Style of football

[Pinchy]

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.

I'd love to give you two likes, Wilf. One for the generality of your post and another for 'prototypical'. I bet you like real ale as well.

 

[Jonboy60]

As stated in this thread, both a passing style and 'hoofball' ( hate that fukin word) have their merits in achieving promotion from this league. BUT, we're missing the point. It's how your opponent set their stall out to counter the two styles. And in my opinion 'hoofball' is too easy to nullify. You see it time and time again when a team as done their home - work the ball just keeps putting the hoofballs defence under the cosh. It's just too easy to defend against. By all means mix it up, keep the other team thinking. But 100% hoofball, no thanks. UTB.

 

[Pinchy]

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.

Contrary to popular belief, I applaud a long ball as much as anyone. A long pass to the feet of, or in the path of, a team-mate is one of the great thrills of football. Then there is an aimless long punt, hoping a mate will be somewhere in the vicinity. They are chalk and cheese.

 

[Pinchy]

As stated in this thread, both a passing style and 'hoofball' ( hate that fukin word) have their merits in achieving promotion from this league. BUT, we're missing the point. It's how your opponent set their stall out to counter the two styles. And in my opinion 'hoofball' is too easy to nullify. You see it time and time again when a team as done their home - work the ball just keeps putting the hoofballs defence under the cosh. It's just too easy to defend against. By all means mix it up, keep the other team thinking. But 100% hoofball, no thanks. UTB.

Sorry mate. Aimless long, high kicks to no-one in particular have no merit at all. They should be reserved for defenders clearing their lines under intense pressure. I'm all for that. As a positive strategy? Maybe occasionally when kicking downhill in Graves Park but, in professional football? Never. I can do that (or could 20 years ago )

 

[LSF]

Sorry mate. Aimless long, high kicks to no-one in particular have no merit at all. They should be reserved for defenders clearing their lines under intense pressure. I'm all for that. As a positive strategy? Maybe occasionally when kicking downhill in Graves Park but, in professional football? Never. I can do that (or could 20 years ago )

Surely the long ball when kicking downhill in any park in Sheffield was counter productive, it just bounced into the arms of the keeper!
Now kicking uphill and get their defence turning and the ball holding up, bingo, you were in!

Me, I preferred to pass them to death

 

[Pinchy]

Surely the long ball when kicking downhill in any park in Sheffield was counter productive, it just bounced into the arms of the keeper!
Now kicking uphill and get their defence turning and the ball holding up, bingo, you were in!

Me, I preferred to pass them to death

Yes, True, but what about those shots into the top corner from 60 yards!

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Yes, True, but what about those shots into the top corner from 60 yards!

In't that hoofin it?

 

[Pinchy]

In't that hoofin it?

Depends whether you're David Beckham or Vinnie Jones. One gets the benefit of the doubt! No, Vinnie, not you.......

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

It used to rile me when we were accused of being nothing but a 'long ball team' whereas when the 'media darling' teams did it it was a 'long pass'. As people have said, the difference is when it's meant rather than when it's just a hopeful punt in the general area of where the striker is / should be. If a full back sees a striker breaking free there's nothing wrong with a 70 yard ball if you can pull it off, neither is the right kind of ball to a Kitson type, provided it's a ball he can actually control or do something with and you have a quicker striker alongside him waiting to pick up the pieces.

The problem is that when you're under pressure or not confident with the ball, the long ball is the easy way out which goes back to the players and their general ability.

 

[Jonboy60]

Sorry mate. Aimless long, high kicks to no-one in particular have no merit at all. They should be reserved for defenders clearing their lines under intense pressure. I'm all for that. As a positive strategy? Maybe occasionally when kicking downhill in Graves Park but, in professional football? Never. I can do that (or could 20 years ago )

I

I agree in principal Pinchy,but, not even a little bit in this god- foresaken league.

 

[Gavlar]

Bayern - arguably the best team around at the moment - don't play a passing game. Their game is based on power, strength, good organisation, running at the opposition and superior fitness.

don't play a passing game? don't make me laff. so they hoof it? course they pass it.

I think they are direct don't get me wrong, but they def pass it, and press the opposition.

 

[yorkshirecoast]

I think they are direct don't get me wrong, .

We agree then. Next.

 

[Gavlar]

We agree then. Next.

there's a diff between direct and hoof tho, you can play a direct passing game, like Bayern do so well.

 

[yorkshirecoast]

there's a diff between direct and hoof tho, you can play a direct passing game, like Bayern do so well.

