Why I prefer attractive football over winning at all costs

[Raees]

I don't what you were watching if you didn't find the Ronaldo-Rooney-Tevez triumvirate entertaining.

Fast flowing unpredictable front three. It was 08 09 when the decline began to set in- style wise

 

[Moby]

The comparisons to Sir Alex's last few seasons are hilarious. He never ever went as defensive and parked the bus like Mourinho does regularly.

His last PL title was won with open end to end games where we conceded loads and RVP was on fire on the other end. It's not even comparable to Mourinho's destructive style.

 

[vangagal]

I don't what you were watching if you didn't find the Ronaldo-Rooney-Tevez triumvirate entertaining.

That was entertaining and that was the pinnacle of Fergie's days. After that, football going downhill style-wise, more like now.

 

[Moby]

Fast flowing unpredictable front three. It was 08 09 when the decline began to set in- style wise

Definitely we went a notch down after Ronaldo left, naturally, but I never found Sir Alex going completely on the backfoot like Jose did even when he had subpar attacks.

We had attacking mindsets be it with Valencia and Rooney combo or the season where Nani was excellent and then with Chicha and RVP additions. It was nowhere near like Jose who starts the game with 10 men behind the ball. Fergie's last years weren't pretty due to the player quality being low but he still won the league while having an attacking mindset.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I don't what you were watching if you didn't find the Ronaldo-Rooney-Tevez triumvirate entertaining.

How many times did all three actually play together?

 

[Massive Spanner]

Definitely we went a notch down after Ronaldo left, naturally, but I never found Sir Alex going completely on the backfoot like Jose did even when he had subpar attacks.

We had attacking mindsets be it with Valencia and Rooney combo or the season where Nani was excellent and then with Chicha and RVP additions. It was nowhere near like Jose who starts the game with 10 men behind the ball. Fergie's last years weren't pretty due to the player quality being low but he still won the league while having an attacking mindset.

you weren't watching us away in Europe, then.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That was entertaining and that was the pinnacle of Fergie's days. After that, football going downhill style-wise, more like now.

Feck me...

 

[Moby]

football going downhill style-wise, more like now.

Two different things really.

Of course you cannot replace Scholes with Tom Cleverley and expect the standards to stay up. But our mentality was never to go out and defend for 90 minutes. He actually gambled attacking with those teams and banking on RvP etc to bail him out which they did. One thing being dull or ineffective and another thing sitting back entirely.

 

[Moby]

you weren't watching us away in Europe, then.

Barca at OT in 2008 is the one instance I clearly remember, after that in 08-09 we crushed the likes of Arsenal in semis, in 09-10 we were on course to win and were doing well vs Bayern and we all know what happened, 10-11 I don't remember the opposition being much of a trouble till the finals.

We went out attacking and had a brilliant first half in 08 CL final, if Jose was the manager then no chance more than 1 or 2 players would have been in the opposition half.

 

[Boycott]

I don't lift the trophies and results don't change my life. If I give up 90 minutes every week or every three days I do so because football is escapism for me after a long drag of a day so you know....I'd prefer to enjoy the moment rather than endure it in the hope that sitting through shite may end up in a trophy in May. If your satisfaction of an 11 month long season is derived from whether you have a pot in the cabinet in May I think it's a bit shallow. What got you into football in the first place after all?

 

[Robbie Boy]

Arsene Wenger hasn’t played ‘attractive football’ in a while, Buddy.

This times a billion, innit.

 

[macheda14]

Arsenal have not played attractive Football in a very long time.

Arsene Wenger hasn’t played ‘attractive football’ in a while, Buddy.

First of all, perhaps not in the last three/four years when they started to dominate the FA cup, but prior to that, in their long streak without a trophy the consistently played some beautiful football.

Secondly, look at Brenden Rodgers's 2nd place Liverpool side, or even Klopp's current Liverpool side. Both teams play/played really aesthetically pleasing football.

 

[Moby]

Feck me...

