Pragmatism vrs flair

gosplan

So this came up a lt last night after Chelsea's match.

Is winning the only thing?

Is there a 'right spirit' to play the game in?

Can you even talk about such a thing when the sport is corrupt enough to be going to Qatar?

For me Pep's Barca have something to argue for. OK, after a few years people got sick of it but they played a combination of pragmatic and flair football to great effect. Surely this is the ultimate goal of any team? Win in style?

I mean surely it's more acceptable that a team fighting relegation adopt a pragmatic, defence first, don't lose, no risks approach than a team getting well paid in the CL with a smattering of the world's top football talent?

But equally Wenger owes it to the Arsenal fans to provide something more than just talent and that in that case flair mist occasionally be sacrificed for a win or two?

5starpool

A little from column A and a little from column B would be great.

A lot of te Liverpool winning teams from the 60's to mid 80's were very pragmatic in a lot of ways about how they approached the game I believe, but obviously there was far less scrutiny back then. Football fans generally want their team to win whatever the method for the most part, but it'd be nice to be able to win while playing a brand of football that puts a smile on your face.

Liverpool last season tried to win by scoring more than the opposition but they weren't able to be pragmatic enough at times and over the course of the season perhaps that hindered them as much as the free flowing attacking helped, but it is a very tough balance to get right, but at the end of the day it is a results business for the most part, sad as that is in some respects.

Moneymaker

Credit where it's due, United at their peak had just the right balance imo. They played decent football but Ferguson was smart enough to adapt a bit more of a defensive(not parking the bus) approach when it was required.

I would say the great Milan side of the 90s had it too. You can argue Peps Barca at their peak too. They had players like Puyol, Abidal, Keita who were pretty combative when they needed them to be.

dfx-

Best teams have both, football at its best has both. Rarely teams can play with both though and go with pragmatism as it is easier, it is mental and can be done without a ball at your feet.

CSF

Winning is most important, the best teams usually have both, but not always.

rob316

Attacking football with a decent bit of steel in the spine of the team.

I am not a fan of Jose and never will be, IMO he doesn't play the game its meant to be. I'm not referring to his cup game approach but his league approach. Playing to not loose is pointless IMO, you get 1 point for a draw and 3 for a win, why not go all out in every game? I have less time for any manager that turns a football match into a game of chess. Its a simple game no need to over complicate it.

Its pains me to say it but Fergusons teams had the perfect mix. Solid defensively and always had some of the best strikers around.

The great attacking teams are always remembered not the dour ones.

Turtwig

Pragmatism is taking advantage of numerical superiority. If you can't even do that then strong questions need to be asked.

Every team needs both pragmatism and flair. Most teams have the former, few have the latter. For the spectacle of the game variety is the best. Gary Neville illustrated this beautifully contrasting Liverpool to Atletico Madrid. Anyone got the clip?

dreamers75

Pats play lovely passing attacking football, normally a 451/433 which can change into a 343 when losing. Its great to watch and some of the movement and passing is a joy watch.

We played in the FAI cup final last november, I did not give a single **** how well we played or if we passed enough.....Win just fcuking win.

So in a nutshell its nice to have an attractive style of play but ultimatley to win things you will have stop the other team which leads to pragmatism.

Sanity_Saviour

Trophies are all that matters, class and flair mean nothing if you can't back it up

Danye

Plenty of "nice" teams who are easy on the eye that win nothing.

There's also teams that are dogged and that win but they can be awful to watch.

Ideally, in my opinion you want a team (squad) of talented players who are backed up by workers.

Over the course of a season your going to have days where the talented players aren't going to show up for whatever reason, that's when you need the other types of players, the warriors, to step up to the plate.

In my squad I'd ideally like a split of 70/30 in favour of the warriors.

Turtwig

It's actually possible for a player to be talented and a warrior. You don't necessarily need a player of each type. Ideally you want a player that's both.

gosplan

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Trophies are all that matters, class and flair mean nothing if you can't back it up

I think I fundamentally disagree with this.

Danye

Turtwig wrote: »

It's actually possible for a player to be talented and a warrior. You don't necessarily need a player of each type. Ideally you want a player that's both.

