius]

As a performance, I'd say it was reminiscent of the type of scrappy single goal victories we used to get under Wilson. Mostly solid defensively, with one of the few chances we had converted. But boy did that feel good - which really highlights just how bad the horrendous stuff we've had to watch lately has been.

The back 4 were excellent. The midfield were what they were - 4 mostly defensive midfielders, low on creativity but generally solid. I thought Porter did ok with what little was given him (ref gave him absolutely nothing), and while Taylor didn't quite react quick enough as Miller does, when he was on the ball he had a few good moments. Awful game to watch tbh, but just enough to win. Heard City fans outside the ground describe it as 'a perfect away performance'. Wouldn't go that far. The game had 0-0 written all over it and the first half was very poor. We were marginally better going forward in the second - the goal was from one of two good moves we put together.

Thanks for the report. LB If we could avoid the drop, which I think we will, we can press on under N.C. to better things in a more attractive way.

 

[Sirius]

As a performance, I'd say it was reminiscent of the type of scrappy single goal victories we used to get under Wilson. Mostly solid defensively, with one of the few chances we had converted. But boy did that feel good - which really highlights just how bad the horrendous stuff we've had to watch lately has been.

The back 4 were excellent. The midfield were what they were - 4 mostly defensive midfielders, low on creativity but generally solid. I thought Porter did ok with what little was given him (ref gave him absolutely nothing), and while Taylor didn't quite react quick enough as Miller does, when he was on the ball he had a few good moments. Awful game to watch tbh, but just enough to win. Heard City fans outside the ground describe it as 'a perfect away performance'. Wouldn't go that far. The game had 0-0 written all over it and the first half was very poor. We were marginally better going forward in the second - the goal was from one of two good moves we put together.

Some times. If we play as we should. luck is what we make it.

 

[SwissBlade]

Yes, I understand that. I think NC would agree with every word you say. The highlighted words are crucial, though, if we ever want to do more than just survive.

The problem is, whenever we win ugly, it encourages the ludicrous Hoofer fallacy that Ugly is the way to win.

No it doesn't, it proves that one style of tippy tappy sideways football is not the only way to play AND is not always effective in getting results.

 

[shorehamview]

The problem is, whenever we win ugly, it encourages the ludicrous Hoofer fallacy that Ugly is the way to win.

I'd take winning ugly over losing ugly, and I suspect I'm not alone. I also suspect I'm not alone in preferring winning pretty over winning ugly, but also that I and others prefer winning ugly over losing pretty. please note that settling for and ugly win does not mean that I love ugly football.

The main scales of liking the result and the style seem to be as follows -

Winning pretty - the style of lots of snappy passing, fancy tricks and all-round entertainment. The sort we want but rarely seem to get these days.

Winning ugly - ball bounces in off their defender's arse/our defender's arse but into their goal/scrappy goalmouth scramble/deflecting off passing pigeon/freak gust of wind. And so on, and so forth, etcetera. No tippy-tappy, no silky skills, but three points in the bag, and the table never reflects style points, just those for wins and draws. And a win is a win when it comes down to brass tacks.

The no-man's land that is the draw. Scrappy or silky, battled or robbed, they almost always seem like eating a supermarket ready meal, in that so much is promised but ultimately it fails to deliver, leaving only a dirty plate and a feeling that you could have done better.

Losing pretty - a cracking game, very enjoyable for the neutral, two teams demonstrating the beautiful game, but still, one had to win and that wasn't our turn. These games have their place but if you aren't a neutral they're nearly as bad as the final option, beloved of none.

Losing ugly - played like donkeys, couldn't hit the floor with their hats or a cow's arse with a banjo, couldn't find their own arses with both hands and a sat-nav, and generally look like morons. This is the style beloved of nobody, despite what some may say. You can shove this one up your arse.

I am sure there are other varieties of style, but isn't a win to be preferred over a loss, regardless of the method of reaching the outcome?

 

[sothall blade]

Long may it continue, you can stick your fancy Weir, S.O.D passing game up your arse, we need wins any which way and if it takes ten games won by one (own) goal I will take it.

Well done Nigel, we would have lost that game under Weir, same again Tuesday please.

yep boring 1-0 wins will do me as well, never did arsenal any harm ! did,nt they win the title like that ?

 

[Pinchy]

I'd take winning ugly over losing ugly, and I suspect I'm not alone. I also suspect I'm not alone in preferring winning pretty over winning ugly, but also that I and others prefer winning ugly over losing pretty. please note that settling for and ugly win does not mean that I love ugly football.

