@Malone said:
Gape and Thompson can play a bit though can't they?
It's not like say (with all due respect) Stuey Lewis days. Now he was an absolute terrier, arguably to a level beyond either of them, but very little ball playing ability.
Its all very well saying "they can play a bit". Yeah they can at League 2 and League 1. Championship is COMPLETELY different. People will say I am being negative, I'm not, I'm speaking reality. Freeman may be more suited to this level although technically he is not at the standard yet.
Why would anyone expect a patient passing game? I think the more interesting question is whether Wycombe will succeed allowing sides with superior technical quality than last year such a huge share of possession.
It’s worked before so not saying it won’t but it will be fascinating to watch
My post was a response to Trevor’s desire for a return to the style of football employed by John Gorman and his/her concern about what opposition fans think of us.
@glasshalffull said:
Why do you worry about what other fans say? You only get criticism when you’re successful. Also, although John Gorman’s teams were a delight to watch, they never actually won anything (and John is a personal friend so that’s not meant as a criticism).
It's a bit harsh that. We'll never know of course but I've always believed that had terrible off field events that happened that season not happened that we would have won that league comfortably
I agree that we were derailed in the most tragic fashion by events outside anyone’s control. It’s just about football philosophy and I once asked John what he would prefer, playing ‘good’ football and losing or playing ‘ugly’ football and winning. I’ll leave you to guess his reply!
@Malone said:
Gape and Thompson can play a bit though can't they?
It's not like say (with all due respect) Stuey Lewis days. Now he was an absolute terrier, arguably to a level beyond either of them, but very little ball playing ability.
Gape is the only midfielder whose place in the 3 I'm certain of at the moment - assuming we stick with a 4-3-3.
It's a bit harsh that. We'll never know of course but I've always believed that had terrible off field events that happened that season not happened that we would have won that league comfortably
Definitely! Didn't we go 21 unbeaten from the opening game?
It's a bit harsh that. We'll never know of course but I've always believed that had terrible off field events that happened that season not happened that we would have won that league comfortably
Definitely! Didn't we go 21 unbeaten from the opening game?
When we were 'on' that season no one could touch us.
Didn't we also lose Tyson to Forest halfway through that season? The personal tragedies were impactful and shouldn't be minimised but losing the country's top scorer and one half of a terrific partnership was the main reason we missed out in my mind.
Genuinely interested in people’s views on this subject. The ideal obviously is to win games playing brilliant football like Manchester City, Liverpool, Bayern Munich etc, but those teams are on a different planet to us. My personal view is that I would rather see us win playing in a less attractive style than lose playing ‘sexy’ football. I think there’s a lot of snobbery attached to football style and the way Barcelona kept losing possession last night because of their stubborn insistence on playing out from their goalkeeper just underlined my view.
I'm sure everyone will view it differently, but I am sick of much of possession football (though obviously it takes many forms).
Example 1: Team has a corner. It is uncouth to knock it into the box, so they take it short, and gradually work it back to their own keeper.
Example 2: Team has a chance to pour forward. Player running full pelt suddenly stops, passes the ball back to a defender at the halfway line, and they play "horseshoe of crap" across the park for the next two minutes.
I could go on. At this stage I am much more excited about seeing Allsop drop a long free kick into the mixer than I am watching Man City's "death by a thousand paper cuts."
I think part of the reason Liverpool are a breath of fresh air stylistically is that they are not afraid of the long pass, and tend to be very direct in attack.
Worth nothing that the most direct teams in League One and League Two won the play-offs - Wycombe and Northampton were the two most 'hoofball' teams in the top four divisions last season - and the most direct in the Championship (Cardiff) also made the play-offs. Rotherham (promoted) are very direct too, despite what Paul Warne's snobbery towards us might have made you think. Haven't looked up stats for the PL, but I suspect Burnley would take that crown - and oh look, they finished 10th.
I found oxford boring in the final, knocking it around the back doing nothing with it..... when we lose im the first to criticise our style but i must admit i like the direct style we play it's more exciting to watch than teams that endlessly knock it round the back, i always feel like something is going to happen with us everytime we go forward.....
I think it boils down to a simple question : if you’re going to lose possession, isn’t it better to do so in the opposition’s half than in your own half? We get the ball forward quickly and are accused of ‘hoof ball’ by fans of teams who aimlessly pass it around in their own half causing us little threat.
@glasshalffull said:
Genuinely interested in people’s views on this subject. The ideal obviously is to win games playing brilliant football like Manchester City, Liverpool, Bayern Munich etc, but those teams are on a different planet to us. My personal view is that I would rather see us win playing in a less attractive style than lose playing ‘sexy’ football.
