|
Question
Aug 25, 2014 8:09:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by bonfireman on Aug 25, 2014 8:09:59 GMT
One game that sticks in my mind is Newport at home last season.what a dire 0-0 bore fest which would make many question why they bother rushing home from work to get there. Compare to Saturdays fairly open game with passing on the grass (alien concept under cw) and I know where I'd rather be. Anyway,up to the hawthorns tomorrow. Not seen us play there since the 3-3 so looking forward to it. Coyy
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 8:18:12 GMT
Always love the boing boing home and away. Always a great atmosphere. And it is decided one way or another tomorrow
|
|
|
Question
Aug 25, 2014 9:18:29 GMT
m likes this
Post by winchesterox on Aug 25, 2014 9:18:29 GMT
Am encouraged by the signing of Hoskins. But lose or lose up the U's.
|
|
|
Post by sarumox on Aug 25, 2014 9:34:03 GMT
Some of the games over the last few years, actually most of them, were dreadful, even the wins where we were hanging on against other equally poor sides. Good quality high tempo football will win out when all the players have fully adjusted, and now we may have a striker who can finish the good work. If Hoskins did not see the opportunities to score he would not have come here. The old 'crap' football has left us in this division, why would we want to persevere with that.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 25, 2014 9:38:28 GMT
Well the stay away son here said it was because of wilder, then lenagan, then the shit football, then lack of ambition by the new guys not signing a proven striker. Well guess what that's all been answered so get up the on sat and let's start backing the team up the league. Unless of course there is a new reason ??
|
|
|
Post by unification on Aug 25, 2014 10:22:16 GMT
I think a few definitions are needed here to further the debate.
'Good football' implies a slick, on-the-deck, passing game. Goals and chances come from moving the ball quickly into goal scoring positions from crosses, turnover of play and good skill. Goals and chances come from moving the ball quickly into goal scoring positions from crosses, turnover of play and good skill. See Pep Guardiola and Arsene Wenger c. 2004.
'Bad football' is implied to use a more direct approach, making use of height and presence to get the ball into the opposition's half as quickly as possible. It involves heavy pressing, lots of long passes, makes use of throw ins in a similar way to a rugby line out and tend to be lower scoring. 'Bad football', however, can be equally as successful as good football - in some ways more so. See Graham Westley, Graham Taylor, Ian Atkins.
I think it's important to remember that good football is only good if there is an end product to it. I remember how people were cooing on here about how well Gateshead played when we played them in the FA Cup last year. I thought the exact opposite - they passed the ball on the ground, but were so pedestrian with it and created nothing of note until the second half of extra time (when someone bothered to hit the ball from distance) that it bored me senseless. It was two thirds good - the final third made all their pretty passing meaningless. Oxford that day were ugly, long ball hoofers, yet we were the ones with our name in the hat. Sometimes you have to resort to that to win a match.
I get the feeling that MApp seems to have us two thirds of the way there like Gateshead were. Pretty football, but meaningless if it doesn't result in goals and wins. With Hoskins bringing some much needed experience (and proven goals in the FL), I think we could be a step closer to achieving what MApp wants us to achieve. We're still a player or two short and I'm still not happy about us so flippantly discarding 12 points so readily, but it's a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2014 10:26:12 GMT
We have been unlucky and dropped points against Morecambe due to poor referee decisions. Once of the mark we will be stronger. I fear for Dagenham on Saturday
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Aug 25, 2014 11:40:01 GMT
I think the point is that the good looking football will eventually deliver the results we need, it's not being played just to look good. I think resorting to wilder style panic hoofing is the last thing we should do! We've got to believe that we will come good under Appleton. The other method worked well sometimes but was never sustainable, as we saw with 4 failed attempts to get out of League 2, despite strong starts to those league campaigns, Appleton and co are building something great for the future and I think we will go places if we keep playing this formula, don't give up on it yet! Don't give up on it ? Many commenting on here haven't even tried it! You are of coarse right, but when you open the paper to see the league table we all can see we are bottom, it doesn't give you extra points for performances.
|
|
|
Question
Aug 25, 2014 13:12:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 25, 2014 13:12:21 GMT
Good football is played with skill, pace and passion, or 'intensity'. Bad football isn't.
