Jump to content

What is good football


Soulful Odin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I haven'tread this piece yet (I will get around to it) but to most supporters, good football is winning football.

 

Most supporters don't give a tinker's cuss how their team play, as long as they win.

 

Playing attractive football is a bonus, but results are often the arbiter of what is or isn't good football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the beauty of the game can only be seen when a team concentrates on creating chances to score instead of just preventing goals from the opponent. Like Johan Cruyff said: "you just have to score one more goal than your opponent..." This doesn't mean I can't understand or respect someone like Simeone or Mourinho for their achievements, it's just no fun to see their teams play. But then again: I'm a Dutchman raised with the philosophies of Cruyff, van Hanegem etc. so I'll probably look at the game in different way than the average Italian or Englishman. Though I doubt that there are many footballfans who do not like the way Barcelona plays and which is based on the Dutch view on football back in the seventees.

 

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/how-johan-cruyff-reinvented-modern-football-barcelona#:LPv9Y6CW5mEwvA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only need to read the meltdowns on here when we lose to know that it is win first, win pretty second. High pressing and possession is all well and good if you score goals. Playing on the counter is all well and good as long as you score goals. No matter what system you play, as Cruyff said, you need to score one more than the opposition. Do that frequently and you will keep the fans happy. And remember, for all of the beautiful "Total Football" they didn't managed to win anything in the 70s.

Edited by sadoldgit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good football? That's tricky to define, because it's a combination of moments of individual brilliance and periods of sustained team skill and effort.

 

But you know it, when you see it.

 

I also hold to the "old-fashioned" view that good football is underpinned by a spirit of sportsmanship—playing so as not to win at any cost, but with a love of the game itself, a respect for the opposition, and a refusal to cheat in order to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tadic plays good football, provides more goals than most in the league and is (arguably) our most skilful player yet he gets slagged off by some for inconsistency, not tracking back etc..

Personally I love watching this type of player and reckon it's up to the manager to provide a balance between creative players and workhorses !

There are many examples over the years where talent was accepted over workload (LeTiss?) and if you wish to watch quality then you normally have to accept that there is a compromise to be made !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only need to read the meltdowns on here when we lose to know that it is win first, win pretty second. High pressing and possession is all well and good if you score goals. Playing on the counter is all well and good as long as you score goals. No matter what system you play, as Cruyff said, you need to score one more than the opposition. Do that frequently and you will keep the fans happy. And remember, for all of the beautiful "Total Football" they didn't managed to win anything in the 70s.

 

Not sure who the 'they' is to whom you refer, but Cruyff and Ajax conquered all before then in the early 70s. I would say winning three consecutive European Cups was quite an achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only need to read the meltdowns on here when we lose to know that it is win first, win pretty second. High pressing and possession is all well and good if you score goals. Playing on the counter is all well and good as long as you score goals. No matter what system you play, as Cruyff said, you need to score one more than the opposition. Do that frequently and you will keep the fans happy. And remember, for all of the beautiful "Total Football" they didn't managed to win anything in the 70s.

 

Would I as a fan have been more glad when Holland would have won the World Cup in '74 with "ugly" football? No SOG, I wouldn't. To me that would be the same like having a beautifull wife who's only there for the money, it's not the real thing. There are people who say that in the end all is forgotten and only the titles remain but that's too simple for me. "Total football" is still remembered up to now and who has forgotten the great skills of Pele and his mates before that? But you're right, most fans are just happy when their teams win any which way they can. Like most of them are happy to drive their Vauxhall to work or **** their wives every sunday night at 10 pm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst we might all have an ideal of what good football looks like unfortunately this isn't reflected in the stands during matches. St Mary's is still dominated by the "get rid of if" brigade who don't like all the fanny about on the ball. They need to "run Tadic/Pelle/Mane/ward prowse (delete as appropriate) you lazy useless c*nt" they want 4-4-2 with pacy widemen, centre backs who don't try and play from the back they "get it foooooooorwarrrrd" to the big man up top who flicks it down to the little 'en. Should the ball somehow end up in midfield we need a ball winning midfielder who "gets stuck in" it might be good but it's what people want

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst we might all have an ideal of what good football looks like unfortunately this isn't reflected in the stands during matches. St Mary's is still dominated by the "get rid of if" brigade who don't like all the fanny about on the ball. They need to "run Tadic/Pelle/Mane/ward prowse (delete as appropriate) you lazy useless c*nt" they want 4-4-2 with pacy widemen, centre backs who don't try and play from the back they "get it foooooooorwarrrrd" to the big man up top who flicks it down to the little 'en. Should the ball somehow end up in midfield we need a ball winning midfielder who "gets stuck in" it might be good but it's what people want

 

With the exception of the bloke flicking it on, it seems to have worked for Leicester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the exception of the bloke flicking it on, it seems to have worked for Leicester.

 

And the only criticism they've received all season is for the style of football they play! Good football isn't necessary to get results watch any big Sam side or athletico!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst we might all have an ideal of what good football looks like unfortunately this isn't reflected in the stands during matches. St Mary's is still dominated by the "get rid of if" brigade who don't like all the fanny about on the ball. They need to "run Tadic/Pelle/Mane/ward prowse (delete as appropriate) you lazy useless c*nt" they want 4-4-2 with pacy widemen, centre backs who don't try and play from the back they "get it foooooooorwarrrrd" to the big man up top who flicks it down to the little 'en. Should the ball somehow end up in midfield we need a ball winning midfielder who "gets stuck in" it might be good but it's what people want

 

The same people are always the first to shout olé when we're in front, cruising and passing it around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to qualify good football, but as for enjoying a game look no further back than Chelsea v Spurs. That game had just about everything I enjoy about football plus a little bit more. Some cracking football, goals, some blood and guts and the end result was quite pleasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leicester have blown away a few theories about what you need to win. Although a few idiots bemoan that as boring route one football which it isn't. For me pace of game is important. Serie A back in 90s with all there 0-0 and their technically excellent players was still boring to watch.

Blood and thunder or a PL game is a major part of its appeal.

Most people don't really want to see a ruthlessly efficient defence - could argue quality of defending generally in PL is at an all time low

Style is important though - if the PL,was full of Pulis's West Brom we wouldn't be getting billions from rest of world to watch it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leicester have blown away a few theories about what you need to win. Although a few idiots bemoan that as boring route one football which it isn't. For me pace of game is important. Serie A back in 90s with all there 0-0 and their technically excellent players was still boring to watch.

Blood and thunder or a PL game is a major part of its appeal.

Most people don't really want to see a ruthlessly efficient defence - could argue quality of defending generally in PL is at an all time low

Style is important though - if the PL,was full of Pulis's West Brom we wouldn't be getting billions from rest of world to watch it.

 

For me, Leicester have won it with their defence. First keep a clean sheet and the rest will follow.

 

As for good football, I like to see pace and movement, a team where the players have instinctive understanding of each other, defence-splitting passes into spaces that I didn't know existed. Unfortunately I don't think we've come near to that this season and I don't think the constant team changes help either. It's interesting to see that Leicester have tended to keep the same team most of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})