This thread was about choosing between direct but winning football or "more attractive" football with mediocre results. Like the vast majority (according to the voting above) winning is what matters most to me. My favoured style is attacking with pace and athleticism. I don't like aimless hoof but equally I don't like pointless passing that gets nowhere. Bayern play a far more direct style than Madrid and Barcelona - and pass it far less - certainly than Barcelona. But they have pace, power, good organisation and superior fitness. I'd rather watch Bayern's style than Barcelona's or Spurs rather than Swansea. But when it comes to the Blades, it's about being good at whatever style we choose, being positive rather than the mind-numbing slow, negative stuff we saw last season - and above all scoring goals and winning games to get out of this shite division.

 

[Silent Blade]

Success isn't won by giving away possession at the first opportunity in the vain hope that the next touch will come from a team-mate. It's a simple game. Pass it, move into space to receive, or run with it, alter the angles to make space for others, or test your skill against your immediate opponent. All aspects of footballl the way it was meant to be played.

Bring back Bryan Robson then!

 

[ZoneManWilf]

Bring back Bryan Robson then!

Well that certainly wasn't the team I saw under Bryan Robson, more directionless rubbish.

I think Bryan Robson's 'passing style' is an absolute fallacy actually.

The main times we have seen a 'passing style' at the Lane is very sporadic.

- early 96 after Kendall took over, and kept us up playing decent stuff, he then went defensive the following season.
- August 97 under Spackman, we had half a good season, then sold our strikeforce in one day.
- Speed when he first took over and used Britton deep, and I actually really liked this, way of playing, specifically remembering the Derby away win, but he soon reverted to a horrible defensive 2 banks of 4 (essentially what he'd learned from Blackwell about setting up a defensive team IMO) after the Scunthorpe match at home - and the season descended from there.
- Wilson's first year in charge when we continually battered teams at home playing a possession passing style of football.

I do think there's a very big area between 'hoofing' and 'tippy tappy', probably neither camp on here believe in the extremes, as can be seen from the Bayern debate. They may not be as methodical as Barca, but they certainly don't hoof it., and have players with pace and technique as do all decent teams.

I like pacy attacking play with good passes down the channels or to the wings to get crosses in or to a target man who has the ability to hold the ball up and lay it off effectively - if that's what you call direct football I have no problem with it. But all that does require decent technique and passing. (I would argue that the 02/03 and 05/06 Warnock teams played like this, when they were on their game.)

What I want to avoid is to revert to 2 defensive midfielders with them and the back 4 lumping into 'areas' 75% of the time they get the ball. Against anyone decent this doesn't work, and as a philosophy of football it is dead with regards success even down in league 1.

 

[ZoneManWilf]

This thread was about choosing between direct but winning football or "more attractive" football with mediocre results.

Yes but as discussed earlier in the thread, the poll is a nonsense. We want to win full stop. But playing decent football and winning are not mutually exclusive, just as playing direct will not necessarily lead us to do a thing in this division.

 

[Bergen Blade]

So some seem to think Bayern are direct, others think they are passing it, but everybody think we could learn a lot from them?

I think those who are advocating a more direct playing style feel that a slow build up, 'continental' possession football, without superior ability may lead to us passing it around for the sake of it (i.e. with no more aim than the so called hoofball) until someone is put under pressure and is forced to just clear/hoof it, more than attempts to pass it. It happened a lot last season.

I think both camps would appreciate the quick, direct, forward passing and movement shown in this clip:



It's not hoofing. It's not possession football. And like Bayern Munich have shown us, it shows that the debate should be about more than that.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

So some seem to think Bayern are direct, others think they are passing it, but everybody think we could learn a lot from them?

I think those who are advocating a more direct playing style feel that a slow build up, 'continental' possession football, without superior ability may lead to us passing it around for the sake of it (i.e. with no more aim than the so called hoofball) until someone is put under pressure and is forced to just clear/hoof it, more than attempts to pass it. It happened a lot last season.

I think both camps would appreciate the quick, direct, forward passing and movement shown in this clip:



It's not hoofing. It's not possession football. And like Bayern Munich have shown us, it shows that the debate should be about more than that.

Lot better than the dross Swansea serve up [go on then tell me one or more was scored by them]

Last three times I've watched them I've had enough by 15 mins.

 

[Gavlar]

This thread was about choosing between direct but winning football or "more attractive" football with mediocre results. Like the vast majority (according to the voting above) winning is what matters most to me. My favoured style is attacking with pace and athleticism. I don't like aimless hoof but equally I don't like pointless passing that gets nowhere. Bayern play a far more direct style than Madrid and Barcelona - and pass it far less - certainly than Barcelona. But they have pace, power, good organisation and superior fitness. I'd rather watch Bayern's style than Barcelona's or Spurs rather than Swansea. But when it comes to the Blades, it's about being good at whatever style we choose, being positive rather than the mind-numbing slow, negative stuff we saw last season - and above all scoring goals and winning games to get out of this shite division.