We're getting close to playing good football; the results will come, I trust.
|
|
|
Post by trainingcone on Aug 25, 2014 13:35:40 GMT
We have been unlucky and dropped points against Morecambe due to poor referee decisions. Once of the mark we will be stronger. I fear for Dagenham on Saturday I hope you're right!!
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 25, 2014 13:56:07 GMT
Don't give up on it ? Many commenting on here haven't even tried it! You are of coarse right, but when you open the paper to see the league table we all can see we are bottom, it doesn't give you extra points for performances. Turn the paper upside down and were f*cking flying
|
|
|
Post by dabigfella on Aug 25, 2014 15:50:53 GMT
I think a few definitions are needed here to further the debate. 'Good football' implies a slick, on-the-deck, passing game. Goals and chances come from moving the ball quickly into goal scoring positions from crosses, turnover of play and good skill. Goals and chances come from moving the ball quickly into goal scoring positions from crosses, turnover of play and good skill. See Pep Guardiola and Arsene Wenger c. 2004. 'Bad football' is implied to use a more direct approach, making use of height and presence to get the ball into the opposition's half as quickly as possible. It involves heavy pressing, lots of long passes, makes use of throw ins in a similar way to a rugby line out and tend to be lower scoring. 'Bad football', however, can be equally as successful as good football - in some ways more so. See Graham Westley, Graham Taylor, Ian Atkins. I think it's important to remember that good football is only good if there is an end product to it. I remember how people were cooing on here about how well Gateshead played when we played them in the FA Cup last year. I thought the exact opposite - they passed the ball on the ground, but were so pedestrian with it and created nothing of note until the second half of extra time (when someone bothered to hit the ball from distance) that it bored me senseless. It was two thirds good - the final third made all their pretty passing meaningless. Oxford that day were ugly, long ball hoofers, yet we were the ones with our name in the hat. Sometimes you have to resort to that to win a match. I get the feeling that MApp seems to have us two thirds of the way there like Gateshead were. Pretty football, but meaningless if it doesn't result in goals and wins. With Hoskins bringing some much needed experience (and proven goals in the FL), I think we could be a step closer to achieving what MApp wants us to achieve. We're still a player or two short and I'm still not happy about us so flippantly discarding 12 points so readily, but it's a step in the right direction. Precisely the point I was trying to make. Not too well apparently.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Aug 25, 2014 17:27:07 GMT
You are of coarse right, but when you open the paper to see the league table we all can see we are bottom, it doesn't give you extra points for performances. Turn the paper upside down and were f*cking flying You can't encourage the stay away fans to come to watch, when results are poor. Under 5k home fans for our biggest game of the season (on paper), shows whatever you are preaching is not working. Unless the club can get the stay away fans in the ground to see these good performances, what chance have the club got when these fans see another lose in the paper and TV. When things change hopefully soon and we start winning, the crowds will then come to watch the wonderful football everyone is enthused by.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 25, 2014 18:29:10 GMT
Think u need to read back through a few of my posts. I'm preaching nothing, and most of what u just said I have said in previous post on this and other threads
|
|
|
Post by mcf86 on Aug 25, 2014 18:34:10 GMT
I think a few definitions are needed here to further the debate. 'Good football' implies a slick, on-the-deck, passing game. Goals and chances come from moving the ball quickly into goal scoring positions from crosses, turnover of play and good skill. Goals and chances come from moving the ball quickly into goal scoring positions from crosses, turnover of play and good skill. See Pep Guardiola and Arsene Wenger c. 2004. 'Bad football' is implied to use a more direct approach, making use of height and presence to get the ball into the opposition's half as quickly as possible. It involves heavy pressing, lots of long passes, makes use of throw ins in a similar way to a rugby line out and tend to be lower scoring. 