Does entertainment/style of play really matter?

[Day]

Is it not possible to have fond memories of McClaren whilst also allowing Rowett time and not judging him by the football that the Dutch  Geordie brought us 4 years ago?

I feel like I'm sat here with a half and half scarf, giving me a right itch.

I can also appreciate a striker such as Chris Martin whilst also enjoying what Nugent offers, liking one doesn't mean the other should never have been a professional football.

So many different styles of football, types of players to put all your eggs in one basket and say that's what I like. 

I also like blondes, brunettes and redheads, not fussy me. 

[Coneheadjohn]

Simple answer is yes it does.

Can I ask that @curtains and @RoyMac5 are not allowed to post on the same thread...the opinions are just too strong for us mere mortals!

 

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, Alpha said:

 

And are Mourinho sides dull?

They have a habit of not fighting for posession against better possession sides when they'll sit deep and counter. 

Man United have scored 21 goals this season in the league alone. Have Real Madrid ever been dull?

In the 'big matches' they are dull as dishwater.

Beat the lower teams handsomely and don't lose against your rivals seems to be his tactics, whereas Rowett seems to employ the don't lose tactic against all teams.

[Alph]

8 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Let me just consult Wikipedia, and I'll get back to you.

Just type "Which German Football teams last won major European trophies" into Google and gengenpress it.

Clue. It's the about the same number of major trophies won by Klopp since 2012

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, coneheadjohn said:

Simple answer is yes it does.

Can I ask that @curtains and @RoyMac5 are not allowed to post on the same thread...the opinions are just too strong for us mere mortals!

Hey! He started it, not me!  

[Alph]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

In the 'big matches' they are dull as dishwater.

Beat the lower teams handsomely and don't lose against your rivals seems to be his tactics, whereas Rowett seems to employ the don't lose tactic against all teams.

Yeah, I'd agree he's negative in the crunch games. But if it works.. 

Most weeks following a Mourinho team looks quite fun for those clubs. 

I mean a better example of ugly success is Pulis and Dyche. I know Stoke fans got a bit bored of Pulis. The Premier League badge wasn't everything. I wonder how WBA fans feel.

I guess at the end of the day the answer is different for everyone. 

But the main point is there's no way to win. From negative Mourinho to possession obsessed Pep and to all the Ancelotti, Conte, Simeone in between. It's similar to a boxing match up. Some fighters styles just suit the opponent. Styles make fights they say. It's about doing what you do well. Not being the biggest puncher or the best defence. Either can win.

[The_Sheriff]

I am much happier with the style of play. The sideways and backwards passing bores me. 

I would like us to find the balance of playing direct but not hoofball.

[Ellafella]

3 hours ago, brady1993 said:

1. The problem in this discussion is it presumes the two are mutually exclusive whereas clubs such as Southampton, Swansea and Bournemouth have demonstrably shown that to be incorrect. 

2.The unfortunate blunt truth is it is extremely unlikely that we will ever compete for highest in the premier and our ceiling is likely being a top half premiership team. So surely the journey becomes more important than the destination ? 

I'd rather us spending time trying to copy the likes of Southampton, i.e.  develop a style of play and footballing culture at the club, recruit to fit that vision (playing staff and manager) and have youngsters grow in that culture. Because I think it's the best plan for long term success and I think as a part of this we can develop an attractive style of play.

Give me the 13/14 season over the 06/07 season every day of the week.

Point 1. Absolutely correct. The obvious flaw in the poll is that the 2 do not exist on a diametrically-opposed continuum. OK so we beat the Red Dogs playing "Rowett-ball" and Dogs played "pretty football-puff pastry" but that doesn't "prove" that the former is superior in terms of getting results. Forest had chances, but did not take them. 

When I watch "Rowett-ball" at the minute, I see a team that is "structurally flawed"...It's like a roof that is missing a beam - too much weight on the area where the beam is missing and we collapse in on ourself. A decent opposition tactician will unpick us.  So, my question is:

a) How does a transfer window solve this structural issue?

Does team structure trump the quality of your players? What's the relationship between the 2? If we swapped Huddlestone for Thorne, would that make a difference?

My point is that it doesn't...the roof remains weak. And it still isn't that pretty.