I wouldn’t trade Ainsworth’s reign for anything, but think the Gorman era was when I most looked forward to seeing the actual match. I honestly think the football played under him was, at times, as good as anything I’ve seen domestically either live or on television. It really was breathtaking.
@glasshalffull said:
Genuinely interested in people’s views on this subject. The ideal obviously is to win games playing brilliant football like Manchester City, Liverpool, Bayern Munich etc, but those teams are on a different planet to us. My personal view is that I would rather see us win playing in a less attractive style than lose playing ‘sexy’ football.
I wouldn’t trade Ainsworth’s reign for anything, but think the Gorman era was when I most looked forward to seeing the actual match. I honestly think the football played under him was, at times, as good as anything I’ve seen domestically either live or on television. It really was breathtaking.
@glasshalffull said:
Genuinely interested in people’s views on this subject... I would rather see us win playing in a less attractive style than lose playing ‘sexy’ football.
@glasshalffull
There's a kind of false logic to your question though. Of course as fans we'd rather see us win than lose and I'd rather see us win or lose playing sexy football than a less attractive style.
Surely in your question you are actually accepting that our style of football is less attractive than it could be?
It isn't true that there are just two choices for Wycombe - loose playing a sexy style or win playing a less attractive style - as you imply.
Why not a third option - win playing a more sexy style?
Don't you think that's something to aspire to?
@glasshalffull said:
Genuinely interested in people’s views on this subject... I would rather see us win playing in a less attractive style than lose playing ‘sexy’ football.
@glasshalffull
There's a kind of false logic to your question though. Of course as fans we'd rather see us win than lose and I'd rather see us win or lose playing sexy football than a less attractive style.
Surely in your question you are actually accepting that our style of football is less attractive than it could be?
It isn't true that there are just two choices for Wycombe - loose playing a sexy style or win playing a less attractive style - as you imply.
Why not a third option - win playing a more sexy style?
Don't you think that's something to aspire to?
I think we could only afford to be sexy and successful in league 2, technical players cost more money, and to be a "sexy" team you need far more "ball players" for the standard.
So long as we continue to offer a good threat at every set piece, and counter attack with pace, we're not boring to watch, as when we get the ball we attack everytime unlike plenty of possession based teams
I don't disagree @Username with what you say, in the real world what matters in football is being effective in winning games not being sexy.
But @glasshalffull was asking a hypothetical question and I was annoyed by the suggestion that there could be only the two choices - loose sexy or win ugly. At the very least, even in that hypothetical situation, there is also the win sexy or loose ugly options to consider?
@glasshalffull said:
Genuinely interested in people’s views on this subject... I would rather see us win playing in a less attractive style than lose playing ‘sexy’ football.
@glasshalffull
There's a kind of false logic to your question though. Of course as fans we'd rather see us win than lose and I'd rather see us win or lose playing sexy football than a less attractive style.
Surely in your question you are actually accepting that our style of football is less attractive than it could be?
It isn't true that there are just two choices for Wycombe - loose playing a sexy style or win playing a less attractive style - as you imply.
Why not a third option - win playing a more sexy style?
Don't you think that's something to aspire to?
I don’t find our style of play in the least bit unattractive, on the contrary I enjoy how we consistently beat teams despite having less possession. However, the fashionable theory is that ‘attractive’ football means making a dozen passes in your own half while our more direct style is insultingly referred to as ‘hoofball’, sometimes even by our own fans. I don’t aspire to us playing ‘sexy’ football (whatever that might be), I just want us to play to our strengths and that’s something we do very well.
More than anything I want us to play with passion, commitment and class on and off the pitch. Be magnanimous in victory, take responsibility in defeat. In my opinion under Ainsworth and Dobbo we are peerless in those things. As to technically how we win or lose, I really don’t care.
Evening @Twizz. Trust you and yours are keeping well. I enjoy your posts and I’m generally on the same wavelength but, as someone who spent his early childhood half an hour’s walk from the village of Loose, I did a double take when you referred to “loose sexy” and “loose ugly”.
For years I thought Loose was pronounced as in loose women rather than loos (as people who considered themselves ‘U’ started calling lavatories). It’s a tricky one - a bit like the past tense of lead (the verb, not the metal), so often written as lead instead of led.
Oh damn it, @micra.
Should the word I need rhyme with chose or choose? I'm a simple man, spelling isn't always my strongest point. You can see why I made the error.
All is well, visiting the newest grandchild (born Thursday morning) to measure him up for a WWFC shirt. Have to set him off on the correct path.
