Jump to content
IGNORED

Style Or Substance?


And Its Smith

Recommended Posts

Wondering on some City fans opinions on this after a lengthy debate in the office.

 

What is more important for you, style or substance?  i.e. is it better to finish higher up playing ugly football or lower down the league but playing an attractive game?

 

If next season, the following two scenarios were offered to you now (and you had to take one!) which one would you take:

 

1. Playing ugly hoofball, men behind the ball, stifling football, with this final record:

 

8. Bristol City - Played 46, Won 20, Drew 16, Lost 10.  GF 60, GA 52  Points - 76

 

Or

 

2.  Playing similar football to last season, even more attractive if possible:

 

12. Bristol City - Played 46, Won 17, Drew 9, Lost 20  GF 85, GA 88 Points 60

 

 

Which would you take now? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wondering on some City fans opinions on this after a lengthy debate in the office.

 

What is more important for you, style or substance?  i.e. is it better to finish higher up playing ugly football or lower down the league but playing an attractive game?

 

If next season, the following two scenarios were offered to you now (and you had to take one!) which one would you take:

 

1. Playing ugly hoofball, men behind the ball, stifling football, with this final record:

 

8. Bristol City - Played 46, Won 20, Drew 16, Lost 10.  GF 60, GA 52  Points - 76

 

Or

 

2.  Playing similar football to last season, even more attractive if possible:

 

12. Bristol City - Played 46, Won 17, Drew 9, Lost 20  GF 85, GA 88 Points 60

 

 

Which would you take now? 

 

The second option - both of them result in no promotion, however at least I will have enjoyed my weekends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wondering on some City fans opinions on this after a lengthy debate in the office.

 

What is more important for you, style or substance?  i.e. is it better to finish higher up playing ugly football or lower down the league but playing an attractive game?

 

If next season, the following two scenarios were offered to you now (and you had to take one!) which one would you take:

 

1. Playing ugly hoofball, men behind the ball, stifling football, with this final record:

 

8. Bristol City - Played 46, Won 20, Drew 16, Lost 10.  GF 60, GA 52  Points - 76

 

Or

 

2.  Playing similar football to last season, even more attractive if possible:

 

12. Bristol City - Played 46, Won 17, Drew 9, Lost 20  GF 85, GA 88 Points 60

 

 

Which would you take now? 

 

Option 2. If neither way is good enough for play offs or promotion, go for a bit of style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The enjoyment of winning beats anything. However, the way city played last year was the best I've seen since i've been going down.

 

Look at stoke played vile football to go up to the prem a couple of years later (and a different manager) playing nice football and a comfortable premier league side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option two.

If option one ended in a play-off place, I'd definitely have to think about it.

If that was the case my heart would say option two was part of a master plan to consolidate and play beautiful football for a beautiful promotion the following season. My head would say "Take the chance in an ugly play off"

Still not sure which one of those I'd prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option 1. 

 

I want us to win every game.

 

Winning is fun.

 

Obviously your question presents extreme examples with regard to style of football. I wonder how many people would be willing to make the sacrifice if 6th place were on offer instead of 8th....

 

In reality I don't think that style of football would result in a higher placed finished than our current attractive style, my point is more that I want to see us win as many games and lose as few as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be controversial and say teams very rarely finish with 60 points - around 12th - 14th in the table - playing regularly entertaining, free-flowing football.

 

There are absolutely different ways to win regularly - but do teams really play an exciting, expansive, attacking brand of football most weeks but lose 20 times across a campaign?

 

There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I think the quality of play generally dictates where teams finish in the league.

 

I think this debate is a slight myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned above, winning football is fun football.

Trying to win is the important thing. Whether they try to win via a direct style, or something more cultured, it doesn't matter so long as they're looking to score goals and succeeding as often as possible.

 

Retaining the ball a la Swansea is seen as a stylish way of playing but when they were first promoted to the Championship they were boring as hell, retaining the ball but seldom doing much with it. I'd no rather watch that than watch a Tony Pulis side spend 90 minutes booting the ball into the stratosphere.

 

City have a nice mix about them at the moment. They're still quite a direct and attacking side but over the season they've learned to retain possession and go through passages of play where the players can rest a little, wearing the opposition down, before launching more attacks. Taking that to the next level will be the key to producing a successful side. If they play all-out attack, they'll wear themselves out chasing better players around the pitch, and if they play too negatively they'll soon be found out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering 76 points could quite possibly be enough for playoffs, option one seems the obvious choice as it could still potentially result in premier league football in 16/17

Always is, bar the odd season. We didn't even reach that in 07-08 and that season was incredible even if we didn't play attractive football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be controversial and say teams very rarely finish with 60 points - around 12th - 14th in the table - playing regularly entertaining, free-flowing football.

 

There are absolutely different ways to win regularly - but do teams really play an exciting, expansive, attacking brand of football most weeks but lose 20 times across a campaign?

 

There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I think the quality of play generally dictates where teams finish in the league.

 

I think this debate is a slight myth.

 

I can think of a team that does meet those criteria, though I can't prove it's not a one-off: Bristol City circa 2000-2002.

 

Looking at purely the stats now, they weren't especially high-scoring, though in 01/02 they only scored 2 fewer than 2nd placed Reading, who finished 11 points ahead. What I remember, though, is a team that on occasion played with real verve and swagger on their good days (4-0 against Reading and Notts C) and like a bunch of pub players on their bad days (4-0 defeats at Bournemouth and Colchester and a 5-1 defeat on the last day at Blackpool).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russell Osman won matches and Bristol City's gates dropped by thousands.

