[Archived] Does Style Matter?

[philipl]

Interesting that this thread is not a split between lovers of hoofball and lovers of Arsenal- everyone proclaims not to be a fan of hoofball unless it is absolutely needed to get the points on the board.

It is a split between those who seem to have swallowed Sam's previous media reputation unquestioningly and those who are mightily grateful we are still watching Prem football at Ewood and are willing to wait to see what sort of football Sam fashions out of a side with his own signings in it.

[Commondore]

I can't believe you're using West Brom as an example to back up some of the idiots in this thread.

West Brom played some nice stuff but they ultimately failed. Stoke on the other hand played some horrible hoofball, worse than Allardyce, and they stayed up and are competing against the big boys for one more season. "Only three points from survival" FFS. Remember the only reason why we were even down there was thanks to Ince's attempts to play pretty triangles, had we played under Allardyce all season we wouldve been around 10th and West Brom wouldnt have even come near us.

For some people to say that Sam has had the chance to sort out the midfield problem is rubbish. He had a small amount of money in January, he used this to sign Diouf who's becoming a Blackburn End favourite. He loaned in Givet who was excellent and then signed him full time this summer. Getting the defence solid is probably the most important key to survival.

This summer we needed a new striker after RSC left, we signed Kalinic which used up most of our funds. After signing Givet up and a few small transfers (one of which was N'Zonzi who could become a great addition) he's had the money supply cut off. Considering the sort of player we're after would cost at least £5m if we want some sort of assured quality, how on earth do they think that Sam's had a chance to sort out our midfield problem?

Like I and many others have said, nothing beats the joy of seeing your side win. We were unlucky to lose against a team of stars assembled at a massive price on Saturday, and with all sorts of injuries too. Doesn't take long to get the anti-Sam brigade out against the man who saved us from oblivion does it?

And what is it that says that couldn't have been achieved by trying to play some football? Or even better? As I said before, everyone seems so into the idea that you HAVE to play like 10 hulks to have any chance of one more season of midtable-mediocrity. West Brom is not an example of how an attacking game always fails, theyr'e an example of how a (slightly) better squad could have achieved a lot better with a similar gameplan. To play positive, attacking football is not the sole privilege of 4-5 clubs!

[spencey7]

And what is it that says that couldn't have been achieved by trying to play some football? Or even better? As I said before, everyone seems so into the idea that you HAVE to play like 10 hulks to have any chance of one more season of midtable-mediocrity. West Brom is not an example of how an attacking game always fails, theyr'e an example of how a (slightly) better squad could have achieved a lot better with a similar gameplan. To play positive, attacking football is not the sole privilege of 4-5 clubs!

You'd certainly think that was the case. People seem to be incapable of accepting that there is middle ground between "hit-and-hope" and Arsenal.

The more I think about this, the more the "split" seems to be between those who actually appreciate football, and those who prefer all the other things that come with supporting a team - the adrenaline, the tribalism and (especially) the rivalry.

Interesting.

[tony gale's mic]

And what is it that says that couldn't have been achieved by trying to play some football? Or even better? As I said before, everyone seems so into the idea that you HAVE to play like 10 hulks to have any chance of one more season of midtable-mediocrity. West Brom is not an example of how an attacking game always fails, theyr'e an example of how a (slightly) better squad could have achieved a lot better with a similar gameplan. To play positive, attacking football is not the sole privilege of 4-5 clubs!

We didn't play like "10 hulks" all the time either. Granted sometimes Samba was played up top and it wasn't pretty but with so many injuries to our strikers we didn't have many options did we?

I think all of us appreciate football, I'd love to see us playing great football. But to play pretty football you need players with pace and creativity, and those players generally cost more money, unless you get a real steal like we did with Tugay. Where do you suggest that money comes from? Which out of our current midfield do you think could be utilised in a side playing pretty football? Keith Andrews? Vince Grella? Your argument makes no sense, and to side yourself with a nutjob like spencey probably isn't the wisest move.

West Brom's squad wasn't any worse than Stoke's, it was arguably better, yet Stoke easily stayed up whereas West Brom looked certs to go down for most of the season and the 3 point difference was only because of a late rally. Again, if you're using them as an example of why we should have tried to play nicer football last season, then you really do have your arguments all mixed up.

Playing pretty football would be lovely, but we dont have the players in midfield to do it right now, unless you can name players in our current side who would fit playing that sort of system. We needed to buy a new striker, we did and now there's no more money, so it's not like we have the money to bring players in who could do the job. And I'd much rather see us comfortably stay up and play the Allardyce way, than get relegated playing the Tony Mowbray way.

