'Big, Rough and Tough'

[blader]

Reading the pre-match view on the Walsall forum and I came across a familiar phrase. 'Sheffield united will be big, rough and tough'.

It got me thinking, why does everyone we play against assume we are a big 'get amongst em' type team? We have one of the shortest sides in the division, and haven't played long ball since Blackwell (no idea what we were doing unde Adams!) yet people still have this perception of us. I find it quite frustrating that people think this of us, and wonder if we'll ever lose this tag.

 

[Jack Jarvis Esquire ⚔]

they get us mixed up with the massive as most people call both team sheffield

 

[judge]

They probably meant me

 

[Living In a Fantasy World]

A tag given to every other team that does not play the "pure" passing "its got to look pretty" football like Swansea and co.

 

[JohnDenver]

Lets have a look…

Maguire and Collins are big ugly centre halves. McMahon is a dirty, stroppy fecker. Doyle is often sly and occasionally nasty. Porter is a big lad, even if he is as honest as they come. As is Hill, who is built like a rugby league player. Add to this, we'll probably stick Lappin into midfield for some defensive oomph, and you have quite an uncompromising set of players.

As for the long ball tag, we resorted to that last season as the players lost confidence in their ability to play as Wilson wanted. Away from home especially we were planning around a defensive method.

So apart from one season of real style under Wilson, and a few months of being a soft touch under Weir and Speed, we've either been plain crap or hoof-merchants for a very long time now.

Cloughie will change this.

 

[metty]

When I saw the title, I thought it was a thread about our lass

 

[SwissBlade]

When I saw the title, I thought it was a thread about our lass

So did I!

 

[Pinchy]

Reading the pre-match view on the Walsall forum and I came across a familiar phrase. 'Sheffield united will be big, rough and tough'.

It got me thinking, why does everyone we play against assume we are a big 'get amongst em' type team? We have one of the shortest sides in the division, and haven't played long ball since Blackwell (no idea what we were doing unde Adams!) yet people still have this perception of us. I find it quite frustrating that people think this of us, and wonder if we'll ever lose this tag.

It's up to us! The tag is thoroughly deserved and, still worse, many Blades revel in it. We need to get our own house in order. Mud sticks, however, and it will take time. It emphasises, yet again, the absolute imperative of becoming a club that believes in proper football. As JD says, a few years of Clough will, thank Pele, go a long way to providing the remedy.

 

[Darren]

It's up to us! The tag is thoroughly deserved and, still worse, many Blades revel in it. We need to get our own house in order. Mud sticks, however, and it will take time. It emphasises, yet again, the absolute imperative of becoming a club that believes in proper football. As JD says, a few years of Clough will, thank Pele, go a long way to providing the remedy.

Indeed. The fact that a Walsall fan thinks United are "big, rough and tough" has made me want to slit my wrists. Thank God the Samaritans work on NYD.

 

[Pinchy]

Indeed. The fact that a Walsall fan thinks United are "big, rough and tough" has made me want to slit my wrists. Thank God the Samaritans work on NYD.

But, as you well know, it's not just Walsall is it? Our wretched reputation was forged (like it or not) by Bassett and continued through to the former semi-professional reserve keeper, recently sacked by Bury (a favourite of yours, I think?) who took us to new depths of ale house, ragamuffin non-football. The reputation extends across the length and breadth of the land and even, thanks to Dinosaur Dave, the Southern Hemisphere.

I'm old enough to remember when our team, under the great John Harris, was actually universally admired as we sat atop the League, playing proper football. Of course, if your standards permit you to be comfortable with being grouped with Wimbledon, Millwall and the other faceless, talentless Hoofers, that is your absolute prerogative. I'll stick to the right way.

 

[LSF]

'Big rough & tough' (describing the current SUFC) is typical of the bollocks fans generally talk about their own and other clubs.

 

[Darren]

But, as you well know, it's not just Walsall is it? Our wretched reputation was forged (like it or not) by Bassett and continued through to the former semi-professional reserve keeper, recently sacked by Bury (a favourite of yours, I think?) who took us to new depths of ale house, ragamuffin non-football. The reputation extends across the length and breadth of the land and even, thanks to Dinosaur Dave, the Southern Hemisphere.

I'm old enough to remember when our team, under the great John Harris, was actually universally admired as we sat atop the League, playing proper football. Of course, if your standards permit you to be comfortable with being grouped with Wimbledon, Millwall and the other faceless, talentless Hoofers, that is your absolute prerogative. I'll stick to the right way.

1. Blackwell is not a favourite of mine. I think he gets a lot of stupid criticism (my sides can't stop aching when you refer to him as "a semi-professional reserve keeper") and his critics seem to overlook the fact that when he was in charge we were always challenging for promotion from the second tier. I just try to redress the balance somewhat.