Very good point and one that I meant to say.

IMO, the really really top players have both.

Harry Palmr

gosplan wrote: »

I think I fundamentally disagree with this.

Arsenal fan? :pac:

You need a manager (and players good enough to follow orders) who know when to hold and when to strike, the best teams are able to absorb pressure and then move quickly to gain the advantage. They are the sides that control the games dynamics and force the other team to adapt their game plan.

Sometimes you just have too much of one and not enough of the other (see Liverpool last season) Rodgers set the team up to maximise what he had and negate what he didn't. It nearly worked, it would have had he reigned in his own policy when facing a Chelsea side that had come for the draw.

Magico Gonzalez

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Trophies are all that matters, class and flair mean nothing if you can't back it up

Equally, negative football will exclude you from the european elite, you wont be a consistent challenger for winning the champs league whilst too frightened to play an expansive game.

Mourinho fails at the top level when confronted with Bayern and Barcelona playing an attacking game that unlocked his park the bus tactics. PSG exposed the timidity of his team last night.

If he actually was pragmatic he would realise that all he needed to do was commit more on the counter against 10 men and he'd be in the final. Pragmatism would have been realising PSG needed to attack and take risks. He could have allowed them to attack and played a 3 man midfield that didnt include Ramires but he bottled it. Pragmatically he'd have realised that he should have got the team drilled to play possession football when 1 up in extra time v 10 men. Have them chase shadows and tire them out until they throw in the towel.

Sitting back and allow a motivated team (a team he wound up by sending players out to dive and get in the refs face) to attack in the 2nd half of et was many things, pragmatic was not one of them.

Sanity_Saviour

gosplan wrote: »

I think I fundamentally disagree with this.

About trophies being important or about "classiness" not being important?

Sanity_Saviour

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Equally, negative football will exclude you from the european elite, you wont be a consistent challenger for winning the champs league whilst too frightened to play an expansive game.

Mourinho fails at the top level when confronted with Bayern and Barcelona playing an attacking game that unlocked his park the bus tactics. PSG exposed the timidity of his team last night.

If he actually was pragmatic he would realise that all he needed to do was commit more on the counter against 10 men and he'd be in the final. Pragmatism would have been realising PSG needed to attack and take risks. He could have allowed them to attack and played a 3 man midfield that didnt include Ramires but he bottled it. Pragmatically he'd have realised that he should have got the team drilled to play possession football when 1 up in extra time v 10 men. Have them chase shadows and tire them out until they throw in the towel.

Sitting back and allow a motivated team (a team he wound up by sending players out to dive and get in the refs face) to attack in the 2nd half of et was many things, pragmatic was not one of them.

I'm not really sure what that has to do with my point at all

You don't think Mourinho was good last night, is that what you wanted to tell me? I'm not sure if you realise this, but making what should have been a point about tactics into a personal vendetta actually invalidates your point!

gosplan

Danye wrote: »

Very good point and one that I meant to say.

IMO, the really really top players have both.

True.

Was more thinking about it along the 'team philosophy' kind of thing though.

Like think of Trap's Ireland doing everything they could to stop a game of football breaking out.

Was that only wrong because it didn't work?

Alfred Borden

Winning is everything for me. If there is style attached then all very well. I know speaking as an Arsenal fan, I would trade all them compliments of being a nice team to watch for the trophies Jose has won.

gosplan

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

About trophies being important or about "classiness" not being important?

About trophies being all that matters.

I don't want to get all romantic but there's artistry in football and it matters.

A great game of football is the best sporting thing in the world to witness.

But if winning is the only thing that matters, there's an approach that just shuts down the flow of the game and looks to set pieces. It's basically makes it a physical and organisational contest and little else.

IMO that's fine for a team trying to stay in the premiership or say if Ireland are playing Germany.

However, when the Faroes come to town, you have to play football against them.

Buford T. Justice XIX

gosplan wrote: »

About trophies being all that matters.

I don't want to get all romantic but there's artistry in football and it matters.

A great game of football is the best sporting thing in the world to witness.

