[Archived] Entertainment or Result Is All That Matters?

[TimmyJimmy]

Get to 40 points by playing winning football (warts and all) then, once safe, play expansive entertaining football. To do both straight away needs a much better squad than we have or are ever likely to have. Assess the squad and get them to do what they do best, if that means kick and run so be it. During the transfer windows slowly start to replace the personnel with better players and slowly start to change your game, it takes time. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and we really don't have a good footballing squad right now.

[John]

For someone who has been to more away games in recent months, it is still all about results for me.

Cannot beat the pride/satisfaction of winning a game – plus good results will obviously ensure a decent final league table position which again is something which makes me feel very good/happy about our club.

I remember when we finished last season in 10th, firstly I could not believe it myself that we finished there (given the quality of our squad), but it also got neutrals talking about us again and not wanting to play us.

[Amo]

Given the choice of finishing 10th with Big Sam's football, or finishing 15th with a season of memorable nights, I'd take the latter. While football is a results business, it is still inherently a sport. The Romans loved watching a good mauling, but they expected to be entertained along the way. With my faith in football gradually evaporating, Rovers are on my only solace in the game and I want to enjoy watching them. Watching Sam's functional, percentage-game did nothing to help that.

[Exiled in Toronto]

Not sure I accept the premise of the question: that they are a trade-off.

While I can think of a few exceptions, most times when we win it's because we played better than the opposition. I enjoy the result and the manner of it. Most times when we lose, it's because we got outplayed. Wigan outplayed us in my view. Sometimes you get the daylight robbery games but they are just what keeps it interesting.

And thank you to the usual suspects for turning yet another thread into Sam/Kean/Venkys - it really does enhance the discussion

[JAL]

This is a stupid thread, of course its the result and along with that comes the entertainment.

[DannyKeg]

Results first, entertainment is the icing on the cake, very nice if you can afford it.

[Parsonblue]

And thank you to the usual suspects for turning yet another thread into Sam/Kean/Venkys - it really does enhance the discussion

I think you'll find Exiled that the opening post by BRFCS News stated that Sam was sacked because the owners wanted a more exciting brand of football. The question was then asked if entertainment or the result mattered most. As the thread opened with a comparison between Sam's pragmatic approach that garnered points at home as opposed to a more fluent, attacking style adopted by Kean that has brought mixed results it seems only natural that people should compare the two.

As to your other point I wouldn't disagree. If you play well you usually get decent results, as our home record over the past twelve months proved. If you play badly you usually end up on the receiving end of a defeat, again as our away record over the past twelve months has proved.

The trick for Kean will be to maintain Sam's excellent home record while trying to improve on the away record. Hopefully improving performances away from Ewood Park will result in more points being won. However, I don't think that necessarily means adopting a more open style of football but improving the way the team as a whole defends.

[Exiled in Toronto]

I think you'll find Exiled that the opening post by BRFCS News stated that Sam was sacked because the owners wanted a more exciting brand of football. The question was then asked if entertainment or the result mattered most. As the thread opened with a comparison between Sam's pragmatic approach that garnered points at home as opposed to a more fluent, attacking style adopted by Kean that has brought mixed results it seems only natural that people should compare the two.

But we must resist these temptations!

[chris]

But we must resist these temptations!

Are you playing taboo?

[Steve Moss]

Get to 40 points by playing winning football (warts and all) then, once safe, play expansive entertaining football.

I think this is the way to go, in the main. Results are the primary focus. Entertainment a distant second.

The biggest compliment that I can give Sam is that he was more than a one trick pony. He knew how to play expansive football and he knew how to play 'hoofball'. It is a complete misconception that we never played the good stuff under his management. He could and would mix it up when it suited him.

The biggest criticism I can assess against Sam is that he never found the right balance, in my opinion. We could have played a more attacking game more frequently. A few more 4-3-3 attacking formations each season and he'd probably still be the manager. He focused almost exclusively on results and forgot the secondary consideration was also a consideration, even if only distant.

[Iceman]

Given the choice of finishing 10th with Big Sam's football, or finishing 15th with a season of memorable nights, I'd take the latter. While football is a results business, it is still inherently a sport. The Romans loved watching a good mauling, but they expected to be entertained along the way. With my faith in football gradually evaporating, Rovers are on my only solace in the game and I want to enjoy watching them. Watching Sam's functional, percentage-game did nothing to help that.