The Victorians started playing the game with 3 at the back and 6 forwards. It was kick and rush. It was messy, and "hard" to watch. Gradually, they started to realise that "playing in combination" (ie passing & movement at speed)  was the most effective way of playing the game. At speed. {Funnily enough, Derby County & Liverpool in the 70's were the masters of this}. 

Forest didn't win yesterday because they don't have a Vydra  or a Nugent. But they played better than us for the most part. Football is a bit of science and mostly art {I laugh at the MotD pundits drawing tactical formations "as if" they were writing down chemical formulae that betray the DNA of the game}.

Clement had us playing "sloth-ball" ie slow-sideways, possession-based. It was so tedious and at 2-0 up v Fulham on Boxing Day, I actually closed my eyes and napped for 10 minutes. 

"Rowett-ball" is yet to really entertain me. I think it encourages players to "hoof" and there were at least 6 awfully-stray passes yesterday (Forsyth, Keogh, Wisdom, Vydra, Lawrence, Huddlestone) because players want to move it forward "quickly" presumably because that's their brief ie move it forwards and quickly to catch the opposition out. So, does this get better? Does "Rowett-ball" allow for football "in combination". I'd love to pick GR's brains about what exactly his game plan is in minutiae? And does it get more wins? We're 13th - clearly not. 

Point 2. I disagree Sir. There is no reason that we cannot compete at the very top. Surely Iceland go a long way to showing that? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Day]

11 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Absolutely correct. The obvious flaw in the poll is that the 2 do not exist on a diametrically-opposed continuum.

Just to defend the poll which I added, it was a would you rather a or b option Mafiabob was asking.

Sticking up a winning and entertained option wouldn’t make any sense. Would be the first 100% poll option in the history of the forum.

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

2 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Point 1. Absolutely correct. The obvious flaw in the poll is that the 2 do not exist on a diametrically-opposed continuum. OK so we beat the Red Dogs playing "Rowett-ball" and Dogs played "pretty football-puff pastry" but that doesn't "prove" that the former is superior in terms of getting results. Forest had chances, but did not take them. 

When I watch "Rowett-ball" at the minute, I see a team that is "structurally flawed"...It's like a roof that is missing a beam - too much weight on the area where the beam is missing and we collapse in on ourself. A decent opposition tactician will unpick us.  So, my question is:

a) How does a transfer window solve this structural issue?

Does team structure trump the quality of your players? What's the relationship between the 2? If we swapped Huddlestone for Thorne, would that make a difference?

My point is that it doesn't...the roof remains weak. And it still isn't that pretty.

The Victorians started playing the game with 3 at the back and 6 forwards. It was kick and rush. It was messy, and "hard" to watch. Gradually, they started to realise that "playing in combination" (ie passing & movement at speed)  was the most effective way of playing the game. At speed. {Funnily enough, Derby County & Liverpool in the 70's were the masters of this}. 

Forest didn't win yesterday because they don't have a Vydra  or a Nugent. But they played better than us for the most part. Football is a bit of science and mostly art {I laugh at the MotD pundits drawing tactical formations "as if" they were writing down chemical formulae that betray the DNA of the game}.

Clement had us playing "sloth-ball" ie slow-sideways, possession-based. It was so tedious and at 2-0 up v Fulham on Boxing Day, I actually closed my eyes and napped for 10 minutes. 

"Rowett-ball" is yet to really entertain me. I think it encourages players to "hoof" and there were at least 6 awfully-stray passes yesterday (Forsyth, Keogh, Wisdom, Vydra, Lawrence, Huddlestone) because players want to move it forward "quickly" presumably because that's their brief ie move it forwards and quickly to catch the opposition out. So, does this get better? Does "Rowett-ball" allow for football "in combination". I'd love to pick GR's brains about what exactly his game plan is in minutiae?

Point 2. I disagree Sir. There is no reason that we cannot compete at the very top. Surely Iceland go a long way to showing that? 

 

 

 

 

 

Both of you are spot on here and sum it up far better than I ever could....bravo

I think we could compete at the top but our culture, absolutely has to be by the club living and breathing the derby way and everything including managers,players,staff and culture being completely focussed on that aim.

Where we are now seems to have put us in the same place as the Pearson/billy appt...i.e achieving promotion by any means but without the means to play the football we would then need to reach the heights we clamour for,or even prevent immediate relegation.