It's hardly a stretch to call that 06-09 period as one of the best time during Fergie's reign. We were absolutely majestic both in PL and CL.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Barca at OT in 2008 is the one instance I clearly remember, after that in 08-09 we crushed the likes of Arsenal in semis, in 09-10 we were on course to win and were doing well vs Bayern and we all know what happened, 10-11 I don't remember the opposition being much of a trouble till the finals.

We went out attacking and had a brilliant first half in 08 CL final, if Jose was the manager then no chance more than 1 or 2 players would have been in the opposition half.

We had plenty of defensive performances under Fergie in Europe, and away against the likes of Liverpool and Chelsea in the league. I'm not saying it's anything close to what we've seen under Mourinho lately, but our football was far from exciting in Fergie's later years. It's no secret he adapted a far more pragmatic approach after that loss to AC Milan in 06/07 to make us more successful in Europe, and it worked.

Really we haven't seen great footie under Fergie (consistently) since 06/07 and he himself knew that 4-4-2 in Europe wasn't sustainable to win the CL so he changed it up.

 

[el3mel]

Preferring entertaining football over winning at all costs is a RAWK level, sorry. We should aim to get both, but if we have to choose then no brainer, winning at all costs.

 

[walkinhop]

Are people forgetting Fergie's last few years or what? We haven't played attractive football since 06/07. I wonder would Op sacrifice the 5 PL's and CL he won since then for us to have played more attractive football?

The first part is a fact. You are missing the most important fact though. Fergie won a lot.

 

[vangagal]

Feck me...

What? i find 08 double more entertaining than 98 one not discounting we won treble but just the style of football for me. But still 98 treble is the better achievement. If you disagree fine

Two different things really.

Of course you cannot replace Scholes with Tom Cleverley and expect the standards to stay up. But our mentality was never to go out and defend for 90 minutes. He actually gambled attacking with those teams and banking on RvP etc to bail him out which they did. One thing being dull or ineffective and another thing sitting back entirely.

Yes, to a degree that Mourinho sitting back all days Fergie had not. But to say that Fergie attack all day long is wrong

 

[Massive Spanner]

The first part is a fact. You are missing the most important fact though. Fergie won a lot.

that's my whole fecking point.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It's hardly a stretch to call that 06-09 period as one of the best time during Fergie's reign. We were absolutely majestic both in PL and CL.

"one of", sure. But the absolute pinnacle?

Domestically, we had much more dominant seasons earlier in his career and the 1999 cup double was far more exciting/entertaining than '08 IMO.

 

[walkinhop]

that's my whole fecking point.

Sorry, I misread your post.

I think the op might be looking to cling onto some redeeming factor. To make the suffering a bit less painful. "If we won't win, at least let us play better football". It's a weak stance and a mentality breeding losers.

 

[Massive Spanner]

"one of", sure. But the absolute pinnacle?

Domestically, we had much more dominant seasons earlier in his career and the 1999 cup double was far more exciting/entertaining than '08 IMO.

Yeah, 08 was arguably our best team, but the 06/07 and 99 sides were far more entertaining to watch.

08 was just a really well oiled machine, a bit like peak Mourinho sides, actually.

 

[Salus Populi Suprema Lex]

You can win trophies by playing attacking football - look at Barcelona and City this season. It isn't either/or; however, I'm not going to be a hypocrite - I would have taken a 1-0 grind yesterday, just as I was happy to take a point at Anfield. Horses for courses.

 

[Sarni]

I prefer winning and I guarantee that pretty much nobody would complain about style if we won a double, likewise I doubt anyone would say they are content with the team if we finished 6th with 112 - 77 goal difference.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

I hate attitudes likes this. Winning above everything (within the rules of course).

Apart from that it's a matter of taste. I much prefer grinding out a 1-0 to hammering an opponent 5-2. If I think about the best games I have seen in my life it is always the tight encounters with great defensive displays that come to mind, such as the CL final 2003, the Liverpool v Chelsea tie in the CL semis 2005 or Germany vs Italy at the 2006 World Cup. Whereas I tend forget about the goalfests fairly quickly.

