I keep saying this. People seem to think that you can only have a choice of attacking football or defensive football. It's a myth. I don't want to open up a can of worms here (for the millionth time btw) but the fact we defend cr@p football for the sake of results is bull5hit. Yes you have to grind out results sometimes, but your whole season shouldnt revolve around that philosophy.
When you look at the free flowing football of that Arsenal era. They werent a bunch of kamakazee fckwits. The likes of Pires, Llungberg, Wiltord, Bergkamp or Henry still had an Adams, Keown, a Sol and Cole, a Viera, Petit or a Parlour behind them ffs. Just bcos you play a free-flowing expansive game doesnt mean you dont have a bloody good defence. But now the bollox we hear is "ah entertaining football" isnt important, only winning is. Like somehow both are mutually exclusive. Why is it that lesser clubs (no disrespect intended) are doing just that and proving you can stay in the Prem.
This all started in the Skysports era. You used to hear how Bolton were "playing to their strengths" and how that was needed to achieve what they did. Like you could only have one or the other. Then you compare Bolton under Allardyce to Southampton under Koeman and you see what a lazy cop argument that was. Probably bcos Allardyce was English so the pundits at Sky couldnt bring themselves to criticise him. And ofcourse to sell their own brand.
As you can tell this is something I feel just a little strongly about
