9 Games Unbeaten and 'Boring' Football

[mozo]

19 hours ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Spot on, if you take a scale of 1-4 as follows:

1: Winning and Entertaining Football

2: Winning but Boring Football

3: Losing but Entertaining Football

4: Losing and Boring Football

 

The holy grail is Option 1, and if you can’t have that then the next best is obviously Option 2.  

You never want Options 3 or 4, although that’s where we were on the run of losses.

The change from last season is Teams need to come at us to get a goal and have to work hard to get it, they can’t sit back like they may have done last season and let us knock it about until we make a mistake, as we now sit back as well and wait for the opposition to make an error, very Italian in principal, not very entertaining, but more effective then playing great football and losing!

I like the way you illustrated it!

Am I the only one here though that feels like there is a very fine line between 2 and 3?

Eg. I would prefer 3 and finish 12th over 2 and finish 7th.

Boring is only acceptable if the increased success is tangible.

[LondonBristolian]

7 hours ago, poland_exile said:

Without wishing to turn this thread into another Johnson in / out thread, I sometimes wonder if this mounting criticism about our 'boring' brand of football is simply (consciously or even sub-consciously) just an easy-to-hand tool with which to barrack him. Last year, we were entertaining but lost our winning ways - people wanted him out. This year, we've cut the entertainment  factor but have swapped it for points -  even so, the same people want him out. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

And with all due respect, anyone who pipes up and says they'd rather see us lose but entertain is lying through their teeth - you only have to remember the backlash on here after the 5-5 match last season. 

I'm a hopeless football romantic, and I'd love to see us field a cavalier team that would romp home 4-2 week in, week out. But this is X-Box / Football Manager stuff that has little basis in reality. Take the bloody wins and be happy! There are literally dozens upon dozens of teams world-wide that have far greater resources than ours that can't find the secret between hell-for-leather football and winning. Why do they expect us to? Somewhere along the line, several people need to take a serious reality check. 

I think the issue for me at times this season - and this is of course the risk with defensively solid football - is when it is not exciting AND you don't win. Between November and December, we had Reading away and Preston at home, which we lost, and Millwall and Brentford at home, where we drew. After Brentford we had only won 2 of the previous 10 and, in that time, dropped 13 points against teams lower than us in the table. Even when we won a game, we scraped a victory with 9 players against the bottom team in the league, that being our first home win in two months. Within that, it's understandable fans get restless. Obviously it looks very different now we have won four games in a row.

The reality of course though is that, since we came up to the Championship, we have had a soft-centre and a tendency to go on losing streaks and we needed to do something. Sometimes you need to just get the basics right. Our defence is much more solid than last season. I think Kalas and Webster have helped but I also think we already had very good centre-backs at the club. I wonder whether the difference is either the change in full-backs or maybe - and I have no idea if this is true - Maenpaa is better at organising the defence than Frankie is. Whatever the answer, I think we have a much more solid foundation than we did this time last year and maybe, as the defence gets more confident, we can start to get more expressive going forward too. 

[EnderMB]

For me, the difference between attractive football and boring football is people won't tolerate the latter if the results aren't great. You can justify some poor results if you're playing well, whereas you can't justify boring the fans that follow a losing team.

LJ deserves a lot of credit for this year. Our replacements are solid, and we've given opportunities to the right youngsters. Furthermore, clubs will start to look at our academy as a place that churns out Championship level (and above) talent. Of course, there's plenty of time for things to go south, but if we can survive selling three solid players then it's a good sign for the future, as long as we progress forward and not backward.

As before, I'd be happy for a similar finish to last year, but assuming we don't sell in the summer and continue to boost the team I'd like to see us challenge for the playoffs.

[old_eastender]

21 minutes ago, EnderMB said:

For me, the difference between attractive football and boring football is people won't tolerate the latter if the results aren't great. You can justify some poor results if you're playing well, whereas you can't justify boring the fans that follow a losing team. 

