Style of football

[Bladesman]

Aye, Doncaster didn't get promoted. And Pinchy told us they wouldn't.

UTB

Aye and play the same as we did last season and we would have finished 6 points clear of them if not by more.

 

[alcoblade]

At least Huddersfield, with their fluent style and Messi like Alan Lee up front, proved the point that hoof doesn't work.

Oh, wait............

UTB

 

[Pinchy]

Aye, Doncaster didn't get promoted. And Pinchy told us they wouldn't.

UTB

They wouldnt have but for an unusually shite Division. They were shite. They'll be back. Who says they hoofed it, though? Not me! I just didnt think they were very good, Some teams play proper football better than others - that's inevitable. Hoof is different. It's the lager of football - No flavour, no character, lifeless, all the fucking same and it makes you puke!

 

[alcoblade]

Aye and play the same as we did last season and we would have finished 6 points clear of them if not by more.

But Hoof worked for Wednesday, Doncaster and Huddersfield in the last 2 seasons. But other than that, it never works. OK then.

UTB

 

[JohnDenver]

Because our players weren't capable of it. So we saw us pass it around for 3 minutes until we were closed down )and asleep), then players release it aimlessly under pressure.

There isn't a chance in hell Wilson told them to release it aimlessly, it was a result of insisting players do what they weren't capable of.

But that doesn't fit into a model where all you have to do is insist players "pass it to death and you will be successful, because look at Swansea".

I agree with the analysis, but extrapolating from that to solutions, I'd say the best way to avoid players' paralysis when confronted with taking responsibility is this:

Consistency of method over time.
Consistency throughout all levels of the club.
Consistency of recruitment of players and staff.
Avoidance of quick fixes.

If you want to lose patience with the manager, fine. But don't change the overall strategy of the club in response to setbacks and, most of all, don't expect to find easy solutions where they don't exist (Kevin!).

 

[alcoblade]

They wouldnt have but for an unusually shite Division. They were shite. They'll be back. Who says they hoofed it, though? Not me! I just didnt think they were very good, Some teams play proper football better than others - that's inevitable. Hoof is different. It's the lager of football - No flavour, no character, lifeless, all the fucking same and it makes you puke!

They were the epitome of what you say is wrong about football, with lots of giants in the side. You set your stall out, you said they would prove the rule, and you were wrong. Again.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

I agree with the analysis, but extrapolating from that to solutions, I'd say the best way to avoid players' paralysis when confronted with taking responsibility is this:

Consistency of method over time.
Consistency throughout all levels of the club.
Consistency of recruitment of players and staff.
Avoidance of quick fixes.

If you want to lose patience with the manager, fine. But don't change the overall strategy of the club in response to setbacks and, most of all, don't expect to find easy solutions where they don't exist.

Agreed John - but it's painted as being far simpler than it really is. We saw our football implode with the same manager. That's not about lack of constancy of purpose. It tells you there are far more factors at play.

I agree with all your points. They are not mutually exclusive to mine. It's just that it's more difficult than just that.

UTB

 

[Pinchy]

They were the epitome of what you say is wrong about football, with lots of giants in the side. You set your stall out, you said they would prove the rule, and you were wrong. Again.

UTB

But I didn't - not in those terms! Others might have, but not me. Honest. I'm all for big, athletic players. Look at the Arsenal invincibles - jolly and green the lot of them. The non-negotiable part though, is they have to be able to play football like the 6-4 athlete Vieira.

I really didn't see enough of Doncaster to opine on their style. They seemed to thoroughly outclass us at their ground, if I recall properly what people said.

What do you find so objectionable about the thought of SUFC playing attractive, pleasure-to-watch football? Is it a form of inverted snobbery?

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

As for Donny in our away game .... they spent most of the afternoon launching long throws and hoofing hopeful balls into our box ... wasn't the least bit impressed with them!

That'll be the Donny that won the title then?

 

[Bladesman]

Agreed John - but it's painted as being far simpler than it really is. We saw our football implode with the same manager. That's not about lack of constancy of purpose. It tells you there are far more factors at play.

I agree with all your points. They are not mutually exclusive to mine. It's just that it's more difficult than just that.

UTB

To me the last 2 matches showed why the direct approach doesn't work. Aimless balls forward and giving the ball back to the opposition. Bypassing the midfield altogether and trying to pick up the mess afterwards.