I.e the nightmare scenario of another Billy Davis 2007 season.

[Ellafella]

15 minutes ago, David said:

Just to defend the poll which I added, it was a would you rather a or b option Mafiabob was asking.

Sticking up a winning and entertained option wouldn’t make any sense. Would be the first 100% poll option in the history of the forum.

Good point David but QED, a poll doesn't "solve" the issue. ie We want results and entertainment. 

[Sparkle]

Both for me, but I also like to see organisation and people doing their jobs and I can be entertained by good defenders defending properly and forwards doing the fancy stuff.

[brady1993]

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

Point 1. Absolutely correct. The obvious flaw in the poll is that the 2 do not exist on a diametrically-opposed continuum. OK so we beat the Red Dogs playing "Rowett-ball" and Dogs played "pretty football-puff pastry" but that doesn't "prove" that the former is superior in terms of getting results. Forest had chances, but did not take them. 

When I watch "Rowett-ball" at the minute, I see a team that is "structurally flawed"...It's like a roof that is missing a beam - too much weight on the area where the beam is missing and we collapse in on ourself. A decent opposition tactician will unpick us.  So, my question is:

a) How does a transfer window solve this structural issue?

Does team structure trump the quality of your players? What's the relationship between the 2? If we swapped Huddlestone for Thorne, would that make a difference?

My point is that it doesn't...the roof remains weak. And it still isn't that pretty.

The Victorians started playing the game with 3 at the back and 6 forwards. It was kick and rush. It was messy, and "hard" to watch. Gradually, they started to realise that "playing in combination" (ie passing & movement at speed)  was the most effective way of playing the game. At speed. {Funnily enough, Derby County & Liverpool in the 70's were the masters of this}. 

Forest didn't win yesterday because they don't have a Vydra  or a Nugent. But they played better than us for the most part. Football is a bit of science and mostly art {I laugh at the MotD pundits drawing tactical formations "as if" they were writing down chemical formulae that betray the DNA of the game}.

Clement had us playing "sloth-ball" ie slow-sideways, possession-based. It was so tedious and at 2-0 up v Fulham on Boxing Day, I actually closed my eyes and napped for 10 minutes. 

"Rowett-ball" is yet to really entertain me. I think it encourages players to "hoof" and there were at least 6 awfully-stray passes yesterday (Forsyth, Keogh, Wisdom, Vydra, Lawrence, Huddlestone) because players want to move it forward "quickly" presumably because that's their brief ie move it forwards and quickly to catch the opposition out. So, does this get better? Does "Rowett-ball" allow for football "in combination". I'd love to pick GR's brains about what exactly his game plan is in minutiae? And does it get more wins? We're 13th - clearly not. 

Point 2. I disagree Sir. There is no reason that we cannot compete at the very top. Surely Iceland go a long way to showing that? 

 

 

 

 

 

Cracking post @Ellafella I agree with most of what you said. 

On point 2 I don't agree with you but perhaps I should clarify my rationale a little. What I meant when I said it was that the probability of Derby winning the premiership  (if we got there) is infinitesimaly small barring major oil-baron levels investment. Since the inception of the premier league there has been a grand total of 6 clubs who have won it in the 25 years. If you go further back there have only been 11 clubs who have won the highest honours since we won it back in '75. 

The dice are rigged, the deck is stacked. What I'm trying to get at though is a completely results orientated philosophy for derby is completely flawed because of the improbability of winning top honours therefore sacrificing style for the sake of it is not only uneccessary but pointless.

Iceland I think are a bad example for two reasons namely they only got to the quarters and there is a significantly  higher chance of "spiking" a cup competition than a 38 game long league. (That's isn't to take away from how impressive their achievement was however).

[Jourdan]

The football played under Smith, Burley and McClaren is not synonymous with the club, so I don't sit here expecting Rowett to toe some imaginary line.

But I think he could be a bit more positive and more adventurous with the group of players at his disposal. This is not a limited group of players, so why play in such a limited way? You could understand it if it was effective, but we've only won 4 out of 11 games. 

[Ellafella]

36 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Cracking post @Ellafella I agree with most of what you said. 