LJ deserves a lot of credit for this year. Our replacements are solid, and we've given opportunities to the right youngsters. Furthermore, clubs will start to look at our academy as a place that churns out Championship level (and above) talent. Of course, there's plenty of time for things to go south, but if we can survive selling three solid players then it's a good sign for the future, as long as we progress forward and not backward.

As before, I'd be happy for a similar finish to last year, but assuming we don't sell in the summer and continue to boost the team I'd like to see us challenge for the playoffs.

Spot on, if its boring again Saturday (and let's face it, unless we get an early goal and draw Bolton out it's likely to be as LJ will almost certainly stick with 1 up front to start) but we scrape a 1-0 win, there will be some moans but the improved league position will keep most happy.

On the other hand if it's a draw or a defeat after another boring home match with only 1 or 2 shots on target, then the knives will be out again.

Just frustrates me, as this 1 up front play has not once produced a good display against teams that sit-in, although it works very well when teams are coming at us. Trouble is LJ can't seem to find a way of getting more support/movement around Fammy when faced with a team consistently putting 9-10 players behind the ball. Hence the lost points against the likes of Millwall, Brentford & Preston at home.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, old_eastender said:

Spot on, if its boring again Saturday (and let's face it, unless we get an early goal and draw Bolton out it's likely to be as LJ will almost certainly stick with 1 up front to start) but we scrape a 1-0 win, there will be some moans but the improved league position will keep most happy.

On the other hand if it's a draw or a defeat after another boring home match with only 1 or 2 shots on target, then the knives will be out again.

Just frustrates me, as this 1 up front play has not once produced a good display against teams that sit-in, although it works very well when teams are coming at us. Trouble is LJ can't seem to find a way of getting more support/movement around Fammy when faced with a team consistently putting 9-10 players behind the ball. Hence the lost points against the likes of Millwall, Brentford & Preston at home.

 

Nothing wrong with '1' up front even at home- plus Brentford certainly didn't put 9-10 behind the ball I saw it as a reasonable result as they are clearly better than their position, Preston were quite sharp on the break and the better side in all but possession stats.

Problem is when it morphs into a 4-5-1 too often as opposed to a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 type shape. Think we need Eliasson and O'Dowda in the same side in these sorts of games- perhaps Bolton at home is a good place to start and give them instructions/license to push high often in a clear 4-3-3/4-3-2-1.

[Undy English]

22 hours ago, RUSSEL85 said:

There is a lot of criticism about our play being "boring", and it isn't as entertaining as some games last season, but if I offered any City fan a chance to play a more boring style of play and go 9 unbeaten or to play our open expansive football and lose more regularly than we do now, I think i know what the answer will be. Its a bonus to be entertained with beautiful football, but right now id take 3 points over that and climb towards the play offs.

It's a very touchy subject this i.e. do we take the 3 points and play dull, or do we try to play exciting footy with the chance of conceding/losing?

I know a few fans who've actually stayed away from the Gate lately as, despite our unbeaten run, the football isn't overly enjoyable to watch. Can't blame them to be honest, but what do you do?

[Red-Robbo]

Last season, we had great football at first then a shower of shite from Christmas to May. 

We knew where we were.

This season, we're inconsistent - and that's not just game-to-game, but it's within games as well. The whole side can go missing for ages and then an incident, a lucky break perhaps, can make them "reappear".

I don't think we're carrying anywhere near the dead wood that City sides have in the past, but the inconsistency always gives the impression that we're not quite firing on all cylinders. We await that game when we dominate and thrash a poor side. We know we have it in us, but we just haven't seen it.

I don't necessarily think the football has been boring. What's boring is turning up, seeing us lose all the time, as in seasons gone by. Seeing us not being able to compete.

This season, the fact we can beat top sides but fail against strugglers makes it a more nervous but interesting watch.