I don't really care how we play as long as we get results, this season we hoofed it more than last and that was one of the reasons we were much poorer both in terms of points and goals. the other reasons were a lot to do with the personal who left. people like lowton passed it, people like McMahon hoofed it.

 

[ZoneManWilf]

I think those who are advocating a more direct playing style feel that a slow build up, 'continental' possession football, without superior ability may lead to us passing it around for the sake of it (i.e. with no more aim than the so called hoofball) until someone is put under pressure and is forced to just clear/hoof it, more than attempts to pass it. It happened a lot last season.

And I think that those advocating a passing style feel that us going more direct again without players of superior ability, would see a return to aimless lumps into areas, and dull turgid rubbish like we had under Mickey Adams.

Either method could get results in League One, but I feel that a philosophy of passing and technique and retaining possession will get us further in the mid to long term as a club, because simply put the better teams in the Championship and Premiership play like that.

Realistically what do we want to set our goals at for the next 5 years if we're assuming we want to get back up the leagues? There are a number of clubs of around our size who have established themselves at a decent level of football in this country.

Why set our goal to be just like Stoke? We could set our goal to be like Norwich or West Brom or Fulham or Swansea all of whom play better stuff than Stoke do.

In fact Stoke are the exception that proves the rule IMO.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Lot better than the dross Swansea serve up [go on then tell me one or more was scored by them]

Last three times I've watched them I've had enough by 15 mins.

Swansea do know when to go forward quickly as well, using few forward passes when they've won the ball in good areas here:

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Swansea do know when to go forward quickly as well, using few forward passes when they've won the ball in good areas here:

I'll swap your 1.41 minutes for 90 minutes of boredom in the League Cup Final

 

[Bergen Blade]

And I think that those advocating a passing style feel that us going more direct again without players of superior ability, would see a return to aimless lumps into areas, and dull turgid rubbish like we had under Mickey Adams.

Either method could get results in League One, but I feel that a philosophy of passing and technique and retaining possession will get us further in the mid to long term as a club, because simply put the better teams in the Championship and Premiership play like that.

Realistically what do we want to set our goals at for the next 5 years if we're assuming we want to get back up the leagues? There are a number of clubs of around our size who have established themselves at a decent level of football in this country.

Why set our goal to be just like Stoke? We could set our goal to be like Norwich or West Brom or Fulham or Swansea all of whom play better stuff than Stoke do.

In fact Stoke are the exception that proves the rule IMO.

Whatever we do I think we can learn a lot by watching other teams that have done well and are punching above their weight. A couple of people have pointed out that the switching between (rather) extreme playing styles every time we change manager is not ideal.

Both Stoke and Swansea have shown some continuity by sticking with their playings style for a while, but not only that, they have identified something that they've felt they could do a little better than the rest. It's given them a lot of confidence and belief. I applaud them.

Us? Random leadership, random recruitment policy, random playing style, random identity.

 

[Silent Blade]

Well that certainly wasn't the team I saw under Bryan Robson, more directionless rubbish.

I think Bryan Robson's 'passing style' is an absolute fallacy actually.

The main times we have seen a 'passing style' at the Lane is very sporadic.

- early 96 after Kendall took over, and kept us up playing decent stuff, he then went defensive the following season.
- August 97 under Spackman, we had half a good season, then sold our strikeforce in one day.
- Speed when he first took over and used Britton deep, and I actually really liked this, way of playing, specifically remembering the Derby away win, but he soon reverted to a horrible defensive 2 banks of 4 (essentially what he'd learned from Blackwell about setting up a defensive team IMO) after the Scunthorpe match at home - and the season descended from there.
.

What Pinchy said was just like what Robson said when he came to us. McEwan and Heath tried to make his players pass the ball but we didnt have enough quality players. I cannot see us bring in quality players during the summer cos we do not have the money. Kendall and Robson brought in quality players and they were expensive so the year or two after Kendall's spell with us we were forced to sell the players to try to make our debt respectable and it was the same two or three years after Robson left

 

[Silent Blade]

Why set our goal to be just like Stoke? We could set our goal to be like Norwich or West Brom or Fulham or Swansea all of whom play better stuff than Stoke do.

In fact Stoke are the exception that proves the rule IMO.

West Ham have been playing the long ball since Big Sam came in and my West Ham supporting mate hates it even though they are now doing better results wise than 3 years ago. Bolton stopped playing long ball a few years ago and they arent in the PL anymore

 

[JohnDenver]

Us? Random leadership, random recruitment policy, random playing style, random identity.

The only thing which has been predictable is the resultant direction for the club.

This way...

\/\/\/\/\/