| Attractive v Effective Football 22:09 - Jun 27 with 2374 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Do we as fans get the two mixed up sometimes?
Comes in the wake of criticism of England U21s who I thought were very effective today and previously. [Post edited 27 Jun 2017 22:17]
|  | | |  |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 22:48 - Jun 27 with 1736 views | ozexile |
Good post and it's a big issue for me. Australian coaches seem to delight in attractive football that is totally ineffective. Goalkeepers playing the ball to their own defenders whilst they're marked etc. 50 passes in your own half is ineffective football. |  | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 00:03 - Jun 28 with 1712 views | Neil_SI |
It's a good question indeed, but one that will have a lot of history and culture behind it, depending on which part of the world you're from.
For many years, the Italian's have always favoured defending their home and their goal as an art, and that not conceding was almost as important as scoring a goal and winning a game. There's a different mentality that exists in so many parts of the world.
I prefer effective football over attractive, but at the same time, I find effective football attractive, but that may mean something different to others. For me, I love tactically defensive and sophisticated football, but also fast, direct counter attacking at the same time. If you mix these things well together it usually produces 'attractive' football in the right moments.
But, if I had to choose one style that gets me on the edge of my seat, it's always counter attacking football and I find that the most exciting, the most tactical and the most attractive when done right. |  | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 02:47 - Jun 28 with 1677 views | Boston |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 00:03 - Jun 28 by Neil_SI |
It's a good question indeed, but one that will have a lot of history and culture behind it, depending on which part of the world you're from.
For many years, the Italian's have always favoured defending their home and their goal as an art, and that not conceding was almost as important as scoring a goal and winning a game. There's a different mentality that exists in so many parts of the world.
I prefer effective football over attractive, but at the same time, I find effective football attractive, but that may mean something different to others. For me, I love tactically defensive and sophisticated football, but also fast, direct counter attacking at the same time. If you mix these things well together it usually produces 'attractive' football in the right moments.
But, if I had to choose one style that gets me on the edge of my seat, it's always counter attacking football and I find that the most exciting, the most tactical and the most attractive when done right. |
typing 'long ball' would have saved a lot of ink. | |
| |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 07:25 - Jun 28 with 1656 views | davman |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 00:03 - Jun 28 by Neil_SI |
It's a good question indeed, but one that will have a lot of history and culture behind it, depending on which part of the world you're from.
For many years, the Italian's have always favoured defending their home and their goal as an art, and that not conceding was almost as important as scoring a goal and winning a game. There's a different mentality that exists in so many parts of the world.
I prefer effective football over attractive, but at the same time, I find effective football attractive, but that may mean something different to others. For me, I love tactically defensive and sophisticated football, but also fast, direct counter attacking at the same time. If you mix these things well together it usually produces 'attractive' football in the right moments.
But, if I had to choose one style that gets me on the edge of my seat, it's always counter attacking football and I find that the most exciting, the most tactical and the most attractive when done right. |
Isn't this the beauty of football though? The many aspects of the game that means that you need a mix of player types to succeed. Eleven "top skillers" as my boy would say won't necessarily win you a game, neither will a team of blockers - you need to mix it up a bit.
The fact that technically less gifted teams can nick 1-0 wins against better, richer teams is one of football's perks imo.
The debate of which is better re attractive v effective is a bit moot though as either can be better as long as it is done WELL.. |  |
| |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:01 - Jun 28 with 1636 views | smegma |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 07:25 - Jun 28 by davman |
Isn't this the beauty of football though? The many aspects of the game that means that you need a mix of player types to succeed. Eleven "top skillers" as my boy would say won't necessarily win you a game, neither will a team of blockers - you need to mix it up a bit.
The fact that technically less gifted teams can nick 1-0 wins against better, richer teams is one of football's perks imo.