However, just like everyone else, I would like to see the brakes come off for once and us press home a position of advantage to absolutely batter an opponent.

In my view that can't happen playing Fammy as a lone striker with Patto as his alleged link man.

The January signing(s) might make a difference to all that.

[Mr Popodopolous]

               Maenpaa

Hunt Kalas Webster Kelly

O''Dowda Brownhill Pack Eliasson

                Palmer

               Diedhiou

Against a side such as Bolton at home in their current position, why not? Wouldn't mind that at all- perhaps Palmer and Diedhiou can dovetail a bit more? Vs sides where a more pragmatic approach required, we could include Pisano for Hunt, Da Silva at LB given recent form could also be worth considering- but we have options.

[mozo]

I think there's also an argument that the play should be more expansive and aggressive in home games because that gets the fans onboard and ultimately builds a fortress. 

Boring football at home is rarely justified.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, mozo said:

I think there's also an argument that the play should be more expansive and aggressive in home games because that gets the fans onboard and ultimately builds a fortress. 

Boring football at home is rarely justified.

St Andrews is a bit of a fortress and they play terribly reactive football under Monk. Possession? Not a lot at all. Reckon they're an aggressively pressing yet counterattacking side.

However I agree with your general point- but certain games do require more caution IMO.

[RUSSEL85]

43 minutes ago, Undy English said:

It's a very touchy subject this i.e. do we take the 3 points and play dull, or do we try to play exciting footy with the chance of conceding/losing?

I know a few fans who've actually stayed away from the Gate lately as, despite our unbeaten run, the football isn't overly enjoyable to watch. Can't blame them to be honest, but what do you do?

That's up to them, but if we are winning/drawing which we are, I find it odd they are staying away, but thats just a personal opinion, each to their own I guess.

[Cowshed]

49 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the issue for me at times this season - and this is of course the risk with defensively solid football - is when it is not exciting AND you don't win. Between November and December, we had Reading away and Preston at home, which we lost, and Millwall and Brentford at home, where we drew. After Brentford we had only won 2 of the previous 10 and, in that time, dropped 13 points against teams lower than us in the table. Even when we won a game, we scraped a victory with 9 players against the bottom team in the league, that being our first home win in two months. Within that, it's understandable fans get restless. Obviously it looks very different now we have won four games in a row.

The reality of course though is that, since we came up to the Championship, we have had a soft-centre and a tendency to go on losing streaks and we needed to do something. Sometimes you need to just get the basics right. Our defence is much more solid than last season. I think Kalas and Webster have helped but I also think we already had very good centre-backs at the club. I wonder whether the difference is either the change in full-backs or maybe - and I have no idea if this is true - Maenpaa is better at organising the defence than Frankie is. Whatever the answer, I think we have a much more solid foundation than we did this time last year and maybe, as the defence gets more confident, we can start to get more expressive going forward too. 

Bristol City this time last year had more points and a better goal difference. It was not a particularly soft core. Its subjective what soft is. Soft might be defending deep because your players lack attacking ability. Soft can be caution if you want it to be.

There is a change in the full backs. The ball without Bryan has to be move differently because a technical difference feeding less tactical movement. Kelly or Dasilva are far more less likely to get beyond the midfield, and with all respects to them being the fine players they are they don't possess the ability/confidence to play one two's wall passes, bounces off team mates like Bryan would. A upside depending on perception is that neither will get caught upfield or being in less than defensive positions with regularity, its risk and reward the team loses offensive  ability and possession but gains defensive shape and rigidity.

Reids movement is another offensive loss. Tactical flexibility has to be lost.

Maenpaa is a significant improvement on Fielding. He give less possession away, he makes more interventions inside and outside the box. The team can and is playing higher. The defence given those qualities has more scope to organise itself better, its not a case just of Maenpaa being a better (?) organiser the team collectively has more tactical flexibility because the Keeper provides it. 

