If you could only have one, I'd have to pick the league position because I like the continued success. Some of our last few games have been truly awful to watch. We've ended up with a win at Hull and we beat Villa, but in a fashion that hurt a few eyes in the process. I'm sure some people will say we can have both, but history appears to show that it's easier said than done. West Ham were having this same debate a year or two ago. So the question is... Earlier safety and ugly football or prettier football and being in 14th or 15th in March?
Early safety than back to the Swansea Way" would be nice but probably better would be early safety then use the remaining games to blood / assess the rest of the squad
I wouldn't describe it as "truly awful" football. That's what West Ham play - I wouldn't want to watch that every week. What's the point in watching if there is absolutely no enjoyment week after week. As Dai says - we are 9th which is good for a club of our size, although I do feel that we should be doing better than we are due to inept officials and team selection/subs. Pretty football - or more to the point, good football for me. I don't want to watch crap.
I like watching a game that we play well abet lose due to very poor refereeing than a boring game like we played under laudrup where fans were leaving the stadium in droves half way through the second half any day.... What spoils most games today is sub standard refereeing that dont reflect the game both teams are trying to play...refereeing has gone downhill in my estimation and is ruining the game.
We need both, or otherwise we're just another club in the Premier League. Personally, I'd take 17th playing our recognised brand of football, rather than become another lost-in-the-crowd Premier League side waiting for their turn to be relegated for their moment in the spotlight. But don't get confused - the defensive drab, pass-backward brigade that we've seen over the last month is not the Swansea brand of football. Fast, exciting, skillful, game-controlling football is what we've been used to. Currently, we pass for the sake of passing. It's not Swansea football. If anything, it's how teams play when they try to imitate us. We have to be better with the ball. We're all about wingers and overlapping full backs, with two game-controlling midfielders that cover the full backs when needed. We don't have the full backs or the wingers to play that style anymore (due to age, injury, loss of form, whatever), and we look a poor man's Swansea as a result. Get another Montero in for the right wing, and we could be back in business.
I respect the why teams play the way they do more than how they play.To watch a team conform to their strengths or against others strengths and win their share of games is a beautiful thing.I respect and enjoy the West Ham way as much as our own .Stradegy over slickness for me.A thousand and one ways to play the game , all equal to me if its used wisely within a game to win....
Weighted (pretty) question. I want to see us playing the passing football, or variations of it, that has given us success since Martinez took over. This season our passing game has gone out of the window - the only time we have employed that style we have looked good ... but it only last a few phases or a few minutes. Just not good enough. I have to say, that after the wonderful football we enjoyed under the four previous managers, I am not appreciating the quality. We had been playing in an "Arsenal light' style (because of the quality of the players compared to Arsenal) but so far this season we seem to want to play Stoke style but without the players to carry it off. Saying we have a philosophy and delivering it are two very different things. Back to the question - I have never really cared about who we play (although the European games were exciting) as long as we play well. Manchester City or Macclesfield Town are just names for the teams Swansea City plays against.
Seems they've lost thier way at the moment in a usually unforgiving league, partly due to factors going against them on the field but noticeably not playing as well as they used to because something does'nt seem to be going right off it ? We have seen what most of them can do at thier best but when to many go bad at the same time it's bound to have consequences and could lead to a rut. And as for Gomiz not hitting in any of those chances this is prem standard fgs there's plenty out there if given the chance would be playing at 110% to impress on such a big stage so shouldn't need tons of games to remember where the net is and should be so full of confidence at this level to not have to wait to see how the others play to be banging them in !
It's a false choice. The two are not incompatible and should be synonymous. Regardless of our style, we must play with quality and tempo, and it needs to be done across the entire team on the field. We do not have superstars in our squad; we have a few very fine players, but they need each other to be successful. One bad cog on any one day (e.g. Shelvey) can compromise our style, and when more than one player is not delivering to the level required it can really **** things up. Monk must be committed to the cause, which to me means setting aside personal allegiances and old friendships and anything else that can get in the way of not accepting anything other than "total football" from everyone involved. By "total football" I mean being superbly fit, not being lazy or abdicating duty and responsibility on the field, being focused mentally and delivering technically at the highest level for every minute in every game. The highest standards must be set and aspired to with the understanding that players are only human. For example, it's no secret that we don't cross well, but we don't have to turn crap into an art form, which we do too often. This is our challenge and we have struggled too often this season. When we bring our A game we can compete with anybody .... and that we will always find pretty ... and that will always push us up the table.
Our passing game needs two things 1) the pass 2) a receiver Monk's teams seem to concentrate on what to do with ball when we have it but not how we work off the ball to make the instant, decisive or safe pass an easy option. This is most not cable when Shelvey shouts for the pass while standing behind a marker or calling for the pass but taking off before receiving the ball. There is a real lack of effort to make space to allow the pass - Carroll is excellent at doing this and Jazz Richards makes some sublime passes but both are hampered by, what seems to b, a reluctance on others to work in a similar way.
Ok you need to have a clue aswell. stoke for example play only to their strengths which is the best thing to do in football. With the technical quality and size of the swansea squad outmuscleing them like stoke will be hard so rather outmanouver them. You can only play with what you have.
Success and entertainment is what we pay to see so I'd take survival at least with some quality displays to get the heart going in a good way any day.