The debate of which is better re attractive v effective is a bit moot though as either can be better as long as it is done WELL.. |
Watching Fulham and Huddersfield last season bored me to tears with about 500 passes per game and 3 shots on target. Yet they were 2 of the successful teams. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:08 - Jun 28 with 1629 views | peejaybee |
Are Barca Boring.?????? |  |
| If at first you dont succeed, pack up and f**k off home. |
| |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:28 - Jun 28 with 1618 views | Konk |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:01 - Jun 28 by smegma |
Watching Fulham and Huddersfield last season bored me to tears with about 500 passes per game and 3 shots on target. Yet they were 2 of the successful teams. |
In the first couple of months perhaps, but that wasn't the case for the majority of the season. Unlike Reading, for instance, our game relied on quick transitions from defence to attack with the full backs bombing forward, Johansen and Cairney driving on from midfield, and the direct running of Aluko, Ayite and Kebano upfront. As the stats show, we had plenty of shots, but often lacked composure in the box. Joint top scorers on 85 goals - and we still missed something like 12-13 penalties! Loads of opposition fans, management and players commented on the quality of our football, so I'm not sure it's fair to say we were dull last season. |  |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:29 - Jun 28 with 1614 views | smegma |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:28 - Jun 28 by Konk |
In the first couple of months perhaps, but that wasn't the case for the majority of the season. Unlike Reading, for instance, our game relied on quick transitions from defence to attack with the full backs bombing forward, Johansen and Cairney driving on from midfield, and the direct running of Aluko, Ayite and Kebano upfront. As the stats show, we had plenty of shots, but often lacked composure in the box. Joint top scorers on 85 goals - and we still missed something like 12-13 penalties! Loads of opposition fans, management and players commented on the quality of our football, so I'm not sure it's fair to say we were dull last season. |
Reading were probably THE most boring team last season. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:36 - Jun 28 with 1609 views | paulparker |
you can have both , look at Chelsea now & the Arsenal teams of 1998 to 2003 & the man utd team of 1999 , all have /had brilliant individuals but also had the ability to kill a game, commit a cynical foul , or get stuck in when the chips are down that's why city, Liverpool, Spurs and the Arsenal of today are not successful they have only one way of playing and don't know how to win dirty
even our promotion team of 2011 had that with routledge, Adel, Faurlin providing the skill around the workman like players of Hill , Derry, Helgerson , Smith
all the under 21s did last night was panic when they went 2-1 up just hoof it back to the Germans that wasn't effective football but suicide football |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:12 - Jun 28 with 1585 views | terryb |
The age old question.
Being attractive without winning can only last short term. Being effective and winning but not entertaining, will not increase attendances for long.
I'm sure every native of the Netherlands would have preferred their team to have been effective in the '74 World Cup final rather than want to take the piss out of West Germany.
I'm sure every Rangers supporter would have liked us to have been efficient at Norwich in 1976. A 0-0 draw could have won us the Championship while a 3-3 draw probably wouldn't have done. The vagaries of goal average!
But then, who would have swopped the skill/artistry of the Dutch or the Rangers of Jago/Sexton?
What is required is a balance between the two. How that is defined I have no idea! | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:18 - Jun 28 with 1577 views | Hunterhoop |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:12 - Jun 28 by terryb |
The age old question.
Being attractive without winning can only last short term. Being effective and winning but not entertaining, will not increase attendances for long.
I'm sure every native of the Netherlands would have preferred their team to have been effective in the '74 World Cup final rather than want to take the piss out of West Germany.
I'm sure every Rangers supporter would have liked us to have been efficient at Norwich in 1976. A 0-0 draw could have won us the Championship while a 3-3 draw probably wouldn't have done. The vagaries of goal average!
But then, who would have swopped the skill/artistry of the Dutch or the Rangers of Jago/Sexton?
What is required is a balance between the two. How that is defined I have no idea! |
Good post.
The issue isn't fans getting the two "mixed up", Baz; it's fans wanting both! |  | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:21 - Jun 28 with 1571 views | Watford_Ranger |
I'm more entertained by an awful win than a glorious defeat. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:23 - Jun 28 with 1570 views | JamesB1979 |
Good thread this.
It's about sticking to your strengths. England should never try to play the "Barca" way....we're just not good enough to do that against the better teams in world football. Stick to your strengths and then you will be effective. England plays best with a solid defence, supported by at least 1 quality defenisive midfielder. Keep it tight and then use pace and power upfront to get goals. Basically a bit like Leicester from 2015/16 but with bit more quality. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:24 - Jun 28 with 1565 views | Hunterhoop |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:23 - Jun 28 by JamesB1979 |
Good thread this.
