Prefer to look good and lose than look bad and win...!

[RedTillI'mDead]

A quote from White Men Cant Jump. A brilliant film for any of you youngsters that may have missed it. It doesn't lose its edge with time.

Anyway, on the point and this is loosely linked to Ole and him being considered as a permanent candidate.

Would you rather keep things fun and attacking like they are now and over the season lose a few more points from a certain level of naivety and thus maybe not win the big trophies, but enjoy watching every game. Or have LVG/ Mourinho football and win more trophies.

I'm not trying to be too specific on this, but broadly lots of fun, but not so many trophies, or not much fun but lots of trophies.

I feel like we have been spoilt as fans so in many ways I'm not desperate for trophies. But after having the last 5 years of shite I am desperate for more of this free flowing attacking football and frankly I don't mind if it costs us points.

Putting it another way entirely would you rather Simeone comes in the summer and wins us a title next year, but with boring as fcuk football. Or stick with Ole, make top 4 and enjoy watching every game.

In reality I think the best form of defence is attack anyway and for every game you lose you'll still gain more points than the pragmatic play that often gets you draws. E.g. 2 wins and 1 loss gives you more points than 1 win and 2 draws.

Attacking football and winning are not mutually exclusive even in today's more compact style of play, so this topic is more about mentality than reality.

Interestingly when I was a footballer I felt much the same. I'd rather take the extra touch, go on a run, try a penetrating pass than turning around and laying off a backwards or side pass. I always got shouted at for this, but for every couple of times I overdid it there were a couple of times where things opened up so in my opinion it felt justified.

Some people just prefer to keep control longer, but possession alone doesn't win you games.

 

[Ranchero]

A quote from White Men Cant Jump. A brilliant film for any of you youngsters that may have missed it. It doesn't lose its edge with time.

Anyway, on the point and this is loosely linked to Ole and him being considered as a permanent candidate.

Would you rather keep things fun and attacking like they are now and over the season lose a few more points from a certain level of naivety and thus maybe not win the big trophies, but enjoy watching every game. Or have LVG/ Mourinho football and win more trophies.

I'm not trying to be too specific on this, but broadly lots of fun, but not so many trophies, or not much fun but lots of trophies.

I feel like we have been spoilt as fans so in many ways I'm not desperate for trophies. But after having the last 5 years of shite I am desperate for more of this free flowing attacking football and frankly I don't mind if it costs us points.

Putting it another way entirely would you rather Simeone comes in the summer and wins us a title next year, but with boring as fcuk football. Or stick with Ole, make top 4 and enjoy watching every game.

In reality I think the best form of defence is attack anyway and for every game you lose you'll still gain more points than the pragmatic play that often gets you draws. E.g. 2 wins and 1 loss gives you more points than 1 win and 2 draws.

Attacking football and winning are not mutually exclusive even in today's more compact style of play, so this topic is more about mentality than reality.

Interestingly when I was a footballer I felt much the same. I'd rather take the extra touch, go on a run, try a penetrating pass than turning around and laying off a backwards or side pass. I always got shouted at for this, but for every couple of times I overdid it there were a couple of times where things opened up so in my opinion it felt justified.

Some people just prefer to keep control longer, but possession alone doesn't win you games.

I think you have to take each game on its merits. Against inferior sides man-for-man you steamroller them. That's what would be expected and that is what you have to do. In the bigger games you take that attacking flair and you then have to add to that a more calculating strategy. Which is where we are with Ole and Phelan I think.

Man City bored me to tears against Huddersfield when at times it was possession for possession's sake. It's what you do with the ball when you have it that matters. The game is about goals not possession percentages. You can get a player showing 90% accuracy passing backwards and sideways. Which was what Matic was adept at under Mo. Under Ole, they have clearly been told to look for the forward pass, which was the mantra under Fergie. And Matic's game has been transformed accordingly. He was using half his brain under Mo.

 

[breakout67]

We aren't always fun and exciting under Ole. We got pinned back by Brighton for a good while in the 2nd half. I don't see where this insistence on generalising managers and performances comes from. We've had many games under LVG and Mourinho that were fun and exciting as well.

My expectations are as follows:

Against minnows at home - should always dominate and win
Against top teams at home - should be competitive and win/draw
Against minnows away - should always dominate and win
Against top teams away - should be competitive and the result is up in the air

 

[Sassy Colin]

A quote from White Men Cant Jump. A brilliant film for any of you youngsters that may have missed it. It doesn't lose its edge with time.

Anyway, on the point and this is loosely linked to Ole and him being considered as a permanent candidate.