 

Looking at the stats, he won around a third of his matches with City which puts him on a par with Tony Pulis and Derek McInnes. Steve Cotterill has won more than half of his matches with City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the stats, he won around a third of his matches with City which puts him on a par with Tony Pulis and Derek McInnes. Steve Cotterill has won more than half of his matches with City.

No need to religiously look at stats.

Russell Osman took City up to mid table in division two. He could score a goal and be barracked for it. He took a team to Anfield that won. His team did win games but the lack of style and entertainment was utterly unappealing to fans leading to a massive drop in gates/protests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to religiously look at stats.

Russell Osman took City up to mid table in division two. He could score a goal and be barracked for it. He took a team to Anfield that won. His team did win games but the lack of style and entertainment was utterly unappealing to fans leading to a massive drop in gates/protests.

 

You stated that his side won matches despite being boring. I showed that his side won around the same number of matches as those of Tony Pulis and Derek McInnes, neither of whom has gone down as a success with City.

 

Danny Wilson is remembered quite fondly as City manager: he won nearly half his matches. Gary Johnson won fewer but still more than 40%.

 

Looking at managers over the past 20 years, I can't find any examples of managers who are remembered fondly who won less than 40% of matches.

 

Mediocre managers such as Pulis, Tinnion, Osman and Millen manage to win around 30% of their matches.

 

Managers who relegated City (O'Driscoll, Lennartsson) managed 25% and 20% respectively.

 

I apologise for religiously looking at stats but I think they back up what I'm saying: managers who win 40% or more are remembered well and those who don't are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May sound like a crummy answer but a combination of 1 and 2, try and play style 2 as much as possible then switch to 1 when required.

 

However if only those 2 options still 2. The philosophy and brand of football remains, then we can improve on our squad the season after in and attempt to continue playing the same style of football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologise for religiously looking at stats but I think they back up what I'm saying: managers who win 40% or more are remembered well and those who don't are not.

You do not need statistics when you have experience of dwindling away ends and home attendances with moribund atmospheres, which were the result of ultra cautious defensive football.

Cooper and Jordan teams had attacking style then came Osman. Mr Osman could have won this 40% of games and would have still been disliked, and worse. It goes deeper than stats, which cannot highlight factors such as abandoning the style of Cooper and Jordan for a type of football unfamiliar to Bristol City fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not need statistics when you have experience of dwindling away ends and home attendances with moribund atmospheres, which were the result of ultra cautious defensive football.

Cooper and Jordan teams had attacking style then came Osman. Mr Osman could have won this 40% of games and would have still been disliked, and worse. It goes deeper than stats, which cannot highlight factors such as abandoning the style of Cooper and Jordan for a type of football unfamiliar to Bristol City fans.

You mention 'style of football'....for as long as I can remember....City have pretty much played with two wingers.

That was our 'Style'....thank God Cots got rid of that mullarky.

I've always felt it has held us back.

I've always wondered why pretty much every manager who came here played with wingers....were they under instruction to do so?

Football can be very entertaining without wingers....as last season proved.

Gone are the days....hopefully....of seeing two of our players stuck to the sides....waiting for the ball....only to usually go on a mazy run that 'excited' fans, and then to run into a brick wall.

Hopefully we don't go back to that way of playing....it's dead. Teams can defend to easily against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mention 'style of football'....for as long as I can remember....City have pretty much played with two wingers.

That was our 'Style'....thank God Cots got rid of that mullarky.

I've always felt it has held us back.

I've always wondered why pretty much every manager who came here played with wingers....were they under instruction to do so?

Football can be very entertaining without wingers....as last season proved.

Gone are the days....hopefully....of seeing two of our players stuck to the sides....waiting for the ball....only to usually go on a mazy run that 'excited' fans, and then to run into a brick wall.

Hopefully we don't go back to that way of playing....it's dead. Teams can defend to easily against it.

I was referring to a attacking 4-4-2 yes with wingers but overall players attempting to play. That by its nature of having players who can play a bit provides flexibility not limitation.

Then there was Osman who took to deep lines and a trap door at the half way line for anybody bar the front two who were the only players allowed into the last third.

As for wingers they are not dead. Football evolves and will continue to and in future the Robbens and Riberys will be used wider or deeper or etc. A season ago 3-5-2 was the formation, now in Europe is 4-3-3.

What is dead is or should be is English kick and boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to a attacking 4-4-2 yes with wingers but overall players attempting to play. That by its nature of having players who can play a bit provides flexibility not limitation.

Then there was Osman who took to deep lines and a trap door at the half way line for anybody bar the front two who were the only players allowed into the last third.

As for wingers they are not dead. Football evolves and will continue to and in future the Robbens and Riberys will be used wider or deeper or etc. A season ago 3-5-2 was the formation, now in Europe is 4-3-3.

What is dead is or should be is English kick and boot.

Yes...apologies....I went off on a tangent. I get your drift and agree....however, as a Club, we have played for many years with out and out wingers who couldn't defend or track back. It left us vulnerable so many times.

Our midfield used to get overrun so many times....and players like Skuse and LJ made as scapegoats.

I cant remember one winger from our teams in the past, who tracked back or played deeper on a regular basis.

It, imho, has been our weakness for many years.

Great playing wide men who can contribute in all aspects of the game, but look at statistics, and you will find goals scored from crosses are far less than from playing down the middle.

It might look exciting....but the statistics prove getting to the bye line and crossing, is far less productive than playing through the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...