[Archived] Will the purists learn from this?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Ever since Hughes left I've noticed a rather large, frankly irritating section of our support who seem to have prioritised the desire to play good football above practically everything else when it comes to our managerial appointments.

First there was the internet campaign against Allardyce being the immediate successor to Hughes in summer 2008. This arguably contributed to JW's decision to appoint a far less experienced, lower quality manager in Ince who pushed us closer to relegation than we've been at any point since the 90s.

So the board appointed Allardyce who then pulled us out of it and the purists shut up for 5 months. However from the start of the 09/10 season onwards there was a simmering resentment which was regularly expressed on the terraces with chants for different formations and booing of certain substitutions. Again this arguably contributed to Venkys sacking Allardyce and bringing to an abrupt end 18 months of improvement and relative success.

Then we had Kean, a woeful replacement by anyones standards but a guy who has received an inexplicable lack of vocal criticism from most at Ewood up until the last couple of games. The reason cited by many of his sympathisers for this was that "we were playing well", I assume this means we were passing it about/playing good football. And now we're in a position it will be extremely, extremely difficult to save ourselves from.

So prioritising good football over results has led to the purists being totally wrong 3 times, has perhaps contributed to our board/owners making 3 shocking decisions, and is now about to relegate us. My question is that if Kean is replaced with a total pragmatist with little concern for playing good football, will the purists start on about it once again? Or has anything been learnt about the far greater importance of results and the difficulties in a club Rovers size managing to do both?

[Mattyblue]

Results, results, results.

That is the only game in town for a club of our size in the PL.

The sooner some of our fans realise that the better.

[den]

All professional sport is tough.

The weak get hammered.

Rugby, boxing, cricket,football, Tennis - you name it, winning is all that matters. Was John McEnroe in tennis to play an attractive game, or was he in it to win?

Amateur sport is for the entertainers.

.

[Majiball]

Sorry are you really holding up Ince and Kean as examples of people with competency to deliver good football?

I agree we haven't played good football consistently since Hughes left, but to try and blame other supporters for our demise is an absolute farce. The funniest part of all is that you don't touch on Hughes, he delivered decent football & results, clearly showing that if you appoint a COMPETENT manager it is achievable.

Ince was always going to fail, Sam was always going to split the fanbase and Kean will take us down. It's not rocket science and just shows yet another flaw in the footballing world as how on earth can a chairman really know the difference between a top manager/coach and a bad one.

[donnermeat]

I'm all for the results, I would have a boring 0-0 over an exciting 3-4 loss ten times out if ten.

We are passing the ball along the floor more nowadays, sure, but I wouldn't go as far as to say we were playing good football because nothing happens in the final third often enough.

[Mattyblue]

Managers like Hughes are like gold dust for club's like Rovers.

But that wasn't SKHToad's point, he asked if those fans would still get on the back of a 'pragmitist' who grinds out results after the horror of Kean?

[onlyonejackwalker]

Good thread and interesting topic. Den and MattyD also have it spot on above.

For a club of our size, results and remaining in the Premier League are all that matters, until such time as the game settles again and we can re-evaluate our situation and circumstances, or we attract a decenbt owner / investor willing to 'walk the walk' as well as 'talk the talk'.

So many fans are hugely short sighted. I have three kids and I want them all to enjoy PL football at the Rovers in the future. That means competing against much bigger clubs with much bigger resources at this time and battling hard in whatever way we can to remain in the PL against ever increasing odds.

Substance over style anyday for me.

Touching on Den's points. There is absolutely no room for sympathy or sentiment in professional sport. No room for constant excuese either. Winners win. Losers go home. It has always been this way.

I was a big fan of SA. Not necessarily the football on view at times, but the overall strategy, results gained, confidence shown, respect gleaned and position attained.

Also, watching Hughes commenting on the Arsenal v City game and listening to his words and watching his demeanour reminded me of what it is like to have a hugely professional football man in charge of the club and just how far we have fallen.

Sack the clown - Unite the fans - Last chance saloon.

[Majiball]

Managers like Hughes are like gold dust for club's like Rovers.

But that wasn't SKHToad's point, he asked if those fans would still get on the back of a 'pragmitist' who grinds out results after the horror of Kean?

So the first para's within which he insinuates that it's the fault of those who believe football shouldn't just be hoofing it forward should just be ignored? The title of the thread tells you exactly what he wanted his point to be, I told you so.

You can claim the point was about would people put up with 'pragmatic' football but it reads far more like a I was right and you were wrong post, yet again born out of frustration that Sam has gone.

[donnermeat]

Kean delivers neither results nor good football.