It's about sticking to your strengths. England should never try to play the "Barca" way....we're just not good enough to do that against the better teams in world football. Stick to your strengths and then you will be effective. England plays best with a solid defence, supported by at least 1 quality defenisive midfielder. Keep it tight and then use pace and power upfront to get goals. Basically a bit like Leicester from 2015/16 but with bit more quality. |
Would agree with this, but also add that the English way includes genuine wingers getting wide and slinging it in. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:28 - Jun 28 with 1560 views | JamesB1979 |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:24 - Jun 28 by Hunterhoop |
Would agree with this, but also add that the English way includes genuine wingers getting wide and slinging it in. |
Yes agree. Big issue with Roy Hodgson was he tried to make us play the "tippy tappy" way. Players just aren't good enough under pressure to do that especially against teams who are well organized or just better than us! | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:39 - Jun 28 with 1541 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:24 - Jun 28 by Hunterhoop |
Would agree with this, but also add that the English way includes genuine wingers getting wide and slinging it in. |
You need to go to Wingers anonymous mate : ) | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:42 - Jun 28 with 1536 views | Northernr |
Interesting thread. We know what the conventional wisdom is when we talk about attractive and unattractive football, but then I found watching "Swansealona" under Rodgers one of the dullest football experiences of my life - 50 passes on the halfway line and back to where we started again, fck me. Then I found Leicester, who won games with 35% possession and did it with quick counter attacks, quite exhilarating. I can't watch a Sam Allardyce team, but I did quite enjoy watching the old Wimbledon side rough up Man Utd and others.
I think it's a shame that the current trend seems to be 4-2-3-1, deep tight and narrow because I like my football played with width and wingers.
The key to being effective is being able to play in a mixture of styles to cope with different situations and not become predictable. That 2010/11 Warnock side we had could do anything in this division - take teams apart as it did to Boro, Sheff Utd, Swansea and others, or grind out a 1-0 at Barnsley or a 0-0 at Burnley when required. Mixture of physical players and fancy players, mixture of pace and guile. The perfect Championship team, and mostly very good to watch.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:49 - Jun 28 with 1513 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:42 - Jun 28 by Northernr |
Interesting thread. We know what the conventional wisdom is when we talk about attractive and unattractive football, but then I found watching "Swansealona" under Rodgers one of the dullest football experiences of my life - 50 passes on the halfway line and back to where we started again, fck me. Then I found Leicester, who won games with 35% possession and did it with quick counter attacks, quite exhilarating. I can't watch a Sam Allardyce team, but I did quite enjoy watching the old Wimbledon side rough up Man Utd and others.
I think it's a shame that the current trend seems to be 4-2-3-1, deep tight and narrow because I like my football played with width and wingers.
The key to being effective is being able to play in a mixture of styles to cope with different situations and not become predictable. That 2010/11 Warnock side we had could do anything in this division - take teams apart as it did to Boro, Sheff Utd, Swansea and others, or grind out a 1-0 at Barnsley or a 0-0 at Burnley when required. Mixture of physical players and fancy players, mixture of pace and guile. The perfect Championship team, and mostly very good to watch.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I remember a pretty average QPR side demolishing that Swansea side one evening at LR just by sitting in their own half picking their arses until Swansea panicked and made mistakes.
Ashley Williams and Von must have exchanged 10,000 passes between them. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:51 - Jun 28 with 1508 views | JamesB1979 |
It's about being well drilled and well organized. That's why that QPR team was able to demolish swansea. To be well drilled, we need 1 or maybe 2 max formations and a regular and consistent starting Xi. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:55 - Jun 28 with 1500 views | Neil_SI |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 02:47 - Jun 28 by Boston |
typing 'long ball' would have saved a lot of ink. |
You should know me better by now. 
But, actually, my idea of "direct" is a bit different to long ball, I prefer fast dribblers from deep on the counter a bit like how Rowan Vine played for us before his injury under Luigi De Canio.
He'd pick up loose balls in deep wide areas and then just explode, taking on players and driving into space and inviting others to join with him and causing all sorts of panic in the opposition and potential attacking opportunities at the same time. That's the kind of football I find exhilarating and exciting to watch.
On the flip side, while Clive hates Sam Allardyce's brand of football, I always felt his style and teams were very underrated. Sure, he went a bit too direct at times, but there was a lot of sophistication in ensuring he played to his players' strengths and opposition's weaknesses. It wasn't all long ball and direct either, but he was never able to shirk that tag from himself and obviously did revert to it when he needed to. He was shrewd in backing up the more dull elements with solid second and third phases, so his players knew what to do and how to react if something did or didn't work, and you can't always say that about many managers or team's. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:58 - Jun 28 with 1492 views | daveB |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:08 - Jun 28 by peejaybee |
Are Barca Boring.?????? |
in some games they are but when the front 3 get going they are a joy to watch |  | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 10:11 - Jun 28 with 1477 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 08:01 - Jun 28 by smegma |
Watching Fulham and Huddersfield last season bored me to tears with about 500 passes per game and 3 shots on target. Yet they were 2 of the successful teams. |
Fulham scored 85 goals last season in the league.