Webster and Kalas provide a differing form of solid base. They keep the ball adeptly. This depending on football preference can be boring. There is the possibility that City use possession to nullify the opposition as Rogers Swansea did. The intent could be to defend using possession, create safe possession zones, create  numerical superiority to move the ball forwards .. Could be all. At present possession can move around slowly around the first third and then less than fluently through the midfield. Boring? I will say yes. 

The above could provide an exciting prospect. That possession can be a launch pad to playing further up the pitch and playing far more aggressively in and out of possession. There is a idealistic picture in there that parallels some of last seasons great football, a future picture where proficient footballing CB's feed Pack in the pivot to a fast interplaying and mobile midfield.  

Given the players Lee Johnson signed is the intent to really play defensively solid football?  Can't see it. Its a transition. A difficulty is that Mr Johnson can be verbose but is less than candid about what his long term intent is for the team and what his talk of identity really means. Bristol City last season in weeks could go from short passing to feet to attempting to out Warnock Warnock.

[Mr Popodopolous]

32 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Bristol City this time last year had more points and a better goal difference. It was not a particularly soft core. Its subjective what soft is. Soft might be defending deep because your players lack attacking ability. Soft can be caution if you want it to be.

There is a change in the full backs. The ball without Bryan has to be move differently because a technical difference feeding less tactical movement. Kelly or Dasilva are far more less likely to get beyond the midfield, and with all respects to them being the fine players they are they don't possess the ability/confidence to play one two's wall passes, bounces off team mates like Bryan would. A upside depending on perception is that neither will get caught upfield or being in less than defensive positions with regularity, its risk and reward the team loses offensive  ability and possession but gains defensive shape and rigidity.

Reids movement is another offensive loss. Tactical flexibility has to be lost.

 Maenpaa is a significant improvement on Fielding. He give less possession away, he makes more interventions inside and outside the box. The team can and is playing higher. The defence given those qualities has more scope to organise itself better, its not a case just of Maenpaa being a better (?) organiser the team collectively has more tactical flexibility because the Keeper provides it. 

 Webster and Kalas provide a differing form of solid base. They keep the ball adeptly. This depending on football preference can be boring. There is the possibility that City use possession to nullify the opposition as Rogers Swansea did. The intent could be to defend using possession, create safe possession zones, create  numerical superiority to move the ball forwards .. Could be all. At present possession can move around slowly around the first third and then less than fluently through the midfield. Boring? I will say yes. 

The above could provide an exciting prospect. That possession can be a launch pad to playing further up the pitch and playing far more aggressively in and out of possession. There is a idealistic picture in there that parallels some of last seasons great football, a future picture where proficient footballing CB's feed Pack in the pivot to a fast interplaying and mobile midfield.  

 Given the players Lee Johnson signed is the intent to really play defensively solid football?  Can't see it. Its a transition. A difficulty is that Mr Johnson can be verbose but is less than candid about what his long term intent is for the team and what his talk of identity really means. Bristol City last season in weeks could go from short passing to feet to attempting to out Warnock Warnock.

Great post, definitely agree with all you write.

Especially the bolded bit- my hope is it will transition to a 4-3-3 with Maenpaa in goal, playing to the 2 ball playing CBs and perhaps Pack the deepest in a 4-1-4-1/4-3-3 and it goes through the thirds. Though I wonder if Pack may also be alright if played higher, his through ball v Norwich a prime example of what he can do when allowed to play forward a bit. 

Reid in a way, was like 2 players. Striker and CM, could drop back when required even if he was primarily played as a striker. We had a lot of flexibility especially in that spell in December-mid January, late January let's say. Brownhill on the right but as a wide midfielder who could come inside and Wright at RB who could also tuck in- great flexibility. A Bryan, Magnússon left side offered flexibility too and security- arguably the same on the right too. Very fluid stuff that, maybe we can move back towards that but with some more technical footballers in key positions. 