But if winning is the only thing that matters, there's an approach that just shuts down the flow of the game and looks to set pieces. It's basically makes it a physical and organisational contest and little else.

IMO that's fine for a team trying to stay in the premiership or say if Ireland are playing Germany.

However, when the Faroes come to town, you have to play football against them.

I agree with you on this. There is a beauty in two teams playing well, both trying to win the game with a mixture of flair and pragmatism.

It's not all that long ago when we were 'treated' to the sight of teams kicking long ball after long ball into the box, waiting for a defender to make a mistake so a striker could score. Mind numbingly awful stuff but praised by many as effective football.

Then you have Barca and Arsenal and, thankfully, many, many more teams in the lower divisions in England who actually pass the ball to each other:eek: to try to win the game.

I know which i would prefer to be watching. Winning is important but winning in an attractive style is more so.

Pro. F

The idea that it is more pragmatic to prioritisie athleticism over skill and defensive solidity over creativity is wrong. There is less of a correlation between athletic/defensive football and success then there is with skilful/creative football. The most succesful teams in history have generally been focused more on skill and creativity than on athleticism and defensiveness.

TheDoc

I think there needs to be a nice balance of both. I don't think it's good enough anymore to simply be a " talented" footballer, you need to couple that with attitude and team ethic. So when the ball is lost, you have the attitude and desire to get into a defensive shape, and not just stand up top throwing your arms in the air at a lose pass.

Obviously it's easy to say that the pragmatism should be focused in defense and the midfield in parts, and let the flair operate up forward in the pitch. But I think a nice balance is required.

One of the more impressive things I've found with Rodgers is how his team seem to just flick tact the moment the ball changes possession. Without the ball the eleven work together defensively and press and harass opponents, and when the ball is in possession the bran flicks a switch and they start operating nearly collectively like "flair".

Dortmund were probably the most impressive and successful at this in recent years. How all ten outfield players would visibly switch across from defensive to offensive mindsets when possession changed was incredible.

Presumably it depends on the observer.

Fans will place success before flair, neutrals will place flair before success.

If Cork City win the title, I couldn't care less how they did it. But if I'm gonna watch a game on telly, say a CL game, I want teams that will play well.

gosplan

Deleted User wrote: »

Presumably it depends on the observer.

Fans will place success before flair, neutrals will place flair before success.

If Cork City win the title, I couldn't care less how they did it. But if I'm gonna watch a game on telly, say a CL game, I want teams that will play well.

Excellent point.

2 things it made me think of though.

First is seeing as the whole thing is now a bazillion dollar global thing, flair will surely be prized more and more as those tuning in aren't really 'fans' so to speak. Is there a financial onus on the top teams to attract global fanbases?

Second is that thig that happens when teams think they're better than they are. I'm thinking when clubs doing well under a Big Sam or Pulis decide they want a bit more entertainment. It almost never works out. You could say the same when Roman and Jose split the first time around. I guess what I'm saying is that even club fans, when you deliver a measure or success for a couple of season will want more entertainment. But generally they get it wrong and assume that the elevated platform they're now on is their starting point.

Capajoma

I'd go for the Nature Boy purely because I've never heard of this Pragmatism fella.

eagle eye

It's very simple for me. If you are a fan of a team it's all about winning as long as they are in contention. If they cannot win a title or qualifying for Europe is not an issue/possibility then you want to be entertained just like you want to watch exciting football when you don't support either team.

Manchester United are a good example for me. I've never been a fan of them but I always watched their games when Alex Ferguson was in charge because the football was entertaining. At the moment I don't want to watch them because the football is dreadful to watch.

Another example would be Arsenal. You see plenty of their fans wanting Wenger gone even though they are great to watch but they want a Premier league or Champion's league title. The style of football is less important to them now.

Barcelona under Guardiola were the perfect team. They played a nice brand of football and were a great, great team. That is so rare.

Boskowski

I loved Hennes Weisweiler's philosophy. Showing my age and origin here. I loved Moenchengladbach in the late seventies as a little kid because of his style which lived on after he left. Only I didn't know it then.

I paraphrase. 'I don't care how many they score against us, as long as we score one more than them.'