The main scales of liking the result and the style seem to be as follows -

Winning pretty - the style of lots of snappy passing, fancy tricks and all-round entertainment. The sort we want but rarely seem to get these days.

Winning ugly - ball bounces in off their defender's arse/our defender's arse but into their goal/scrappy goalmouth scramble/deflecting off passing pigeon/freak gust of wind. And so on, and so forth, etcetera. No tippy-tappy, no silky skills, but three points in the bag, and the table never reflects style points, just those for wins and draws. And a win is a win when it comes down to brass tacks.

The no-man's land that is the draw. Scrappy or silky, battled or robbed, they almost always seem like eating a supermarket ready meal, in that so much is promised but ultimately it fails to deliver, leaving only a dirty plate and a feeling that you could have done better.

Losing pretty - a cracking game, very enjoyable for the neutral, two teams demonstrating the beautiful game, but still, one had to win and that wasn't our turn. These games have their place but if you aren't a neutral they're nearly as bad as the final option, beloved of none.

Losing ugly - played like donkeys, couldn't hit the floor with their hats or a cow's arse with a banjo, couldn't find their own arses with both hands and a sat-nav, and generally look like morons. This is the style beloved of nobody, despite what some may say. You can shove this one up your arse.

I am sure there are other varieties of style, but isn't a win to be preferred over a loss, regardless of the method of reaching the outcome?

Absolutely. But, as always I'm merely reacting to someone else's view. Anyone would think I start these silly debates: far from it.

The O.P. waxes lyrical over the delights of winning ugly; there is no shortage of support for him, and thinly veiled notions of "Ugly - that's the way to do it - none of that poncy passing the ball to each other. That gets you nowhere. Kick it long; Kick it hard; Kick it high"

Note the favourable mention of the 1-0 Arsenal team, omitting entirely the magnificence of the Bergkamp/Henry invincibles.

Some of us love alehouse football. Illogical, crazy, perverse but, sadly and shamefully, true.

Just saying.....

 

[metalblade]

Absolutely. But, as always I'm merely reacting to someone else's view. Anyone would think I start these silly debates: far from it.

The O.P. waxes lyrical over the delights of winning ugly; there is no shortage of support for him, and thinly veiled notions of "Ugly - that's the way to do it - none of that poncy passing the ball to each other. That gets you nowhere. Kick it long; Kick it hard; Kick it high"

Note the favourable mention of the 1-0 Arsenal team, omitting entirely the magnificence of the Bergkamp/Henry invincibles.

Some of us love alehouse football. Illogical, crazy, perverse but, sadly and shamefully, true.

Just saying.....

Arsenal had the "boring" tag long before the days of Bergkamp and Henry they have bored/cheated their way to 1-0 wins since the 1970's ............... the perfect example of a team/club prepared to win by any method until they get where they want to be and then and only then playing the pretty passing game. If we do the same I'll take that any day of the week rather than see us try to play a passing game that the current squad are obviously incapable of doing. If we have to win ugly for a while so be it the alternative is League Two.

 

[sheffielder]

I have tried to keep a balanced view of what has been happening since Clough arrived and taking away the debates over Porter, Doyle and the ludicrous decision of playing Lappin in central midfield I am thinking that Nigel is more on some of our wavelength than I thought.

When he picks McGinn with Doyle he has to bring in Coady to provide the legs as this is one thing we can agree on that Doyle doesn't have. This means at present the attacking side of our game will suffer, which is not such a bad thing looking at our wingers. I think this means that he will be looking for a central midfielder with a better engine in January or in the summer and he really needs McGinn to get fitter.

I personally think that Baxter is a number 10, he has good vision and scores goals. I think he would link up well with Miller.It is hard to pick Baxter at present while we are missing the engine room above, removing a winger. I hope for that fact that because he keeps mentioning Murphy and Cuvellier these guys will benefit when this happens. I think Cuvellier can take the Coady position on the right and we could be looking at Brandy and Murphy to rotate and fill the bench. I still believe there is a player in Murphy.

I think this is slowly slowly with N.I.G.E.L and he will slowly integrate players 1 by 1 as the weeks go by, gets some players out and bring players in to allow his midfield and forwards to be more progressive and allow his fullbacks overlap, like McMahon yesterday.

If Nigel can get a work ethic out of Cuvellier, Baxter, Brandy, Murphy and McGinn they have the talent to make a real difference.