Seems to be plenty of malaise over the type of football we are playing at the moment. To me it's too negative. Maybe I'm old fashioned and like the 'up at them' approach with a high tempo game...yes, I will admit I loved the Peter Reid era with Quinn, Phillips and the two wingers Johnston and Summerbee. Nothing better seeing a winger bombing down the wing and knocking in early crosses and getting defences turned. Other than Sunderland...if you had to pick another teams style of play over the years who would you go for. Here's mine for starters.....Tommy Docherty's Man Utd in the 70's with Pearson, Greenhoff up the middle and Hill, Coppell on the wings....fantastic to watch and so entertaining!!!!
I don't need gung ho, all guns blazing **** but attacking intent is a must and I think it's why Poyet will never be a success.
Nowt wrong with that mate and in an ideal world it would be backwards and forwards and we'd win 10 nil every game! That said I'd put up with a team that looks like it actually wants to score.
The possesion football game which is what Gus is trying to get us to play to me simply won't work because we haven't the players of the standard you need to play this game. Maybe down the road....but not at the moment. We don't have a Coutino who can fire on in from 25 yards. Don't see Tony Pullis playing this way because he knows he hasn't got the players so he plays to his teams strengths....and abilities. That way he gets the best out of them and it's certainly effective. Sometimes I watch Sunderland and think we could play all week and still never score....
Because we're not trying to! Possession football, with a high defensive line and a lot of pressing works very well if you're waiting for a killer pass or an opening to test the keeper. We're not. We're sitting back and passing it far too far away from the opponents goal. Poyet's system is flawed in that the team have no creative freedom or will to score and I think if he was manager of Barca of five years ago they'd flounder.
Allowing the players to run at the opposition to get behind the line, create space, have a go. Anything but the stuff we are playing lately. Thought we were onto something last Saturday when we broke up an attack and made a quick break but CW electing to shoot rather then play JD in was bloody criminal at that level.
I know much maligned, but don't have any problems with long ball tactics, so long as its done correctly. Its more exiting than keeping the ball for for the sake of keeping possession. I think it helps build a seige mentality among the fans too. However if done incorrectly is as bad as our current style of play.
We need to mix it up a bit, and play to win at home and close ranks away, just needs the players to understand whats required, turn up, and perform.
It varies, there are times you want free-flowing and times you want tight. I'd be miffed if we went to Chelsea and got stuffed playing open football but more miffed if we had Ebbsfleet in the cup and won 1-0 on the break after having had 10 men behind the ball all game. Play to your strengths and be adaptable, try to entertain but not at the cost of results.
Attacking intent...yes Balls for Glory...yes, but not always Possession football, high defensive line, with an eye for the killer pass...yes Ball on the deck, quick and direct...yes Run at the opposition, get behind their lines, creating space...yes Long ball tactics, done correctly, when the game requires...yes Mix it up a bit, understand what's required and perform...yes Play to strengths, adapt, entertain, but nothing at the expense of result...yes Think you boys have it covered.
loved that night at Sid James Park......Mickey Gray down the left...great cross...Quinny header back of net...what a goal!!!