On point 2 I don't agree with you but perhaps I should clarify my rationale a little. What I meant when I said it was that the probability of Derby winning the premiership  (if we got there) is infinitesimaly small barring major oil-baron levels investment. Since the inception of the premier league there has been a grand total of 6 clubs who have won it in the 25 years. If you go further back there have only been 11 clubs who have won the highest honours since we won it back in '75. 

The dice are rigged, the deck is stacked. What I'm trying to get at though is a completely results orientated philosophy for derby is completely flawed because of the improbability of winning top honours therefore sacrificing style for the sake of it is not only uneccessary but pointless.

Iceland I think are a bad example for two reasons namely they only got to the quarters and there is a significantly  higher chance of "spiking" a cup competition than a 38 game long league. (That's isn't to take away from how impressive their achievement was however).

Yes thanks @brady1993 I accept your point about the Prem but perhaps the romantic in me has to believe that anybody can still win it if they find the right formula...& with Iceland I was also thinking that they've gone and qualified again yet their population is just 350,000...so they are continuing to skew the probability stakes. 

[Doodle]

2 hours ago, David said:

Just to defend the poll which I added, it was a would you rather a or b option Mafiabob was asking.

Sticking up a winning and entertained option wouldn’t make any sense. Would be the first 100% poll option in the history of the forum.

Not sure the 3 rd option would get 100%. Some people aren’t  happy unless they have something to belly ache about 

[Ellafella]

1 minute ago, Jourdan said:

The football played under Smith, Burley and McClaren is not synonymous with the club, so I don't sit here expecting Rowett to tow some imaginary line.

But I think he could be a bit more positive and more adventurous with the group of players at his disposal. This is not a limited group of players, so why play in such a limited way? You could understand it if it was effective, but we've only won 4 out of 11 games. 

Precisely @Jourdan. Good point. The premise of the "Rowett-ball" fan club is that we are just seeing "Rowett-ball" "in utero" as it were...it isn't yet "fully formed" but once we give it more time, it will be stronger and more victorious. I'd like to know precisely how it will develop... is it about change of players as some think or is it that the current players will eventually just "get it" and we will win more...thus far it's just an approximation...will passes stop going astray and will teams stop getting behind our defensive line? For example? 

[Jourdan]

40 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

Precisely @Jourdan. Good point. The premise of the "Rowett-ball" fan club is that we are just seeing "Rowett-ball" "in utero" as it were...it isn't yet "fully formed" but once we give it more time, it will be stronger and more victorious. I'd like to know precisely how it will develop... is it about change of players as some think or is it that the current players will eventually just "get it" and we will win more...thus far it's just an approximation...will passes stop going astray and will teams stop getting behind our defensive line? For example? 

I'm of the opinion you should play to the strengths of a group of players and look for players that complement each other. Many of Rowett's decisions this season have lacked clarity and conviction.

If you have the ingredients to make a tiramisu, make a tiramisu. If you want to make an apple crumble, you need apples. If you don't have apples, don't try to make an apple crumble.

At higher levels, you have Michelin starred chefs who can make any combination of ingredients cohesive, but we have to accept neither this team nor Rowett are at that level of ingenuity.

I feel like Rowett is looking at his ingredients and frantically turning through his recipe book trying to find something impressive and original to make, when something simpler, more obvious and more palatable would suffice.

 

[Ellafella]

7 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

I'm of the opinion you should play to the strengths of a group of players and look for players that complement each other. Many of Rowett's decisions this season have lacked clarity and conviction.

If you have the ingredients to make a tiramisu, make a tiramisu. If you want to make an apple crumble, you need apples. If you don't have apples, don't try to make an apple crumble.

At higher levels, you have Michelin starred chefs who can make any combination of ingredients cohesive, but we have accept neither this team nor Rowett are at that level of ingenuity.

I feel like Rowett is looking at his ingredients and frantically turning through his recipe book trying to find something impressive and original to make, when something simpler, more obvious and more palatable would suffice.

 

Very good analogy. 

Rowett-ball may move on a level now that he can add some prime sirloin steak (George Thorne). 

[Van der MoodHoover]

5 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

The ease we saw the game out impressed me. Coupled with the way we went to try and win the game at Cardiff gives me hope that Gary will build a team that is solid and hard to beat but also play fast attacking football as well. 

Early days but I'm more confident than I was and feel the right time to judge GR is this time next year.

Not quite as glass half-full as you are utch - but completely agree with this bit!