[bellamy11]

The more I think about this, the more the "split" seems to be between those who actually appreciate football, and those who prefer all the other things that come with supporting a team - the adrenaline, the tribalism and (especially) the rivalry.

Interesting.

I think that's what it comes down to.

Would you describe yourself as a football fan first, and a Rovers fan second?

[Parsonblue]

Sorry spencey7 but your're wrong again. Although I've supported the club for almost 50 years that doesn't make me tribal in anyway. I appreciate good football as much as yourself. However, over those years of supporting the Rovers I have discovered that at times you have to cut your cloth accordingly. As I said to you before, I found Saturday's game very entertaining. Far from "hit and hope", as you describe it, I found it a good mix of intricate passing and more direct play.

While I appreciate that you have your own views, to suggest that those who are happy to support Sam's approach are incapable of appreciating good football is absolute rubbish. It is your condescending attitude that is beginning to rub people up the wrong way. By all means argue your point of view. But you must also appreciate that others don't share your view. That doesn't make you right and others wrong. It means that football can be played in different ways and people can appreciate different things about the game.

[tcj_jones]

Something that really bothers me when this discussion turns up, in one incarnation or another, is the argument that "style-football" is for a maximum of 6-8 teams in the whole world, while the rest of us has to depend on hoofball to survive. Look at West Brom last season, their squad was way below ours in width, skill, quality and worth and yet they where only three points from surviving while constantly trying to play attacking football with the ball firmly on the ground. A slightly better squad would not have gone down, and an even more slightly better squad would hav achieved even better things.

You've totally undermined your own argument by citing West Brom as an example. Name me another side that have succeeded by playing nice fancy football without the money and with the personnel to back it up and who have succeeded? Wigan might try it this season, but they'll almost certainly be involved in a relegation scrap. A slightly better side might have stayed up, but then that side might have done considerably better playing a more direct game.

Outside of the top four, only Spurs really try to play a nice fluid passing game, but they also mix it up a lot and, regardless, have cash to burn. Even City played a lot of long balls. You need to find a medium and build a side capable of playing some nice fluid football but also adept at mixing it up with long balls and taking advantage of set pieces.

[spencey7]

Would you describe yourself as a football fan first, and a Rovers fan second?

Of course not, I am a fan of Blackburn Rovers FOOTBALL Club. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but the Allardyce approach has nothing to do with football.

I found Saturday's game very entertaining. Far from "hit and hope", as you describe it, I found it a good mix of intricate passing and more direct play.

If you honestly think you saw any of this, I would attest that you are insane. It's now a close-run thing between us and Stoke as to who is the ugliest team in the Premier League.

Let me get this straight:

Depressing, aimless, percentage-based, unambitious long-ball football = "Comfortably" staying up.

&

Any attempt to do otherwise and actually try to pass the ball = Certain relegation.

Does that sound about right?

[tony gale's mic]

Of course not, I am a fan of Blackburn Rovers FOOTBALL Club. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but the Allardyce approach has nothing to do with football.

Both are football you bloody twerp. Sure one looks better and we'd all rather see something more attractive, but if you can name some players in our side (specifically our midfield) capable of supplying the pace and creativity which are pretty much essential to create pretty football then have a go. Even then we're crippled with injuries in midfield. When Tugay and Bellamy were in our side we had both, but our current side doesn't really have the players capable of doing this, and buying in players with these qualities is usually expensive unless you get really lucky.

And it's not like Sam's had the chance to bring in much of a midfield, little to spend in January, he spent this summer on an excellent defender in Givet and a RSC replacement in Kalinic.

[Big Fat Sam]

This whole debate over our style of play is doing my head in.

Will someone please tell me what two central midfield players we have in our squad who can play. Who can pass, ping it 40+ yards??? No one thats who we've got. So lets get the ball down and play like Arsenal, but when you play that way you need a strong central midfield they are crucial to the whole system. Hang on we haven't got a single midfielder who can play so could we pull it off, highly doubtful.

The role of the manager is to develop a system that SUITS THE STRENGTHS OF THE PLAYERS AT HIS DISPOSAL. So whats Sam done??? Exactly that.

I'm sure the style will develop more as he gets in more players in the future, midfielder next please Sam. But when you've got no money to spend it takes time IE 1-2 years. What we saw was better than last years, easily. So its developing but rome wasn't built in a day.

