From one extreme to another

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

coaxingstar71

First 10 yards are in the head
Joined
Apr 19, 2015
Messages
7,440
Reaction score
13,602
Location
Norton, Sheffield
I've been reading the many threads about our performances so far under CW and how we compare to the last few seasons.

Perhaps a bit of background first, all from my perspective, I'm sure some will disagree and that's exactly the point of the forum is it not?

Probably before the Dave Bassett era, United were renowned for a certain attacking style of football, using wingers and usually a talented ball playing midfielder alongside a more combative one. We played fast and exciting football, although perhaps a bit cavalier at times.

When the club had crippling debts and a poor team languishing in the old second division, we turned to Dave Bassett who implemented a new style of play, not pretty but certainly effective at the time and on a shoestring budget, the team achieved the miracle of successive promotions to the top flight. As time went on (and results started to decline) there were a few grumblings from the purists who yearned for the halcyon days of the 70's when we played "proper" football. Howard Kendall came in and to a certain degree, Nigel Spackman, and we were playing good football again, albeit with no actual success. As the team team declined once more, Neil Warnock came in and restored a more direct style. Eventually he built a successful side and won promotion. After the Bryan Robson debacle, the direct style continued under Blackwell until he was sacked.

Since that point, the club appeared to have decided they'd had enough of direct football and wanted to return to a more entertaining brand of football, although unfortunately this coincided with the club being relegated to the third tier - not the best place to showcase flowing football. Several managers have now tried to stick to this ethos, but results have been poor and the football in the main has been no more entertaining than the direct style.

So here we are again with another manager and back to a more direct style..... and we still don't seem to be any better off.

According to the posters on many threads and fans I've spoken, there are all manner of reasons for this; some players have not bought into the new ethos, the new players need time to settle, we still need more players, we still need to get rid of deadwood, we need the keeper changing, we need to get rid of Done/Basham/Brayford!! etc etc

I've been to both home games and, perhaps I'm being naive but, I think we just need to play football.

Our only tactic on Saturday appeared to be knock up high to Clarke and try to feed on the flicks and knock downs. I believe we have players who can play, Fleck is a decent ball player but he didn't get the ball 2nd half. Billy wants the ball to his feet so he can turn, no good putting over the head over his head. It was only when he got a couple of balls to feet that he was able to turn and make something happen. The defenders seem to have been told to just lump it up. Surely as a player with the ball at your feet, you try to pass it to another player, I don't mind the ball going square as it can open up different options, I don't mind a high ball forward, if it's the correct ball to play in that situation - and that's what I don't get, why do we need to play completely on the deck or "hoof" it up, just play the right ball according to the situation. If you're running towards your own goal with a forward breathing down your neck, perhaps best not to try a Cruyff turn, just whack in the stand. If you got the ball and no one around you, try to make some space and get your team mates to move into space and give you options, don't just hopefully hit it forward. As a team, they should all know what each others strengths and weaknesses are, we can see it from the stands. Why not play to those strengths so if I was playing with Billy, I'd be knocking it to his feet and making a run for him to either give and go or to create a dummy run to create space and an opportunity.

There's a lot of crap spouted about tactics and formations but I believe it's quite simple. Can we not just play football?
 



I've been reading the many threads about our performances so far under CW and how we compare to the last few seasons.

Perhaps a bit of background first, all from my perspective, I'm sure some will disagree and that's exactly the point of the forum is it not?

Probably before the Dave Bassett era, United were renowned for a certain attacking style of football, using wingers and usually a talented ball playing midfielder alongside a more combative one. We played fast and exciting football, although perhaps a bit cavalier at times.

