There has been a lot of banter about Warnock and Cardiff playing long ball, but they are higher than we are at the moment and are more or less guaranteed the playoffs as it stands. We on the other hand have flirted with Long Ball of late and not been very successful. We have played better with it on the deck but still sit outside the top 6. This poll assumes that we actually DO manage to master Long Ball to some effect. I’m trying to get a feel for people’s genuine opinions. Do we care how we win? Is it better to lose ‘pretty’ or would we be happy to swop places with Cardiff now if it meant playing long ball as our Plan A?
Good thread R&W. We are guaranteed a playoff place mate, not "more or less". Boro can get max 12 points to get to 78 and we've got 80 already. As for your poll - please carry on - it'll be very interesting reading.
What is it? Long ball? Direct? Seriously. Bristol City play the ball one metre shorter on average than Cardiff do.
A good team should be able to adapt to what ever is required.....Main aim, to win the game, the added bonus would be to play attractive entertaining football. In a way, has been the failure of Man C and to an extent Barcelona in champs league this season......in addition to dreadful defending..... Like I said in a previous thread, there is more than one way to win a football game!
Bad poll - it implies that 'playing direct' is guaranteed to get results, whereas playing 'tippy tappy' is 'style over substance'. Yes, yes, you did say 'if it gets results', but you know what you were doing with the semantics. Cardiff have found a style that works for them & people try to speak ill of it because of reasons like jealousy & not liking Neil Warwick, but it doesn't make it the One True Way of playing. I'd say Fulham are fairly 'tippy tappy' and are doing alright for themselves. Ultimately it's about finding an approach that is effective and reliable. If it was a straight choice between results or style then most would choose the former - whatever barbs are thrown your way, points on the board sting more than any words.
Direct is not guaranteed to get results. Not sure why this is a bad poll but hey ho. I voted in my own poll that direct is a valid plan B - so has everyone who has bothered to vote. Most fans love to see ‘pure’ football - myself included, but sometimes an opposition can negate a decent midfield by simply bypassing it. It’s not pretty but it can be effective. This poll was an attempt to weed out those who are jealous of Cardiff’s position or just dislike Warnock.
That's why it's a bad poll - it's laced with motive. Option 2 is very passive-aggressive - it's not a inspiration for discussion or debate, it's a trap to target people. Perhaps a better discussion point would be; 'are you happy with the current sides playing style/philosophy, or do you think we should move to a more direct approach?' Of course you'll have people say they want both when the situation calls for it, but you could leave out that option to force people off the fence.
Tippy tappy sounds undesirable and is attached to a negative. Playing direct is undefined and attached to a positive. Paul Scholes was direct but also played very short. Long/direct? Wolves and Fulham can be described as more tippy tappy than Bristol City but are where in the table? What is direct? Is it more positive than a player attempting to penetrate with a short pass, or is it aimless, desperate, unimaginative, negative, unskilled etc?
?????ks .... it is a poll, good one and asks a question what preference does the poster have given 3 objectives and to be honest football nowadays is "either tippy tappy, build up passing " or hoof it, you actually answer two questions if you vote plan b your answer is tippy tappy type, it is the alternative to hoofing it so currently after my vote it is plan b ===== 11 votes tippy tappy ===============11 votes by default answer being we don't want hoof it unless desperate measures arise!!!!! good poll
Shockingly John, I did actually understand that, and it is in fact my argument for why it's a poor poll - to choose anything other than option 3 would be nonsensical, so what's the point?
you miss the whole point of what a poll is all about, by having the comment so what's the point shows that your belief that everyone should be singularly aligned to your way of thinking ... and thank goodness they are not ... been thinking of doing a poll ... should day follow night or should night follow day
Actually Nick, I think some people just dont care as long as the points come. They just won’t admit it. Some of us look down on Cardiff and Warnock as ‘spoiling the game’ - but they are higher than us. Ideally we would play like we did vs Man U every week AND get promoted, but for some, the performance and entertainment is more important than the result. I want both, but I would take winning ugly every time if it got us the win. Perhaps I should have voted 1 in my poll rather than 3. Anyway it’s a bit of fun and not intended to piss people off.
I'm struggling to make what I'm saying much more simple & I regret getting this dragged into a back and forth as it is. I'll finish by saying I think we all just want results.
****ter of a poll. Can Johnson go back to playing football instead of trying to be Pulis and Warnock.
You need a mixture of both styles during the game To be fair having seen City and Cardiff this season you don't go away think either are just "long ball" merchants
Exactly - you play the sort of game needed to win it in this division. Principles are fine - results to get you up are the defining measure.
How would you describe Cardiff's style? Cardiff to accommodated Mr Warnocks football play 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. They transition quickly and vertically into that top three. They do not pass the ball frequently. It is certainly direct. It is long. The style of football Bristol City were playing and Cardiff do are virtual polar opposites. Were is the unfortunate part. Part of Bristol Citys poor form is due to mixing too much long ball into the football, or actually too little instead of logicaly going 4-3-3 taking no risks and knocking it longer.
I think you've summed it up there cliftonville. Long ball for me is hit and hope. Cardiff are far from that (usually). Cardiff do get the ball back to front quickly, no doubt, but once it's in the final third are happy to make short passes to get a shot away. And they get a lot of shots away. One of the lowest possssion stats in the division and the second highest number of attempts on goal. They play football where it hurts people. Not perfect or purist, but relatively effective.
This makes sense - a ‘half way compromise’ that mixes both styles and dilutes the effectiveness of both. Good post.