Patience seems to be so lacking in some these days. He's been here 9 months only.

[philipl]

Judging by the reaction to Salgado's signing, this debate is dead ad buried!

[spencey7]

Both are football you bloody twerp. Sure one looks better and we'd all rather see something more attractive, but if you can name some players in our side (specifically our midfield) capable of supplying the pace and creativity which are pretty much essential to create pretty football then have a go. Even then we're crippled with injuries in midfield. When Tugay and Bellamy were in our side we had both, but our current side doesn't really have the players capable of doing this, and buying in players with these qualities is usually expensive unless you get really lucky.

If Allardyce had any ambition to improve the midfield he would have made efforts to do so by now. Lest we forget it was on his watch that a bid was turned down for Keith Andrews (and we gave him a contract extension/pay rise).

I'm really puzzled by everyone who deems blistering pace as a necessity for any team trying to pass a football.

All this talk of "using the strengths of the players at his disposal" is nonsense - is it not a little convenient that he has instilled EXACTLY THE SAME APPROACH at every club he's ever managed?

P.S. Ease up on the insults, we're grown-ups.

[Parsonblue]

Of course not, I am a fan of Blackburn Rovers FOOTBALL Club. The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but the Allardyce approach has nothing to do with football.

If you honestly think you saw any of this, I would attest that you are insane.

Unlike your good self I was at Ewood Park on Saturday actually watching the match. Perhaps you missed some of the "footballing" bits because you spent Saturday afternoon typing snide comments about the club you say you support. We obviously have different ideas about what supporting a club means. Clearly it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with you as anyone with a different viewpoint you describe as "insane". Perhaps you would be happier with the other glory hunters at Old Trafford. You certainly don't give the impression of having the interests of Blackburn Rovers at heart. I think your hatred of Big Sam is clearly more important to you than the success of Blackburn Rovers.

[tony gale's mic]

If Allardyce had any ambition to improve the midfield he would have made efforts to do so by now. Lest we forget it was on his watch that a bid was turned down for Keith Andrews (and we gave him a contract extension/pay rise).

I'm really puzzled by everyone who deems blistering pace as a necessity for any team trying to pass a football.

All this talk of "using the strengths of the players at his disposal" is nonsense - is it not a little convenient that he has instilled EXACTLY THE SAME APPROACH at every club he's ever managed?

P.S. Ease up on the insults, we're grown-ups.

Really? With what money? I have to say I think we should have accepted that bid for KA, but then with £2m we wouldnt have found someone much better than him unless we got really lucky. And even if we did, chances are that calibre of player would still play in a similar fashion to the rest of our midfield as players who have more flair generally do cost a little more.

Pace and creativity are both massively helpful for teams wanting to play attractive football. If you want to play a player into space rather than pass it to his feet as often happens with flowing football, it really helps if he has pace. If you want to play a pinpoint pass and have your striker beat the offside trap, it really helps if he has pace.

It's not so much an insult, I genuinely think you must be pretty lacking in basic intelligence to carry on this argument.

[Commondore]

We didn't play like "10 hulks" all the time either. Granted sometimes Samba was played up top and it wasn't pretty but with so many injuries to our strikers we didn't have many options did we?

I think all of us appreciate football, I'd love to see us playing great football. But to play pretty football you need players with pace and creativity, and those players generally cost more money, unless you get a real steal like we did with Tugay. Where do you suggest that money comes from? Which out of our current midfield do you think could be utilised in a side playing pretty football? Keith Andrews? Vince Grella? Your argument makes no sense, and to side yourself with a nutjob like spencey probably isn't the wisest move.

West Brom's squad wasn't any worse than Stoke's, it was arguably better, yet Stoke easily stayed up whereas West Brom looked certs to go down for most of the season and the 3 point difference was only because of a late rally. Again, if you're using them as an example of why we should have tried to play nicer football last season, then you really do have your arguments all mixed up.

Playing pretty football would be lovely, but we dont have the players in midfield to do it right now, unless you can name players in our current side who would fit playing that sort of system. We needed to buy a new striker, we did and now there's no more money, so it's not like we have the money to bring players in who could do the job. And I'd much rather see us comfortably stay up and play the Allardyce way, than get relegated playing the Tony Mowbray way.

I'm not sure that "staying up comfortably" and "playing the Allardyce way" will be the same thing this season. However, Sam Allardyce has never cared about who plays in his central midfield since they will see very little of the ball anyway, the most important thing is to have a big lump up front.