When the club had crippling debts and a poor team languishing in the old second division, we turned to Dave Bassett who implemented a new style of play, not pretty but certainly effective at the time and on a shoestring budget, the team achieved the miracle of successive promotions to the top flight. As time went on (and results started to decline) there were a few grumblings from the purists who yearned for the halcyon days of the 70's when we played "proper" football. Howard Kendall came in and to a certain degree, Nigel Spackman, and we were playing good football again, albeit with no actual success. As the team team declined once more, Neil Warnock came in and restored a more direct style. Eventually he built a successful side and won promotion. After the Bryan Robson debacle, the direct style continued under Blackwell until he was sacked.

Since that point, the club appeared to have decided they'd had enough of direct football and wanted to return to a more entertaining brand of football, although unfortunately this coincided with the club being relegated to the third tier - not the best place to showcase flowing football. Several managers have now tried to stick to this ethos, but results have been poor and the football in the main has been no more entertaining than the direct style.

So here we are again with another manager and back to a more direct style..... and we still don't seem to be any better off.

According to the posters on many threads and fans I've spoken, there are all manner of reasons for this; some players have not bought into the new ethos, the new players need time to settle, we still need more players, we still need to get rid of deadwood, we need the keeper changing, we need to get rid of Done/Basham/Brayford!! etc etc

I've been to both home games and, perhaps I'm being naive but, I think we just need to play football.

Our only tactic on Saturday appeared to be knock up high to Clarke and try to feed on the flicks and knock downs. I believe we have players who can play, Fleck is a decent ball player but he didn't get the ball 2nd half. Billy wants the ball to his feet so he can turn, no good putting over the head over his head. It was only when he got a couple of balls to feet that he was able to turn and make something happen. The defenders seem to have been told to just lump it up. Surely as a player with the ball at your feet, you try to pass it to another player, I don't mind the ball going square as it can open up different options, I don't mind a high ball forward, if it's the correct ball to play in that situation - and that's what I don't get, why do we need to play completely on the deck or "hoof" it up, just play the right ball according to the situation. If you're running towards your own goal with a forward breathing down your neck, perhaps best not to try a Cruyff turn, just whack in the stand. If you got the ball and no one around you, try to make some space and get your team mates to move into space and give you options, don't just hopefully hit it forward. As a team, they should all know what each others strengths and weaknesses are, we can see it from the stands. Why not play to those strengths so if I was playing with Billy, I'd be knocking it to his feet and making a run for him to either give and go or to create a dummy run to create space and an opportunity.

There's a lot of crap spouted about tactics and formations but I believe it's quite simple. Can we not just play football?

Can we just play winning football.
 
Balance is all you need. Well actually all you need is to stick the ball in the net, no additional points awarded for aesthetic value.

Don't be led up the garden path by anyone who tries telling you there's a correct way to play.They're unbalanced.
 
I'm sure in one of SW's interviews either post match Saturday or today, he mentions striking a balance. He was unhappy against Crewe with the number of backward or sideways passes and wanted us to be more positive, but he said we over did it on Saturday so it's a work in progress.

Saturday interview:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p044lb38

Monday interview:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p044rk0f

Fingers crossed the linky's work.
 
I'm sure in one of SW's interviews either post match Saturday or today, he mentions striking a balance. He was unhappy against Crewe with the number of backward or sideways passes and wanted us to be more positive, but he said we over did it on Saturday so it's a work in progress.

Saturday interview:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p044lb38

Monday interview:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p044rk0f

Fingers crossed the linky's work.
I'm not sure that this absurd idea of "striking a balance" will catch on here.
It's got to be one thing or the other - no compromise allowed :(
 
Balance is all you need. Well actually all you need is to stick the ball in the net, no additional points awarded for aesthetic value.

Don't be led up the garden path by anyone who tries telling you there's a correct way to play.They're unbalanced.

Agreed.

Why can't we go out with plan A and switch to plan B when required?

The mark of a good team is flexibility. Start with this plan, it isn't working, try the next plan.

pommpey
 
If you want to grow a business, do you fall back on what you have been doing, or do you attend networking, advertise, ask for recommendations / referrals ?
If you want to get that bird back to yours, do you hit her on the bonce and drag her out the club, or do you put the graft in ?