 

[Siorac]

Feck me...

Calling 07/08 the pinnacle of Fergie days isn't such an outrageous claim; there's really only one argument against it, 1998/99.

 

[Nytram Shakes]

Trophies > style

Liverpool play good football, which I hope is some comfort to them as they sit in 5th place.

so u would honestly rather watch ure team win a trophy at the end of a season rather them watch them play entertaining football for about 180 mins a week?

 

[Siorac]

I prefer winning and I guarantee that pretty much nobody would complain about style if we won a double, likewise I doubt anyone would say they are content with the team if we finished 6th with 112 - 77 goal difference.

Sure but those are extremes. If we finish third, then I'd rather we did that with a GD of 80-50 then with 40-10, to be very simplistic.

The CL run in 2008 was absolutely thrilling to me even though, let's face it, it was mostly about defensive excellence as we conceded a total of two goals in seven games in the knockout stages. But it was the Champions League and United were winning it so of course I was excited.

But. The highlight of LVG's tenure, for me at least, wasn't the FA Cup win (granted, I was forced to miss the final so that plays a part but even so) because we're expected to beat the likes of Everton and Crystal Palace anyway. My fondest memories are Juanfield and the 4-2 demolition of City. OR 2009/10 - we won the League Cup that season I think but really, it's the destruction of Milan that stands out or the dismantling of Arsenal at the Emirates. So it's never that simple that "trophies > everything else", otherwise Arsenal fans would be pretty happy with winning three out of the last four FA Cups. And they're clearly not happy.

 

[Sarni]

I hate attitudes likes this. Winning above everything (within the rules of course).

Apart from that it's a matter of taste. I much prefer grinding out a 1-0 to hammering an opponent 5-2. If I think about the best games I have seen in my life it is always the tight encounters with great defensive displays that come to mind, such as the CL final 2003, the Liverpool v Chelsea tie in the CL semis 2005 or Germany vs Italy at the 2006 World Cup. Whereas I tend forget about the goalfests fairly quickly.

What the absolute hell

 

[Sarni]

Sure but those are extremes. If we finish third, then I'd rather we did that with a GD of 80-50 then with 40-10, to be very simplistic.

The CL run in 2008 was absolutely thrilling to me even though, let's face it, it was mostly about defensive excellence as we conceded a total of two goals in seven games in the knockout stages. But it was the Champions League and United were winning it so of course I was excited.

But. The highlight of LVG's tenure, for me at least, wasn't the FA Cup win (granted, I was forced to miss the final so that plays a part but even so) because we're expected to beat the likes of Everton and Crystal Palace anyway. My fondest memories are Juanfield and the 4-2 demolition of City. OR 2009/10 - we won the League Cup that season I think but really, it's the destruction of Milan that stands out or the dismantling of Arsenal at the Emirates. So it's never that simple that "trophies > everything else", otherwise Arsenal fans would be pretty happy with winning three out of the last four FA Cups. And they're clearly not happy.

Yes, but the point OP makes is not that they'd prefer to get the same results while playing good, offensive football rather than defensive football, that should go without saying to be honest and should not even be up for discussion. The issue is whether you'd prefer to lose more but play nice, or win more but play ugly.

The goal should be to play nice AND win. Ultimately all clubs bar Atletico Madrid attempt to do that, sometime they'll start off by building winning culture and will only learn to play better on the eye later, sometimes they'll start off by playing thrilling football and results will come later but for everyone bar Simeone this is the goal. Mourinho's teams also played excellent football in the past, the reason why they were perceived boring (especially Chelsea) was that they were very hard to break down so their games often finished at 1-0 let alone 2-0.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I'm not sure why the two have to be mutually exclusive tbh.

The frustration stems from the fact that we should very much be capable of doing both. We have the players (for the most part) and the financial might and stature to make it happen.

We just have a manger (especially in the big games; mostly away), that has this way of playing that is so ingrained that he can't deviate from it too much.