A target man like Lee is not a bad thing if you can get a decent cross in from the wings but you get that more from playing some decent passing football IMO.

 

[JohnDenver]

Agreed John - but it's painted as being far simpler than it really is. We saw our football implode with the same manager. That's not about lack of constancy of purpose. It tells you there are far more factors at play.

I agree with all your points. They are not mutually exclusive to mine. It's just that it's more difficult than just that.

UTB

No-one ever said it was going to be easy.

If you agree with my point regarding consistency, then what sort of style should we make a consistent strategy throughout the football club and its appointments? Asked like that, most people's answers will be very similar.

What you're calling for is pragmatism where its needed. Which is absolutely fine, but it's not a strategy in itself.

 

[Bladesman]

But I didn't - not in those terms! Others might have, but not me. Honest. I'm all for big, athletic players. Look at the Arsenal invincibles - jolly and green the lot of them. The non-negotiable part though, is they have to be able to play football like the 6-4 athlete Vieira.

I really didn't see enough of Doncaster to opine on their style. They seemed to thoroughly outclass us at their ground, if I recall properly what people said.

What do you find so objectionable about the thought of SUFC playing attractive, pleasure-to-watch football? Is it a form of inverted snobbery?

The better style of football is built up overtime and because it hasn't worked yet for us then we may as well give up. 2 seasons if that trying it but may as well get back to the hoofball now? The direct style that got us relegated twice and if the play offs are anything to go by probably relegated again.

 

[Pinchy]

Agreed John - but it's painted as being far simpler than it really is. We saw our football implode with the same manager. That's not about lack of constancy of purpose. It tells you there are far more factors at play.

I agree with all your points. They are not mutually exclusive to mine. It's just that it's more difficult than just that.

UTB

Hang on a minute - You said it was bullshit at post 89!

 

[alcoblade]

The points about consistency that JD raises aren't limiting style.

3 teams were promoted with little more than hoof over the last 2 seasons - so the bullshit part is the suggestion that it doesn't (relatively speaking) work.

But I don't want it either. And 99% of managers wouldn't. They fall somewhere on a spectrum, They will have a belief about the way the game should be played at stages within a game, short term and long term, and a pragmatism about how to get the best out of what they have.

I believe this years borefest came from Wilson coming with a rigid instruction to alter the way we play, into non hoof. It was too limited and hence imploded - that's why we should not view football so narrowly.

The consistency comes from employing young, fit, athletic, skillfull, pacey, strong players, They too will have the ability to mix it up, dependant on what mix of a team they are in. In time, that team will change, so will the manager, so will the style, a bit. Right now, our only goal scoring transfer target might be a 30 goal per season 6ft 2 inch athlete. Do we turn him down because the other alterntive is Ryan Flynn's twin brother? Do we sign him, and recognise we have the ability to play percentages at times?

We do not have the luxury of viewing football on the narrow terms in which you want to define it. "Evolution, not revolution".

UTB

 

[JohnDenver]

The points about consistency that JD raises aren't limiting style.

Hmmm... I refer the honourable gentleman to post 101.

 

[alcoblade]

Hmmm... I refer the honourable gentleman to post 101.

"Consistency of method over time.
Consistency throughout all levels of the club.
Consistency of recruitment of players and staff.
Avoidance of quick fixes."

That's what I agreed with. But if you're in Pinchy's camp Hoof V Non hoof, then I've misunderstood.

I'd like to know where all these managers are that sit on each end of the spectrum, and of the few that are, which ones will be available at the right time, for the right price (ie fuck all). Unless, or course, most managers don't sit on the ends of a seesaw either?

UTB

 

[Pinchy]

Hmmm... I refer the honourable gentleman to post 101.

"And, more particularly, Post 83" said Pinchy, with a hint of knowing sycophancy.

 

[Living In a Fantasy World]

Direct football any-day, lets just start getting our heads down and run at the defense, most teams crumble when a team is confident to run at them, it puts them under pressure and they make mistakes in this level.
Passing football is fine if you have the players who are good enough to pass it around other teams but we don't anymore, we have to get back down to basics and just go right at them from the start.

 

[alcoblade]

"And, more particularly, Post 83" said Pinchy, with a hint of knowing sycophancy.