Would you rather keep things fun and attacking like they are now and over the season lose a few more points from a certain level of naivety and thus maybe not win the big trophies, but enjoy watching every game. Or have LVG/ Mourinho football and win more trophies.

I'm not trying to be too specific on this, but broadly lots of fun, but not so many trophies, or not much fun but lots of trophies.

I feel like we have been spoilt as fans so in many ways I'm not desperate for trophies. But after having the last 5 years of shite I am desperate for more of this free flowing attacking football and frankly I don't mind if it costs us points.

Putting it another way entirely would you rather Simeone comes in the summer and wins us a title next year, but with boring as fcuk football. Or stick with Ole, make top 4 and enjoy watching every game.

In reality I think the best form of defence is attack anyway and for every game you lose you'll still gain more points than the pragmatic play that often gets you draws. E.g. 2 wins and 1 loss gives you more points than 1 win and 2 draws.

Attacking football and winning are not mutually exclusive even in today's more compact style of play, so this topic is more about mentality than reality.

Interestingly when I was a footballer I felt much the same. I'd rather take the extra touch, go on a run, try a penetrating pass than turning around and laying off a backwards or side pass. I always got shouted at for this, but for every couple of times I overdid it there were a couple of times where things opened up so in my opinion it felt justified.

Some people just prefer to keep control longer, but possession alone doesn't win you games.

What the hell are you on about?

We are playing exciting attacking football and winning games, rather than dreary awful football and losing them.

What is this obsession that you can't play exciting football & win, it is truly bizarre and utter bollocks.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Can someone fix the title...
Should be Prefer to look good and lose, than look bad and win!

 

[Adam-Utd]

The problem under Jose was we looked bad whether we won or lost.

At first we were scrapping results so the pressure stayed off, but as soon as he stopped winning he was always going to fail.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Also the thread title needs more work.

 

[SirAF]

A quote from White Men Cant Jump. A brilliant film for any of you youngsters that may have missed it. It doesn't lose its edge with time.

Anyway, on the point and this is loosely linked to Ole and him being considered as a permanent candidate.

Would you rather keep things fun and attacking like they are now and over the season lose a few more points from a certain level of naivety and thus maybe not win the big trophies, but enjoy watching every game. Or have LVG/ Mourinho football and win more trophies.

I'm not trying to be too specific on this, but broadly lots of fun, but not so many trophies, or not much fun but lots of trophies.

I feel like we have been spoilt as fans so in many ways I'm not desperate for trophies. But after having the last 5 years of shite I am desperate for more of this free flowing attacking football and frankly I don't mind if it costs us points.

Putting it another way entirely would you rather Simeone comes in the summer and wins us a title next year, but with boring as fcuk football. Or stick with Ole, make top 4 and enjoy watching every game.

In reality I think the best form of defence is attack anyway and for every game you lose you'll still gain more points than the pragmatic play that often gets you draws. E.g. 2 wins and 1 loss gives you more points than 1 win and 2 draws.

Attacking football and winning are not mutually exclusive even in today's more compact style of play, so this topic is more about mentality than reality.

Interestingly when I was a footballer I felt much the same. I'd rather take the extra touch, go on a run, try a penetrating pass than turning around and laying off a backwards or side pass. I always got shouted at for this, but for every couple of times I overdid it there were a couple of times where things opened up so in my opinion it felt justified.

Some people just prefer to keep control longer, but possession alone doesn't win you games.

Yes, winning is everything in pro sports. Who says they can't do both though?

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

What the hell are you on about?

We are playing exciting attacking football and winning games, rather than dreary awful football and losing them.

What is this obsession that you can't play exciting football & win, it is truly bizarre and utter bollocks.

I think you need to read the full post. I'm talking about mentality of looking good and losing or looking bad but winning.

The reference to LVG and Mourinho was simply about what it was like watching them, not the results.

It's a theoretical discussion, broadly would you rather be entertained with good football or trophies assuming these were mutually exclusive, even though of course they are not!

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

What the hell are you on about?

We are playing exciting attacking football and winning games, rather than dreary awful football and losing them.

What is this obsession that you can't play exciting football & win, it is truly bizarre and utter bollocks.

I agree I think you can play good football and win, but Jose did bring in a move to pragmatic defensive football at Chelsea that many other teams and managers have followed.

I guess what I'm asking is would you prefer that if it got better results overall, or just prefer more exciting football on a regular basis even if it lost you more points.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

It Was a movie. Not real life.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Yes, winning is everything in pro sports. Who says they can't do both though?

Of course winning is the aim, but that trophy feeling is a short lived feeling at the end of a long season. Personally I'm not sure if that short lived feeling is better than watching all year exciting football.