I'd settle for that kind of boring football. Even the year we won the league we only scored 71.
There are so many ways to play, but I'd say one of the best was by Ferguson - the emphasis on attack, plain and simple. Yes, he built sides around two hulking centre backs and a good goalie, but he was mainly concerned with how his teams would score goals, and lots of them. Not always the prettiest side to watch, but thrilling - even if I hated him and them!
But then I saw Barca at the Wembley final v United and that was one of the most breathtaking, beautiful, superb demonstrations of football I've ever seen. Absolutely brilliant - a pinnacle. I saw the original Ronaldo in the flesh for Real Madrid as they destroyed Zaragoza, with Zidane amazing - incredible to watch.
But then I still remember Farnborough beating Torquay 4-3 on Sky in Sky's early years and that game has stayed with me, and that's the other end of the scale in terms of beauty and technique and skill - it was raw passion and entertainment.
I don't agree that England should play the 'English way' - it wins us nothing. We should be developing players who can compete at international level technically - until we do, we'll never win anything. |  |
| |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 10:16 - Jun 28 with 1467 views | JamesB1979 |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 10:11 - Jun 28 by Antti_Heinola |
Fulham scored 85 goals last season in the league.
I'd settle for that kind of boring football. Even the year we won the league we only scored 71.
There are so many ways to play, but I'd say one of the best was by Ferguson - the emphasis on attack, plain and simple. Yes, he built sides around two hulking centre backs and a good goalie, but he was mainly concerned with how his teams would score goals, and lots of them. Not always the prettiest side to watch, but thrilling - even if I hated him and them!
But then I saw Barca at the Wembley final v United and that was one of the most breathtaking, beautiful, superb demonstrations of football I've ever seen. Absolutely brilliant - a pinnacle. I saw the original Ronaldo in the flesh for Real Madrid as they destroyed Zaragoza, with Zidane amazing - incredible to watch.
But then I still remember Farnborough beating Torquay 4-3 on Sky in Sky's early years and that game has stayed with me, and that's the other end of the scale in terms of beauty and technique and skill - it was raw passion and entertainment.
I don't agree that England should play the 'English way' - it wins us nothing. We should be developing players who can compete at international level technically - until we do, we'll never win anything. |
Disagree on last point Antti. We've tried to play the non-English way and got taken to the cleaners. The closest we have come to anything in last 20 years has been by playing the English way. I think we have been pretty unlucky in those tournaments. Losing to Portugal in world cup 2006 when we were by far the better side and Rooney let himself get wound up. Before that we lost in the heat of the day to the eventual winners brazil. Football is fine lines at the top level and in my view we were very close to achieving something. We just need to stick to our way but make sure we are well organized and well drilled. We have been neither of those things in last 2 tournaments. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 11:02 - Jun 28 with 1396 views | Hunterhoop |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 09:51 - Jun 28 by JamesB1979 |
It's about being well drilled and well organized. That's why that QPR team was able to demolish swansea. To be well drilled, we need 1 or maybe 2 max formations and a regular and consistent starting Xi. |
Again, agree. Being well drilled doesn't mean being negative, effective or defensive; it means knowing your job, and that could include within a recklessly attacking set up.
NFL, one of the most developed sports in the world from a coaching and tactical angle has a key phrase used repeatedly: know your job.
If everyone does their job properly, the team should function well, exactly as the coach wants.
It's only then do you get on to discussing whether you can get in players with more talent for each job.
From what I've seen under Holloway so far, I doubt any of the players know their job properly in any formation, let alone several. Holloway needs to focus on this, and just 1-2 systems, before he seeks to bring in new players. | | | |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 11:13 - Jun 28 with 1382 views | daveB |
| Attractive v Effective Football on 11:02 - Jun 28 by Hunterhoop |
Again, agree. Being well drilled doesn't mean being negative, effective or defensive; it means knowing your job, and that could include within a recklessly attacking set up.
NFL, one of the most developed sports in the world from a coaching and tactical angle has a key phrase used repeatedly: know your job.
If everyone does their job properly, the team should function well, exactly as the coach wants.
It's only then do you get on to discussing whether you can get in players with more talent for each job.
From what I've seen under Holloway so far, I doubt any of the players know their job properly in any formation, let alone several. Holloway needs to focus on this, and just 1-2 systems, before he seeks to bring in new players. |
not sure thats true about Holloway.
In games against Reading, Fulham, Newcastle and Leeds last season the team looked very well drilled with every player knowing what they needed to do and played to a gameplan perfectly. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