On your paragraph about the full backs, have often wondered if a Kelly-Da Silva left side could have replicated the Magnússon-Bryan shape?

@LondonBristolian Number of tactical errors in those games IMO- surely played a part.

[LondonBristolian]

19 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Bristol City this time last year had more points and a better goal difference. It was not a particularly soft core. Its subjective what soft is. Soft might be defending deep because your players lack attacking ability. Soft can be caution if you want it to be.

There is a change in the full backs. The ball without Bryan has to be move differently because a technical difference feeding less tactical movement. Kelly or Dasilva are far more less likely to get beyond the midfield, and with all respects to them being the fine players they are they don't possess the ability/confidence to play one two's wall passes, bounces off team mates like Bryan would. A upside depending on perception is that neither will get caught upfield or being in less than defensive positions with regularity, its risk and reward the team loses offensive  ability and possession but gains defensive shape and rigidity.

Reids movement is another offensive loss. Tactical flexibility has to be lost.

Maenpaa is a significant improvement on Fielding. He give less possession away, he makes more interventions inside and outside the box. The team can and is playing higher. The defence given those qualities has more scope to organise itself better, its not a case just of Maenpaa being a better (?) organiser the team collectively has more tactical flexibility because the Keeper provides it. 

Webster and Kalas provide a differing form of solid base. They keep the ball adeptly. This depending on football preference can be boring. There is the possibility that City use possession to nullify the opposition as Rogers Swansea did. The intent could be to defend using possession, create safe possession zones, create  numerical superiority to move the ball forwards .. Could be all. At present possession can move around slowly around the first third and then less than fluently through the midfield. Boring? I will say yes. 

The above could provide an exciting prospect. That possession can be a launch pad to playing further up the pitch and playing far more aggressively in and out of possession. There is a idealistic picture in there that parallels some of last seasons great football, a future picture where proficient footballing CB's feed Pack in the pivot to a fast interplaying and mobile midfield.  

Given the players Lee Johnson signed is the intent to really play defensively solid football?  Can't see it. Its a transition. A difficulty is that Mr Johnson can be verbose but is less than candid about what his long term intent is for the team and what his talk of identity really means. Bristol City last season in weeks could go from short passing to feet to attempting to out Warnock Warnock.

I agree with what you write but I also want to clarify what I mean by soft core. I was referring to games like Reading away in 2016/2017 or Wolves, Sunderland or Hull at home last season where we had a bit of a tendency to collapse defensively. I honestly think the big difference this season is that, even when we play badly, we're less likely to concede and I think that means that it's more likely that, even during a bad run, we'll grind out a result from somewhere that stops the rot before we lose six or seven in a row. It might be we have a disastrous second half of the season but I think it is a bit less likely whereas, in previous years, it has felt that the players' heads dropped during poor runs and, even where it looked like we'd get out of it, we'd concede late goals and find ourselves throwing points away. 

I agree it is a transition though. My guess is that, this season, a lot of the coaching focus has been around how we retain and use possession in our own half and, as a result, there has been a bit less of a focus on what we do further up the pitch. I would hope the plan is that, once we've got that right - and we are getting there - there will be more focus in how we are using the ball in our own half. But, as you say, it's not wholly clear exactly what the long-term plan is. 

[Undy English]

37 minutes ago, RUSSEL85 said:

That's up to them, but if we are winning/drawing which we are, I find it odd they are staying away, but thats just a personal opinion, each to their own I guess.

We are all supporters, but I suppose some people expect entertainment to be factored into the equation. Don't blame them; you pay good money, and as much as you want the lads to get 3 points, you don't want to watch utter dross.

[Grey Fox]

Compared to last season , we have lost Flint (an attacking centre back), Bryan (a left wing back) and Reid ( a creative goal scoring number 10), and replaced them with Webster (a better defender than Flint), Kelly (a centre back playing left back)and Weinman (a tidy forward who doesn't score that often).