The FA cup win under LVG for example does not make up for the most boring football I've ever seen. I'd rather have a manager win nothing bit entertain me every week than be put to sleep every game.

 

[SirAF]

Of course winning is the aim, but that trophy feeling is a short lived feeling at the end of a long season. Personally I'm not sure if that short lived feeling is better than watching all year exciting football.

The FA cup win under LVG for example does not make up for the most boring football I've ever seen. I'd rather have a manager win nothing bit entertain me every week than be put to sleep every game.

For me it definitely is, and I can only speak for myself. I agree about LvG and the FA Cup though, but that is not really a major trophy anymore - I'm talking about PL/CL - which was the example given.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

It Was a movie. Not real life.

Thanks for that contribution. I'm sure we all feel wiser as a result of your observation.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I think you need to read the full post. I'm talking about mentality of looking good and losing or looking bad but winning.

The reference to LVG and Mourinho was simply about what it was like watching them, not the results.

It's a theoretical discussion, broadly would you rather be entertained with good football or trophies assuming these were mutually exclusive, even though of course they are not!

I agree I think you can play good football and win, but Jose did bring in a move to pragmatic defensive football at Chelsea that many other teams and managers have followed.

I guess what I'm asking is would you prefer that if it got better results overall, or just prefer more exciting football on a regular basis even if it lost you more points.

But the whole premise is wrong in the first place.

All the best teams in the World have played an exciting brand of football.

United, mostly, although in certain games SAF set us up differently.

The two most exciting teams in English football at the moment are sitting first & second.

Barcelona, Brazil, France, Germany.

All exciting teams to watch and successful at various times.

Occasionally a boring dreary team will win something, e.g. Greece in the Euros, but that is the exception, not the rule.

The pundits are constantly banging on the same narrative, but it's simply not true. The most exciting teams win the most.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

For me it definitely is, and I can only speak for myself. I agree about LvG and the FA Cup though, but that is not really a major trophy anymore - I'm talking about PL/CL - which was the example given.

I don't care what we could have won with LVG style football. I'd just rather not bother. I'd rather watch The Queens Head FC vs The Dog & Bone FC. Literally any other football is more exciting than LVG football.

 

[Siorac]

What the hell are you on about?

We are playing exciting attacking football and winning games, rather than dreary awful football and losing them.

What is this obsession that you can't play exciting football & win, it is truly bizarre and utter bollocks.

Yeah, exactly.

Yes, it's only a hypothetical but it seems to promote this idea that became all too widespread during Mourinho's abject reign of terror: that somehow it's either good football or winning football. Even though the entire history of football contradicts this notion.

There are teams, of course, that have no choice but to resort to defending and percentage football to achieve anything. But they don't do that because it's a superior way of playing and a better method of achieving results: they do that because they are not good at actually playing football. Manchester United, however, should be quite good at playing football.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

But the whole premise is wrong in the first place.

All the best teams in the World have played an exciting brand of football.

United, mostly, although in certain games SAF set us up differently.

The two most exciting teams in English football at the moment are sitting first & second.

Barcelona, Brazil, France, Germany.

All exciting teams to watch and successful at various times.

Occasionally a boring dreary team will win something, e.g. Greece in the Euros, but that is the exception, not the rule.

The pundits are constantly banging on the same narrative, but it's simply not true. The most exciting teams win the most.

Please may I refer you to the opening post and in particular this bit ....

In reality I think the best form of defence is attack anyway and for every game you lose you'll still gain more points than the pragmatic play that often gets you draws. E.g. 2 wins and 1 loss gives you more points than 1 win and 2 draws.

Attacking football and winning are not mutually exclusive even in today's more compact style of play, so this topic is more about mentality than reality.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I don't care what we could have won with LVG style football. I'd just rather not bother. I'd rather watch The Queens Head FC vs The Dog & Bone FC. Literally any other football is more exciting than LVG football.

Better than Jose football, LvG was far more entertaining on the sidelines.

 

[SirAF]

I don't care what we could have won with LVG style football. I'd just rather not bother. I'd rather watch The Queens Head FC vs The Dog & Bone FC. Literally any other football is more exciting than LVG football.

I would have loved it if it just brought big trophies! Oh well.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Please may I refer you to the opening post and in particular this bit ....

In reality I think the best form of defence is attack anyway and for every game you lose you'll still gain more points than the pragmatic play that often gets you draws. E.g. 2 wins and 1 loss gives you more points than 1 win and 2 draws.

Attacking football and winning are not mutually exclusive even in today's more compact style of play, so this topic is more about mentality than reality.

So what's your point?

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Yeah, exactly.

