You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:41 am View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 4923
Team Supported: Darlington
shawry wrote:
That said, if we play a direct style and it's mostly effective I'm happy watching that.


Think that possibly sums it up, we played today similar to how we played under Gray and it was enjoyable but that was more because we battled, worked hard and won.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 777
Team Supported: Darlington
Man City, Wolves, Wigan, Luton. All footballing sides, all top of their respective leagues, in most cases comfortably. Percentage football, which is what we relied on once we signed Beck, only gets you so far.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:21 pm
Posts: 1683
Team Supported: Darlington
Three of those teams have money well beyond their rivals, and Luton have the fan base to be similarly attractive to better players at that level. I seem to remember Lincoln being very organised and far from sexy last season. At the moment a need to be solid and we need to be a pain in the arse to beat before we can start thinking of transforming ourselves into the sixth tier Barcelona.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3905
Team Supported: Darlington
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
Man City, Wolves, Wigan, Luton. All footballing sides, all top of their respective leagues, in most cases comfortably. Percentage football, which is what we relied on once we signed Beck, only gets you so far.
Yet we've been more pragmatic, played the percentages more this afternoon and beaten a top three side.

So your analysis is rather simplistic. I've also seen Wigan a couple of times this season and they're not a footballing side in the mould of Man City. To lump them together as you have done simply doesn't work and borders on ludicrous.

I find calling a side as "footballing" rather a weak description as well. There's no right way of playing, so long ball is just as legitimate a tactic as shorter passing. Why is one better than the other? In addition there are plenty of pragmatic sides who are successful. Jose Mourinho, noted for his conservatism, has won trophies everywhere he's gone.

And as rightly pointed out, the sides you name also have significant budgets, which also helps.

And to take four teams from one season in one country is also deeply flawed. Title winners last year, Chelsea and Newcastle, weren't known for being expansive. Quite the opposite.

Perhaps the more nuanced answer of playing a style and system which suits the players you have can make your team most effective.

Philosophy-based football maybe the ideal, but practically, it's not plausible for the majority of sides, particularly those with smaller budgets.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 11357
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
My opinion wrote:
Yeah OK I get your point. Should have said easier on MY eye..
Would much prefer the ball on the ground, Clough style. As opposed to the Wimbledon style of the 80's.
Just my opinion.
I know I sound like an annoying child, but why do you prefer it on the ground?

A misplaced pass is just as ugly as an aimless hoof. I just think it's a social construction that a passing style is good and long ball is ugly.

In reality, it doesn't matter either way, so long as the ball winds up in the opposition's net.
You can't deny that watching some of the ticy-taca Barca type football is mesmerising to watch and something every football team on the planet would aspire to if they could?

I saw a goal Suarez scored for them the other day and the one-touch stuff was phenomenal.

However, I'll take whatever is necessary to stick the ball in the net!

I think the ultimate answer is probably that 'hoofball' is viewed as simpler and involves less of the team and less out-foxing of the opposition. It's probably easier for a well drilled side to defend as opposed to the unpredictable nature of 'technical' football.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3905
Team Supported: Darlington
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
My opinion wrote:
Yeah OK I get your point. Should have said easier on MY eye..
Would much prefer the ball on the ground, Clough style. As opposed to the Wimbledon style of the 80's.
Just my opinion.
I know I sound like an annoying child, but why do you prefer it on the ground?

A misplaced pass is just as ugly as an aimless hoof. I just think it's a social construction that a passing style is good and long ball is ugly.

In reality, it doesn't matter either way, so long as the ball winds up in the opposition's net.
You can't deny that watching some of the ticy-taca Barca type football is mesmerising to watch and something every football team on the planet would aspire to if they could?

I saw a goal Suarez scored for them the other day and the one-touch stuff was phenomenal.



I wouldn't deny that at all. Some of the football you see from the likes of Barcelona is magnificent.

But there's a snobbery about the more pragmatic approach, which uses long ball more, as if it's somehow an inferior style.

That's what I'm questioning - why is there this snobbery when ultimately, long-ball or tiki-taka, it's all about achieving the same objective - putting the ball in the net.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 11357
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
Spyman wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
My opinion wrote:
Yeah OK I get your point. Should have said easier on MY eye..
Would much prefer the ball on the ground, Clough style. As opposed to the Wimbledon style of the 80's.
Just my opinion.
I know I sound like an annoying child, but why do you prefer it on the ground?

