Would you rather....

Cartman78

Would you rather....
Your team is universally admired and acclaimed for playing beautiful attacking & open football but ultimately falls short of it's targets (ie. Arsenal & Blackpool)

Or

Your team is largely disliked and widely criticised for their style of play but consistently achieve their targets and/or win silverware (ie. Stoke - possibly this season, Bolton & Wimbledon in the past).

dan1895

At the highest level,football is about nothing but winning so give me playing ugly and winning trophies any day.

Also I don't think anyone can critisise a team for playing a particular way if it brings them success. Shels won the double in 2000 after a season of grinding out 1-0 and 2-1 wins. No one was complaining when we had the most important trophies in the country to show for it.

upandcumming

You're never remembered for coming second. I'll always take winning over being liked.

homerjay2005

arsenals football is overrated at times. yes they play nice stuff, but alot of their players are not good enough to make it to the next step.

blackpools nice football was masked with intensity, passion and people liked them. we are seeing now that they are nowhere near as good a footballing team as first thought.

the good teams play nice football and win things, thats what most people want, but if i had to choose, trophies win it every time. to win things, you still need to score goals and you still need to play well.

Pepe LeFrits

upandcumming wrote: »

You're never remembered for coming second. I'll always take winning over being liked.

That's not really true. Hungary and Holland are both very much remembered.

Anyway, neither. Attacking football and success aren't mutually exclusive.

Pepe LeFrits

... and yes, Arsenal's football hasn't been particularly great this season.

The PL is full of teams fitting category b), except 16/17 of them won't win anything.

Warper

dan1895 wrote: »

At the highest level,football is about nothing but winning so give me playing ugly and winning trophies any day.

Also I don't think anyone can critisise a team for playing a particular way if it brings them success. Shels won the double in 2000 after a season of grinding out 1-0 and 2-1 wins. No one was complaining when we had the most important trophies in the country to show for it.

The highest level of football is Barcelona who both win and play the best football on the planet by a mile.

Kess73

Winning silverware and being hated for it please.

racso1975

It's foorball so by and large any team that wins silverware consistantly ends up being hated for it even if they do play nice football. How do you think all the ABU's, when uniteds style of football was a lot nicer then this year, were born and in the 80's it was a pain to see liverpool winning everything.

Loving barca's style of play is easy to do when the majority of people on this forum are supporters of premier league teams and dont have to constantly watch their team being hammered by them or have an overly vested interest in that league.

The blackpool analogy for me is more to do with attitude then ability especially in relation to their fans who had a "lets enjoy our stint in the premiership" attitude probably never expecting to stay up. Where as stoke fans, a team that grinds out results, have a real attitude problem imo.

For me it's results results results and ideally a fan base like blackpools though with constant results comes incresed expectations so that kind of attitude only last so long. Having a likeable manager is also helpful

upandcumming

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

That's not really true. Hungary and Holland are both very much remembered.

Anyway, neither. Attacking football and success aren't mutually exclusive.

Of course it is. I'd say about 80% of competitions people can't say who came second. I just asked a lad sitting beside me, with a Ireland jersey on him and he couldn't tell me who came second in the 2002 World Cup. Hardly the Auto Windscreens Shields Trophy is it?

premierstone

upandcumming wrote: »

Of course it is. I'd say about 80% of competitions people can't say who came second. I just asked a lad sitting beside me, with a Ireland jersey on him and he couldn't tell me who came second in the 2002 World Cup. Hardly the Auto Windscreens Shields Trophy is it?

He was probably scared of the random mad man asking him who was runner up 9 years ago just cos he happened to be wearing an Ireland jersey

Pauleta

I would like Shelbourne to play great football but to be hated by the footballing public. I like when people hate us, it makes winning more satisfying.

PHB

Personally, I think there are lots of types of attacking football. I don't think Barca's is the best style, infact there's lots of parts I don't like about it.

