"who cares how, so long as we win"

[Chorlton]

Totally, yes, go back and watch the games, you had great players like Whelan, Houghton all lumping it forward, a footballer like David O'Leary kept out of the side. Route 1 tactics are unimaginative and dull.

i don't deny that it was route 1 - i just never, contrary to what people tell us, found route 1 to be synonymous with dull football particularly. I'm not sure what people mean by 'unimaginative' when describing football... its a simple game you can pass the ball 1 of 3 ways - forward, sideways or back - i never found passing the ball forwards to be the most negative of those options personally

funny you mention whelan and houghton i rememeber someone at the time making an observation about them, when they are in a green shirt, they are "lumping it forward" and in a red it becomes a 'picking the player out from distance'... i don't deny that there were different styles, and certainly liverpool were prettier to watch but it was an interesting comment nonetheless

Leaving o'leary out made sense; mccarthy to kick, head, bite anything that came in from the air and mcgrath to sweep up around him - yer pallister bruce type combo.... except in mccarthy you obv had a player of very limited capability, but he was given a simple job...

 

[sleaterkinney]

i don't deny that it was route 1 - i just never, contrary to what people tell us, found route 1 to be synonymous with dull football particularly. I'm not sure what people mean by 'unimaginative' when describing football... its a simple game you can pass the ball 1 of 3 ways - forward, sideways or back - i never found passing the ball forwards to be the most negative of those options personally

It is totally. I mean 'unimaginative' in terms of tactics to break the opposition down, to use the player's skills, I'll start up a poll to see if most people agree. imo removing the backpass was the best thing they ever did for football.

funny you mention whelan and houghton i rememeber someone at the time making an observation about them, when they are in a green shirt, they are "lumping it forward" and in a red it becomes a 'picking the player out from distance'... i don't deny that there were different styles, and certainly liverpool were prettier to watch but it was an interesting comment nonetheless

Load of bollocks.

Leaving o'leary out made sense; mccarthy to kick, head, bite anything that came in from the air and mcgrath to sweep up around him - yer pallister bruce type combo.... except in mccarthy you obv had a player of very limited capability, but he was given a simple job...

I saw Charlton had a go at Rio Ferdinand in the paper this morning, claiming he passes the ball too much......

 

[Chorlton]

It is totally. I mean 'unimaginative' in terms of tactics to break the opposition down, to use the player's skills,

fair enough - I disagree strongly - and to go back to the original point - long ball IMO does not equal negative - you can have negative long ball game just as you can have a negative passing game. We'll agree to disagree i guess

Load of bollocks.

you've got me bang to rights there 'sleats' i don't actually remember anyone saying that - i made the whole thing up

I saw Charlton had a go at Rio Ferdinand in the paper this morning, claiming he passes the ball too much......

charlton talks a lot of balls

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

The bottom line is that if England play like they did in the irst 4 games, we will get completely mashed up by Portugal tomorrow. On the plus side, I don't think we will try and play like that. I hope we turn in a performance more like the cracking 4-2 against Croatia in Euro 2004, which I still maintain is the best England have played in a tournament since EUro 96...

 

[kyser_soze]

I've been half joking about the how the BBC post-match analysis would go if England won...

GL: 'So, on this utterly amazing day in Berlin, England have defied the odds and beaten Germany in a nailbiting finish. Alan, your thoughts?'

AH: 'Well, they might have got the wn but they were poor upfront, showed no coordination in midfield and were weak at the back, and Robinson showed his lack of talent by failing to save that 300MPH ball from Polodsky...'

Now I realise that U75 is an whole PUB FULL of Alan Hansens - even if we did win the trophy you'd still all be bitching and moaning about how they did it...

 

[Hollis]

Now I realise that U75 is an whole PUB FULL of Alan Hansens - even if we did win the trophy you'd still all be bitching and moaning about how they did it...

I am sorry. But you've hit on one of the great taboo subjects of football.

There's good and bad ways to win things.

 

[kyser_soze]

I am sorry. But you've hit on one of the great taboo subjects of football.

There's good and bad ways to win things.

?

TBH this reminds me of the 'It's not the winning it's the participation' crap - of course it's the fucking winning, that's the whole point of competitive sports.

Now, if there were some kind of secondary award for style points that had some affect on the overall outcome there'd be a point, but there aren't in football - you win by scoring one more than the team you're opposing, not by looking pretty.

