[Archived] Entertainment or Result Is All That Matters?

[rebelmswar]

I reckon Maj, that no-one can answer/describe what entertaining football really is, without the end product being "result".

As I stated just before beer.

I took it that increasing level of importance would be understood.

[Majiball]

I reckon Maj, that no-one can answer/describe what entertaining football really is, without the end product being "result".

Your right at the end of the day it all comes back to one thing points. Despite entertainment value, I was very unhappy about Wigan away and the only thought still going round my head is how did we lose to them? Not how exciting it was or the end to end action just we lost when we should have won.

Results mean everything in football, it's a sport first not a TV show.

[rebelmswar]

And on another note, teams which we are expected to lose to - let them know they have been in a match, not a game.

I would rather have seven bleeding and dirty players left on our team than 11 clean pussys. If you are going to lose, lose with style.

[Veevs]

Don't get this topic at all.. sorry but entertainment without results isn't entertainment IMO.

We should be looking for a happy medium, and I believe that it is possible. The problem is in the last two games it looked like we tried too play football that was pleasing too the eye and failed, Wigan game did not call for neat little triangle passing in a swamp and at Newcastle we simply did not have the personel and as such lost all balance.

Given our strongest line up I reckon we can play good football.. the problem is our squad does not have the depth in terms of quality too be able too play that week in week out (against all opposition in all conditions) and it would be suicide too try it.

In terms of the debate in regards too Sam v Kean.. Sam was too far one way and Kean is looking like he is too far in the opposite direction. I do worry that the sacking of Sam has caused this.. The reason after all was stated by Venkys as style of football.. Keans given his chance and sees Sam fired after 10 games so goes too far in terms of entertainment, even when its obvious too all that conditions/opposition/available players do not facilitate the abiliy too cater for entertainment while still getting a result.

[Majiball]

And on another note, teams which we are expected to lose to - let them know they have been in a match, not a game.

I would rather have seven bleeding and dirty players left on our team than 11 clean pussys. If you are going to lose, lose with style.

I dunno?

I reckon the spoils would be better on the 'pussy' team & the changing rooms would be stimulating as well.

[rebelmswar]

I dunno?

I reckon the spoils would be better on the 'pussy' team & the changing rooms would be stimulating as well.

Is that a sausy joke there maj?

If so, I approve.

It could be seen as an incentive.

[rowz]

So? The numbers in a formation mean absolutely nothing, it's how they are applied. In reality a football pitch isn't split into three section, so you saying that means nothing really.

Look at Man Utd's first goal. Look how far up the pitch the wingers are - both Giggs and Nani get beyond Rooney, almost playing as wide strikers. In that situation they had three people in attack, not one. Had they played 4-4-2 then perhaps they would have only had two people in attack for that situation and not score the goal they did. It's all about application - get your midfielders high up and "one up front" can be more attacking, as Man Utd showed.

Most teams play one main striker because it allows for a more attacking midfield, which results in more fluid and more attractive football. One up front does not automatically equal negativity.

Arsenal also play with one main striker at home, but that's so they can push the likes of Walcott and Arshavin right up onto the opposition full backs, and give the likes of Fabregas much more freedom to play knowing that they have three central players. Look how many goals Nasri scores due to have more freedom afforded by a "one up front" system. Nothing negative in the slightest if it's applied correctly.

[rowz]

So? The numbers in a formation mean absolutely nothing, it's how they are applied. In reality a football pitch isn't split into three section, so you saying that means nothing really.

Look at Man Utd's first goal. Look how far up the pitch the wingers are - both Giggs and Nani get beyond Rooney, almost playing as wide strikers. In that situation they had three people in attack, not one. Had they played 4-4-2 then perhaps they would have only had two people in attack for that situation and not score the goal they did. It's all about application - get your midfielders high up and "one up front" can be more attacking, as Man Utd showed.

Most teams play one main striker because it allows for a more attacking midfield, which results in more fluid and more attractive football. One up front does not automatically equal negativity.

Arsenal also play with one main striker at home, but that's so they can push the likes of Walcott and Arshavin right up onto the opposition full backs, and give the likes of Fabregas much more freedom to play knowing that they have three central players. Look how many goals Nasri scores due to have more freedom afforded by a "one up front" system. Nothing negative in the slightest if it's applied correctly.

Who mentioned negative ? you play to your strengths in an effort to win every game but not at the expense of losing 4-3 every week.Arsenal do push the wingers on like trains -but how often do they both start ?. Berbatov was brought on in place of Anderson because they needed to score to win the game.I don't hear anyone asking Ferguson why he isn't playing a more entertaining formation -probably because most fans agree -winning is far more entertaining than losing.

[LeChuck]

Who mentioned negative ? you play to your strengths in an effort to win every game but not at the expense of losing 4-3 every week.Arsenal do push the wingers on like trains -but how often do they both start ?. Berbatov was brought on in place of Anderson because they needed to score to win the game.I don't hear anyone asking Ferguson why he isn't playing a more entertaining formation -probably because most fans agree -winning is far more entertaining than losing.

