Does it matter how you win?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CJACKO11
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 21
  • Views Views 2K

Does it Matter How You Win???

  • Total voters
    47
C

CJACKO11

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
15,889
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maybe im old school but all i care about is if Chelsea and England win matches at any cost. I mean get smashed around the park and win with a 90th minute penalty i wouldn't care a win is a win and i would rather win ugly than not win at all.

I bring this up because i think Arsenal in particular have addapted the Brazilian way of thinking that they would rather loose beautifly than win ugly. And i think this is a main factor for why they have gone so long without winning a trophy. I believe at the end of the day i want to see my teams win at any cost because nothing would make me happier.

Just thought it would be nice to see your thoughts especially Arsenal fans have you had enough of so called playing football the right way would you trade this for success this season???
 
This will probably be one of the most one sided polls in some time...No, I don't, a win's a win, of course you want to win in style, but you'll take anything
 
As an arsenal fan I feel divided. We need to stay true to our way of playing and keep it free flowing, however if it means being slightly compromised for some silverware, Id gladly do it.
 
Winning > Sexy football.

You can't win the league by doing 1000 step overs, it's all about winning.
 
No prizes in football for beautiful football, 3 points that matters at the end of the day.
 
i dont care as long as man utd keep winning am happy
 
Last edited:
Winning is the priority. But there is never one sole path to winning. And when you can win by playing more attractive football, why not do it?

Wimbledon were successful by their standards. They were also barely worth watching. Norway were successful by their standards. They too were barely worth watching. And ultimately the anti-football approach fails because no team can survive without supporters turning up to pay and even tactically it is a dead end and will ultimately be beaten over the long run by a team which plays football based around pass and move.

Pragmatism is healthy when appropriate. It isn't something which aspirations or dreams are made of. It's not a legacy which will be passed down through the generations as being the pinnacle of football. Italy may have won the World Cup in 1982, but it's the glorious football of Brazil that tournament which is remembered. Wimbledon may have won the FA Cup in 1988, but it's the sublime skills and beautiful football of Dalglish's Liverpool which will be remembered. When a manager takes a team of gifted players who could play fantastic football and turns them into a team who show no interest in entertaining or reaching the limits of their talents, then that manager is doing a disservice to the game.
 
Winning is always a priority but staying true to the spirit of the game and winning always feels a whole lot more satisfying....I dont mind if we win even though we got carved open again and again but obviously if we play beatiful football and win,we will feel better knowing that we won by skill not luck
 
winning is the priority, but i feel you have an obilgation to win well if you have the capability to do so
 
One interesting thing I have noticed....

People always talk about how Cryuff and his boys dazzled the world with their total football but lost in the finals more than they talk about the Brazilian team that beat them in the finals....
 
To be honest, I couldn't put my heart and soul into a club that played awful anti-football.

A win may be a win. But it's a hollow, unjustified win IMO.
 
little suprised with the results actually i thought more people would prefer better football.
 
It's like: Would you rather play amazing, brilliant, passing football, but under-achieving in the league.
Or: Play not so good football, and be flying in the league?

So no, it definitely doesn't matter, because if you do play well, and lose, would you say "Well, at least we played well."?
 
CJACKO11 said:
little suprised with the results actually i thought more people would prefer better football.
Click to expand...
everyone likes to win well. but there are times when "ugly football" is needed. however i wouldnt want it every single game.
 
As a Rangers fan, I've had to put up with a lot of 'anti-football' jibes from opposing fans (Celtic), but one thing I do notice is it's only people who are on the recieving end of it that moan about it. It's a bit like the Jabulani ball, only the losers moan about it. :)
 
SamScfc said:
It's like: Would you rather play amazing, brilliant, passing football, but under-achieving in the league.
Or: Play not so good football, and be flying in the league?

So no, it definitely doesn't matter, because if you do play well, and lose, would you say "Well, at least we played well."?
Click to expand...

There's an interesting comparison back in the early 80s between Watford (under Graham Taylor) and Wimbledon (under Dave Bassett). Both shot up the divisions by playing a what amounted to kick and rush. But whereas Watford went out and tried to entertain and played a full part in some cracking matches (have a look at some of their scorelines under Taylor - it was crazy stuff), Wimbledon went in the other direction and were nihilistic and destructive. Watford packed out every week, Wimbledon matches were played in front of near deserted terraces. Watford introduced John Barnes to the world. Wimbledon made a hero out of Vinny Jones.

Essentially though, both sides were playing the same way tactically. Don't think there is really the division between 'good football' and 'winning ugly' that is being made. Successful teams can win ugly. But they also are capable of good football. Graham's Arsenal would be a good case in point - they were negative and boring when required, but they also played some good attacking football.
 
Honestly, winning ugly > losing beautifully.
 
My main priority is to win, if you can win in style then all the better. Its one of the things I disliked about Mourinho's methods when in charge at Chels. When we were a few goals up he seemed to like shutting up shop and not taking any risks. I remember a few years back when we were said to play 'anti-football' and only do what is needed to get the result. At that time United were winning and winning in style which was shown by their far superior goal difference. Even if it did go to the last day, the goal difference acts as an extra point effectively which underlines how important it could prove to be whether fighting for the title or survival in the league.

Under Ancelotti it has changed significantly with us looking for more goals when leading compared to the Mourinho days. It seems we have combined them both together which is vital if challenging for honours. Winning ugly if needed and putting weaker defenses to the sword at every opportunity.

I guess for a team like Barcelona, they seem to have mastered the art of winning in style which makes them almost untouchable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top