I would suggest there IS a correct way to go about your business on a football pitch to acheive the overall goal.

Fail to plan = plan to fail ???

Or shall we just wing it and hope for the best ??

I know of not one person or organisation that has been successful that has not had a plan or a strategy.

UTB
 
Agreed.

Why can't we go out with plan A and switch to plan B when required?

The mark of a good team is flexibility. Start with this plan, it isn't working, try the next plan.

pommpey


I agree but I wonder if spending so many years watching football in the top two divisions has led to us expecting too much of players at this level regards flexibility. Being coached in systems from being young kids rather than being encouraged to concentrate on ability and freedom can't help. The other thing is managerial rigidity and pkayers being afraid to venture outside their roles.
 
I've been reading the many threads about our performances so far under CW and how we compare to the last few seasons.

Perhaps a bit of background first, all from my perspective, I'm sure some will disagree and that's exactly the point of the forum is it not?

Probably before the Dave Bassett era, United were renowned for a certain attacking style of football, using wingers and usually a talented ball playing midfielder alongside a more combative one. We played fast and exciting football, although perhaps a bit cavalier at times.

When the club had crippling debts and a poor team languishing in the old second division, we turned to Dave Bassett who implemented a new style of play, not pretty but certainly effective at the time and on a shoestring budget, the team achieved the miracle of successive promotions to the top flight. As time went on (and results started to decline) there were a few grumblings from the purists who yearned for the halcyon days of the 70's when we played "proper" football. Howard Kendall came in and to a certain degree, Nigel Spackman, and we were playing good football again, albeit with no actual success. As the team team declined once more, Neil Warnock came in and restored a more direct style. Eventually he built a successful side and won promotion. After the Bryan Robson debacle, the direct style continued under Blackwell until he was sacked.

Since that point, the club appeared to have decided they'd had enough of direct football and wanted to return to a more entertaining brand of football, although unfortunately this coincided with the club being relegated to the third tier - not the best place to showcase flowing football. Several managers have now tried to stick to this ethos, but results have been poor and the football in the main has been no more entertaining than the direct style.

So here we are again with another manager and back to a more direct style..... and we still don't seem to be any better off.

According to the posters on many threads and fans I've spoken, there are all manner of reasons for this; some players have not bought into the new ethos, the new players need time to settle, we still need more players, we still need to get rid of deadwood, we need the keeper changing, we need to get rid of Done/Basham/Brayford!! etc etc

I've been to both home games and, perhaps I'm being naive but, I think we just need to play football.

Our only tactic on Saturday appeared to be knock up high to Clarke and try to feed on the flicks and knock downs. I believe we have players who can play, Fleck is a decent ball player but he didn't get the ball 2nd half. Billy wants the ball to his feet so he can turn, no good putting over the head over his head. It was only when he got a couple of balls to feet that he was able to turn and make something happen. The defenders seem to have been told to just lump it up. Surely as a player with the ball at your feet, you try to pass it to another player, I don't mind the ball going square as it can open up different options, I don't mind a high ball forward, if it's the correct ball to play in that situation - and that's what I don't get, why do we need to play completely on the deck or "hoof" it up, just play the right ball according to the situation. If you're running towards your own goal with a forward breathing down your neck, perhaps best not to try a Cruyff turn, just whack in the stand. If you got the ball and no one around you, try to make some space and get your team mates to move into space and give you options, don't just hopefully hit it forward. As a team, they should all know what each others strengths and weaknesses are, we can see it from the stands. Why not play to those strengths so if I was playing with Billy, I'd be knocking it to his feet and making a run for him to either give and go or to create a dummy run to create space and an opportunity.

There's a lot of crap spouted about tactics and formations but I believe it's quite simple. Can we not just play football?

good post, I thought at first your main point was going to be that we should return to the long ball game. I wouldn't like to see it, but if it was the only way to get promoted from this sodding division I might just take it, for now.
 