Sorry if I misunderstood your post, but I thought you were saying "one up front" as a way of showing results are more important. What else were you saying in that context?

I was saying "one up front" isn't more defensive than two up front. In fact it can be more attacking, Arsenal a perfect example. It's all about how you apply it. The Dutch have been doing it for decades. I'm arguing Man Utd/Arsenal etc. play "one up top" because it provides more entertaining football.

Personally I think a lone striker system brings more entertaining football than a 4-4-2. There is much more fluidity and more room for flair midfielders (you can play 3 attacking, skilful midfielders if you have 2 good holding players).

[Kelbo]

Sorry if I misunderstood your post, but I thought you were saying "one up front" as a way of showing results are more important. What else were you saying in that context?

I was saying "one up front" isn't more defensive than two up front. In fact it can be more attacking, Arsenal a perfect example. It's all about how you apply it. The Dutch have been doing it for decades. I'm arguing Man Utd/Arsenal etc. play "one up top" because it provides more entertaining football.

Personally I think a lone striker system brings more entertaining football than a 4-4-2. There is much more fluidity and more room for flair midfielders (you can play 3 attacking, skilful midfielders if you have 2 good holding players).

Yes, I would agree with that.

[JAL]

Kelbo you dont coach players to show inside or out, you should coach a player to win or take the ball off that player.

[tonyoz]

I challenge any one to define exactly, what "entertaining football" actually is.

I'll let a very wise man do that job:

Game: Last night was what football should be about. Exciting football, goals, taking on and beating the big boys. I thought Rovers as a team and as individuals were superb. I haven't enjoyed a game as much as that for a long time.

(Quote by den after the Liverpool game.)

Or to miquote Elmer Gantry:

"I know what entertaining football is because I've seen crap football dozens of times!"

[tonyoz]

Staying is this league IS the be all and end all, I have watched us in the lower leagues, I have spent Tuesday nights at Walsall, watched defeats at Port Vale, Grimsby, Tranmere et al. Lets not be nostalgic and romantic- it is DIRE down there.

Being in the PL allow us to have a presence, it attracts 27000 fans on the ground like last Saturday, it ensures our town club, a club from the very origin of the game is beamed around the world.

I agree with much of what you say but I have comments about the bits I have highlighted. Turning up to watch dire football week after week is depressing no matter which league we are in. I remember inviting friends to watch a pub Sky match with me last time I was in London. It was v Bolton away under Hughes. It certainly focuses the attention on your team's shortcomings when you have unbiased fans sat next to you. It was embarrassingly awful - and we actually won the match! Not that they noticed, they had long since turned away to savour the drink and chat about more exciting things.

We have impressively large gates considering our location but we do all but give the tickets away. (Don't get me wrong - I think it is a great initiative.) Like most people I accept that there has to be a balance between pragmatism and euphoria.

[Jimmy612]

I agree with much of what you say but I have comments about the bits I have highlighted. Turning up to watch dire football week after week is depressing no matter which league we are in. I remember inviting friends to watch a pub Sky match with me last time I was in London. It was v Bolton away under Hughes. It certainly focuses the attention on your team's shortcomings when you have unbiased fans sat next to you. It was embarrassingly awful - and we actually won the match! Not that they noticed, they had long since turned away to savour the drink and chat about more exciting things.

We have impressively large gates considering our location but we do all but give the tickets away. (Don't get me wrong - I think it is a great initiative.) Like most people I accept that there has to be a balance between pragmatism and euphoria.

I live in Manchester five days a week and have watched a number of Blackburn games with friends who are largely Citeh and Utd fans. Quite frankly what they think of Blackburn Rovers does not bother me in the slightest. Let them say we play crap football. Let Arsene Wenger say we kick seven bells out of his team, I couldn't care less what people think.

The most important thing for me is that my team, my Blackburn Rovers are playing in one of the best leagues in the world.

For me there is nothing better than walking out of Ewood Park, having won a game, enjoying a pint with my friends, and looking at the league table knowing we are 3 points closer to safety.

You're also criticising Blackburn under Hughes? I've heard all the rubbish about Allardyce, and soon brushed it off given the financial backing he gained and the superb job he did, but very rarely heard criticism of Hughes.

Would you like to highlight which particular game this was, and also where we finished at the end of that season.

If it was that embarrasingly awful, you best find a new hobby. Or perhaps come up with a method of surviving in the top flight whilst playing beautiful football with limited money

[Guest roverspogges]

Stupid question, obvious answers.

[tonyoz]

I live in Manchester five days a week and have watched a number of Blackburn games with friends who are largely Citeh and Utd fans. Quite frankly what they think of Blackburn Rovers does not bother me in the slightest. Let them say we play crap football. Let Arsene Wenger say we kick seven bells out of his team, I couldn't care less what people think.

