Simply as a neutral, I want to see the world's best play beautiful football. One-two's and 25 yarders, not long throw-ins and high balls. I want the 20 best footballing sides in the country in England's top division.
It's like watching teams at Cricket win using underarm bowling.
No it's not. Not only would underarm bowling be very ineffective, it's against the rules. For that reason your comparison doesn't work.
The idea that teams playing to their strengths is somehow anti-football shows, in my opinion, a profound misunderstanding of the game. The term 'football purist', which you might or might not use to describe yourself, is actually a misnomer. If your team plays to their strengths within the rules to an acceptable degree (id est, if they don't outright cheat and avoid being punished for so doing), and they get results by playing that way, then football tells us (both in its laws and by the results achieved) that there's nothing wrong with this. There is surely nothing wrong with looking at your opponent's strengths and playing away from them?
I think some people are trying to change football into something it isn't, and if and when they succeed in doing that the game becomes a different game. If you change a game beyond recognition, it will start to lose its fans; they'll lose interest in a game they no longer know, and they'll find another hobby.
You may have noticed that this is just my opinion. I do like to see sleek passing moves, superb 25-yard strikes, flicks and tricks. But I also like to see a crunching tackle from a big ugly bastard centre half, well-planned set-pieces, headed goals and, dare I say it, the occasional long ball.
Do we love the game for what it is or do we want to change it?