This has made us a stronger defensive unit, but has weakened our goal threat, which is why we struggle against teams that sit back like Millwall , Rotherham etc

The situation could IMO drastically improve by signing a really good creative/goal scoring no. 10, hopefully Kasey Palmer is that man, or maybe our youngster at Newport could be the new Bobby? 

[REDOXO]

12 hours ago, Trueredsupporte said:

No it is entertainment. That is why I go. I found City in the fourth still entertaining so I still attended unlike when Osman was in charge.

Have you once in your life wished we didn't win under any circumstances? Yes when Osman scored like thousands of others who booed him for it or the thousands who stayed away and I also joined. 

1 it is sport first. Tv is entertainment first as is a play or a film they exist simply to entertain. Sport exists as competition first. We choose it to be entertainment  

2 No. is the short answer. But if some did on a particular day that would be what proved the rule as I guess we have played north of 10000 games in our history and you booed a goal scorer on one occasion. By the way booing a one of our own goal scorers still doesn’t mean you or anyone else wanted us to lose the game. 

[REDOXO]

6 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Football is entertainment. If we play what is an invasion game we generally do it because we enjoy it. Its particularly evident in children that playing for kids is not about winning. My bog standard FA entry level coaching informed me running around, playing with friends, and getting dirty were the most popular reasons for playing football. As an adult I played football because it was highly entertaining. Coaching ditto .. I enjoy it.

Fandom for me is the same. I would avoid doing anything in my life as time consuming and at times extravagantly expensive if it did not entertain me. 

Of course you have chosen it to be entertainment and that’s ok no one said it wasn’t. What I have said five times now is it’s sport first and people choose it to be entertainment. The point of ALL sports is to win! Particularly if you are a professional. Never once has any pro sportsman ever said I lost because it was more entertaining

why do people choose to misinterpret what has been written and then argue about what’s not there? Entertainment perhaps. 

[Cowshed]

24 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Of course you have chosen it to be entertainment and that’s ok no one said it wasn’t. What I have said five times now is it’s sport first and people choose it to be entertainment. The point of ALL sports is to win! Particularly if you are a professional. Never once has any pro sportsman ever said I lost because it was more entertaining

why do people choose to misinterpret what has been written and then argue about what’s not there? Entertainment perhaps. 

Sorry there was no attempt to misinterpret your post. You are being sweeping. And ignoring points people have made. Your sport perhaps? 

Never once has any pro sportsman ever said I lost because it was more entertaining … But there are individuals and football clubs who make a conscious decision to approach their sport guided by values. At some clubs these values are part of the very reasons fans support those clubs because they make commitments to their supporters e.g. Its entertainment and we will attempt to be attractive to watch.

Football is an invasion game, where one team attempts to score more than the opposition. Yes. But if you look at why people play the game and watch it you see that there are a myriad of reasons why. Intrinsic and extrinsic. Football fundamentals. FUNdamental is first and foremost for many. Without FUNdamental most people make the choice not to watch/put on boots in the first place.

We even watch and play a game with three results. We support a team that wins … Nothing major in its one hundred year history. 

Your football may be all about winning and in any manner but its clear not everybodies football.

 

[REDOXO]

4 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Sorry there was no attempt to misinterpret your post. You are being sweeping. And ignoring points people have made. Your sport perhaps? 

Never once has any pro sportsman ever said I lost because it was more entertaining … But there are individuals and football clubs who make a conscious decision to approach their sport guided by values. At some clubs these values are part of the very reasons fans support those clubs because they make commitments to their supporters e.g. Its entertainment and we will attempt to be attractive to watch.

Football is an invasion game, where one team attempts to score more than the opposition. Yes. But if you look at why people play the game and watch it you see that there are a myriad of reasons why. Intrinsic and extrinsic. Football fundamentals. FUNdamental is first and foremost for many. Without FUNdamental most people make the choice not to watch/put on boots in the first place.