Cmon Toppers, seriously now. Ugly, scrappy, hoofball 1-0 wins, to get us into Europe or a cup final, over entertaing nothing to show for it football any day of the week.

This was mentioned so many times by me, but I would rather play ugly football, and stay up, than entertaing football and going down. We just don't have, the squad to play the expansive game. It was important, that Venkys kept Sam, and then allow him either to adopt a more entertaining game or fire him in the summer. We had bad results under Sam, but we felt more secure of staying up under him. I just don't get that feeling with Kean, but I do hope he gets it right. Imo, he should have tried for Ray Wilkins as an assistant.

[67splitscreen]

Given the choice of finishing 10th with Big Sam's football, or finishing 15th with a season of memorable nights, I'd take the latter. While football is a results business, it is still inherently a sport. The Romans loved watching a good mauling, but they expected to be entertained along the way. With my faith in football gradually evaporating, Rovers are on my only solace in the game and I want to enjoy watching them. Watching Sam's functional, percentage-game did nothing to help that.

-£4m in place money how long could we sustain that, as our last manager said, it's not all about what happens on the pitch.

Any how back to the OP, Results first and foremost with out those we will be for ever, also rans.

[jim mk2]

Silly question and a silly topic. Winning is the be-all and end-all in any sport. Entertainment is secondary.

This is what I liked about Sam's reign. Although he was naturally a pragmatic and cautious manager whose first instinct was to set up his teams not to lose, once his teams were ahead they invariably then played a more expansive game which was better to watch than Mark Hughes's teams. Perfect man and perfect manager for Blackburn Rovers.

Until he lost the plot in the last 12 months of his reign Graeme Souness's teams were good to watch - the Uefa match at Celtic is one of best Rovers performances I have seen in 50 plus years of watching the club but unfortunately ended in a 1-0 defeat so perfectly illustrating why in the end the result is all that matters.

Steve Kean please note.

[chris]

but Ray Wilkins was clueless as a manager, should he be giving an unexperienced Manager advice?

He is probably better under a decent manager who can say " I know better"

[CrazyIvan]

The biggest criticism I can assess against Sam is that he never found the right balance, in my opinion. We could have played a more attacking game more frequently. A few more 4-3-3 attacking formations each season and he'd probably still be the manager. He focused almost exclusively on results and forgot the secondary consideration was also a consideration, even if only distant.

This last bit came across really clearly in his comments on Goals on Sunday this past weekend. The key consideration in his mind is first and foremost the result. He stated that as West Brom were 3-0 up at half time, they should have just defended that position. He also said that the fans had 'had their entertainment' in that they were 3-0 up. He's right up to a point but you tell me whether we, as Rovers fans, would have been entirely happy watching our players sit back and defend everything in the second half? I don't think so because I've seen the fans get upset before when we've been in a similar position before. There has to be a balance to this though. I would say 75-25 in result v entertainment in my opinion.

[RibbleValleyRover]

There need to be a balance between both entertainment and results. Results are what keep you in the division and challenging for any honours. At the same time you can't underestimate the importance of entertainment, a lack of entertainment on show will have an impact on:

1- Bums on seats.

2- Getting players in during transfer windows.

3- Attracting sponsors.

4- Increasing your fanbase, especially abroad.

5- Merchandising opportunities.

To answer the OP's question I think both are important.

[jim mk2]

This last bit came across really clearly in his comments on Goals on Sunday this past weekend. The key consideration in his mind is first and foremost the result. He stated that as West Brom were 3-0 up at half time, they should have just defended that position. He also said that the fans had 'had their entertainment' in that they were 3-0 up. He's right up to a point but you tell me whether we, as Rovers fans, would have been entirely happy watching our players sit back and defend everything in the second half? I don't think so because I've seen the fans get upset before when we've been in a similar position before. There has to be a balance to this though. I would say 75-25 in result v entertainment in my opinion.

You should ask West Brom fans whether they are happy with a 3-3 draw having been 3-0 up. Sam is correct of course because in the end the result is all that matters, particularly in a relegation battle against one of your rivals for the drop. I haven't forgotten that Kean nearly threw away a 3-0 lead over Liverpool with his daft substitutions. Only Gerrard missing a penalty prevented a very nervy final period in that match.