 

[Siorac]

Yes, but the point OP makes is not that they'd prefer to get the same results while playing good, offensive football rather than defensive football, that should go without saying to be honest and should not even be up for discussion. The issue is whether you'd prefer to lose more but play nice, or win more but play ugly.

The goal should be to play nice AND win. Ultimately all clubs bar Atletico Madrid attempt to do that, sometime they'll start off by building winning culture and will only learn to play better on the eye later, sometimes they'll start off by playing thrilling football and results will come later but for everyone bar Simeone this is the goal. Mourinho's teams also played excellent football in the past, the reason why they were perceived boring (especially Chelsea) was that they were very hard to break down so their games often finished at 1-0 let alone 2-0.

Thing is, this sort of implies that playing ugly increases your chance of winning and vice versa. Which is far from given in my opinion.

The often-cited problem with Mourinho's so-called "pragmatic" approach in these big away games is that it's not pragmatic at all, considering his team failed to score 9 times in the last 11 games at top 6 rivals and never got a win. It just doesn't work. Right now the choice isn't between winning ugly or losing beautifully; it's losing/drawing ugly or trying to get results with a more positive approach.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Another indirect dig at Mourinho. How many of these threads are going to be made?

 

[Markmark99]

I've been thinking about this here and there based on many comments on this site from members that say they don't care how we play, they just want to win. Here are my thoughts:

1. Attractive football gives you joy just watching. If we play attractive football most of the time, say 60% of our matches, then you will be entertained around 30 matches a season. That's 30 days you will experience joy with the entertaining play and want to watch more. Yes, losing or drawing the match would dampen some of the joy but at least your saw some nice skill and good play. And even after a bad result you were given hope that next weekend will be different.

2. On the other hand, let's say we play conservative football and maybe win just a little more than with attractive football. We might squeak to a title here and there and that's great. When we win a title or cup, though, you get joy for a few days and then you just go back to living your life. It's a brief joy. Sure, even playing conservatively you will see some good play, just not 30 days. Instead, you might see some sparkling play maybe around 10 matches and most of it will center around individual play, not team play.

3. Attractive football wins consistently over the long run. This is especially true with modern football. A team can't compete year after year by playing conservative, defensive football. You might get lucky once in a while, but it can't be sustained.

4. Attractive football attracts great players.

5. Attractive football intimidates your opponents. Two good examples are City at the moment and United during their great runs under SAF.

I became a United fan in 2000 (first time I got satellite tv and could watch european football) because United played with a swagger. I got the feeling that how United play was just as important as getting results.

I know some of you will laugh and mock me and that's okay. This is how I feel and I'm sure there are others like me. My enthusiasm about football has waned because of the pedestrian football I've watched for 4 years now.

Yeah completely agree. Why can't we play attacking football and win major trophies?

I think this win at all costs/park the bus, do not lose at all costs was yesterday tactic. City are now showing with enough talent you can simply outplay other teams 95%+ of the time, create, play attractive and win.

If we had a team of 11 top/world class players why shouldn't you strive to outplay the opposition home and away? Not saying every game will be a 4-2. there will be some 1-0 defeats but at least create and play to a certain standard.

 

[Sarni]

Thing is, this sort of implies that playing ugly increases your chance of winning and vice versa. Which is far from given in my opinion.

The often-cited problem with Mourinho's so-called "pragmatic" approach in these big away games is that it's not pragmatic at all, considering his team failed to score 9 times in the last 11 games at top 6 rivals and never got a win. It just doesn't work. Right now the choice isn't between winning ugly or losing beautifully; it's losing/drawing ugly or trying to get results with a more positive approach.

Of course I understand that playing ugly does not always mean better results. Again, it's not what OP is suggesting, or anyone for that matter I think. He's saying that he'd prefer us to lose while playing great football over winning while playing ugly. I think it's a strange suggestion and I don't think it would actually spell true to him if it did happen.

Agreed about tactics away at top 6 teams. It's the sort of tactics that could get you safe outcome in Champions League games because you will often come away with 1-0/2-1 loss, 0-0 draw or 1-1 draw, all of which are fine results to take back home. That's why I think we will do well in CL this season. However it doesn't work in the league where loss is always bad and draw is never great.