A misplaced pass is just as ugly as an aimless hoof. I just think it's a social construction that a passing style is good and long ball is ugly.

In reality, it doesn't matter either way, so long as the ball winds up in the opposition's net.
You can't deny that watching some of the ticy-taca Barca type football is mesmerising to watch and something every football team on the planet would aspire to if they could?

I saw a goal Suarez scored for them the other day and the one-touch stuff was phenomenal.



I wouldn't deny that at all. Some of the football you see from the likes of Barcelona is magnificent.

But there's a snobbery about the more pragmatic approach, which uses long ball more, as if it's somehow an inferior style.

That's what I'm questioning - why is there this snobbery when ultimately, long-ball or tiki-taka, it's all about achieving the same objective - putting the ball in the net.
This is true, and ultimately you've got to be smart enough as a team/manager to realise which style of football is going to achieve the desired result.

If you don't have the technical abilities to play the short passing game, you're a fool trying to play it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 777
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
Man City, Wolves, Wigan, Luton. All footballing sides, all top of their respective leagues, in most cases comfortably. Percentage football, which is what we relied on once we signed Beck, only gets you so far.
Yet we've been more pragmatic, played the percentages more this afternoon and beaten a top three side.

I didn't say you wouldn't win games. Anyone can beat anyone on a given day.But, as you get higher, and teams get more organised, it becomes less effective, as we were finding out with Gray.

So your analysis is rather simplistic.

like using one result as proof to the contrary.[b]

I've also seen Wigan a couple of times this season and they're not a footballing side in the mould of Man City. To lump them together as you have done simply doesn't work and borders on ludicrous.

[b]i would say no team in england is a footballing side in the mould of Man City. In the context of League 1 I think you'd be hard pushed to class Wigan as other than a footballing side.


I find calling a side as "footballing" rather a weak description as well. There's no right way of playing, so long ball is just as legitimate a tactic as shorter passing. Why is one better than the other? In addition there are plenty of pragmatic sides who are successful. Jose Mourinho, noted for his conservatism, has won trophies everywhere he's gone.

Would you rather watch a Guardiola side or a Mourinho side though? And Mourinho's conservatism relates to his willingness to set up defensively, and look to not lose rather than look to win a match. It does not signify a longball approach. He didn't win all those trophies by giving the ball away cheaply.

And as rightly pointed out, the sides you name also have significant budgets, which also helps.

They could have spent it assembling a totally effective longball team but they didn't. Must be a reason.

And to take four teams from one season in one country is also deeply flawed.

since it's only really this country that produces longball teams, i don't see your point

Title winners last year, Chelsea and Newcastle, weren't known for being expansive. Quite the opposite.

Chelsea were not a percentage team though. They were defensively sound, broke quickly and effectively and were not afraid to use Costa when required. However, this was in a controlled way, allowing him to bring others into play not a random hoof in the vague direction of the centre forward. No team with Hazard, Pedro, Fabregas, Willian, Moses, Alonso, Matic is going to be longball.

Perhaps the more nuanced answer of playing a style and system which suits the players you have can make your team most effective.

Philosophy-based football maybe the ideal, but practically, it's not plausible for the majority of sides, particularly those with smaller budgets.

Yet i'd rather watch Bournemouth than West Brom, Fulham than Ipswich, Exeter than Wycombe.
Without money, you need courage, patience and time, all of which are in short supply in the modern game.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Posts: 10784
Team Supported: Darlington
I presume Maars will come back in at right back.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3905
Team Supported: Darlington
First thing's first Harry Charlton's Cat- can you learn to quote properly. It makes it unnecessarily difficult trying to reply to your answer.

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
I didn't say you wouldn't win games. Anyone can beat anyone on a given day.But, as you get higher, and teams get more organised, it becomes less effective, as we were finding out with Gray.


Are you saying the long ball tactic was the only reason for our struggles? Again that is rather simplistic. Clearly there were background distractions with MG. And the fact Beck was playing while not full fit was obviously a factor. If it was so ineffective, why did Beck score nearly 20 goals at the same level last year?

