Entertainment versus results

[The Major]

Playing well and not winning is worse than playing crap and losing. At least you know that you deserve to lose.

 

[Miles Away]

I find City winning entertaining.

That is from where I derive my joy. I suspect if you told Arsenal that they would win the title but would have to defer to root 1 football, the majority of their fans would take it at this point. As a neutral I love watching Arsenal, great to watch, but if I were an Arsenal fan I'd be ripping my hair out. In clumps.

A club of our size cannot reach a high level of achievement without having to get down in the trenches and kick the everliving piss out of teams from time to time. To try and "entertain" against the likes of Man U is folly. I actually have far more respect for Stoke than West Brom, they did whatever was needed to survive, and now they are trying to expand their game a little. I've always thought WBA were mental to try and outplay the premierships established clubs. And they frankly got what they deserved...relegation.

For me, Pearson has got it bang on, try and play good football when you can, but not at the cost of results.

 

[Hazzman]

Playing well and not winning is worse than playing crap and losing. At least you know that you deserve to lose.

Personally, I don't agree with it. I have pretty much accepted that given the modern nature of football, we've hit our peak a few years ago. So I'd rather see us be a good entertaining side regardless of division. I'd rather be a West Brom fan than a Bolton fan. Realistically, we'll be lucky to achieve a top ten Premiership finish in the new future with the greed which exists at the top. Who wants to be winning just 10 games all season plus 8 draws to survive in the Premiership and float around hopelessly. Bar probably Everton (and they are finding it a struggle now), there's not another club in the past five years whose built themselves bit by bit in the Premiership without outside finance.

 

[David Gwilliam]

A linked question is whether it is better to be losing in the Premiership or winning in a lower division. I think I would prefer to see us in the Premiership and losing. I want to see Man U, Liverpool Arsenal.
I liked the story of a time when Mohammed Ali was short of sparring partners. A local boxer was brought in to help out. When the kid got cut Bundini Brown wanted to patch the cut up the kid said "No. I want people to ask where I got this cut." In sport you want to compete with the best.

 

[Hazzman]

A linked question is whether it is better to be losing in the Premiership or winning in a lower division. I think I would prefer to see us in the Premiership and losing. I want to see Man U, Liverpool Arsenal.
I liked the story of a time when Mohammed Ali was short of sparring partners. A local boxer was brought in to help out. When the kid got cut Bundini Brown wanted to patch the cut up the kid said "No. I want people to ask where I got this cut." In sport you want to compete with the best.

Don't believe in status either bar the banter with work colleagues etc.

If you are playing good, entertaining football. How cares if you're 19th in the Premiership or 4th in League Two. Ask Rochdale fans.

 

[Cate Fox]

I find City winning entertaining.

That is from where I derive my joy. I suspect if you told Arsenal that they would win the title but would have to defer to root 1 football, the majority of their fans would take it at this point. As a neutral I love watching Arsenal, great to watch, but if I were an Arsenal fan I'd be ripping my hair out. In clumps.

A club of our size cannot reach a high level of achievement without having to get down in the trenches and kick the everliving piss out of teams from time to time. To try and "entertain" against the likes of Man U is folly. I actually have far more respect for Stoke than West Brom, they did whatever was needed to survive, and now they are trying to expand their game a little. I've always thought WBA were mental to try and outplay the premierships established clubs. And they frankly got what they deserved...relegation.

For me, Pearson has got it bang on, try and play good football when you can, but not at the cost of results.

 

[SwedeFox]

If you are playing good, entertaining football. How cares if you're 19th in the Premiership or 4th in League Two.

I can see your point, but if this is the case and it's entertainment you want, why tie yourself to a certain team?

 

[camberwell fox]

I can see your point, but if this is the case and it's entertainment you want, why tie yourself to a certain team?

I think most supporters don't get the chance to choose their team as such, generally you support the team that you are local to or have ties with for one reason or another. That is; unless you are a glory hunter and just support a team because they are 'in'?

 

[FoxCovert]

I can enjoy a good flowing, passing game with a lot of flair but it does not mean as much as watching your team win whatever the performance. A one nil win snatched in the 90th minute is still a joy if the performance is mediocre. I have discovered that after the poor displays we have seen in recent seasons, just seeing some passion and bite from the team can be just as entertaining as fluid movement and passing.
A strong, well timed tackle has just as much merit as the incisive defence splitting ball.

 

[camberwell fox]

I can enjoy a good flowing, passing game with a lot of flair but it does not mean as much as watching your team win whatever the performance. A one nil win snatched in the 90th minute is still a joy if the performance is mediocre. I have discovered that after the poor displays we have seen in recent seasons, just seeing some passion and bite from the team can be just as entertaining as fluid movement and passing.
A strong, well timed tackle has just as much merit as the incisive defence splitting ball.

A fair post but still not convinced by the win at all costs view.

 

[SwedeFox]

I think most supporters don't get the chance to choose their team as such, generally you support the team that you are local to or have ties with for one reason or another. That is; unless you are a glory hunter and just support a team because they are 'in'?

Yeah, I know that's how it is, I just mean that if results don't really matter then it would be much easier to just pick out a team playing entertaining football and go and watch them.

That's what I'm doing this week, going to two games with teams involved that I have no relation to whatsoever. Not sure if Fulham and QPR are the best choices entertainingw ise though...

 

[camberwell fox]

Yeah, I know that's how it is, I just mean that if results don't really matter then it would be much easier to just pick out a team playing entertaining football and go and watch them.

That's what I'm doing this week, going to two games with teams involved that I have no relation to whatsoever. Not sure if Fulham and QPR are the best choices entertainingw ise though...