I think the game is too tentative, too reserved, not adventorous as I'd like it. As a player, I much prefer Ronaldo to say Xavi. Ronaldo gets the ball, and literally runs at the goal, from pretty much anywhere on the pitch. It's an extremely direct style. United when they won the double playing a 4-4-2 played my favorite type of attacking football, fast, direct, physical. They were fine with losing possession, it wasn't the ethos, it was about scoring. They trusted the defence to win them back the ball.

I think Barca's and Arsenal's style is infact less attacking than other teams have been in the past. At present, there are no other teams as attacking as Barca, United play a fairly turgid football at present, Mourinho has Madrid reserved, but in the past, there are teams that I prefer how they play to Barca.

For me, I find Barca often times somewhat dull to watch. Possession is not my favorite aspect of football. For me the best games of football are always between two teams, who are running gung-ho at each other, uncaring about defense and losing possession, and just focused on scoring. The Spurs style if you will. I think it's a particuarly English style actually, English attacking football is about width, pace, strength and directness. I think Spanish attacking football is more about possession, skill, technique. I prefer the former myself.

upandcumming

premierstone wrote: »

He was probably scared of the random mad man asking him who was runner up 9 years ago just cos he happened to be wearing an Ireland jersey

You know the way you know a guy in college? You're friends with him on facebook, you chat to him in a club, you say hi to him walking past, but you hardly know his name? That type of lad!

bamboozling

There are times when I think I'd rather love to be a fan of Newcastle or a team of that ilk. A team that are never champions but always there. It being a futile exercise supporting the club but in saying that it must make those special moments even more special, for example Newcastle beating Sunderland 5-1 this year.

Warper

PHB wrote: »

Personally, I think there are lots of types of attacking football. I don't think Barca's is the best style, infact there's lots of parts I don't like about it.

I think the game is too tentative, too reserved, not adventorous as I'd like it. As a player, I much prefer Ronaldo to say Xavi. Ronaldo gets the ball, and literally runs at the goal, from pretty much anywhere on the pitch. It's an extremely direct style. United when they won the double playing a 4-4-2 played my favorite type of attacking football, fast, direct, physical. They were fine with losing possession, it wasn't the ethos, it was about scoring. They trusted the defence to win them back the ball.

I think Barca's and Arsenal's style is infact less attacking than other teams have been in the past. At present, there are no other teams as attacking as Barca, United play a fairly turgid football at present, Mourinho has Madrid reserved, but in the past, there are teams that I prefer how they play to Barca.

For me, I find Barca often times somewhat dull to watch. Possession is not my favorite aspect of football. For me the best games of football are always between two teams, who are running gung-ho at each other, uncaring about defense and losing possession, and just focused on scoring. The Spurs style if you will. I think it's a particuarly English style actually, English attacking football is about width, pace, strength and directness. I think Spanish attacking football is more about possession, skill, technique. I prefer the former myself.

I think this English style is a thing of the past or maybe even a myth. Last weekend the 2 highlight games of the English weekend were Man City v Man Utd and Arsenal v Liverpool. Both games were dull, turgid affairs with little goal chances. This great English style happens rarely these days and even more rarely between the top teams.

You're example of Spurs isn't great. Yes, they were involved in some very entertaining games in the Group stages. Once Spurs got of the CL Group they were involved in some of the worst games of the year playing very negatively. Think AC twice and Real twice. The most entertaining tie in the CL so far were between 2 teams that you dont necessarily enjoy watching - namely Barca v Arsenal, mainly Barca in fairness.

premierstone

upandcumming wrote: »

You know the way you know a guy in college? You're friends with him on facebook, you chat to him in a club, you say hi to him walking past, but you hardly know his name? That type of lad!

Ahh yes the old fashion stalkee

pickarooney

I don't know what kind of satisfaction fans of Stoke, Blackburn, Bolton et al get out of watching their teams (OK, Bolton have improved somewhat of late) playing ugly football and coming 16th. I'd much rather support a team like Newcastle or Man City who actually have highs and lows rather than endless middles.

At the moment I kind of envy Napoli fans.

dfx-

I would want my team to be playing the best football they can. I wouldn't mind winning ugly, but when it happens more often than not, then there's a problem.