If you want to grow a business, do you fall back on what you have been doing, or do you attend networking, advertise, ask for recommendations / referrals ?

You link up with the Columbians, get some reet ard lads with pit bulls to collect your debts on the estate, get a few Uzis for show and give plenty of free samples at the school gates. Slip Inspector Knacker of the Yard a few big ones and Robert's your mother's brother, you have a dynamic growing business.

If you want to get that bird back to yours, do you hit her on the bonce and drag her out the club, or do you put the graft in ?

It depends on how many you've had. If you've had a gallon and it's the beer goggles talking, she could be a right minger. Otherwise you use the rohypnol of course......

Ask Aunty Marge will return as a regular feature.
 
If you want to grow a business, do you fall back on what you have been doing, or do you attend networking, advertise, ask for recommendations / referrals ?
If you want to get that bird back to yours, do you hit her on the bonce and drag her out the club, or do you put the graft in ?

I would suggest there IS a correct way to go about your business on a football pitch to acheive the overall goal.

Fail to plan = plan to fail ???

Or shall we just wing it and hope for the best ??

I know of not one person or organisation that has been successful that has not had a plan or a strategy.

UTB

Pass it when you can, whack it when you can't. That's two plans.

Far more pragmatic than tippy tapping into oblivion.
 
The point I'd make is that, to an extent, both styles can have success (I think longer more direct play noticeably struggles when you reach the top of the game). What we've done wrong is the failure to have any consistent long term planning. Warnock, our only success of my time as a Blade, took a long time to make progress and had more than one period where fans called for him to go.

Post-Colin era, we made the decision to go to Robson, big budget, and hoped for a new style. Didn't work, no complaints about him going. Blackwell then reverted to as about as direct as football gets, and sort of proved the point that winning isn't everything as even a play-off final didn't ultimately save his neck - some vocal fans wanted him out when we were 3rd in the table.

Speed is then to revert to playing a more stylish passing football (though not entirely passing to death), then lower league Adams to save a dying hope (back to direct).

Wilson comes in, gets us playing the slick passing football, gets us scoring, entertaining. But Wilson then loses Lowton, Quinn, Evans, Williamson, even Blackman that he finds goes at Christmas; all the players that made his first approach possible. He's left with little option but to revert to the dour defensive displays that saw him sacked.

In comes Weir - he's definitely going to play some football. He loses McDonald, the guy who might have actually facilitated success in that role, and Weir's general reluctance to have his side do anything but retain possession and concede goals sees him go. So in comes Clough to reinvigorate the side. He, bizarrely, fills the squad with a couple of dozen awful players when any two or three quality ones would've seen us up. He spends it playing dull, uninspired, football.

Now comes Adkins for the switch again. Somehow, with a team of utter mediocrity, he's going to get us playing his quick attacking football with players who can't spell quick. Fails quite miserably without many players in or out.

So let's change again! Now we bring in a bottom tier success story who believes in getting the ball from back to front as quickly as possible, wants a big man up front, wants to be much more direct.

Where is the sense of any kind of long term strategy like Warnock was allowed? Not strategy in the sense of the same manager, nobody particularly disputes any of the sackings we made (I have some small sympathy for a couple, but not much). Strategy in the sense that each manager will pick up from where the last left off. That they share a style, or ethic.

We haphazardly appoint managers, swinging from one type to the other, the board presumably always believing that the grass is greener, give some of them very little scope to work with, or let them make baffling budget allocations, and then they sit back and wonder why things aren't improving.

Surely the point at board level is to have a vision and appoint managers who, even if they fail, will take you some step in the direction you want to move in. Not so that the manager is either handcuffed and forced to work with players who didn't suit him (the Adkins problem, not to let him off the hook entirely for his many failings) or has to do a complete overhaul of the first team (Wilder, now with six new players in the starting eleven).