2. Sheffield United have never been "universally admired". 95% of fans now and in the past have no opinion about us either way. To suggest otherwise is a mere delusion of grandeur.

3. We sat "atop the league" for a mere two months in 1971. We also had brief spells at the top of D1 in early 63-4 and early 65-6. I don't believe we have ever otherwise been top of the top tier at any time since 1904. To suggest that SUFC should aspire to being top of the pile is another delusion of grandeur. To say we are doing poorly because we are not like the Aug-Oct 71 side is as daft as to say we are doing well as we do not sit 13th in the 4th tier as we did in Sept 81.

4. I really don't give a damn what fans of other clubs think about us. I support SUFC and want us to win. If you are correct and playing what you call the right way will see us move up the league, that's great and I would love it. What I wouldn't care about either way is what other fans thought about us and I find your concern about that a bit strange.

 

[alcoblade]

But, as you well know, it's not just Walsall is it? Our wretched reputation was forged (like it or not) by Bassett and continued through to the former semi-professional reserve keeper, recently sacked by Bury (a favourite of yours, I think?) who took us to new depths of ale house, ragamuffin non-football. The reputation extends across the length and breadth of the land and even, thanks to Dinosaur Dave, the Southern Hemisphere.
.

Oh God, change the record for fuck's sake.

UTB

 

[JohnDenver]

Oh God, change the record for fuck's sake.

UTB

1st Jan 2014. Start as you mean to go on.

 

[shorehamview]

.....I really don't give a damn what fans of other clubs think about us........

Exactly. Fuck 'em all, and the horse they rode in on.

A policy that can be adapted in different ways and to mean different things

 

[Pinchy]

Darren,

It is not what I call the 'right way'. It is, as you well know, but conspicuously choose to overlook, what professional managers and players throughout the leagues call the 'right way'.

Of course, it does not suit your agenda but perhaps they are all wrong. Maybe aimless, kick and hope non-football is the way ahead after all?

 

[oldblade]

But, as you well know, it's not just Walsall is it? Our wretched reputation was forged (like it or not) by Bassett and continued through to the former semi-professional reserve keeper, recently sacked by Bury (a favourite of yours, I think?) who took us to new depths of ale house, ragamuffin non-football. The reputation extends across the length and breadth of the land and even, thanks to Dinosaur Dave, the Southern Hemisphere.

I'm old enough to remember when our team, under the great John Harris, was actually universally admired as we sat atop the League, playing proper football. Of course, if your standards permit you to be comfortable with being grouped with Wimbledon, Millwall and the other faceless, talentless Hoofers, that is your absolute prerogative. I'll stick to the right way.

We were top for a while at the front end of that 1971-2 season, but we actually finished in 10th place.

As for Wimbledon, didn't they have 14 consecutive seasons in the top division and win an FA cup?

 

[Darren]

Darren,

It is not what I call the 'right way'. It is, as you well know, but conspicuously choose to overlook, what professional managers and players throughout the leagues call the 'right way'.

Of course, it does not suit your agenda but perhaps they are all wrong. Maybe aimless, kick and hope non-football is the way ahead after all?

My agenda is for SUFC to move up the league. I don't give a flying fuck as to how that is done. You may or may not be right on the principle of what is the right way to play. I don't really care. However your credibility is somewhat diminished by your defence of Weir virtually up until the moment of his sacking. Apparently we shouldn't have sacked him because he played the "right" way, even though that way saw us at the bottom of the division.

What is curious is your apparent inability to think other than in a strict Manichean way. I don't agree 100% with you, therefore I must have an agenda to promote "kick and hope non-football". You apply the same strange reasoning to other people.

 

[Darren]

We were top for a while at the front end of that 1971-2 season, but we actually finished in 10th place.

As for Wimbledon, didn't they have 14 consecutive seasons in the top division and win an FA cup?

As I have said before, Pinchy's theory is also somewhat undermined by the fact that the two most successful managers of the last 25 years (Bassett and Warnock) were "hoofers" and our worst manager ever (Weir) wasn't. On the other hand, you can point out that the second worst manager ever (Adams) was a hoofer and we did relatively well under non-hoofers Spackman and Wilson.

Which all goes to suggest that Pinchy's favourite dichotomy of hoofing = crap and non-hoofing = success is utter bollocks as far as SUFC is concerned. The hoof/non-hoof duality exists only in his mind.

 

[stringjunior]

I reckon the Pinch Meister should choose his battles carefully

 

[oldblade]

As I have said before, Pinchy's theory is also somewhat undermined by the fact that the two most successful managers of the last 25 years (Bassett and Warnock) were "hoofers" and our worst manager ever (Weir) wasn't. On the other hand, you can point out that the second worst manager ever (Adams) was a hoofer and we did relatively well under non-hoofers Spackman and Wilson.