[MarkBRFC71]

This last bit came across really clearly in his comments on Goals on Sunday this past weekend. The key consideration in his mind is first and foremost the result. He stated that as West Brom were 3-0 up at half time, they should have just defended that position. He also said that the fans had 'had their entertainment' in that they were 3-0 up. He's right up to a point but you tell me whether we, as Rovers fans, would have been entirely happy watching our players sit back and defend everything in the second half? I don't think so because I've seen the fans get upset before when we've been in a similar position before. There has to be a balance to this though. I would say 75-25 in result v entertainment in my opinion.

I wouldn't have an issue sitting back on a 3-0 lead - I'm not sure anyone would tbh. Under Sam though we'd sit back and play ultra-defensive, long-ball football when only 1-0 up, never mind 3-0. That was frustrating particularly when you could see some teams were there for the taking, and there were plenty of times where this put us under pressure as the ball kept coming back at us, leading to us conceding.

I'd go more 60/40 in the old result/entertainment ratio personally ....

[Neil Weaver]

Mark, you may want to dig out and have a read of the Wolves (h) game thread. I seem to remember quite a few posters (maybe not you, I really can't remember) saying 'why did we sit back and let Wolves back into the game? They were there for the taking'. That was 3-0 wasn't it?

[CrazyIvan]

Mark, you may want to dig out and have a read of the Wolves (h) game thread. I seem to remember quite a few posters (maybe not you, I really can't remember) saying 'why did we sit back and let Wolves back into the game? They were there for the taking'. That was 3-0 wasn't it?

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I was racking my brains to remember which game it was!

[blue_and_white]

There need to be a balance between both entertainment and results. Results are what keep you in the division and challenging for any honours. At the same time you can't underestimate the importance of entertainment, a lack of entertainment on show will have an impact on:

1- Bums on seats.

2- Getting players in during transfer windows.

3- Attracting sponsors.

4- Increasing your fanbase, especially abroad.

5- Merchandising opportunities.

To answer the OP's question I think both are important.

I seriously doubt 2,3 and 5 are affected by the subjective view of entertaining football as much as they are by winning. 3 and 5 particularly rely on exposure and winning is the only guaranteed way to achieve that. A lot of fans say good football is essential to 1 but attendances continually increased under Allardyce while our crowd against Liverpool was disturbingly low.

To me if we win then the atmosphere is better, people are in a better mood and you have the knowledge that your town and your club is on the rise in its importance in the national sport. If I wanted to watch some good football that I could analyse and thoughtfully appreciate, I'd watch one of the top teams on TV. If its a neutral match I care about the entertainemnt, if its Rovers then winning automatically is entertainment because of how important it is to me.

[CrazyIvan]

You should ask West Brom fans whether they are happy with a 3-3 draw having been 3-0 up. Sam is correct of course because in the end the result is all that matters, particularly in a relegation battle against one of your rivals for the drop. I haven't forgotten that Kean nearly threw away a 3-0 lead over Liverpool with his daft substitutions. Only Gerrard missing a penalty prevented a very nervy final period in that match.

I refer you to the Wolves match for that one... I, personally, think 3 - 0 up is ok and defending from there is ok but stopping the opportunistic charge forward because some of the midfield can't cross the halfway line (ala Wolves) is a bit ridiculous. Oh, just for info, the player that should have been marking Gerrard was EHD. He got a roasting when Gerrard scored because he just stood there and watched. Watch the highlights, you'll see what I mean.

[dubdubdub]

Sam is correct of course because in the end the result is all that matters

He wouldn't have been sacked if that was the case.

[jim mk2]

He wouldn't have been sacked if that was the case.

Silly comment. Sam's dismissal was nothing to do with results, and you know it.

[MarkBRFC71]

Mark, you may want to dig out and have a read of the Wolves (h) game thread. I seem to remember quite a few posters (maybe not you, I really can't remember) saying 'why did we sit back and let Wolves back into the game? They were there for the taking'. That was 3-0 wasn't it?

There's a difference though in sitting back at half time, against a team that will likely come out in the second half all guns blazing (as West Ham did) and trying to absorb that reaction (which West Brom naively did not), than sitting back in the last 15 minutes against a Wolves team who were dead on their arses, had pretty much given up and were there for the taking - until we invited them on to us.

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I was racking my brains to remember which game it was!

Never mind that. Can I just say that your avatar is awesome, and a wonderful thing to behold ....