Having noticed a change in which some football teams are now playing, I wonder if we are slowly watching the game losing its ability to be entertaining. The recent England v France game was yet another example of one team getting many players behind the ball and allowing the other team time to pass to each other, without much penetration when it came to actually making a goal scoring chance. Chelsea have played in similar manner in recent Champions League games and it has proven to be successful, however its not pleasing to watch as a spectator and I would suggest frustrates the supporters of the opposite team. I remember watching Scotland under Walter Smith, they played in a similar manner and again it was reasonably successful, the Scottish supporters appeared pleased that they were no longer enduring the dreadful tactics of Bertie Vogts, and just kept the faith. Looking back now, I wonder if this tactic was something the Scottish supporters would endure long term. When you pay money to be entertained, you expect to be entertained, so does sitting back with at least eight players behind the ball added to the goalkeeper constitute entertainment? What matters more, success or entertainment? If every football team decided to play in this manner, what would we have? The majority of American's have stated they felt football/soccer was a dull game where players kicked the ball from side to side and nothing much happened (The Simpsons included this opinion in one episode), hence the game has struggled to catch on throughout the country. I stopped watching the England v France game, because it was boring me, the French tried to attack and only managed it a couple of times and the English sat back and tried to counter attack, it was as if both teams decided a draw was enough and left it at that. What entertainment value was there for those who paid good money to attend the game? There can't be many people on this planet who don't agree Barcelona play some of the most entertaining football you could wish to watch, it's technically very good, fast, exact and exciting and yet they were knocked out of the Champions League by a team who played negative football which must have frustrated the life out of their own supporters, until they went on to win the competition. My concern is not about bringing success to your team, it's the manner in which the team achieve's this success and the impact on the supporters and football in the long term. Would you pay £20 to watch a 2 hour film about sheep dipping? It's not entertaining but a requirement for the sheep and the success of the wool.
good article there’s got to be a balance I suppose, but needs must I guess. If you’re a manager after three points or moving onto the next round you set your stall out to do it in some cases the only way you can. Using Chelsea as an example, when teams like Norwich,QPR,villa etc come to the Bridge do you see them employing the same tactics as they did in the champions league? Probably not! Theres got to be a balance, but you have to play to your strengths/opponents weaknesses.
My concern is that teams like Norwich, QPR, Villa etc decide to use the negative tactics they have watched being successful, when playing teams like Chelsea, Arsenal, Man Utd, Man City etc. There could be hardly any games where any actual entertainment is provided. If other teams see this tactic as being successful, I'm sure many of them will use it.
I think every team should do what Leeds do play with **** defenders and good attackers just to add a bit of fun to the game I must admit once warnock came in last year it did get boring with his more solid tactics
Remember George Graham's tactics. It may be successful, but how long are you going to pay to watch it and what happens if other teams decide that this is the way to play (especially away from home), how long will people keep coming to endure negative football.
If you want entertainment go to the theatre. The appeal of footballl (and any other sport for that matter) is partly how 'entertained' you are and partly the thrill of seeing your team get a result, despite how they might go about getting it. Sometimes you need to play boring football to get the point(s) you need to qualify, take you through to the next round, keep you up, or even win a trophy. I can see your point about watching boring football EVERY time, but most true fans would endure a certain amount in order to gain the success they crave. How many Greeks do you suppose cared that they became the European Champions for the first (and perhaps, only) time by playing 'negative' football ? Do you think Arsenal fans care that their team were labelled 'boring, boring Arsenal' when they were winning cups and championships ? And I've yet to meet a Chelsea fan who is not 100% thrilled at the way they dispatched Barcelona and Bayern Munich on the way to becoming champions of Europe. Of course we'd all love to win the league and do it by playing the most beautiful football imaginable (hope I'm not sounding too much like Clough there), but in the end we just want to win. The corporates don't care about the result, they don't care about the football. Let them eat their prawn sandwiches then **** off and leave the rest of us to care about the footy.
To win ugly is better than losing with style.... Football always evolves and so do the teams, we are going back towards a defensive set up and a sweeper, teams will learn to adapt and overcome the negative play. Nothing was stopping France playing the ball wide and putting in crosses. They choose to attack directly and could not get through.
Euro 2012 - Spain vs Anyone Else Pass...pass...pass...pass...pass... pass...pass...pass...pass...pass... pass...pass...tackle/intercept...hoof upfield...REPEAT
Italy very successfully used the tactic for decades. There is always room for different tactics and the opposition tmust counter it with their own tactics.
I actually enjoy watching a team play out there tactics well, I also enjoy teams who tackle hard and teams who play beautiful passing football. I enjoy watching all different types of teams other than hoofball basically
Winning football is good to watch regardless of the style. Under grayson we had some shocking games where we were **** but still won (Burnley h and a, palace h, bristol city h etc) and nobody complained about not feeling entertained. Whereas under warnock we had a **** style and couldnt win
Burnley away was very satisfying as we were dreadful, yet to come out of a tough game like that with 3 points was great. Palace at home and we were absolutely battered and were lucky to take the lead, which didn't last for long, but seeing us struggle to get out of our own half was difficult to watch. As always though the feeling coming out of Elland Road after securing 3 points was fantastic.
Yea true but only because its your own team, if you were a neutral you wouldn't be satisfied with the style of play and quite understandably so
It was initially a competitive sport developed as something to do for the players involved. It became a spectator sport because it was entertaining. It is a sport first and foremost and as soon as the money men started trying to force it to be more attractive to watch, it began to lose it's integrity. Things like this do not bother me. The entertainment is about being part of something bigger than yourself. The excitement comes from the rush of competition and the outlet of aggression in a somewhat controlled way. Competition is all about winning. If you want a sport that's made to be entertaining to watch as the primary goal, go watch WWE. Football is a competitive sport first, spectator sport second.
I quite frankly don't give a flying **** about neutrals. Neutrals can watch because it's entertaining, but as a neutral with no affiliation to either team, they do not have the right to any form of opinion on the entertainment value of the match. If they don't find it entertaining they can switch off and **** off.
I want a Leeds team with a blend of hatchetmen,cheats and skill,bring back my team from late 60`s/70`s,always was sheer entertainment and i was proud of them