Anyway, his is not about sam Allardyce managing us, this is about us playing a lifeles imitation of football when there is no need to. Teams like Villa, Fulham and West Ham has moved forward in the table (strange enough no one of those teams talks about "beating the teams around us to stay up") by playing effective, attacking and utterly watchable football.

[67splitscreen]

Judging by the reaction to Salgado's signing, this debate is dead ad buried!

"Does style matter" I was just going to post, ask Michel Salgado.

[Kelbo]

Spency wrote "I'm really puzzled by everyone who deems blistering pace as a necessity for any team trying to pass a football"

Iam really puzzled as to how you come to that conclusion, I quote Alan Hansen, 'When I played pace was an asset, now its a neccessity'

[Paul]

If you honestly think you saw any of this, I would attest that you are insane. It's now a close-run thing between us and Stoke as to who is the ugliest team in the Premier League.

Let me get this straight:

Depressing, aimless, percentage-based, unambitious long-ball football = "Comfortably" staying up.

&

Any attempt to do otherwise and actually try to pass the ball = Certain relegation.

Does that sound about right?

spencey you're entitled to your opinion along with everyone else. However this is pure garbage. TV / feeds can give a very different, and often inaccurate, view of the game, and as you are unable to visit Ewood you really should listen a little to those who are there week in, week out. It's only by seeing the game live one can get a clear view of how a team is playing. I'm not overjoyed by the prospect of the football we will play on occassions this season but Parson Blue is quite correct Saturday's game was very entertaining and involved both long ball and passing. It was a good mix and suggests Sam is perhaps looking to have the team playing in the style according to how each game develops.

[Exiled in Toronto]

spencey you're entitled to your opinion along with everyone else. However this is pure garbage. TV / feeds can give a very different, and often inaccurate, view of the game, and as you are unable to visit Ewood you really should listen a little to those who are there week in, week out. It's only by seeing the game live one can get a clear view of how a team is playing. I'm not overjoyed by the prospect of the football we will play on occassions this season but Parson Blue is quite correct Saturday's game was very entertaining and involved both long ball and passing. It was a good mix and suggests Sam is perhaps looking to have the team playing in the style according to how each game develops.

Can't agree with this. I must have seen well over 1000 rovers games at the ground and 200 games on television. Yes, there are differences: at the ground is far better to judge the overall contribution of a player who you can focus on for as long as you like, but anything involving the ball is better on tv: you have a perfect view and multiple replays whereas at the ground you can be 130 yards away with a fat bloke standing up in front of you at the crucial moment and then its gone. So comments about how we used the ball are certainly not more valid from those at the ground.

Back to the debate, entertaining is a judgment, not an absolute. I see nothing incompatible between both Spencey's and Parson Blue's comments. I can't stand Tom Cruise and refuse to watch his movies on tv, but many find him entertaining. I am not wrong - he does not entertain me.

The thing which occurred to me while watching Burnley was how well they used their limited possession with their limited skills. We, on the other hand, treat possession very cavalierly. For example: Pedersen's long throw ins take a situation where 9 times out of 10 we would keep possession in the top third of the pitch and change them into a situation where 9 times out of 10 we fail to get possession from the throw for the supposed benefit that probably 1 in 200 times we scuff a goal; in fact I can only think of one so far - Andrews equaliser against West Ham. Some might find the throws exciting but I do not as nearly every time we give away possession. Percentage football at its worst for me. As to the passing, we have poor players who can't pass or dribble, so it's a bit of a moot point.

[hi-jaq]

"Does style matter" I was just going to post, ask Michel Salgado.

Dont need to ask him... Just check out his hair do, that I believe says all it needs to about Michel Salgado & style!!!

I reckon at the end of the day, it comes down to results... How we play is always going to be a talking point, but as long as we win I dont really care. We have seen it in games last season, in the first half of some matches we started with the long ball tactics, it didnt work so we changed & started keeping the ball on the floor. In the matches I saw when we did this it helped us get a result.

If we play quick football & pass it around on the floor, use the wingers & get the ball into the strikers feet then great, but if the said striker turns & has a mammoth centre half up his backside & looses the ball then its pointless. If then we start banging long balls into the corners for our new speedie wingers (Hoilett / Van Heerden) to chase so they can get a cross into the box, or we go a little more direct & pressure the opposition centre halfs with long balls into the box, either hoping for them to make a mistake or to pick up any loose touches then great... But at the end of the day if we dont score we have to get up & go again.