We even watch and play a game with three results. We support a team that wins … Nothing major in its one hundred year history. 

Your football may be all about winning and in any manner but its clear not everybodies football.

 

I don’t thinking I’m being sweeping at all. Or ignoring what people say as I have anawered. The point of any sport is to win. How you do it is up to style. This is the argument here. Bristol City as are other football/sports clubs are in the business of winning 

I agree that there are sports teams who attempt certain values, but that again is style and the basic tenet We Want to WIN with a certain style and god bless them. But again winning is first a wish to do it a certain way is second. 

Some people choose to support certain clubs because they want to win a certain way I agree but not as many as you would imply. 

Most support Bristol City because they are from or their family are from a certain area which applies to most football clubs. Some prefer to support Man U or Liverpool while living somewhere else but because they have WON things NOT because of a style that has changed 50 times in a hundred years. Those people want to be associated with Winners and Winning. Very few support Plymouth Argyle while living in London because they have an entertaining style. 

I agree I have supported a team which was named the second biggest team never to have been in the premier league (second to PNE and they were named the biggest team not to have been in the Premier as they have won FA Cups and League titles which underpins my point the mere fact they have won things makes them a bigger club according to some)

Football for all clubs winning is what counts before entertainment which is what I have said. The fact that traditionally we haven’t been good at it is not Saliant and the idea that people support us in numbers because of our style really doesn’t stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. Nevertheless your point that people play for many reasons (they still want to win) has some resonance if you are not talking about a Pro Football/sports club and it’s players manager and staff. This is OTIB a forum for Bristol City a professional team who are playing football that is win first entertain second. It’s out there in front of you every week. You show Steve Lansdown one player who says he wants to entertain before he wants to win and he will show him a cancelled contract. 

I liked the fun use of Fundemental. Nice!

[poland_exile]

16 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

A rare case where I agree with what you've said.

 

There is absolutely a "damned if you do..."  situation here.

 

One thing I'd say is we know it is possible for these players to play attractive football and get a result. However, it was shown last season we cannot sustain it the entire 46 games.

There's been bits of flashy play during games, we were doing backheels and flicks for intricate passes inside our own half at times at 0-0 vs Huddersfield, but we're less gung-ho in the attacking sense and building on a basis of solidity.

Less exciting, but probably more likely to yield longer term consistency.

 

As it is now we are outsiders to reach a playoff spot, 5 points to catch with so many games left is by no means beyond us, but even I think it is unlikely we will do it (at this point in time), and consistency with good results is more important than flair with inconsistency.

haha, nice to find common ground for a change  

While it's a bit of a strained analogy, the situation reminds me of David Brent announcing he's "an entertainer first, boss second", for that's essentially what some people are demanding LJ declares. It's a ludicrous expectation. And even more ridiculous when you consider that 'entertaining' is not what ultimately keeps him in employment. It's easy for us to sit here and say 'we want to be entertained', but we're not the ones who face the sack if we don't deliver the important stuff: the actual result. 

And taking the analogy to extremes, imagine getting flak at work: you're doing well in your job, but you're not amusing your colleagues enough... 

 

[WolfOfWestStreet]

Not sure I agree with much of this. Football is expensive and a sold to the clubs "customers" as a form of entertainment. 

I believe the club have a duty to do their best to entertain their customers, particularly at home. 

Only die hards will return if you dont feel you get value for money, that's not gunna put new bums on seats. I definitely do think the offering at home this season has been very good at all and defo debating if it's worth doing 5/6 away games next season instead of buying another 3 STs. 

[Cowshed]

11 hours ago, REDOXO said:

I don’t thinking I’m being sweeping at all. Or ignoring what people say as I have anawered. The point of any sport is to win. How you do it is up to style. This is the argument here. Bristol City as are other football/sports clubs are in the business of winning 

I agree that there are sports teams who attempt certain values, but that again is style and the basic tenet We Want to WIN with a certain style and god bless them. But again winning is first a wish to do it a certain way is second. 