 

[Biffo]

England won the rubgy world cup in a very boring, unimaginative way. The All Blacks were playing great rugby but got knocked out. England ground out a result against Australia in the final and they were the world champions. Not many people remember the lack of style with which they won it. Only that they won it. But the truly great teams that are held in high regard win things in style - eg 70s Brazil, 80s Liverpool, late 90s Utd.

 

[Hollis]

?

TBH this reminds me of the 'It's not the winning it's the participation' crap - of course it's the fucking winning, that's the whole point of competitive sports.

Now, if there were some kind of secondary award for style points that had some affect on the overall outcome there'd be a point, but there aren't in football - you win by scoring one more than the team you're opposing, not by looking pretty.

Indeed. You are taking a rather absolutist position. Of course it is the winning that matters.. and there is more than 1 way to achieve this. But people remember the great wins and great teams! See it also matters how you define 'winning'.

 

[kyser_soze]

But the truly great teams that are held in high regard win things in style - eg 70s Brazil, 80s Liverpool, late 90s Utd.

All of those teams were also consistent winners as well tho - not just 'one off' winners but they've proven they can win again and again.

But as I said, even winning the tournament wouldn't be enough for some, would it? Which for my money is ridiculous, sorry.

 

[Balbi]

Indeed. You are taking a rather absolutist position.

 

[kyser_soze]

^^^

Very good

 

[Hollis]

All of those teams were also consistent winners as well tho - not just 'one off' winners but they've proven they can win again and again.

But as I said, even winning the tournament wouldn't be enough for some, would it? Which for my money is ridiculous, sorry.

Why? Implicit in your argument is that once you win, things can't get any better! This is patent nonsense!!! There's winning and winning in style - that's all we're saying.

 

[maximilian ping]

I am a strong advocate of "It's how you play the game"

Would rather we won while playing beautiful intelligent entertaining football then win playing dull boring unimaginative football even at a greater risk of losing.

My biggest complaint about Sven is the tactics he has of scoring a single goal then sitting back for the rest of the game. Most of the draws that England currently have on our score sheet are games in which we were dominating went 1-0 up and could have easily won 2 or 3-0 but instead sat back for 89 minutes and watched the opposition score in the dying seconds of the game to snatch a draw.

It is a horrible game to watch.

totally agree. play well or fuck off

 

[goldenecitrone]

To be honest, if we are going to have any chance of winning it from now on we're going to have to start playing like the first half against Sweden the whole time. If not, we're out.

 

[Streathamite]

?

TBH this reminds me of the 'It's not the winning it's the participation' crap - of course it's the fucking winning, that's the whole point of competitive sports.

Now, if there were some kind of secondary award for style points that had some affect on the overall outcome there'd be a point, but there aren't in football - you win by scoring one more than the team you're opposing, not by looking pretty.

nail, head, hit.

 

[Hollis]

nail, head, hit.

I think we could guarantee an Arsenal supporter saying that style doesn't matter.

 

[Yossarian]

I don't think there's much chance of it, but I'd rather see England winning playing ugly than losing playing beautiful football - they're there to win things for the English, not to entertain the Scots!

 

[Rollem]

totally agree. play well or fuck off

so if we play shit and win the cup you wont be partying with the rest of us then?

 

[maximilian ping]

so if we play shit and win the cup you wont be partying with the rest of us then?

there is no way they can win it playing as shit as they have done - its impossible. so if they do win, it will mean they have started to play football, so i'll be happy ever after

 

[zed]

I don't see how playing attractive football and winning are mutually exclusive ...as this thread seems to suggest. I guess it also depends how you define attractive.

My definition of attractive is attacking at every opportunity, not being totally defensive minded (maybe only sitting back a bit when there is a 2 goal lead) and, most importantly, being able to pass to a player wearing the same coloured shirt.

Even teams like Italy and Germany, when they have been accused of winning ugly, have been very good at keeping the ball, good at finishing and handling pressure.

Playing like England often play, it is normally only a matter of time before they get beat ...or if they don't get beat, then get to the end of extra time with the scores still level. Unfortunately for England, that scenario normally amounts to the same thing.

History has taught me to expect more of the same today. Either something insipid or glorious failure. Hope I'm wrong.