Oh and Burnley may well have stayed up if they had just calmed down a little. Many a time they were a few goals up and ended up dropping points.
Do remember I am seeing this from the clubs POV and not mine. If United could play and win titles like during the 90s.... How good would that be. Counter attacking (the purest form of the game) is brilliant.
Another myth. Burnley were never that entertaining. They were popular because they tried their hardest and gave a good account of themselves. But entertaining? I don't see what's so entertaining about the likes of Ashley Barnes and George Boyd. Their only mildly entertaining player was Danny Ings.
Yeh but you have no idea what entertaining football actually means To you it's choice between a) gung ho attack, pretty football, weak defence. Or b) Solid defence grinding out results playing dire football if need be. I've been trying to tell you (for what seems like eternity on various threads/boards) there is another choice. Entertaining football does not mean compromising defensively. It means having the skill to manage a team to do both - play creative attacking football AND defend well. Each club can achieve that at their level. What it will look like at Chelsea (and their results) will look different to what it will look like at Swansea (and their results). Granted it's a purist approach but that's what I believe all football should aim for. I doubt many will get this; they will buy the Skysports bollox like you UIR but the fact recent prem managers are breaking the mold and trying to enrich our league with a more purist approach is refreshing to see. And on that note, I'm out.
You're wrong pal, no matter how you spin it. We will end it with one question, just answer yes or no. Is it a results bases business?
I was just involving facts to back up my point. I remember Blackpool being far more entertaining than Burnley.
I agree that results should prioritise over entertainment, but I do not believe that Burnley were a good team to watch.
You are wasting your time with UIR as he doesn't go to football matches to be entertained, in fact he doesn't go at all ! for sure Football is in the entertainment business and if it isn't then why do fans go even when their teams lose or are **** !
The discussion is whether entertaining is as important as winning. The answer is no. Doesn't matter how you try and spin it, which tired cliché you use or how adamant you are, its remains no. To support my claim, 100s of professional footballera and managers, including Wenger, Fergie, Mourinho. To support trebles claim, treble and you. Its a pretty one sided argument. Infact its so one sides its not even an argument. And i think you will find people go to see their team win. If they went to be entertained, nobody would have gone to see United last season and Chelsea would have an attendance of zero every week. If you go to a game as a neutral then you will be hoping to be entertained. If you or treble can name one game in football where a manager, coach or owner would demand his team entertains above all else, winning the game included, I will partially concede the point. Competitive league match - winning is priority. Above everything else. Competitive cup game - winning is priority. Giving youth a chance. Competitive european match - winning is priority. Above everything else. Friendly matches - fitness is priority. Result not important The main games are above. Now you tell me in which games, a professional football club puts entertainment above winning.
And who goes to watch their team lose? Every fan of every club goes to watch their team try and win. Win lose or draw, they return but always hopeful of a win. Its the aim of the game. The whole point to Football. Oh and football is a sport. A competitive sport.