 

[Markmark99]

I definitely prefer attacking football and I'm sure most people here do too.

With regards to 'winning at any cost' I suppose it depends on what you're winning. I'd take winning the league right now playing defensive football. But I'd prefer united playing consistently entertaining football over trophies like the league cup and Europa league to be honest. Football is passion and entertainment at the end of the day.

So we play the attractive football..get top 4 hopefully a cup and buy players where we can play the attractive football and win the big 2 (League and CL) because this "well we are not good enough so we have to play like dog ***" every week is getting very long in the tooth. £500m spent since Fergie left and still we are not good enough? WHY is that?

 

[AXVnee7]

I don't get why it's too much to ask for both. City are getting good results and playing an attractive style of football.

What I do appreciate is that it takes time to get the squad to such a stage that can do both. So I don't mind prioritising winning ugly whilst we build a team that can go toe-to-toe with the better teams. That's why the brand of football didn't bother me at all last season, because I felt Jose needed time to assess a squad he'd just taken over. I defended him plenty, especially in threads discussing the big games. This season I'm less lenient, but perhaps Jose needs more time than I thought. In spite of that, there's the big concern that Jose is simply not interested in entertaining football and will never deviate from what he knows best, even if he's here in 2 or 3 seasons time.

 

[Markmark99]

Of course I understand that playing ugly does not always mean better results. Again, it's not what OP is suggesting, or anyone for that matter I think. He's saying that he'd prefer us to lose while playing great football over winning while playing ugly. I think it's a strange suggestion and I don't think it would actually spell true to him if it did happen.

Agreed about tactics away at top 6 teams. It's the sort of tactics that could get you safe outcome in Champions League games because you will often come away with 1-0/2-1 loss, 0-0 draw or 1-1 draw, all of which are fine results to take back home. That's why I think we will do well in CL this season. However it doesn't work in the league where loss is always bad and draw is never great.

surely if we attacked Liverpool we would have won? Jose would be happier with 2 draws (0-0) away to Liverpool and Chelsea....we should have beat Liverpool and this defeat at Chelsea would have have ok. But no..the pragmatic one is hell bent on not losing and we pick up 1 point instead of 3.
How are we going to play City? Go for the 0-0 and hope for a 1-0...it's the way it is.

 

[Mr Anderson]

Arsenal play nice football a lot. Their fans are ecstatic...

In truth, it’s all about a balance. You can’t win every game by being cunning and solely tactical. And you can’t play like scouse and Arse with a rickety backline and expect to go the distance.

Bitch and moan all you want. Results are all that counts come season end.

 

[Siorac]

Of course I understand that playing ugly does not always mean better results. Again, it's not what OP is suggesting, or anyone for that matter I think. He's saying that he'd prefer us to lose while playing great football over winning while playing ugly. I think it's a strange suggestion and I don't think it would actually spell true to him if it did happen.

Agreed about tactics away at top 6 teams. It's the sort of tactics that could get you safe outcome in Champions League games because you will often come away with 1-0/2-1 loss, 0-0 draw or 1-1 draw, all of which are fine results to take back home. That's why I think we will do well in CL this season. However it doesn't work in the league where loss is always bad and draw is never great.

To be fair, he says that one of his reasons for wanting attractive football is because it wins out over the long run. And in his hypothetical scenario we win only a "little more" with ugly football. Now if that means some League Cups and FA Cups here and there then I'd agree that I'd rather see entertaining football without trophies than shite football with second rate cups.

 

[Sarni]

surely if we attacked Liverpool we would have won? Jose would be happier with 2 draws (0-0) away to Liverpool and Chelsea....we should have beat Liverpool and this defeat at Chelsea would have have ok. But no..the pragmatic one is hell bent on not losing and we pick up 1 point instead of 3.
How are we going to play City? Go for the 0-0 and hope for a 1-0...it's the way it is.

I'm almost sure we will set up for 0-0 against City.