It's rather amusing that you will keep insisting that we can't progress with Hoof, and amazingly fail to acknowledge the absolute fact that 3 teams have been promoted in the last 2 seasons employing just that. But JD says 20 posts go that he'd like to see a game based more on skill, and you view that as a killer line like the next 20 posts didn't happen.

Because nobody wants to see Skill do they Pinch? No, they want to see every ball punted into the box, at every opportunity? You've invented this world just so that you can dismiss it.

I don't want hoof, I want high tempo football. I only point out the teams that are successful with it because it debunks your over simplistic argument.

UTB

 

[Pinchy]

Direct football any-day, lets just start getting our heads down and run at the defense, most teams crumble when a team is confident to run at them, it puts them under pressure and they make mistakes in this level.
Passing football is fine if you have the players who are good enough to pass it around other teams but we don't anymore, we have to get back down to basics and just go right at them from the start.

How are we to get the ball to the players who are to 'get their heads down and run at the defence'?

Isn't 'pass and move' the simplest, most effective (and, therefore, most basic) way to play?

Your strategy is effectively "kids in the playground" isn't it?

 

[Pinchy]

It's rather amusing that you will keep insisting that we can't progress with Hoof, and amazingly fail to acknowledge the absolute fact that 3 teams have been promoted in the last 2 seasons employing just that. But JD says 20 posts go that he'd like to see a game based more on skill, and you view that as a killer line like the next 20 posts didn't happen.

Because nobody wants to see Skill do they Pinch? No, they want to see every ball punted into the box, at every opportunity? You've invented this world just so that you can dismiss it.

I don't want hoof, I want high tempo football. I only point out the teams that are successful with it because it debunks your over simplistic argument.

UTB

Ah Alco, if only I had invented this Frankenstein's monster named Hoof. I would, like the good doctor himself, realise the evil I had unleashed and seek to destroy that which I had created.

Unfortunately Dinosaur Dave and Igor Semi-Pro were way ahead of me - and we still bear the scars.

 

[sheffielder]

In my opinion getting out of this division is something that should be done in the right way. If we had got promoted this season we would have been canon fodder in the Championship. We would have spent less money than most.

Put your heads in the sand and let us become a yoyo team of the champ/1st division or build a progressive football team that can cope wit the division above.

Which hoof teams have succeded in the Championship? This obsession in getting out of this division by any means is just fucking blind stupidity

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

They would be either full of shit and deluding themselves, or acknowledge that it's about winning football matches, and that the rest is fluff.

Pass it about and it will be successful - that's what you proposed, in those simple terms. Well, we did. And we've failed to escape England's third division for 2 season's running, the latter being the most boring that just about any of us can remember. That simple, eh? No, clearly it isn't.

You were wrong - And it is that simple.

UTB

We did that for one season and finished on 90 points. The reason we didn't go up can be largely attributed to our star player (certainly in terms of playing budget) being unable to control himself on a night out in Wales.
We certainly didn't play good football on the floor last season.

 

[alcoblade]

We certainly didn't play good football on the floor last season.

See my response to that above. It's unlikely the remit changed, but the ability of the players did - hence the result - and hence the conclusion that it's much harder than just dictating a style and sticking to it, and becoming like Swansea in 5 years.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

Put your heads in the sand and let us become a yoyo team of the champ/1st division or build a progressive football team that can cope wit the division above.

**Sigh**

If we'd have got out of the division this year, it would have been under a manager who was given the remit of not playing hoof. And yes, we would have been hammered next season - because we're shire, not becuase of any style remit.

Trying to pin the failure on hoof is a bit rich.

UTB

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

See my response to that above. It's unlikely the remit changed, but the ability of the players did - hence the result - and hence the conclusion that it's much harder than just dictating a style and sticking to it, and becoming like Swansea in 5 years.

UTB

Robinson (for example) has shown an ability to play attactive football with lesser players.
You don't have the throw your toys out of the pram and go long to try and prove the point that you're not being given loads of funds.

 

[alcoblade]

Robinson (for example) has shown an ability to play attactive football with lesser players.
You don't have the throw your toys out of the pram and go long to try and prove the point that you're not being given loads of funds.

Robinson also has failed to get his team promoted in 3 seasons and that would have seen his sacked here, but that's another story. I'd actually quite like him.