This is why I didn't like the Wilder appointment. Not because I necessarily thought he's a bad manager, but because he shows that we still haven't got any sense of what it means to build for the future. The board don't know what type of football they want or what manager to appoint to achieve it.

To put it simply: just fucking pick a style, stick with it, and then we can see if the plan works or not. Don't start from close to scratch every season and wonder why there's no progress.
 
Flexibilty will come with experience ,many of these players have never played together ,at this level ,under this manager ,at this club. They have to try different tactics and methods to gain that experience and it will come. Patience is what we need at this time ,most have only had 2 competitive games.
 



Flexibilty will come with experience ,many of these players have never played together ,at this level ,under this manager ,at this club. They have to try different tactics and methods to gain that experience and it will come. Patience is what we need at this time ,most have only had 2 competitive games.

Wilder commented after the Crewe game that there had been too many sideways and backwards passing. Looked like vs. Rochdale the players were going too far the other way; hitting it forward aimlessly instead of taking a touch or making the calmer play. Hopefully they hit a medium at some point. There's a number of partnerships that could form and if a couple of signings make it in then I do see the potential.
 
Balance is all you need. Well actually all you need is to stick the ball in the net, no additional points awarded for aesthetic value.

Don't be led up the garden path by anyone who tries telling you there's a correct way to play.They're unbalanced.

I thought it was dedication......

Anyway, I think this is what I was getting at, it's finding the right balance that suits the type of players we have, ie the example about Billy. It looked to me as if Wilson was looking to Wilder as to how he should use the ball. I know players are playing to instructions but surely players can be trusted to pass the ball they see fit in any given situation.
 
I agree but I wonder if spending so many years watching football in the top two divisions has led to us expecting too much of players at this level regards flexibility. Being coached in systems from being young kids rather than being encouraged to concentrate on ability and freedom can't help. The other thing is managerial rigidity and pkayers being afraid to venture outside their roles.

THIS!
 
Apologies by the way for the haphazard grammar and poor editing of the opening post. I was composing it at work this afternoon and I kept getting distracted by people wanting to talk about work with me, FFS!
 
its hard to define a set style when Chris is still openly saying he needs players to finish off the team
last season Adkins made very little in terms of squad changes
out of necessity CW has ripped it up and started afresh, and we still havent finished
we cant make final judgements after a game we probably could have expected to have lost and did, and a draw
 
Apologies by the way for the haphazard grammar and poor editing of the opening post. I was composing it at work this afternoon and I kept getting distracted by people wanting to talk about work with me, FFS!

Don't worry about that. Some people on here presumably wear goalkeeper gloves to type. You were nowhere near as bad.
 
Despite Old Father Football's record book proving beyond doubt that the best football teams win infinitely more often than those employing pub football shite, the S2 myth lives on...

Better players play better football. They win points, matches, leagues and trophies. They play pass and move (though there are variations). They don't voluntarily surrender possession, which feature is the very epitome of the ugly, discredited, redundant anti-football known as Hoofball. It's utter crap. It's horrible to watch. It doesn't work.

image.jpeg
 
If you want to grow a business, do you fall back on what you have been doing, or do you attend networking, advertise, ask for recommendations / referrals ?
If you want to get that bird back to yours, do you hit her on the bonce and drag her out the club, or do you put the graft in ?

I would suggest there IS a correct way to go about your business on a football pitch to acheive the overall goal.

Fail to plan = plan to fail ???

Or shall we just wing it and hope for the best ??

I know of not one person or organisation that has been successful that has not had a plan or a strategy.

UTB

I'm interested in which area you're referring to.
Planning as in the plan of the club as a whole - vision and all that or...
Game plan, as in the plan to win any particular given match.

Or perhaps both?

I think my OP infers that as far as the club goes, I think many would agree on the lack of or downright poor planning, hence the situation we find ourselves in.
As far as game planning goes, obviously there needs to be a tactical discussion about the opposition strengths and weaknesses, how to negate their strengths and exploit their weaknesses. What I'm getting at is this seeming slavish attitude to our own style of play. It was evident to me on Saturday anyway. The other thing is that I think players can be given too many instructions and by the time they are in action, they probably forget most of it or are so petrified of not following the 'plan' they make mistakes.
 