The most important thing for me is that my team, my Blackburn Rovers are playing in one of the best leagues in the world.

For me there is nothing better than walking out of Ewood Park, having won a game, enjoying a pint with my friends, and looking at the league table knowing we are 3 points closer to safety.

You're also criticising Blackburn under Hughes? I've heard all the rubbish about Allardyce, and soon brushed it off given the financial backing he gained and the superb job he did, but very rarely heard criticism of Hughes.

Would you like to highlight which particular game this was, and also where we finished at the end of that season.

If it was that embarrasingly awful, you best find a new hobby. Or perhaps come up with a method of surviving in the top flight whilst playing beautiful football with limited money

That's all fine. We obviously have different priorities.

[dave birch]

Jimmy, there was considerable criticism of Hughes, maybe not from these boards, but from the general media about his style (or lack of it).

We were the thugs, if I remember rightly.

[bellamy11]

Stupid question, obvious answers.

I disagree. I think it's an interesting question that has facilitated some good discussion. It's certainly welcome amidst the pile of crap that unfortunately has filtered through a lot of the board recently.

Here's a sub-question:

If 'the result' (i.e. winning) is all that matters, would people not be happier in a lower division, where we are likely to win more matches and therefore go home happy more regularly?

[Mattyblue]

I disagree. I think it's an interesting question that has facilitated some good discussion. It's certainly welcome amidst the pile of crap that unfortunately has filtered through a lot of the board recently.

Here's a sub-question:

If 'the result' (i.e. winning) is all that matters, would people not be happier in a lower division, where we are likely to win more matches and therefore go home happy more regularly?

No, I would hate every minute of it, unless those wins were setting up a promition charge.

[Mercer]

Jimmy, there was considerable criticism of Hughes, maybe not from these boards, but from the general media about his style (or lack of it).

We were the thugs, if I remember rightly.

Does anyne remember the last 6 months of Hughes' reign ?

IMO, we were absolutely awful - I think Hughes' head had been turned by the Newcastle link and that focus was lost.

[roversmum]

Indeed, he just lost interest after the Manager of the Month award; that awful loss at Birmingham on the last day of the season sticks in my memory.

[CrazyIvan]

Does anyne remember the last 6 months of Hughes' reign ?

IMO, we were absolutely awful - I think Hughes' head had been turned by the Newcastle link and that focus was lost.

Post January and the lack of investment in that window killed off any desire Hughes had to be Rovers manager and you could see it in his management between then and the end of the season. Tie that in with Man City and all the investment money he could want... That last day game against Brum was telling, we'd just come back off honeymoon and went to the game. You could just tell by his demeanour in that match all was not well.

[den]

I'll let a very wise man do that job:

Game: Last night was what football should be about. Exciting football, goals, taking on and beating the big boys. I thought Rovers as a team and as individuals were superb. I haven't enjoyed a game as much as that for a long time.

(Quote by den after the Liverpool game.)

Or to miquote Elmer Gantry:

"I know what entertaining football is because I've seen crap football dozens of times!"

lol!

We played very well that night Tonyoz, but those quotes could be used to demonstrate that winning is everything. If we had passed the ball around just as well all evening, squandering a lot of good chances, while at the same time letting in sloppy goals, - would that have been entertaining? Would I have come home as happy? I certainly wouldn't. The pleasure was in taking on Liverpool, creating chances, scoring three times while at the same time defending exceptionally well and conceding just the one goal.

The pleasure, at the end of the day was in beating Liverpool. No?

[LWX]

That last day game against Brum was telling, we'd just come back off honeymoon and went to the game. You could just tell by his demeanour in that match all was not well.

I was at that game... Rovers were terrible and just seemed to give up, and that with a potential European spot up for grabs (if my memory serves me right).

[Jimmy612]

Jimmy, there was considerable criticism of Hughes, maybe not from these boards, but from the general media about his style (or lack of it).

We were the thugs, if I remember rightly.

Absolutely correct. There was a fair amount of criticism about our 'thuggish' play. My point is though, I couldn't care less about any of it.

Since when did anyone care what the media thought about BRFC?

We all watched, and the majority of us would have been at the games aswell. We had some marvellous players when hughes was here. Bentley was fantastic and in 3 years we had 3 very very good strikers join the club in Bellamy, Santa Cruz and McCarthy.

How would you suggest we play Dave? I think Hughes made us into a team that no-one enjoyed playing against, in the way that Ewood Park was quite a fortress, and I was supremely proud of that team. Have we all forgotten the FA Cup semi-final against Chelsea? The 2-1 away win at Old Trafford?

What people think about BRFC, whether it's people sat in a pub in London, or some washed up old journo saying were thugs,I could not care less about. I really quite enjoyed us being the hard men of the PL, and if we're beginning to criticise the Hughes era after the fantastic job he did then it is a very sad state of affairs.