:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:
You can doubt it all you want. You wont find another Leicester fan who when asked "What is your favourite ever Leicester game?" will honestly say the Swindon game.
The Swindon game was the best game I've ever attended. Nothing has ever got close to that moment when Steve Thompson scored. Irrespective of the result, the game was an amazing experience. For example, it was far superior than winning the 2000 final at Wembley.
However, whilst I appreciate and understand that entertainment over results argument, I think it's flawed.
Perfection is entertainment
and results. It's what every football fan would surely choose? However, successful entertaining football requires very good players and an exceptionally good manager. The market dictates that any time a club like ours gets anyone remotely that good, they are going to be taken by a richer, bigger, club.
Along with pretty much everyone else, we cannot aspire to both. Given this, apart from in very short spells, entertainment means generally unsuccessful football.
One obvious exponent of this methodology was David Pleat. He wanted entertaining football. He recruited and picked players and tactics that matched this philosophy. One or two players shone and were snapped up by bigger clubs, and the rest floundered against better organised and results orientated opposition. Anyone who witnessed these frustrating years of football will confirm how disappointing entertainment can be.
The opposite philosophy was seen straight after Pleat with Brian Little. The football we played under him was usually very ugly. He purposely recruited players who could follow orders and run around a lot. Skill and entertainment were incidental to winning. Personally, I welcomed us winning after years or mediocrity. And I think this was a view held by the overwhelming majority.
Right now, we're coming out of a period of our worst results ever leading to relegation to League One. Results recover our position, reputation, pride, morale etc. Entertainment doesn't. I can see that NP is trying to adopt a more attractive style of play (i.e. less lumping to Howard) and I applaud this as long as it doesn't lead to worse results. If we need to lump to win, virtually all of us will happily accept this.
Therefore, results always win. Quite right too. You could apply the same argument to Capitalism verses Socialism. Socialism, like entertaining football, is an ideal that doesn't really exist. So despite its unpleasantness, we are happy to live under a Capitalist (results based) system.
It's also an analogy that follows as far as progress is concerned. I think that results based teams make the game improve. Our style of play under MON had to be countered by others. Bigger, better clubs had to get better because of this. The pressing 3-5-2 system had to be found out, and it eventually was. To soley entertain is also to stagnate. Entertainment is subjective and finite. Like Socialism.
I think.