[AJW]

the arguement over Allardyce will always go on yes he will keep you in the division make you difficult to beat and occaisionally he will pull off a masterstroke in the transfer market, but at what cost?? 17 managers keep their clubs in the PL not all of them resort to Allardyce's tactics it is possible to play decent football and survive Fulham being the best possible example of a club similar to ours in length of time in PL , size , fan base and quality of squads that manage to survive without having to turn to the likes of Allardyce and Pulis etc

Allarydyce will always have his fans but you ask any fan of any club who isnt in danger of relegation "would you want him as manager" the majority will say no

[beerwins]

OMG.......... Another long ball v pretty triangle football discussion, another Sam v Kean.

I have a better discussion for you, how about why is there only black or white? Is there no in between and how do umpteen other teams manage?

Maybe you could discuss Hughes's high work ethic team against Sam's longball, or maybe we could discuss how Swansea manage to have a higher possesion rate than teams who have spent a lot more or how Norwich are higher in the league than Stoke who have spent a helluva lot more and play more direct football.

Anything but the same old Sam V's the world thread.

[Amo]

First there was the internet campaign against Allardyce being the immediate successor to Hughes in summer 2008. This arguably contributed to JW's decision to appoint a far less experienced, lower quality manager in Ince who pushed us closer to relegation than we've been at any point since the 90s.

Again this arguably contributed to Venkys sacking Allardyce and bringing to an abrupt end 18 months of improvement and relative success.

Herein lies the major problem with your post: you're making assumptions to suit your argument.

JW was looking to replicate the success Hughes brought here by signing another dynamic young manager. That's why one of his first moves was to sound Shearer out for the job, and why we ended up with Ince.

Also, you honestly believe Venky's were influenced by the fans into sacking Allardyce? After everything that's happened in the past few months? Venky's don't care for what the fans want.

[Mattyblue]

Lets then Beerwins.

Can Swansea maintain results throughout a season playing like they do? Will they be found out?

Last season we heard a lot of praise for Blackpool's style, which seemed to be largely based on Charlie Adam knocking long diagonal balls. By March time they had been neutralised,

[eire3382]

The long and short of it is that we would not be where we are now if sam was still here period!

[onlyonejackwalker]

the arguement over Allardyce will always go on yes he will keep you in the division make you difficult to beat and occaisionally he will pull off a masterstroke in the transfer market, but at what cost?? 17 managers keep their clubs in the PL not all of them resort to Allardyce's tactics it is possible to play decent football and survive Fulham being the best possible example of a club similar to ours in length of time in PL , size , fan base and quality of squads that manage to survive without having to turn to the likes of Allardyce and Pulis etc

Allarydyce will always have his fans but you ask any fan of any club who isnt in danger of relegation "would you want him as manager" the majority will say no

SA did far better with Bolton than just keep them in the division. They enjoyed consecutive away wins at OT for example and finished in the top 8 on three consecutive seasons, venturing into Europe. Bolton fans will tell you that SA adapted style and tactics subject to the opposition and few coiuld argue that some of the players he recruited were hoofball merchants.

Second, when employed we were in serious trouble and there are few who could have saved us. Credit to SA for that for sure.

Third he is playing much nicer football at this time with West Ham as he is now at one of the biggest clubs in his division, as opposed to one of the smallest. Proves the point about adapting according to current circumstances.

The three teams currently at the BOTTOM of the Premier League are ALL trying to play nice football with insufficient quality and funds available to them. Burnley and Blackpool went the same way last time round. I think that says it all.

[ross-shire rover]

The title of the thread seems to me to be inappropraie and ill-timed.

Why do people constantly see things in black and white, as if you can only get results by playing boring football or conversely you never get results by playing good football ?

It's almost like you're bizarrely accusing purists of somehow wanting Rovers to fail.

We're languishing at the bottom of the league because Steve Kean was not,is not, and will never be a Premier League manager, and that's got nothing to do with playing hoofball or Brazilian football.

At the moment, we've enough problems as supporters of Rovers without stirring things up once again.

For the record, I was quite happy to keep Big Sam, totally perplexed by his sacking, completely distraught at replacing him with the first team coach with no managerial experience, but to use the fact that SK is a useless manager to say that "I was right all along" and "purists" are somehow idiots is a step too far methinks.

[den]

Touching on Den's points. There is absolutely no room for sympathy or sentiment in professional sport. No room for constant excuese either. Winners win. Losers go home. It has always been this way.

and that's the attraction of professional sport over amateur sport. Because of the money involved, pro sport attracts the best sportsmen and women. They go into pro sport primarily for the cash, but the fact that there's more cash for the winners, means that we have the best sportsmen vying for the top prizes. In that environment only winners prosper.

As for entertainment, well the whole thing about the great West indies and Australian cricket sides for instance, was down to the fact that they were winners. They had great talent, but were only there for one thing - to win. That desire to win coupled with their talent made them superb to watch. If they hadn't have harnessed that talent with a winners attitude, no-one would have been interested. Did the great all black Rugby teams go out to throw the ball around and please the fans? No, they went out to win and that's what made them great.