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
like using one result as proof to the contrary.[b]


Oh come on, this is a poor, thin-skinned comment. I clearly didn't use one result as proof. More as an example which indicated a contradiction to the absolutist position you've taken. You're capable of more intelligent comments than this.

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
[b]Would you rather watch a Guardiola side or a Mourinho side though? And Mourinho's conservatism relates to his willingness to set up defensively, and look to not lose rather than look to win a match. It does not signify a longball approach. He didn't win all those trophies by giving the ball away cheaply.


I honestly don't have preference over philosophy. The fickle nature of football means whoever wins is lauded and whoever loses is described as useless. And then everything changes six games down the line.

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
since it's only really this country that produces longball teams, i don't see your point


Actual fake news. Long ball, conservative teams occur quite often on the continent and further afield. Certainly more regularly than popular belief.

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
Yet i'd rather watch Bournemouth than West Brom, Fulham than Ipswich, Exeter than Wycombe.


And I wouldn't. As I've said repeatedly, teams lauded as passing sides are far more pragmatic than people have you believe. And sides denigrated as being long-ball demonstrate they do, when the situation allows it, play a passing game. Take Darlington under Martin Gray as an example.

It's a style. It's neither better nor worse than the other. There is only one objective - to put the ball in the net. How you do it doesn't matter. I'd rather watch my side win 1-nil playing long-ball than lose 1-nil playing attacking, passing football.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3303
Team Supported: Darlington
This is an interesting exchange of views between D'gramps and HC's cat, and I can see both sides - as long ball can get results, and is an art in itself. Teams who use it obviously think about it and train to do it, like Wimbledon did in their Crazy Gang days.

However football to me should be entertaining and interesting, not everyone turns up wanting a win no matter what.

Gray's uninspiring shouts of "Hit Becky, hit Becky" from the dugouts to me signalled desperation (from him) and boredom (for me) - the last time I remember him doing this was against South Shields, which is a game worth forgetting.

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3905
Team Supported: Darlington
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
This is an interesting exchange of views between D'gramps and HC's cat, and I can see both sides - as long ball can get results, and is an art in itself. Teams who use it obviously think about it and train to do it, like Wimbledon did in their Crazy Gang days.

However football to me should be entertaining and interesting, not everyone turns up wanting a win no matter what.

Gray's uninspiring shouts of "Hit Becky, hit Becky" from the dugouts to me signalled desperation (from him) and boredom (for me) - the last time I remember him doing this was against South Shields, which is a game worth forgetting.


I wouldn't disagree with much of this.

However I find a long-ball strategy just as entertaining as say, tiki-taka passing. There's a difference between a well-executed long-ball strategy and aimless hoofing. And I think the latter is used as a catch-all description within football to describe the former.

And I also suspect the majority of people just like to see their side winning matches, regardless of style. It's a rose-tinted and incorrect notion that all fans want to be entertained with passing football on a Saturday. It simply doesn't happen.

After all, we didn't hear many complaints about MG's style when we were successful.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 777
Team Supported: Darlington
Even Man City will hit a 40 yard pass, but it tends to be a pass, usually behind the last defender for someone to run onto. Leicester won the league that way. Gray's first few years in charge we utilised this successfully as well. Last season, and this, we changed. Beck was less mobile and the tactic was to hit it in his vacinity whether he could do something with it or not. Consequently, our wingers became less involved in general play and we relied on set pieces for the majority of our chances. Beck scored 17 because he was a big lump, who if you got the delivery right, was very hard to stop. However, teams had worked us out by the end of last season, and certainly this.Rather like Stoke and Delap.

And i can't believe if you had the choice to watch Guardiola's team every week, or Mourinho's, as a neutral you would choose Mourinho's.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Posts: 3303
Team Supported: Darlington
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
And i can't believe if you had the choice to watch Guardiola's team every week, or Mourinho's, as a neutral you would choose Mourinho's.



This is the point I was making above.

Not everyone who rocks up at a Darlo match is an out and out fan. People turn up for a variety of reasons and some won't be that bothered about a win at all costs as they just want to be entertained.

I don't live in town - the first Darlo match I saw was by chance and fortunately it turned out to be a belter (4/3 win V Northampton 96) and two of us have been going ever since.