The problem I always find with watching 2 teams I have no affinity with is that I find it difficult to get in any way excited about the result, so therefore I can't get passionate about it.

Having said that I will watch 'neutral' matches, but only if I can find a reason to want one team to beat the other. The underdog, my dislike of certain managers and therefore my wish for them to fail and so on...

 

[Hazzman]

I can see your point, but if this is the case and it's entertainment you want, why tie yourself to a certain team?

Brought up into the team, pride for your local club, can associate with them more, the tribal thing and all that. Secondarily, it's a lot easier and cost-effective to walk down the Walkers than it is to jump on a train to Cambridge and drive to Accrington. Without looking, I'd guess I have been on a 2:3 ratio of neutral to City this season.

As you know watching entertaining stuff is one of the reason I watch European football from time to time. However, I could be saying all this because City look in decent shape atm, so losses don't hurt as much. Didn't expect us to do this well, so what will be will be.

 

[Miles Away]

The problem I always find with watching 2 teams I have no affinity with is that I find it difficult to get in any way excited about the result, so therefore I can't get passionate about it.

Having said that I will watch 'neutral' matches, but only if I can find a reason to want one team to beat the other. The underdog, my dislike of certain managers and therefore my wish for them to fail and so on...

Doesn't this quote negate your entire argument?

You pull for the underdog (who will often have to employ spoiling tactics to get a result), and you have a hard time getting excited for games in which the result doesn't matter?

I find it difficult to resolve the argument here. You argue that entertainment is more important than results, but can't get interested in neutral games because the result doesn't matter to you.

I'm not trying to be an arse, just trying to counterpoint.

If the aesthetic of football is of more importance than the business of results, why then can't you simply appreciate a well-played game between two neutral teams?

 

[SwedeFox]

MilesAway kind of said what I was trying to point out.

 

[Miles Away]

MilesAway kind of said what I was trying to point out.

You are welcome Swede Fox.

Beyond all of the entertainment v results stuff, I wish we were in the Prem just so I could see a few more games televised stateside for the likes of desertfox and myself.

 

[camberwell fox]

Doesn't this quote negate your entire argument?

You pull for the underdog (who will often have to employ spoiling tactics to get a result), and you have a hard time getting excited for games in which the result doesn't matter?

I find it difficult to resolve the argument here. You argue that entertainment is more important than results, but can't get interested in neutral games because the result doesn't matter to you.

I'm not trying to be an arse, just trying to counterpoint.

If the aesthetic of football is of more importance than the business of results, why then can't you simply appreciate a well-played game between two neutral teams?

I knew when I posted this I would leave myself open to this well thought out counter.

However, I can appreciate a neutral match, but obviously I am far more passionate about my team. I watched arsenal v Chelsea on Sunday and somewhat enjoyed/appreciated the 'artistry and craft' on display. Having said that, as usual I found myself having to find one of the teams to want to win. In this case my dislike of Chelsea and all they stand for sort of forced me to want arsenal to win.

I want to see city win, but not at all costs. A bit of both worlds would be good. Entertainment and winning would be ideal, but entertainment from Leicester is also important to me personally. Winning a game and playing entertaining football gives me a feeling that winning in a sort of Reading way does not.

I am not in any way embarassed to admit as in my first post that the POF v Swindon was the best game and most enjoyable one that I have witnessed.

 

[Billyjof]

I am not in any way embarassed to admit as in my first post that the POF v Swindon was the best game and most enjoyable one that I have witnessed.

Watching Thompson slot in the equaliser is probably one of my most enjoyable Leicester goals, the atmosphere, the drama in being 3-nill down, how much it meant etc...etc.. The way we battered them for a long spell in the second half.

Cruelly cheated by a long ball to which EDIT (Steve) White?? fell over like he had been picked off by a sniper.

Everyone enjoyed the second half no one here enjoyed the result.

 

[Blue Maniac]

A fair post but still not convinced by the win at all costs view.

I've said this before, some people seem to wish football to be something it isn't. Who says end-to-end attacking football and pretty passing is the 'right' way to play? And who says the long ball game or a defensive approach are the 'wrong' way? Your posts remind me of World Soccer writer Paul Gardner, who often comes across as horrified that teams line up these days with one striker. So what? Are coaches meant to alter their tactics to fall in with a certain 'ideal' style of football, at the cost of having any chance of winning the game? You compete to win.

it's a lot easier and cost-effective to walk down the Walkers than it is to jump on a train to Cambridge and drive to Accrington.

:icon_conf Why would you do that?

 

[camberwell fox]

I've said this before, some people seem to wish football to be something it isn't. Who says end-to-end attacking football and pretty passing is the 'right' way to play? And who says the long ball game or a defensive approach are the 'wrong' way? Your posts remind me of World Soccer writer Paul Gardner, who often comes across as horrified that teams line up these days with one striker. So what? Are coaches meant to alter their tactics to fall in with a certain 'ideal' style of football, at the cost of having any chance of winning the game? You compete to win.



:icon_conf Why would you do that?

I would have thought the origins were back to and including the 60's at least wher most teams (if not all) lined up 4-4-2, in an 'orthadox' manner.

I can't really see your argument on the right way to play though. Are you saying that keeping the FOOTball on the ground is the reverse of what should be happening? If this was the case then man would have evolved with a hinged neck.

I would say MOST coaches accept that attacking football is at least striving to be entertaining which is what i think is important.

Playing with a lone striker can obviously be effective but surely the nature of 5-4-1 is setting out to be more defensive and therefore less attractive, although i agree that good defending is an art in itself. The bottom line is though that the nature of the game is to score goals and unless you are striving to do so, then the spectacle is certainly less attractive.