I'd rather lose 4-0 trying to get back into the game than go 1-0 down and not have a hope of coming back or indeed go 1-0 up and cling on for 95 minutes only to lose 2-1.

Pepe LeFrits

upandcumming wrote: »

Of course it is. I'd say about 80% of competitions people can't say who came second. I just asked a lad sitting beside me, with a Ireland jersey on him and he couldn't tell me who came second in the 2002 World Cup. Hardly the Auto Windscreens Shields Trophy is it?

That's probably because the team that finished 2nd in World Cup 2002 was a functional, mechanical German team, while the team that won it was a Brazil side containing Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho. Most of the time I'd say the team that comes 2nd isn't all that remarkable and thus not likely to be remembered.

As I said, the Dutch total football teams of the 70s are legendary despite losing to the Germans & Argies, as are the Hungarians of the 50s. You've got legendary teams like Arsenal's Invincibles, the Barcelona side of Romario, Stoichkov and so on that never won the CL but are still hugely fondly recalled. Newcastle in the 90s are similarly liked. Chelsea with Zola, Vialli and so on. Valencia with Aimar and Mendieta in 2000 and 2001. The German team from the last World Cup is worshipped and held up as something to aspire to despite losing the final.

pickarooney

Don't forget Bayer 'Second is right after first' Leverkusen.

Fuhrer

bamboozling wrote: »

There are times when I think I'd rather love to be a fan of Newcastle or a team of that ilk. A team that are never champions but always there.

Arent you a Liverpool supporter?

premierstone

I guess Arsenal fans of say slighly over 30 are best placed to answer this because I dont think anyone else has seen such a turn around in footballing style from the mechanical, tough and disciplined George Graham era to the easy on the eye free flowing Wenger style.

Persoanlly I would take the Wenger model any day of the week but I guess you work with what you have and I think it would be harsh anyway to put Wenger on that side of the comparison he has afterall quite an impressive trophy haul.

tdv123

upandcumming wrote: »

You're never remembered for coming second. I'll always take winning over being liked.

Brazil 82

tdv123

PHB wrote: »

Personally, I think there are lots of types of attacking football. I don't think Barca's is the best style, infact there's lots of parts I don't like about it.

I think the game is too tentative, too reserved, not adventorous as I'd like it. As a player, I much prefer Ronaldo to say Xavi. Ronaldo gets the ball, and literally runs at the goal, from pretty much anywhere on the pitch. It's an extremely direct style. United when they won the double playing a 4-4-2 played my favorite type of attacking football, fast, direct, physical. They were fine with losing possession, it wasn't the ethos, it was about scoring. They trusted the defence to win them back the ball.

I think Barca's and Arsenal's style is infact less attacking than other teams have been in the past. At present, there are no other teams as attacking as Barca, United play a fairly turgid football at present, Mourinho has Madrid reserved, but in the past, there are teams that I prefer how they play to Barca.

For me, I find Barca often times somewhat dull to watch. Possession is not my favorite aspect of football. For me the best games of football are always between two teams, who are running gung-ho at each other, uncaring about defense and losing possession, and just focused on scoring. The Spurs style if you will. I think it's a particuarly English style actually, English attacking football is about width, pace, strength and directness. I think Spanish attacking football is more about possession, skill, technique. I prefer the former myself.

Yeah your right Barcelona arent that attacking, they've only been breaking numerous goalscoring & winning records over the last 2 years.

What teams from the past would say are more attacking than Barcelona?

I myself think your talking rubbish to be honest. Barcelona are not less attacking than any other team in world. The problem is that whenever someone faces Barcelona they pack the midfield out & very rarely pass the half way line.

dfx-

upandcumming wrote: »

You're never remembered for coming second. I'll always take winning over being liked.

Brazil 98
Leverkusen 02 odds on for the treble and winning nothing. I can remember them being in for them, I can't name every winner of the trophies..
Bayern 99
Derry 05 losing in the final game in Cork
Fulham 10
Real Madrid 92 losing the league on the last day in Tenerife
Man Yoo 95
St Francis 90
Real Sociedad 03 who were robbed of the league