Yes, it's only a hypothetical but it seems to promote this idea that became all too widespread during Mourinho's abject reign of terror: that somehow it's either good football or winning football. Even though the entire history of football contradicts this notion.

There are teams, of course, that have no choice but to resort to defending and percentage football to achieve anything. But they don't do that because it's a superior way of playing and a better method of achieving results: they do that because they are not good at actually playing football. Manchester United, however, should be quite good at playing football.

I'm certainly not advocating support for pragmatic football. Quite the contrary, I'm trying to explain that win or lose I'd rather have exciting football and achieving results is an extra bonus.

 

[bosnian_red]

Theres such a weird misconception that you are more likely to win if you are pragmatic/defensive. You have to adapt of course, but United always has to be attacking. Thats it. Real Madrid is the most successful team ever. Attacking team. City are dominant under Pep. Attacking team. Barca is one of the best sides ever. Attacking team. United under Sir Alex were one of the best sides and dominant. Attacking team.

So its all nonsense. Mourinho fecked so many people on here up and think his way is the only way, despite his way only leading to more draws and losses to go along with shit performances, while we saw all our rivals get better results with better performances.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

So what's your point?

Different people have different mentality. I'm trying to see where people are on the spectrum.

Bottom line what's more important winning things or good football?

And yes we know these are not mutually exclusive but the preference is. There is a scale with one end win at any cost, the other end play good football at any cost. Being in the middle might be an easy get out, but if that's not an option which side of the fence would you jump into if there was only two options.

 

[BluesJr]

Attacking football will best defensive football more often than not with comparable players. It’s a myth that pragmatism somehow leads to better results.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Thanks for that contribution. I'm sure we all feel wiser as a result of your observation.

and and I agree

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Theres such a weird misconception that you are more likely to win if you are pragmatic/defensive. You have to adapt of course, but United always has to be attacking. Thats it. Real Madrid is the most successful team ever. Attacking team. City are dominant under Pep. Attacking team. Barca is one of the best sides ever. Attacking team. United under Sir Alex were one of the best sides and dominant. Attacking team.

So its all nonsense. Mourinho fecked so many people on here up and think his way is the only way, despite his way only leading to more draws and losses to go along with shit performances, while we saw all our rivals get better results with better performances.

I think you are missing the point here....

In theory.... do you prefer attacking football with overall worse results or defense football with better results?

Attacking football with good results is an obvious preference for everyone but that doesn't leave room for debate. So pick one.

 

[Van Piorsing]

SAF used to play conservative at times and took quite many 1:0 wins even with Rooney, Tevez and Ronnie on board.

If opponent can't let you win beautifuly, score one goal and defend it. Even after a boring and frustrating game, Fergie time was a real blast for the fans. I guess ugly football can feel great too, especially after a win.

 

[VeevaVee]

This thread has been done a million times. It's not necessary because as you've already said, they're not mutually exclusive. The answer is both, but good football edges it. Some may say otherwise but it's obvious what the consensus is when we're playing tumescent shite, even if we get the win.

Theres such a weird misconception that you are more likely to win if you are pragmatic/defensive.

I'd argue it's actually much safer to attack when you're the better team as well. Sometimes even if not. Adapting is key though like you say, which was Liverpool's issue last season.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Attacking football will best defensive football more often than not with comparable players. It’s a myth that pragmatism somehow leads to better results.

I also referenced this in my post, but that's not the question....

Multiple choice question. Only two options...
1) Attacking football with worse overall results/ trophies
2) Boring as fcuk football with better results/ trophies

 

[AgentP]

Clubs with our financial power and historical status should be able to do both in reality. But taking this as a purely hypothetical question, I would rather us play good football and not win as many trophies because I'm watching the game not just to blindly root for the club but also because I want to be entertained. If winning was the only criteria, why even sit and watch each and every game.

I think it was Busby (might be Charlton) who said that it was the responsibility of the club to entertain the fans. This will always hold true.

 

[Chresta]

But the whole premise is wrong in the first place.

All the best teams in the World have played an exciting brand of football.

United, mostly, although in certain games SAF set us up differently.

The two most exciting teams in English football at the moment are sitting first & second.

Barcelona, Brazil, France, Germany.

All exciting teams to watch and successful at various times.

Occasionally a boring dreary team will win something, e.g. Greece in the Euros, but that is the exception, not the rule.

The pundits are constantly banging on the same narrative, but it's simply not true. The most exciting teams win the most.

This...