Are you suggesting Wilson threw his toys out of the pram? Either way, I doubt his remit changed - it's just that his players couldn't effectively execute his style this season, whereas better ones could last.

So again, it's clear that just "sticking to a style" isn't so simple, and doesn't necessarily bring the success that's being alluded to.

UTB

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

At the end of the day, it's down to the players. Last season KMac got the ball, looked around and he had the movement and forward thinking of Squinny and Willo around him, Lowton bombing down the wing and a striker on fire in front of him. Replace those 4 with any of the players who have filled those boots this season and you can see why we struggled. You can blame Wilson for not bringing in the right players by all means but it wasn't the philosophy that was at fault particularly. When we resorted to 'playing to our potential strengths' i.e. knocking it long to Kitson (who may or not have been a player DW actually wanted), it was even less effective.

The best teams can mix it up and play games as they pan out. Of course you try and pass your way through teams but you don't resist a long ball when it's the right thing to do. Said it before but Blackpool are a prime example when Holloway took over. He'd failed miserably in his previous jobs but went to Blackpool with a plan, brought in the players to do it and luckily for him it all clicked. They were a very fluid team, always on the move but Charlie Adam was never short of a long pass or cross field ball when it was on (and when it wasn't !)

Without players who can pass and move and actually control and are comfortable on the ball, it doesn't matter which style you try and implement. Too many teams are still coming to the Lane and outpassing us which, in League 1 is the major embarrassment.

 

[ZoneManWilf]

The 90 points the season before last was more to do with Ched and playing attacking football than it was to do with playing a passing game. Personally I don't like Stoke's over reliance on set pieces - but equally I don't like the constant passing sideways and backwards that we saw in the season just gone. Attacking football - with pace, power and athleticism is what I want to see. But winning is what really matters.

I disagree with your first sentence by quite a long way.

Multiple times teams came to the Lane and shut up shop. We played patient possession football and eventually found a way through, and it often led to more than one goal in the end. This happened loads of times at home, it was great to watch and I enjoyed it. We got 90 points and should have gone up, not one team in the entire football league including all 3 champions got 90 points this season, there is no doubt we were monumentally unlucky to not go up last year. But because we didn't and the 'approach' didn't work it seems we need to forget the progress and go backwards.

This year it didn't work, and personally I attribute this to the lack of pace and decent ball players in midfield after the loss of Quinn and Williamson. All of a sudden McDonald doesn't have anyone reliable to pass to who he knows can accept a ball, control it and move it on. We simply didn't retain possession as well at home, and so teams didn't have to work as hard against us and the chances and goals dried up.

Get midfielders who can pass the ball, retain possession better then the opposition and it will lead to results. The second half at Yeovil surely is a recent enough example of why going back aimless isn't the way to do it. Pace and control are what's needed and don't talk to me about our players not being able to do it, as Yeovil displayed enough of pace and technique and they are put together on a fraction of what we are.

The other half of the problem was playing 2 target men up front. Porter and Ironside in the same team when we have Murphy with some pace stuck out on the wing? Just poor tactics and nothing to do with hoof vs passing. In fact the Yeovil game is a prime example of why a direct approach might not work even in this division. We had 2 big lads up front, who were ineffectual, and 2 wingers who actually played ok. Yet in the 2nd half even with prototypical target man Kitson up there we did nothing, because their physical centre halves lapped it up.

We don't have quagmire pitches any more, refs blow up for anything physical up front, direct play does not suit the modern game even in this league.

Worth considering that last time in this division, we had Brian Deane and Tony Agana, who coupled with players like Bryson allowed the direct stuff to work. If we can sign Deane and Agana again, it might be worth giving it a try - although I still don't think it would work long term, and we'd struggle in the Championship which has moved on a level, but I agree it might get us out of the division. The main question being - where do we find a new Deane and Agana?

For me, the way forward has to be with sound footballing principles top to bottom, and trying to go back to 1989 and hoping that approach works smacks of short-termism, and even then there is no guarantee it's going to cut it even in this division.

 

[sheffielder]

**Sigh**

If we'd have got out of the division this year, it would have been under a manager who was given the remit of not playing hoof. And yes, we would have been hammered next season - because we're shire, not becuase of any style remit.

Trying to pin the failure on hoof is a bit rich.

UTB

I will do a girly sigh now

I am not pinning failure on the hoof, I am pinning possible future failure on the hoof.