@chairboyscentral said:
That's why getting hold of a couple of technical CMs is so important, need to give ourselves the option to play through the midfield, if only occasionally. The amount of ball-chasing we do worked fine in League One 'cause only a very small number of sides kept and moved the ball well enough - in addition to having the end product - to overrun us. Gareth isn't going to change his philosophy - because it is just that, a philosophy - but it will need tweaks and I expect him to make them.
The flip side of that is that the press becomes more important, but we'll absolutely shatter ourselves if we continue exactly the same scrapping midfield approach.
What has Thompson done to make you think he is unable to look after the ball and use it proactively? I’m a bit confused. Correct me if I speak out of turn, but I think that it is widely accepted that for significant periods of the last two seasons he has been one of our best players. Evidently the enforced break didn’t do him any good and he wasn’t deemed the right fit for the play-offs. Ofoborh’s form was clearly part of that. But to me, Thompson’s ability both to break up the play and use the ball is what has made him so vital for us. The limited opportunity he has had to show what he can do with the ball at his feet is purely a product of our playing style. Both he and Gape can play going in both directions and I fully expect both to play a huge part next season.
@Malone’s turn of phrase that they can both “play a bit” is just that, a turn of phrase. I understand that to mean that he thinks they are both very capable midfielders with the ball at their feet, and on that I fully agree with him.
@Twizz said:
Oh damn it, @micra.
Should the word I need rhyme with chose or choose? I'm a simple man, spelling isn't always my strongest point. You can see why I made the error.
All is well, visiting the newest grandchild (born Thursday morning) to measure him up for a WWFC shirt. Have to set him off on the correct path.
You chose choose but even choosing chose you lose. Odd thing. The longer you look at some words the more wrong they look.
Good to hear you’re already lining up a quartered shirt (or baby-grow) for your grandson. Felix Catchpole is still waiting for his, I think.
Comments
Its all very well saying "they can play a bit". Yeah they can at League 2 and League 1. Championship is COMPLETELY different. People will say I am being negative, I'm not, I'm speaking reality. Freeman may be more suited to this level although technically he is not at the standard yet.
My post was a response to Trevor’s desire for a return to the style of football employed by John Gorman and his/her concern about what opposition fans think of us.
It's a bit harsh that. We'll never know of course but I've always believed that had terrible off field events that happened that season not happened that we would have won that league comfortably
I agree that we were derailed in the most tragic fashion by events outside anyone’s control. It’s just about football philosophy and I once asked John what he would prefer, playing ‘good’ football and losing or playing ‘ugly’ football and winning. I’ll leave you to guess his reply!
Gape is the only midfielder whose place in the 3 I'm certain of at the moment - assuming we stick with a 4-3-3.
It's a bit harsh that. We'll never know of course but I've always believed that had terrible off field events that happened that season not happened that we would have won that league comfortably
Definitely! Didn't we go 21 unbeaten from the opening game?
When we were 'on' that season no one could touch us.
Didn't we also lose Tyson to Forest halfway through that season? The personal tragedies were impactful and shouldn't be minimised but losing the country's top scorer and one half of a terrific partnership was the main reason we missed out in my mind.
Superb football, but I remember we drew too many games. We should have been miles clear on our quality that year.
A mix of that, Tyson going and the tragedies all added up unfortunately.
Very hard to argue against it being the best football we played in the league era though.
Indeed it was sexy football.....
Genuinely interested in people’s views on this subject. The ideal obviously is to win games playing brilliant football like Manchester City, Liverpool, Bayern Munich etc, but those teams are on a different planet to us. My personal view is that I would rather see us win playing in a less attractive style than lose playing ‘sexy’ football. I think there’s a lot of snobbery attached to football style and the way Barcelona kept losing possession last night because of their stubborn insistence on playing out from their goalkeeper just underlined my view.
I'm sure everyone will view it differently, but I am sick of much of possession football (though obviously it takes many forms).
Example 1: Team has a corner. It is uncouth to knock it into the box, so they take it short, and gradually work it back to their own keeper.
Example 2: Team has a chance to pour forward. Player running full pelt suddenly stops, passes the ball back to a defender at the halfway line, and they play "horseshoe of crap" across the park for the next two minutes.
I could go on. At this stage I am much more excited about seeing Allsop drop a long free kick into the mixer than I am watching Man City's "death by a thousand paper cuts."
I think part of the reason Liverpool are a breath of fresh air stylistically is that they are not afraid of the long pass, and tend to be very direct in attack.
Worth nothing that the most direct teams in League One and League Two won the play-offs - Wycombe and Northampton were the two most 'hoofball' teams in the top four divisions last season - and the most direct in the Championship (Cardiff) also made the play-offs. Rotherham (promoted) are very direct too, despite what Paul Warne's snobbery towards us might have made you think. Haven't looked up stats for the PL, but I suspect Burnley would take that crown - and oh look, they finished 10th.