Some people choose to support certain clubs because they want to win a certain way I agree but not as many as you would imply. 

Most support Bristol City because they are from or their family are from a certain area which applies to most football clubs. Some prefer to support Man U or Liverpool while living somewhere else but because they have WON things NOT because of a style that has changed 50 times in a hundred years. Those people want to be associated with Winners and Winning. Very few support Plymouth Argyle while living in London because they have an entertaining style. 

I agree I have supported a team which was named the second biggest team never to have been in the premier league (second to PNE and they were named the biggest team not to have been in the Premier as they have won FA Cups and League titles which underpins my point the mere fact they have won things makes them a bigger club according to some)

Football for all clubs winning is what counts before entertainment which is what I have said. The fact that traditionally we haven’t been good at it is not Saliant and the idea that people support us in numbers because of our style really doesn’t stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. Nevertheless your point that people play for many reasons (they still want to win) has some resonance if you are not talking about a Pro Football/sports club and it’s players manager and staff. This is OTIB a forum for Bristol City a professional team who are playing football that is win first entertain second. It’s out there in front of you every week. You show Steve Lansdown one player who says he wants to entertain before he wants to win and he will show him a cancelled contract. 

I liked the fun use of Fundemental. Nice!

 Again you missed the point being made. You are still being sweeping. 

There is a parallel in this. Russell Osman won games, he also lost 40% of the attendances, and reduced the away support to low hundreds. Bristol City ceased to be entertainment.

The use of FUNdamental is not mine. Its the FA's and others. It does marry with my view of what football is to watch, play and coach. If its not fun, if its not enjoyable, if its not entertaining .. Well many people will do something else. That is the point. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Not sure I agree with much of this. Football is expensive and a sold to the clubs "customers" as a form of entertainment. 

I believe the club have a duty to do their best to entertain their customers, particularly at home. 

Only die hards will return if you dont feel you get value for money, that's not gunna put new bums on seats. I definitely do think the offering at home this season has been very good at all and defo debating if it's worth doing 5/6 away games next season instead of buying another 3 STs. 

Sunderland and Hull at home- 3-0 to 3-3 and 0-1 to 3-1 and 4-2 up yet needing an injury time equaliser to salvage it at 5-5 ...

On a serious note, if entertainment is measured in various metrics- one such metric is goals- then woodwork struck 8 times at home in the League- that changes the equation somewhat. Figures could look somewhat better...

Thought we have been shocking in some and showed decent signs without getting sufficient goals in other and some games were have played well in- not especially entertaining, but fairly middling at home certainly.

[REDOXO]

5 hours ago, Cowshed said:

 Again you missed the point being made. You are still being sweeping. 

There is a parallel in this. Russell Osman won games, he also lost 40% of the attendances, and reduced the away support to low hundreds. Bristol City ceased to be entertainment.

The use of FUNdamental is not mine. Its the FA's and others. It does marry with my view of what football is to watch, play and coach. If its not fun, if its not enjoyable, if its not entertaining .. Well many people will do something else. That is the point. 

 

I’m not sure what point I’m missing ‘twice’. However Lee has chosen a style that is all about winning and less about entertaining as winning is his job. Russell Osman didn’t really ever have us challenging and getting consistent results however he played the game.

All the time Lee plays the game and wins games people will come. The fall off in crowds coincides with playing what can be termed a defensive game and not winning consistently, Ala Russell Osman maybe, but you can be playing expansive attacking football and crowds will fall off if you are not winning and challenging. People want to be associated with winners and get their excitement from winning and following a winning club....The kids wearing Man U, Liverpool Arsenal etc shirts in Brizz is a factor of that....At this point I guess we agree to disagree, but one question, are you going to watch us at the moment?