We have to be able to try every tactic in the book to get that goal & by the looks of things we have pretty much all the cards up our sleeves... Pace, strength, arial ability, in some cases we have some players with great technical ability, but since Tugay has now left, we lack a central midfielder with the ability to retain the ball & creativity to pick the right pass. I have every confidence that when Sam finds his man, he will get him, but for now the lack of funds is hindering that process.

Style is a matter of opinion, I just want us to win. I hate it when we go up against other sides & they 'do a number' on us, or just set up right tactically & no matter what we do, we dont get it right & they beat us. If we have the right players to bring off the bench to change the style of play in a way that will affect the game & get us the result, then I for one dont care what the style is... as long as we win.

Arte et Labore!!!

[Paul]

Can't agree with this. I must have seen well over 1000 rovers games at the ground and 200 games on television. Yes, there are differences: at the ground is far better to judge the overall contribution of a player who you can focus on for as long as you like, but anything involving the ball is better on tv: you have a perfect view and multiple replays whereas at the ground you can be 130 yards away with a fat bloke standing up in front of you at the crucial moment and then its gone. So comments about how we used the ball are certainly not more valid from those at the ground.

I certainly take your point on this as regards anything involving the ball and the finer detail of an incident. I do think though the overall pattern of the game can only be fully appreciated at the ground and this is the area, I think, spencey7 is discussing. On many occassions I've spoken to non-Rovers fans after a live match who have commented how good / bad the game was only to find my view, having been there, is the complete opposite.

Back to the debate, entertaining is a judgment, not an absolute. I see nothing incompatible between both Spencey's and Parson Blue's comments. I can't stand Tom Cruise and refuse to watch his movies on tv, but many find him entertaining. I am not wrong - he does not entertain me.

Again agree but the difference here is spencey is telling us the team were playing a long ball game against City and it was very poor. I was there and I know this to be far from true. If anything City played more long balls than Rovers, mostly to Bellamy, a tactic we employed frequently under Hughes. It wasn't rubbish football then and hasn't been described as such after Saturday, however if Rovers attempt a long ball it's rubbish in spencey's view. This simply doesn't make sense. An opinion to be valid surely has to have some rationale?

The thing which occurred to me while watching Burnley was how well they used their limited possession with their limited skills. We, on the other hand, treat possession very cavalierly. For example: Pedersen's long throw ins take a situation where 9 times out of 10 we would keep possession in the top third of the pitch and change them into a situation where 9 times out of 10 we fail to get possession from the throw for the supposed benefit that probably 1 in 200 times we scuff a goal; in fact I can only think of one so far - Andrews equaliser against West Ham. Some might find the throws exciting but I do not as nearly every time we give away possession. Percentage football at its worst for me. As to the passing, we have poor players who can't pass or dribble, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Spot on. I just don't understand these long throws. I can't recall a single occassion since Sam's arrival when the long throw has created any sort of opportunity for Rovers. All this tactic does is hand the advantage to the opposing defenders. Why Allardyce can't see this is beyond me.

[tcj_jones]

As with anything else, I believe that long throws are useful, but in moderation. It's good to mix things up, but not to resort to them constantly.

[thenodrog]

As with anything else, I believe that long throws are useful, but in moderation. It's good to mix things up, but not to resort to them constantly.

As it is with long balls. As I've said frequently the best goal that I saw last season was a 'hoof' from Carragher in his own half to Torres in our penalty area. It's the long hanging balls from deep that are meat and drink to opposing centre halves that I don't think are ever very productive .... and especially so now that RSC has gone.

[Exiled in Toronto]

As it is with long balls. As I've said frequently the best goal that I saw last season was a 'hoof' from Carragher in his own half to Torres in our penalty area. It's the long hanging balls from deep that are meat and drink to opposing centre halves that I don't think are ever very productive .... and especially so now that RSC has gone.

It's the same problem with the throws. Pedersen is not Delap, whose throws have plenty of pace on them when they reach the 6 yard box such that a deflection will easily score, as Burnley found out the hard way. Pedersen's however have lost all forward momentum by then and give the likes of Samba an impossible job to do anything with it, even assuming it reached his head. And all the ostentatious ball-wiping must waste 5 mins per game. Exciting my arse.

[mellison24]

Spot on. I just don't understand these long throws. I can't recall a single occassion since Sam's arrival when the long throw has created any sort of opportunity for Rovers. All this tactic does is hand the advantage to the opposing defenders. Why Allardyce can't see this is beyond me.

Didn't Keith Andrews' equaliser against west ham at home result from a long throw from the left wing due to a knock-down?