Rochdale, who really did play possession football for the sake of it, only stayed up by four points. Substance > style.
I go to football for many reasons, but expecting to win isn’t one of them, and if it were I doubt I’d enjoy it anywhere near as much.
I find Man City boring, yes they are good, but boring... dont watch their games
I found oxford boring in the final, knocking it around the back doing nothing with it..... when we lose im the first to criticise our style but i must admit i like the direct style we play it's more exciting to watch than teams that endlessly knock it round the back, i always feel like something is going to happen with us everytime we go forward.....
I think it boils down to a simple question : if you’re going to lose possession, isn’t it better to do so in the opposition’s half than in your own half? We get the ball forward quickly and are accused of ‘hoof ball’ by fans of teams who aimlessly pass it around in their own half causing us little threat.
You often get a bit more leeway with bad form if you're playing "attractive" football, if you're winning, who cares?
I wouldn’t trade Ainsworth’s reign for anything, but think the Gorman era was when I most looked forward to seeing the actual match. I honestly think the football played under him was, at times, as good as anything I’ve seen domestically either live or on television. It really was breathtaking.
Alright fella, let's not go too far over the top
@glasshalffull
There's a kind of false logic to your question though. Of course as fans we'd rather see us win than lose and I'd rather see us win or lose playing sexy football than a less attractive style.
Surely in your question you are actually accepting that our style of football is less attractive than it could be?
It isn't true that there are just two choices for Wycombe - loose playing a sexy style or win playing a less attractive style - as you imply.
Why not a third option - win playing a more sexy style?
Don't you think that's something to aspire to?
I think we could only afford to be sexy and successful in league 2, technical players cost more money, and to be a "sexy" team you need far more "ball players" for the standard.
So long as we continue to offer a good threat at every set piece, and counter attack with pace, we're not boring to watch, as when we get the ball we attack everytime unlike plenty of possession based teams
I don't disagree @Username with what you say, in the real world what matters in football is being effective in winning games not being sexy.
But @glasshalffull was asking a hypothetical question and I was annoyed by the suggestion that there could be only the two choices - loose sexy or win ugly. At the very least, even in that hypothetical situation, there is also the win sexy or loose ugly options to consider?
I don’t find our style of play in the least bit unattractive, on the contrary I enjoy how we consistently beat teams despite having less possession. However, the fashionable theory is that ‘attractive’ football means making a dozen passes in your own half while our more direct style is insultingly referred to as ‘hoofball’, sometimes even by our own fans. I don’t aspire to us playing ‘sexy’ football (whatever that might be), I just want us to play to our strengths and that’s something we do very well.
More than anything I want us to play with passion, commitment and class on and off the pitch. Be magnanimous in victory, take responsibility in defeat. In my opinion under Ainsworth and Dobbo we are peerless in those things. As to technically how we win or lose, I really don’t care.
Evening @Twizz. Trust you and yours are keeping well. I enjoy your posts and I’m generally on the same wavelength but, as someone who spent his early childhood half an hour’s walk from the village of Loose, I did a double take when you referred to “loose sexy” and “loose ugly”.
For years I thought Loose was pronounced as in loose women rather than loos (as people who considered themselves ‘U’ started calling lavatories). It’s a tricky one - a bit like the past tense of lead (the verb, not the metal), so often written as lead instead of led.
Oh damn it, @micra.
Should the word I need rhyme with chose or choose? I'm a simple man, spelling isn't always my strongest point. You can see why I made the error.
All is well, visiting the newest grandchild (born Thursday morning) to measure him up for a WWFC shirt. Have to set him off on the correct path.
What has Thompson done to make you think he is unable to look after the ball and use it proactively? I’m a bit confused. Correct me if I speak out of turn, but I think that it is widely accepted that for significant periods of the last two seasons he has been one of our best players. Evidently the enforced break didn’t do him any good and he wasn’t deemed the right fit for the play-offs. Ofoborh’s form was clearly part of that. But to me, Thompson’s ability both to break up the play and use the ball is what has made him so vital for us. The limited opportunity he has had to show what he can do with the ball at his feet is purely a product of our playing style. Both he and Gape can play going in both directions and I fully expect both to play a huge part next season.
@Malone’s turn of phrase that they can both “play a bit” is just that, a turn of phrase. I understand that to mean that he thinks they are both very capable midfielders with the ball at their feet, and on that I fully agree with him.
You chose choose but even choosing chose you lose. Odd thing. The longer you look at some words the more wrong they look.
Good to hear you’re already lining up a quartered shirt (or baby-grow) for your grandson. Felix Catchpole is still waiting for his, I think.