_________________
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3905
Team Supported: Darlington
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
And i can't believe if you had the choice to watch Guardiola's team every week, or Mourinho's, as a neutral you would choose Mourinho's.


Why? Because I view both as being legitimate tactics and see that playing pragmatically requires just as much organisation, work and practise as a passing style? You're being very narrow-minded here and shows you've ignored everything I've said completely.

Trying to narrow the debate by creating an implausible binary choice demonstrates the point I'm making perfectly. There's a snobbery about playing pragmatically (which you've just demonstrated) when there shouldn't be. There is no right way of playing football.

Therefore the idea that a passing style is more attractive is subjective. In turn, it follows that the idea a passing style is more preferable is a social construct. It doesn't matter how you play because it doesn't earn you anything extra. So no one can justify why there's a snobbery about playing pragmatically.

We've already established that being pragmatic can be just as successful in terms of winning trophies as playing a passing game.

Ultimately the question I'm asking (and that no one answers) is why is playing pragmatically looked down upon, when it is an equally legitimate tactic and requires a lot of skill, ability and discipline.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Posts: 3905
Team Supported: Darlington
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
And i can't believe if you had the choice to watch Guardiola's team every week, or Mourinho's, as a neutral you would choose Mourinho's.



This is the point I was making above.

Not everyone who rocks up at a Darlo match is an out and out fan. People turn up for a variety of reasons and some won't be that bothered about a win at all costs as they just want to be entertained.



You miss my point entirely.

This to me seems like an argument that you can't be entertained through pragmatic football. Moreover, it seems like you're arguing passing football is the best/only way to entertain.

In my view that argument is nonsense and simplistic. It is perfectly possible to be entertained and enticed into a game through pragmatic play. And I don't see any bonus points for playing one particular style. Therefore it cannot matter too greatly.

In turn the simplistic nature of football means fans try to label sides. Actually just about every side is tactically adaptable. For instance, at the start of this season, Mourinho's Man Utd played some creative, rapid attacking football. It's more nuanced than some will have you believe.

To reiterate my point about fans caring more about winning than style- take the attendances of promotion challenging sides. They are always much higher than the club's average, particularly in the 2nd half of the season. You'll see it with every club. Why? The side is winning and successful.

Take this season. Our attendances have fallen as our results have declined. If we win 10 in a row and charge into the play-offs, you know fine well we'll see an increase. And if we were to win the title in our final home game, Blackwell Meadows would be sold out. Why? Because people like seeing teams win. Style is secondary.

_________________
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 2450
Team Supported: Darlington
Darlogramps wrote:
Take this season. Our attendances have fallen as our results have declined. If we win 10 in a row and charge into the play-offs, you know fine well we'll see an increase. And if we were to win the title in our final home game, Blackwell Meadows would be sold out. Why? Because people like seeing teams win. Style is secondary.


Yup, but if we continue to lose, then people at least prefer to see some passing.

Given a choice, Id go:

Win - passing game
Win - pragmatic/long ball
Lose - passing game
Lose - pragmatic game

Since York, we've been largely on a downward spiral, and because of that Id much rather watch us try to play football and lose, than be more pragmatic and still lose.

I find a passing game much more entertaining, I enjoy the fact it generally involves more players in a move; though I see the merit of attacking on the break, and a more pragmatic style of play, they are less pleasing for me as moves tend to involve less players.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 pm
Posts: 11357
Team Supported: Darlington
See, I'd rather lose by playing pragmatically with the tactics at least reflecting the situation rather than losing by trying to play a passing game that was beyond us and played into the opposition's hands.

Imagine we played Barcelona and tried to out-pass them rather than sitting deep and defending. I'd rather we tried to frustrate them and lost.

Of course, if we were playing Nuneaton, and lost unluckily while attacking them, I'd feel a lot better than if we showed no ambition.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

_________________
On Sunday April 29, 2012 at 10:25 pm, Darlo Cockney wrote:
Sadly some people have nothing better to do that invent rumours.

We will be playing at the arena again next season - fact.

Quakerz - if you actually attended games and spoke to people you might actually find our facts, rather than spreading s*** on this board.

DC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group