Tippity tappity tippity tappity tippity tappity

And to the side...

Tippity tappity tippity tappity tippity tappity

Now go back...

Tippity tappity tippity tappity tippity tappity

"Fuck me how did we lose that one? Ah well at least we provided scintillating entertainment".

Tippy tap: Played by eunuchs, espoused by cretins.
 
Despite Old Father Football's record book proving beyond doubt that the best football teams win infinitely more often than those employing pub football shite, the S2 myth lives on...

Better players play better football. They win points, matches, leagues and trophies. They play pass and move (though there are variations). They don't voluntarily surrender possession, which feature is the very epitome of the ugly, discredited, redundant anti-football known as Hoofball. It's utter crap. It's horrible to watch. It doesn't work.

View attachment 19118

I don't think you're gonna be very happy this season Pinchy !
 
More than 5 years ago I remember reading the below article when TC, Len and Ted were saying "we should play the right way". We nearly achieved promotion in the 2011-12 season which had a very unlucky ending (I still feel the jury at Rhyl reached their decision too quickly probably because they probably didnt fancy spending the weekend mulling over the decision). We had a weaker squad in 2012-13 and the football we played didnt work out. Since then we have never had a squad as strong as it was in 2011-12

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/right-one-to-end-route-one-1-3649109
 
So in comes Clough to reinvigorate the side. He, bizarrely, fills the squad with a couple of dozen awful players when any two or three quality ones would've seen us up. He spends it playing dull, uninspired, football.

Let's hope history isn't repeating itself. At any level, quality will beat quantity.
 
More than 5 years ago I remember reading the below article when TC, Len and Ted were saying "we should play the right way". We nearly achieved promotion in the 2011-12 season which had a very unlucky ending (I still feel the jury at Rhyl reached their decision too quickly probably because they probably didnt fancy spending the weekend mulling over the decision). We had a weaker squad in 2012-13 and the football we played didnt work out. Since then we have never had a squad as strong as it was in 2011-12

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/right-one-to-end-route-one-1-3649109

Big Sam nailed it. Curries a miserable bastard anyway

 



More than 5 years ago I remember reading the below article when TC, Len and Ted were saying "we should play the right way". We nearly achieved promotion in the 2011-12 season which had a very unlucky ending (I still feel the jury at Rhyl reached their decision too quickly probably because they probably didnt fancy spending the weekend mulling over the decision). We had a weaker squad in 2012-13 and the football we played didnt work out. Since then we have never had a squad as strong as it was in 2011-12

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-united/right-one-to-end-route-one-1-3649109

Tony Currie, the Maestro, asked if you can play proper football in the lower leagues:

"Of course you can. Why wouldn’t you be able to do it? Okay, it’s not the Premier League but the principles of the game don’t change. They’re still exactly the same, aren’t they?"

Len Badger, the best uncapped right-back of his generation:

"You can play football in any division. But you need to be able to have some bite as well."

Ted Hemsley:

"What you need to do is win the battle first and then win the war. You can play football. There’s no reason why you can’t. Brighton showed that last year. Southampton too. So we all know it can be done but you’ve got to be able to mix it."

Listen and learn you Hoofers, to people who have played the game at the highest level. Of course you have to compete, battle and mix it as Ted says. Of course you need some bite, as Len says. It's common sense. But not one of these real Blades legends (each of them worth a thousand Bassett's and an infinite number of Warnocks) advocates route one, hoof, gerrituptfield or any of the shameful variations on the theme that the Diplodocus Generation cling on to. They know it's utter garbage. They know it's ugly. They know it doesn't work.

Perhaps we should now canvass the views of Vinnie Jones and Wally Downes, eh?
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom