Style or Substance?

kryogen

This kind of came up in conversation a little while ago and got me thinking, obviously as a fan you want to see your team play brilliant football style wise and want them to be successful trophy wise

But gun to your head which would you choose when you more then likely wont have both, unless your a Barca fan

My own personal opinion is, I want to win the league, I want to win the trophy, in 10 years it wont be remembered how it was won, just who won it, and thats every bit as important to a clubs history, that it achieved success.

Great football is wonderful to watch, but if it doesnt bring success then I would have to wonder whats the point? Generally speaking its the teams that can win the ugly games that end the season with the trophies.

Ill throw up a poll too sure for the lulz, if your replying would you stating what club you support also if not too much trouble

The question, simply put, would you like to play with style and win nothing

Or would you like to grind out results and end the season as champions?

Frisbee

Trophies.

Pretty football means sweet fúck all if you don't have the accomplishments to back it up.

d22ontour

Nice thread.

Our style of play has never been the most attractive but it won us shítloads of stuff.Only a handful of teams over history have ever tried to played a possession game and even then it rarely worked.
My team play/ed an aggressive counter attacking brand of football and it worked exceptionally for a couple of our managers.Our financial circumstances may have changed our transfer policy somewhat but our manager has tried to cope but somewhat devolved our style of play imo.Teams don't fear losing the ball to us anymore, they can defend , we struggle to break them down at times...It's plain as day at times but some fans put it down to loss of form....Our style of play has declined, as a club we have not, but that isn't the issue is it ?

stovelid

Depends on team. Good football married with trophies is the luxury of big teams. Try telling small teams that its better to play good ball while rolling over to the big boys rather than annoy the purists and win that single cup.

dfx-

Substance, history remembers the winners, trophys are more important!

Style for me, get the style right and trophies come.

EdenHazard

Most teams who are champions win with style and substance. People always talk about Arsenal, they have no style, I wouldn't watch an Arsenal game if you paid me, haven't enjoyed watching Arsenal since the days of Henry in his prime(funnily enough when they were winning)

For a team like Aston Villa or any of those nobody teams in England it's better to play with style tho, because there not gonna achieve anything anyway so might as well entertain the fans. I'd rather follow a team that gets relegated but has crazy matches, like Blackpool than some boring team who loses most of the time but manages to stay up by skin of their teeth

Pro. F

The idea that style and substance are mutually exclusive is nonsense. It's a myth cooked up by defensive managers and long ball merchants trying to justify their brand of football which is actually less effective. Passing the ball and holding onto possession - which is stylish attractive football - is more effective than giving the ball and the initiative to the opposition.

If I had to choose I would take results over style, but I don't have to choose. Nobody has too choose. A possession focused approach to football is the most effective. And no, you don't have to take it to extremes like Barcelona. Countless teams have controlled possession and won games down the years. Far more, in fact, than the teams that have relied on their defensive abilities to win.

cson

You say Barcelona have both but there are times when I find them tortuous to watch. And thats aside from when they play Arsenal btw! they have a brilliant grip on passing teams to death interspersed with a bit of magic from Xavi/Iniesta/Messi and I suppose you could now count Fabregas as a creator/finisher of that ilk. It's just so predictable and boring to watch sometimes.

Give me the counter attacking flair of Arsenal/United at the turn of the decade. Electric to watch from 98-04 ish. Fair enough it may not suit the technical palate of some but it had me on the edge of my seat most times. Spurs are the closest to it I've seen of recent times; really really exciting to watch - and I'm saying this as an Arsenal fan.

Arsenal play a shite brand of football too and have done for about 2/3 years now. A very very poor mans attempt at a Barcelona.

Mourinho's tenure at Chelsea gets a lot of stick but he played some good stuff; I regularly remember them flogging teams 3/4-0 with Robben and Duff on the wings. Fair enough they never blew you away with attacking flair but a lot of teams were beaten before they took the field against Chelsea. I'm gonna say they'd have won a CL too but for some questionable officiating and an Iniesta wonder moment in that semi final. By and large it produced the results though.

Overall I think if you're a team that has reasonable ambitions of winning things then the method doesn't matter. Now you could say the same thing for yo-yo teams but I'd be far happier watching Swansea play the way they do and go down than watch Wolves beat relegation on the last day with a long ball. But then thats me; I'm sure Swannies would take a long ball stay of execution over any flowing football every day of the week.

Pro. F

cson wrote: »

You say Barcelona have both but there are times when I find them tortuous to watch. And thats aside from when they play Arsenal btw! they have a brilliant grip on passing teams to death interspersed with a bit of magic from Xavi/Iniesta/Messi and I suppose you could now count Fabregas as a creator/finisher of that ilk. It's just so predictable and boring to watch sometimes.

Barcelona are only boring because of teams defending deep against them and refusing to actually play. I know Barca will often choose to keep possession over trying a risky through ball, but when they are in a proper match against opposition that are actually trying to play then they still produce way more incisive passing and goal mouth incident than any other team.

cson wrote: »

Give me the counter attacking flair of Arsenal/United at the turn of the decade. Electric to watch from 98-04 ish. Fair enough it may not suit the technical palate of some but it had me on the edge of my seat most times. Spurs are the closest to it I've seen of recent times; really really exciting to watch - and I'm saying this as an Arsenal fan.

The games between those two teams were freakin brilliant back then. They had everything.

I don't know why it wouldn't suit the technical palate, plenty of great technique and solid tactics on display from them both imo.

amacachi

Frisbee wrote: »

Trophies.

Women. :rolleyes:





:pac: But really, someone said earlier that the style v substance thing is a myth. I agree to some extent. If we had an NFL-style European league then yeah, every team could do it. With the current (and in my view preferable) system there's only ever going to be 2 or 3 teams at the top and they'll be the most effective team. With the way the game is studied now it all comes down to tactics for the vast majority of top or top-ish level teams. Tactics and "dull" football can win a league with a lot less money behind it than a "stylish" team.

Arsenal are boring now. I can play FIFA and go a season unbeaten on "Legendary". It's easy to just hold onto the ball.

Paul Tergat

Its gotta be winning trophies....


Lets say, as a random example, United win the next 10 leagues playing **** football. All we will then say is we have 29 titles, catch us. Very few will remember how you got there but simply that you have the cabinet showing it

shangri la

Trophys.

Anyway Spurs are the only team with style in the PL. Silva has style.

Norwich are exciting in the same way blackpool were last season.

Anyway, what is style without the end product? Swansea stringing 15 passes together with their backs and mid?

who says that is more stylish than the direct ball to the yak and he shrugs off the defender to put the ball in the bottom corner? Thats fairly stylish. Suarez working the magic on the baseline only to kick it wide?

_blank_

Success for Ireland is getting to a tournament.

Under Charlton, the football was brutal, but Ireland got to three tournaments in 8 years. Got the quarter final of a WC without even winning a game.

Under McCarthy, and Kerr the football was arguably better, at least the midfield was utilised, but Ireland only got to one tournament in 12 years. Didn't gret to a QF either.

Under Trappatoni, the football is worse than under Charlton, and they just missed out on one tournament, and have qualified for the next. (France game notwithstanding, that was not a typical Ireland under Trappatoni performance.)

born2bwild

Pro. F wrote: »

The idea that style and substance are mutually exclusive is nonsense. It's a myth cooked up by defensive managers and long ball merchants trying to justify their brand of football which is actually less effective. Passing the ball and holding onto possession - which is stylish attractive football - is more effective than giving the ball and the initiative to the opposition.

If I had to choose I would take results over style, but I don't have to choose. Nobody has too choose. A possession focused approach to football is the most effective. And no, you don't have to take it to extremes like Barcelona. Countless teams have controlled possession and won games down the years. Far more, in fact, than the teams that have relied on their defensive abilities to win.

This post should be printed off and photocopied on the wall of every dressing room and football boardroom in the universe.
"Style v substance" is a false dichotomy: "Effective Football v Ineffective football" is not.
Possession - based, passing football is more effective 9 times out of 10.

Bounty Hunter

EdenHazard wrote: »

Most teams who are champions win with style and substance. People always talk about Arsenal, they have no style, I wouldn't watch an Arsenal game if you paid me, haven't enjoyed watching Arsenal since the days of Henry in his prime(funnily enough when they were winning)

For a team like Aston Villa or any of those nobody teams in England it's better to play with style tho, because there not gonna achieve anything anyway so might as well entertain the fans. I'd rather follow a team that gets relegated but has crazy matches, like Blackpool than some boring team who loses most of the time but manages to stay up by skin of their teeth

I would tend to agree with your first point

However (in particular as an Aston Villa fan) I can't agree with your second point and consider it a rather insulting attitude which would anger instead of please any set of fans if the board adopted it. Assume we can not achieve anything from the get go? teams like Villa, who (with Everton/Newcastle) are usually the first name people mention when talking about those not competing for CL places, should just forgoe ambition of something but purely for entertainment sake?

Teams/fans want to win, then they want to win with style and in that order imo. I'd love to see Villa entertain but nort if it meant we lost the match when we could have won if we didnt adopt this approach.

I'd imagine if you asked most Blackpool fans they would have prefred to stay up and then work on improving the style of football next year if possible.

HalloweenJack

Of the poll, I'd go for substance: you have to play to your team's strengths.

If it's ugly but effective, **** it. Points on the board are the most important thing. It's nice when your team plays a nice brand of football but if it doesn't get you anywhere, what's the point?

I remember when West Brom were up a few years ago and Mowbray was getting lots of praise for his team's style. They went down, though, and it's all forgotten now. The same season Stoke came up, playing Tony Pulis' style of football, and they stayed up. Now, I'm fairly sure, if at the end of that season, you asked both sets of fans who were happier with their sides' respective campaigns, it would have been Stoke.

I was always an admirer of Sam Allardyce at Bolton. He had them punching above their weight. I know if I'd been a Bolton fan, I would have been happy for the relative success as opposed to the style they played.

I'd say that if a club can afford better players, then they should invest in them and develop a nice footballing style, but if it's a smaller club with limited resources, they should go for the more cost-effective option that will breed relative success.

stovelid

The whole proposition is a bit flawed.

Would I like Rovers or United (two clubs with decent resources in their respective leagues to play good football? Yes.

Would I like Rovers to pack the midfield and try and grind out results against teams with far more resources than us in Europe? Yes

Should Jack Charlton have opted for direct football with the teams he had at his disposal? Most of the time, no.

Should Trap have opted for ultra-conservative tactics with the team he has at his disposal? Most of the time, yes.

The proposition is useless without taking into account the relative strength and wealth of teams and their opponents.

It's fine for Barcelona and the like to be sanctimoniousness about their own football and the football of teams they play against because it's a luxury they can afford.

Warper

Substance, history remembers the winners, trophys are more important!

kryogen wrote: »

This kind of came up in conversation a little while ago and got me thinking, obviously as a fan you want to see your team play brilliant football style wise and want them to be successful trophy wise

But gun to your head which would you choose when you more then likely wont have both, unless your a Barca fan

My own personal opinion is, I want to win the league, I want to win the trophy, in 10 years it wont be remembered how it was won, just who won it, and thats every bit as important to a clubs history, that it achieved success.

Great football is wonderful to watch, but if it doesnt bring success then I would have to wonder whats the point? Generally speaking its the teams that can win the ugly games that end the season with the trophies.

Ill throw up a poll too sure for the lulz, if your replying would you stating what club you support also if not too much trouble

The question, simply put, would you like to play with style and win nothing

Or would you like to grind out results and end the season as champions?[/QUOTE]

Its too simplistic an argument. In your given example obviously you would pick being champions.

A better example would be which would you prefer: Your team plays attractive exciting football and finished 10th in the league or your team plays boring hoof the ball football and you finish 9th. Which would you pick?

Pro. F

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Of the poll, I'd go for substance: you have to play to your team's strengths.

If it's ugly but effective, **** it. Points on the board are the most important thing. It's nice when your team plays a nice brand of football but if it doesn't get you anywhere, what's the point?

I remember when West Brom were up a few years ago and Mowbray was getting lots of praise for his team's style. They went down, though, and it's all forgotten now. The same season Stoke came up, playing Tony Pulis' style of football, and they stayed up. Now, I'm fairly sure, if at the end of that season, you asked both sets of fans who were happier with their sides' respective campaigns, it would have been Stoke.

I was always an admirer of Sam Allardyce at Bolton. He had them punching above their weight. I know if I'd been a Bolton fan, I would have been happy for the relative success as opposed to the style they played.

I'd say that if a club can afford better players, then they should invest in them and develop a nice footballing style, but if it's a smaller club with limited resources, they should go for the more cost-effective option that will breed relative success.

You don't need to spend more money to get a team who can pass. Look at Swansea and Norwich for two recent successful examples.

Mowbray couldn't organise a defence to save his life. The fact WBA had trouble that season doesn't prove that passing the ball is ineffective, it proves that you can't win if you can't defend.
Stoke are a poor example too. They are one of the biggest transfer spenders in the league. If anything they prove that Pulis' style doesn't get results.

Big Sam is a canny enough operator in the transfer market, but he's no miracle worker. Graham Taylor would be a better argument (probably the best) for the cost effectiveness of long ball football, but his style still failed dramatically when he came up against half decent opposition in Europe.
And Taylor himself admitted that the long ball style failed against possession football.

amacachi wrote: »

With the way the game is studied now it all comes down to tactics for the vast majority of top or top-ish level teams.
Tactics and "dull" football can win a league with a lot less money behind it than a "stylish" team.

What evidence do you have for that statement? I would think there are more examples of the opposite being the case.

Edit: Also, since when are tactics automatically dull? Some tactical approaches are great to watch (Barca, Spurs, Swansea, etc) and some tactical approaches are boring to watch (Stoke, Ireland, etc).

Mr.Nice Guy

Capello spoke on this in Sky's recent Greatest Managers series. I found the bit I'm thinking of...

'You have to realise that you can only create a style of play in the game with what you have at hand. Even if it means going against your philosophy and way of thinking. It's more important what you can bring to the players and team. I think that way brings you victories.'

I agree with this view.

amacachi

Pro. F wrote: »

What evidence do you have for that statement? I would think there are more examples of the opposite being the case.

Edit: Also, since when are tactics automatically dull? Some tactical approaches are great to watch (Barca, Spurs, Swansea, etc) and some tactical approaches are boring to watch (Stoke, Ireland, etc).

Common sense. You have 10 **** outfield players against a much superior team. What's more likely to get a decent result, trying to pass the ball and leaving gaps or parking the bus? There's a reason unfancied teams generally play a certain way.

I also don't think you're an idiot so you probably know perfectly well what I meant with the inverted commas in my original post. In common parlance when a team has a majority of possession, territory and chances it's called playing brilliantly. When a team sets up to frustrate the opposition and to just not concede it's called "tactics".

Pro. F

amacachi wrote: »

Common sense. You have 10 **** outfield players against a much superior team. What's more likely to get a decent result, trying to pass the ball and leaving gaps or parking the bus? There's a reason unfancied teams generally play a certain way.

You said ''Tactics and 'dull' football
can win a league with a lot less money behind it than a 'stylish' team.''

I'm asking you what evidence do you have for that statement. I don't trust your common sense judgement on this. Because to me, common sense says the team who wins the most matches, not the team who loses the least, will win a league. And defensiveness doesn't win the most matches.

amacachi wrote: »

I also don't think you're an idiot so you probably know perfectly well what I meant with the inverted commas in my original post. In common parlance when a team has a majority of possession, territory and chances it's called playing brilliantly. When a team sets up to frustrate the opposition and to just not concede it's called "tactics".

Yes that common parlance is nonsense. I didn't know if you agreed with the common parlance or not, but it was still worth pointing out the error of it. Tactics =/= Defending

tdv123

Des wrote: »

Success for Ireland is getting to a tournament.

Under Charlton, the football was brutal, but Ireland got to three tournaments in 8 years. Got the quarter final of a WC without even winning a game.

Under McCarthy, and Kerr the football was arguably better, at least the midfield was utilised, but Ireland only got to one tournament in 12 years. Didn't gret to a QF either.

Under Trappatoni, the football is worse than under Charlton, and they just missed out on one tournament, and have qualified for the next. (France game notwithstanding, that was not a typical Ireland under Trappatoni performance.)

Charltons teams could play with style when they wanted to.

Must be close to 20 passes in this build to this goal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvwC0vsJcjI

amacachi

Pro. F wrote: »

You said ''Tactics and 'dull' football
can win a league with a lot less money behind it than a 'stylish' team.''

I'm asking you what evidence do you have for that statement. I don't trust your common sense judgement on this. Because to me, common sense says the team who wins the most matches, not the team who loses the least, will win a league. And defensiveness doesn't win the most matches.

Apologies, at the very top it's obviously a combination of both that's necessary. For inferior teams their best chance of a decent result (including draws, not necessarily wins, when against better opposition) they'll be better off playing a more defensive system.

Yes that common parlance is nonsense. I didn't know if you agreed with the common parlance or not, but it was still worth pointing out the error of it. Tactics =/= Defending

Hence my inverted commas around the words.

dfx-

Substance, history remembers the winners, trophys are more important!

Des wrote: »

Success for Ireland is getting to a tournament.

Under Charlton, the football was brutal, but Ireland got to three tournaments in 8 years. Got the quarter final of a WC without even winning a game.

Under McCarthy, and Kerr the football was arguably better, at least the midfield was utilised, but Ireland only got to one tournament in 12 years. Didn't gret to a QF either.

Under Trappatoni, the football is worse than under Charlton, and they just missed out on one tournament, and have qualified for the next. (France game notwithstanding, that was not a typical Ireland under Trappatoni performance.)

Arguably, the toughest group Ireland have faced in 20 years was the Netherlands/Portugal group and that's the one McCarthy qualified from.

Just behind that was the Yugoslavia/Croatia group for Euro 2000 and Ireland were 11 seconds from topping that group before Macedonia's left back scored from a corner. Ireland were best equipped to qualify from the group under McCarthy than anyone else in my opinion.

Pro. F

amacachi wrote: »

Apologies, at the very top it's obviously a combination of both that's necessary. For inferior teams their best chance of a decent result (including draws, not necessarily wins, when against better opposition) they'll be better off playing a more defensive system.

Cool. I just wanted to clarify it because I think the defensive and long ball strategies sometimes get credit that they don't deserve.

For the over matched teams, defensive or long ball strategies, trying to turn the game into a lottery, I agree can sometimes be the a good plan. However I find that almost always the defensive or long ball managers will be advocates of those styles regardless of the circumstances of their teams.

amacachi wrote: »

Hence my inverted commas around the words.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your meaning.

..........

There was a pseudo intellectual movement in the 70's and 80's in England to try and prove that direct football was more effective
than possession football. It was based on completely spurious reasoning and woeful analysis of statistics. It was lapped up by the large sections of English footballing culture that had always wanted the sport to be about physicality over skill and the managers who were already keen on direct football going back to the 50's. I think that is one of the reasons that this idea that stylish football is separate from effective football has so much traction.

kryogen

Warper wrote: »

kryogen wrote: »

This kind of came up in conversation a little while ago and got me thinking, obviously as a fan you want to see your team play brilliant football style wise and want them to be successful trophy wise

But gun to your head which would you choose when you more then likely wont have both, unless your a Barca fan

My own personal opinion is, I want to win the league, I want to win the trophy, in 10 years it wont be remembered how it was won, just who won it, and thats every bit as important to a clubs history, that it achieved success.

Great football is wonderful to watch, but if it doesnt bring success then I would have to wonder whats the point? Generally speaking its the teams that can win the ugly games that end the season with the trophies.

Ill throw up a poll too sure for the lulz, if your replying would you stating what club you support also if not too much trouble

The question, simply put, would you like to play with style and win nothing

Or would you like to grind out results and end the season as champions?

Warper wrote:

Its too simplistic an argument. In your given example obviously you would pick being champions.

A better example would be which would you prefer: Your team plays attractive exciting football and finished 10th in the league or your team plays boring hoof the ball football and you finish 9th. Which would you pick?

You see it pertained to the discussion I was having earlier, the other guy said he would rather win no trophys as long as the team played in the style they should have, hence the extreme premise

shangri la

A combo is necessary. Its why when you look at man utds team sheet you think, thats fairly crap but they grind out the results and leave the flashy stuff to 2 or 3 players.