So boring

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
TBD

TBD

Active Member
Jan 30, 2011
887
112
43
Southampton
So fed up with how teams are playing against us at the moment. Sit back so so deep and time waste from the 5th minute in, this really doesn't pass as entertainment.
We've been poor but when you don't have world class players it's very hard to play through a whole team on the edge of the box. To think of the money TV companies pay to show this rubbish.
Also why oh why has the stopclock system in rugby not been brought in yet, beggars belief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davecg69
Can't really complain that teams aren't pointlessly exposing themselves at the back for our benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: st_brendy
The time wasting was incredible. Never seen it from 5 minutes in either.
Even after getting booked, Foster was still taking up to 20 seconds to release the ball, take the goal kick from the other side etc etc.
The ref let them get away with murder
Also, no ball boys?
 
It is very negative though isn't it? Teams are basically saying "we can't match you in midfield so we wont even try". I suppose you have to give pulis et al some credit but if he was really a mastermind of organization he would get the midfield actually doing something.
It would indeed be a very dull sport if every team came to defend. Lots of 0-0's with the occasional smash and grab?
Another way of looking at this is that non-footballing teams are dining for free on sky money made by the teams playing entertaining football.
Do people really want to see west ham west brom and stoke?
 
Lovelocum said:
It is very negative though isn't it? Teams are basically saying "we can't match you in midfield so we wont even try". I suppose you have to give pulis et al some credit but if he was really a mastermind of organization he would get the midfield actually doing something.
It would indeed be a very dull sport if every team came to defend. Lots of 0-0's with the occasional smash and grab?
Another way of looking at this is that non-footballing teams are dining for free on sky money made by the teams playing entertaining football.
Do people really want to see west ham west brom and stoke?
Click to expand...

Of course, teams could have reversed this criticism perfectly when it was us getting the 1-0 victories.
 
Schad said:
Of course, teams could have reversed this criticism perfectly when it was us getting the 1-0 victories.
Click to expand...
But we have only been outclassed in midfield 2-3 times this season. If we won 1-0 it was never, in my opinion, through smash and grab spoiling tactics, time wasting or putting 10 men behind the ball. We always try to play even against the city's of this world where we are likely to lose.
 
TBD said:
So fed up with how teams are playing against us at the moment. Sit back so so deep and time waste from the 5th minute in, this really doesn't pass as entertainment.
We've been poor but when you don't have world class players it's very hard to play through a whole team on the edge of the box. To think of the money TV companies pay to show this rubbish.
Also why oh why has the stopclock system in rugby not been brought in yet, beggars belief.
Click to expand...
Games would be a lot longer if they did that. I remember reading somewhere credible (broadsheet paper maybe?) that the ball is only usually in play for about 60 minutes a game which is crazy really.
 
Lovelocum said:
But we have only been outclassed in midfield 2-3 times this season. If we won 1-0 it was never, in my opinion, through smash and grab spoiling tactics, time wasting or putting 10 men behind the ball. We always try to play even against the city's of this world where we are likely to lose.
Click to expand...

We've absolutely sat back for long stretches in some of our games. Remember Man U away? Scored against the run of play, and then got men behind the ball. Newcastle away? Scored twice against the run of play, then got men behind the ball.

We can talk about outclassing people, but ultimately this comes down to being upset that teams are beating us and we'd rather that they stopped doing the things that are beating us. Beating us is not an affront to football and all that is wrong with the world; it's a perfectly reasonable tactic decision predicated on the fact that it keeps working.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Number 1 Jasper
Puck said:
Games would be a lot longer if they did that. I remember reading somewhere credible (broadsheet paper maybe?) that the ball is only usually in play for about 60 minutes a game which is crazy really.
Click to expand...

The only thing i like about American sport is you get the time you payed for <ok>
 
Lovelocum said:
But we have only been outclassed in midfield 2-3 times this season. If we won 1-0 it was never, in my opinion, through smash and grab spoiling tactics, time wasting or putting 10 men behind the ball. We always try to play even against the city's of this world where we are likely to lose.
Click to expand...

Opposition playing like this comes with your league position and the kind of football you play, it`s called "fear". If you carry on being a very good footballing team you will need to get used to it :grin:
 
Schad said:
We've absolutely sat back for long stretches in some of our games. Remember Man U away? Scored against the run of play, and then got men behind the ball. Newcastle away? Scored twice against the run of play, then got men behind the ball.

We can talk about outclassing people, but ultimately this comes down to being upset that teams are beating us and we'd rather that they stopped doing the things that are beating us. Beating us is not an affront to football and all that is wrong with the world; it's a perfectly reasonable tactic decision predicated on the fact that it keeps working.
Click to expand...

It does sort of feel like 'all that is wrong with the world' :(
 
Puck said:
Games would be a lot longer if they did that. I remember reading somewhere credible (broadsheet paper maybe?) that the ball is only usually in play for about 60 minutes a game which is crazy really.
Click to expand...

2010/11 62.39 minutes on average all games
2010/11 58.52 minutes on average games involving Stoke, who were managed at the time by ...er... Tony Pulis.

I'd hate to be the fan of a team managed by him.

Vin
 
Lovelocum said:
It is very negative though isn't it? Teams are basically saying "we can't match you in midfield so we wont even try". I suppose you have to give pulis et al some credit but if he was really a mastermind of organization he would get the midfield actually doing something.
It would indeed be a very dull sport if every team came to defend. Lots of 0-0's with the occasional smash and grab?
Another way of looking at this is that non-footballing teams are dining for free on sky money made by the teams playing entertaining football.
Do people really want to see west ham west brom and stoke?
Click to expand...

Do I want to see West Ham, WBA or Stoke? No

Are Tony Pulis et al paid to put on something for me to enjoying watching? No

Yes, if teams can't match us in midfield, then it's perfectly fine in my book that they don't try. Just like we didn't try and match Hazard, Fabregas and co before Xmas. If managers don't accept the limitations of their teams, and try and find ways around those limitations, they won't be in a job for too long.

For managers, coaches, players, chairmen etc, winning is more important than entertainment. Finishing as high up in the able as possible is more important than entertainment. And so it should be. Absolutely fair play to these teams - especially given that right now, it really, really works against us. For me, people who complain about it after it does a job on just reeks of sour grapes (even though it may not be).

And like Schad says, flip it around. Do you really think that fans of Stoke and Leicester and Swansea etc were entertained by our style of football, or feared it in any strong way, when we shut them all out in our victories? Likewise do you really think that we came out and played really attacking positive entertaining football against Utd (away) or Chelsea (home) or Arsenal (away), even though they all gave it a go against us in the other direction (and yet, but for one very late goal, we would have come away with something in all of those three games)?
 
Yeah I don't think this is something that's just down to the teams we play against. Only Villa games have had fewer goals scored in them than ours. We're a 1-0 team, not a team that's going to play in several 4-3 thrillers a season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back