Are You A Football Purist?

[gater2]

I think the crux of the matter really comes down to this. From my perspective football is a results business and I want to see my beloved City in the Prem. Whether we play fancy footy or not to reach there, I couldn't care less. I am always on the edge of my seat when I watch City simply because it is City and a 0-0 draw will be more exciting and more important for me to invest my energy and support in than any 5-4 thriller on the TV.

Also, I don't buy the argument if you play fancy, free flowing footy you'll definitely win games. This happened for Arsenal for a few seasons, but look at them now, without a trophy in 4 years. Also look at Newcastle, sacking Allardyce who played boring footy for Keegan and Shearer, and they're not in CCC. I'm not saying we should play negative footy, but I for one, will support GJ as long as he keeps bringing the results, and the table doesn't lie: we're 5th!

[Riaz]

Prefer both - free-flowing football AND to win.....

but to win is the most important. To not win is not entertaining in my eyes, regardless of the performance

[BCFC_Dan]

I'm not sure it's that simple.

I went to the Peterborough game the other week and I thought a lot of the football was superb. I've seen more exciting games, certainly, but the quality of the passing and the technical skills on display was of a level I've rarely seen from a Bristol City team. From a football purism point of view I think Bristol City has one of its best ever teams, if not the best (I've not seen them earlier than the 90s so I could be wrong there).

Everything has its place and I must admit I enjoyed some of the out-and-out hoofball purveyed by Histon in the Blue Square Premier last season (Johnson's old mentor John Beck at work there!), but overall I'm glad that City seem able to provide football of a high quality, even if goals are in short supply.

[Lack of Action Man]

I'd rather be in the top 6 of the championship playing good football but there we go.

I suppose at the end of the day it is better to be where we are than bottom of the Premier League.

[mcbcfc]

Winning is entertaining. The issue is drawing too many at home if we'd of beat Scunny and Peterborough like we should have then there really have been an issue.

[Redhyde]

I think we each individually have a different value on the conflict here. I'm not entertained by a boring win except for the goal which in no way can be boring. Goals are never boring. Is that enough entertainment to justify the admission price? For me no it isn't.

I'm not entertained by repeated high scoring games. It indicates low quality if both teams defend apallingly and again it's not entertaining. I can be very entertained by a great defensive display from both teams in a 0-0. Generally i get entertained by quick passing and movement.

But each of our entertainment values is different, so winning vs entertainment is a different question to each of us so a poll and an asking of that question unless you give the type of response i just have is invalid because you don't have one of the sides of the match up.

[A Horse With No Name]

I think the crux of the matter really comes down to this. From my perspective football is a results business and I want to see my beloved City in the Prem. Whether we play fancy footy or not to reach there, I couldn't care less. I am always on the edge of my seat when I watch City simply because it is City and a 0-0 draw will be more exciting and more important for me to invest my energy and support in than any 5-4 thriller on the TV.

Also, I don't buy the argument if you play fancy, free flowing footy you'll definitely win games. This happened for Arsenal for a few seasons, but look at them now, without a trophy in 4 years. Also look at Newcastle, sacking Allardyce who played boring footy for Keegan and Shearer, and they're not in CCC. I'm not saying we should play negative footy, but I for one, will support GJ as long as he keeps bringing the results, and the table doesn't lie: we're 5th!

I think it depends on what different people perceive as a football match. Football these days is, first and foremost a business, and as such, results are everything so if you buy into that idea, then you should be prepared to watch boring, predictable football, if that is how the manager sees the best way to get three points.

On the other hand, football is part of the entertainment industry, much the same way as a trip to the theatre is, and so if that is your opinion, then you need to be entertained by two teams going hell for leather trying to score more goals than each other. It all boils down to how you percieve the idea of a football league. Do you pay money to watch the two businesses go about their work, or do they have an obligation to the people who pay their wages to entertain them. You can't always have both.

[Nibor]

I think I'm a pragmatist. Of course I'd love to see us play like Barca and enjoy watching fast, accurate, skillful football played on the ground. I don't expect that though, and I realise there'll be good and bad patches.

The reason I'd say pragmatist is that boiling this debate down to "entertaining and lose" or "boring and win" is in my opinion very false. When we resort to direct balls clumped out of defence it is ugly to watch but my real gripe is that it doesn't actually work. I fundamentally do not believe we are more likely to win games playing ugly football.

I'd like a bit more width available to us particularly at home but I've never expected us to line up with five purely attacking players and throw caution to the wind either. I accept that we'll have to be tighter sometimes particularly away. I don't and never will accept that long aimless punts ever make us more likely to win any football match anywhere against anyone.

[Port Said Red]

I think I'm a pragmatist. Of course I'd love to see us play like Barca and enjoy watching fast, accurate, skillful football played on the ground. I don't expect that though, and I realise there'll be good and bad patches.

The reason I'd say pragmatist is that boiling this debate down to "entertaining and lose" or "boring and win" is in my opinion very false. When we resort to direct balls clumped out of defence it is ugly to watch but my real gripe is that it doesn't actually work. I fundamentally do not believe we are more likely to win games playing ugly football.

I'd like a bit more width available to us particularly at home but I've never expected us to line up with five purely attacking players and throw caution to the wind either. I accept that we'll have to be tighter sometimes particularly away. I don't and never will accept that long aimless punts ever make us more likely to win any football match anywhere against anyone.

I agree with your points and I am one who prefers the ball on the deck. However I think it's more important to fit the football to the strengths at your disposal. There is nothing worse than seeing high balls played to a short forward or to see a target man expected to run after a pass into the channels. Despite what some have said on here I do think our midfield are starting to make the right passes for NM and DH, i.e. the kind of ball that helps them turn defenders.