'Bad football', however, can be equally as successful as good football - in some ways more so. See Graham Westley, Graham Taylor, Ian Atkins. I think it's important to remember that good football is only good if there is an end product to it. I remember how people were cooing on here about how well Gateshead played when we played them in the FA Cup last year. I thought the exact opposite - they passed the ball on the ground, but were so pedestrian with it and created nothing of note until the second half of extra time (when someone bothered to hit the ball from distance) that it bored me senseless. It was two thirds good - the final third made all their pretty passing meaningless. Oxford that day were ugly, long ball hoofers, yet we were the ones with our name in the hat. Sometimes you have to resort to that to win a match. I get the feeling that MApp seems to have us two thirds of the way there like Gateshead were. Pretty football, but meaningless if it doesn't result in goals and wins. With Hoskins bringing some much needed experience (and proven goals in the FL), I think we could be a step closer to achieving what MApp wants us to achieve. We're still a player or two short and I'm still not happy about us so flippantly discarding 12 points so readily, but it's a step in the right direction. Precisely the point I was trying to make. Not too well apparently. 'Good football' + Goals + Winning your fair share of matches- or even more so, takes time whatever the circumstances- Imo we're going down the right route, the Club needs to get back the support 'lost' over the wilder years and before, and i'm confident they can, and will.
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 25, 2014 21:30:15 GMT
I think the point is that the good looking football will eventually deliver the results we need, it's not being played just to look good. I think resorting to wilder style panic hoofing is the last thing we should do! We've got to believe that we will come good under Appleton. The other method worked well sometimes but was never sustainable, as we saw with 4 failed attempts to get out of League 2, despite strong starts to those league campaigns, Appleton and co are building something great for the future and I think we will go places if we keep playing this formula, don't give up on it yet! Much as I disliked almost everything about CJ Wilder, it's only fair to point out that this time last year we handed out a 4-1 thumping to Portsmouth, playing some excellent free-flowing football! We created more chances that one day than we have all season to date. Addressing your point, a team has to be able to attain success in different ways. Sometimes, you have to dig in for a bit and make sure you don't concede. Sometimes, you can go out and impose yourself. Good managers and teams can genuinely 'manage' all facets of what football can throw at you. Managers have an effective duty to achieve what their budgets suggest. Ours, I suspect, is about 8th biggest again. So Appleton needs to 'manage' his resources to get us close to the play-off mix. Otherwise, he will have under-performed. Simple as that. If he can achieve what he is meant to achieve playing 'nice' football then great. But it wn't always be that way. There will be plenty of games where the pitch/ conditions/ opposition mean that we have to achieve our aims doing something different. So qwhen you talk about 1 formula of playing to achieve success I would strongly suggest that you are wrong. Certain basic principles, yes. A basic philosophy, yes. But a dogmatic refusal to adapt to conditions. No, thank'ee. That's called losing.
|
|
|
Post by wandsworthyellow on Aug 25, 2014 22:34:53 GMT
much rather be entertained than bored mindless with long ball wins...it is proven football supporters behave like any other consumer...ie good product and you buy again...
I cant belief that I am going back sat for D&R, and we are bottom of the league, ...I am a floating fan (consumer) and I want to be entertained. Football is expensive hobby vs. cinema. New management if given time will build something "interesting". Lets give them the time.
|
|
|
Post by dabigfella on Oct 1, 2014 14:41:47 GMT
Any one on here still think we are playing 'good' (meaning effective) football?
|
|
|
Post by oxford84 on Oct 1, 2014 17:12:16 GMT
Any one on here still think we are playing 'good' (meaning effective) football? The stats would say that we have more possession and chances than the opposition in almost every game weve played,start scoring the chances and we start winning games.
|
|