Which all goes to suggest that Pinchy's favourite dichotomy of hoofing = crap and non-hoofing = success is utter bollocks as far as SUFC is concerned. The hoof/non-hoof duality exists only in his mind.

Since the 1930s (when we experienced relegation for the first ever time) I think the longest consecutive period we've had in the top division is 7 seasons. Wimbledon have managed double that length and won a cup. Pinchy dismisses them as "talentless hoofers". Well, for "talentless hoofers" they were remarkably successful and did something that we haven't done since 1925 whether our manager was John Harris or anyone else - they won a trophy.

 

[Revolution]

We were top for a while at the front end of that 1971-2 season, but we actually finished in 10th place

One place below what dinosaur Dave managed in 1991-2 with his bunch of hoofers...

 

[Pinchy]

Since the 1930s (when we experienced relegation for the first ever time) I think the longest consecutive period we've had in the top division is 7 seasons. Wimbledon have managed double that length and won a cup. Pinchy dismisses them as "talentless hoofers". Well, for "talentless hoofers" they were remarkably successful and did something that we haven't done since 1925 whether our manager was John Harris or anyone else - they won a trophy.

As I've always conceded, you are all entitled to your own preferences and your own standards. If it's Wimbledon and Bassett, fine, that's your choice. It's the Bladesfans' Way.

I simply note that both have been extinct for many years and are utterly irrelevant to football in this Millennium.

We Fossils.

 

[oldblade]

As I've always conceded, you are all entitled to your own preferences and your own standards. If it's Wimbledon and Bassett, fine, that's your choice. It's the Bladesfans' Way.

I simply note that both have been extinct for many years and are utterly irrelevant to football in this Millennium.

We Fossils.

I expressed no preference for any style of play. Just exposing how silly terms such as "proper football" and "talentless hoofers" are.

You referred to Wimbledon as "talentless hoofers". That was clearly a very inaccurate comment. "Talentless hoofers" don't manage 14 consecutive premier/first division seasons, and nor do they win FA Cups.

I regard John Harris as the best manager of Sheffield United in my lifetime, but it doesn't alter the fact that playing the so called "proper" way under him won us precisely nothing and fewer top flight seasons than Wimbledon achieved.

 

[Silent Blade]

3. We sat "atop the league" for a mere two months in 1971. We also had brief spells at the top of D1 in early 63-4 and early 65-6. I don't believe we have ever otherwise been top of the top tier at any time since 1904.

Been thinking about this for the past few hours. Just remembered that we were at the top of Div 1 on September 2nd 1939! Our next league match was in August 1946. We might have been top of the table at one point in 1946-47 (will check later)

 

[yuley82]

1. Blackwell is not a favourite of mine. I think he gets a lot of stupid criticism (my sides can't stop aching when you refer to him as "a semi-professional reserve keeper") and his critics seem to overlook the fact that when he was in charge we were always challenging for promotion from the second tier. I just try to redress the balance somewhat.

2. Sheffield United have never been "universally admired". 95% of fans now and in the past have no opinion about us either way. To suggest otherwise is a mere delusion of grandeur.

3. We sat "atop the league" for a mere two months in 1971. We also had brief spells at the top of D1 in early 63-4 and early 65-6. I don't believe we have ever otherwise been top of the top tier at any time since 1904. To suggest that SUFC should aspire to being top of the pile is another delusion of grandeur. To say we are doing poorly because we are not like the Aug-Oct 71 side is as daft as to say we are doing well as we do not sit 13th in the 4th tier as we did in Sept 81.

4. I really don't give a damn what fans of other clubs think about us. I support SUFC and want us to win. If you are correct and playing what you call the right way will see us move up the league, that's great and I would love it. What I wouldn't care about either way is what other fans thought about us and I find your concern about that a bit strange.

Amen

 

[yuley82]

What is the right way all you footballing purists want us to play???? I've watched man utd today and over the years as have many others and there's no one team more direct than man utd in my opinion (each to their own mind)... At least 10-15 balls where lumped forward in the last ten mins!!!!

 

[judge]

What is the right way all you footballing purists want us to play???? I've watched man utd today and over the years as have many others and there's no one team more direct than man utd in my opinion (each to their own mind)... At least 10-15 balls where lumped forward in the last ten mins!!!!

By 'all you football purists' do you mean pinchy ?

 

[super_pig]

this is getting incredibly boring lads

 

[yuley82]

By 'all you football purists' do you mean pinchy ?

Hmmmm, yes more than likely!!