 

[poleglass red]

You can do both, City have proved it, and Liverpool possibly this season will have as well. It's not an overnight transformation though, we've seen how Klopp has had to build his team gradually to genuinely challenge for the PL. We came 2nd last season playing dour football but we were never in the running really to win the league. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing the time Klopp has been given to our new manager. We might go a season or two without winning, but Liverpool have a group of young players for the foreseeable, and I'd like to see us get in to a similar predicament.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

This thread has been done a million times. It's not necessary because as you've already said, they're not mutually exclusive. The answer is both, but good football edges it. Some may say otherwise but it's obvious what the consensus is when we're playing tumescent shite, even if we get the win.




I'd argue it's actually much safer to attack when you're the better team as well. Sometimes even if not. Adapting is key though like you say, which was Liverpool's issue last season.

I think it is very relevant and not at all obvious. One person on here already said the whole point of sport is to win. So some would chose to win regardless of how you do it.

You would choose entertainment, as would I.

An Arsenal fan might choose results given they've had years of attacking football with very few trophies.

It's a dynamic position and even individuals can move on that spectrum based on recent experiences.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

You can do both, City have proved it, and Liverpool possibly this season will have as well. It's not an overnight transformation though, we've seen how Klopp has had to build his team gradually to genuinely challenge for the PL. We came 2nd last season playing dour football but we were never in the running really to win the league. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing the time Klopp has been given to our new manager. We might go a season or two without winning, but Liverpool have a group of young players for the foreseeable, and I'd like to see us get in to a similar predicament.

You can do both...but that is not an option in my question. I think you've alluded to your answer that you'd rather attacking football over trophies. Something I agree with.

 

[SAFMUTD]

If we got warranty that playing boring football would make us win lots of thropies I would take it without a hint.

But in todays football you have more chances to win titles if you play aggresive attacking football, so let’s hope we can do both.

 

[RedTillI'mDead]

Clubs with our financial power and historical status should be able to do both in reality. But taking this as a purely hypothetical question, I would rather us play good football and not win as many trophies because I'm watching the game not just to blindly root for the club but also because I want to be entertained. If winning was the only criteria, why even sit and watch each and every game.

I think it was Busby (might be Charlton) who said that it was the responsibility of the club to entertain the fans. This will always hold true.

Thank you for the most intellectual response so far. I think by trying to overly explain my opening post I've struggled to get some posters to follow the whole point of the thread. I guess a lot of people only read the thread title.

 

[bosnian_red]

I think you are missing the point here....

In theory.... do you prefer attacking football with overall worse results or defense football with better results?

Attacking football with good results is an obvious preference for everyone but that doesn't leave room for debate. So pick one.

Well its in the United forum and given the shite we've gone through, its an easy connection to make to Mourinho's BS that was constantly spouted.

Anyway, i said it loads of times. Manchester United should never be a defensive side. I would hate it if we hired Diego Simeone and would be against him being our manager. Great manager. Not cut out for United. United needs to attack, and build sides to win playing attacking football.

With defensive football, theres no wiggle space. You're miserable until you win the trophy, and if you don't win it, the whole season was a waste. With attacking football, you are excited all season and even if you dont win trophies, you have hope for the future to find the missing piece. So to answer the question, i would rather play defensice football and win the treble every year over playing attacking and never winning a trophy obviously, but I would rather finish mid table playing attacking football over having a season like we did last year where we finished 2nd and runners up in the FA Cup but were miserable all year.

 

[crossy1686]

Winning is exciting. Playing well a losing is infuriating. Look at Fulham, they're going down, despite playing well.

It's okay to not score 4 goals a game and still win you know?

 

[Siorac]

I'm certainly not advocating support for pragmatic football. Quite the contrary, I'm trying to explain that win or lose I'd rather have exciting football and achieving results is an extra bonus.

See, but you're still doing it, you're still promoting the false dichotomy! It's not your fault I suppose but still, it's very annoying how shit football has become known as "pragmatic".

The definition of pragmatic:

Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic

In football context, "pragmatic" would mean adapting to the opposition, choosing the best possible tactic and approach based on your own team's strength vs their own. For a good team, that means playing attacking football most of the time because, as history tells us, that's generally the best way of regularly defeating inferior opponents.

And at some point, that's what pragmatic meant. While Fergie did espouse certain football principles, he was actually a pragmatist, especially in his later years. Mourinho is not, not anymore, he is dogmatic about wanting to win in his own way. Yet for some reason his shit football is still seen as pragmatic, even when it doesn't actually bring results which would be the point of it.

I don't necessarily agree that achieving results is a "bonus". Results are important, and perennially underachieving while playing nice football is still frustrating. But for a big club, the best way of getting results in line with expectations is to aspire to play good and proactive football most of the time. That's the pragmatic thing to do!