When rovers won the Premier League title, were we the entertainers? No, we were the winners.

OMG.......... Another long ball v pretty triangle football discussion, another Sam v Kean.

It doesn't have to be. I've just proved it.

[Amo]

The title of the thread seems to me to be inappropraie and ill-timed.

It'll just turn into another Allardyce circle-jerk (if not already). It always does.

[beerwins]

Lets then Beerwins.

Can Swansea maintain results throughout a season playing like they do? Will they be found out?

Last season we heard a lot of praise for Blackpool's style, which seemed to be largely based on Charlie Adam knocking long diagonal balls. By March time they had been neutralised,

The only reason why they could not carry on their form is if the squad drops a lot of morale, injuries to key players and the lack of depth to the squad, you also have to be able to adapt in the situation as you rightly mention if the other team finds a way to counter your playstyle.

If they struggle to pick up points and they dont change some aspects of their game then yes they will struggle but a good manager should always have around three gameplans to counter the other team, instead of focusing on their own game focus on the other teams weakness and therefore you alter your gamestyle.

I am in no way suggesting that it's that easy, im simply just saying that in football you can mix it up a bit and still succeed, it never has to be long ball or short passes there are thousand of variations.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Results at all costs ?

Hmm interesting debate - going back to the Sam era - we had to drastically reduce season ticket prices to keep fans coming in (and to be fair increase ST numbers). Would that fan bases have eventually eroded due to the style of football ?

I think you can counter that by citing our current demise - and the effect on attendances.

For me - as somebody else mentioned -I am in the grey area. I would possibly sacrifice the odd match for entertainment - but not at the expense of relegation.

The truth is - for Rovers to increase its fan base - it couldn't remain with the media image it had under Sam. Personally I think some of the bad press Sam got was unwarranted - but I did get increasingly frustrated at how predictable we became. I think the most frustrating thing for me - the season prior to him getting sacked - we actually started to mix it up a little and were playing some decent football at times - unfortunately the following season we went backwards (in terms of our playing style).

[Jackson]

Dear Steve Kean's Hypnotoad,

What's it like up there, on your high horse, with your retro-spectoscope? Is the view good?

[Lathund]

Results every time.

That being said, while I didn't want Sam out, the football we played under him was hard for me to enjoy. It's not that I don't agree with the overall aim; get the first goal and shut up shop while aiming for a second goal through set pieces or "safe" attacks. Unless you believe you have an edge in quality over your opposition, that's how you should play. I'm with Allardyce on that. I'm also with him on the idea that when playing "better" teams, a direct approach is correct. We played fairly direct football under Hughes too for that matter, albeit a different type of directness.

Where I don't agree is when it comes to keeping hold of the ball. There's some discussion on this in "Inverting the Pyramid" (Great book on the history of football, and mainly the evolution of football formations and tactics), where two contrasting schools meet, that could be summarized as possession vs position. Simply put one suggests that having possession of the football is what influences the likelyhood of you, and not your opponent, scoring the next goal. The latter suggests that it's the position of the ball that matters most, regardless of who has it. Basically, if you subscribe to that theory, the opposition having the ball at their own corner flag is more likely to result in a goal for us, than us having the ball at our corner flag.

Back to the point I was trying to make; getting the ball upfield fast might be good as an overall approach. But not all the time. Put a defense under enough pressure, and more often than not it will crumble. Our inability to hold onto the ball for any length of time in those situation, and our inability to control the tempo of the game, hindered us. Part of being able to defend well involves having some possession of the ball, keeping it long enough to push up a bit, to make the opponents fall far enough back that when they regain the ball they have to start over, and giving the defense a rest.

Now this isn't an argument pro or against any one manager, it's just something where I disagreed with Allardyce's tactics.

[den]

Hmm interesting debate - going back to the Sam era - we had to drastically reduce season ticket prices to keep fans coming in (and to be fair increase ST numbers).

We didn't reduce prices because of the Sam era, but I'm sure you didn't mean that.

Would that fan bases have eventually eroded due to the style of football ?

Results dictate attendances. Always have, always will.

[Rover_Shaun]

I wasn't Sams biggest fan and was not crushed to see him go but I never in my wildest dreams thought we would end up with this plonker, or any other inexperience buffoon for that matter.

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Results dictate attendances. Always have, always will.

Though I do agree with you to an extent - I do think you have to throw in pricing and football style into the mix when you are never going to be more than a mid-table team (as is the case for most teams in the Premiership).

Media exposure of the Premiership is so great, that I do think negative press due to style of play can have an influence on attendances. Without doubt it possibly impacts on Sky's choice of matches - which probably has a bigger impact on our revenue than anything else.