Note: After being on the forum for a few weeks now, lurking other peoples threads and listening to conversations being held I thought it as if it was time to contribute. Please don't pay attention to any spelling, grammatical or general errors because I have had a bit to drink before writing this. Also if i'm posting in the wrong section please I apologize.

After observing football for a few years now I have begun to realize an interesting trend with fans of football and to a certain extent, people heavily involved in football such as chairmen, managers and in some cases players. What matters more nowadays, the ability to play a certain brand of football such as the likes of Manchester City, Barcelona and Bayern to name a few larger clubs or is it to be able to grind out results, no matter what type of football a team plays?

The things that have recently sparked my interest in this topic is the recent '19th Century Football' quote from Jose Mourinho and the sacking of AVB. Sure AVB had recently been battered by the likes of Liverpool and City but to say that Spurs were sitting badly in the Premier League table should be (imo) considered harsh considering the next few fixtures that were to be played, which included Southhampton, West Brom, Stoke City, Palace and Swansea.

It seems like there is an expectation to play passing football and score plenty of goals, whether you be in the higher parts of the league, mid-table or in the relegation zone. Why should the likes of West Ham, Fulham and Cardiff have to throw out there current play style to suit the general majority of footballs fans when there on the verge of being relegated to the championship. People need to remember these are professional football clubs and they rely on remaining in the highest level competition possible (that being the Barclays)

Teams are giving into peer pressure just to satisfy and avoid scrutiny from opposition teams fans and managers. Teams like Wigan, Swansea and wait for it (CONTROVERSY ALERT  ) Arsenal strive to play nice brand of football at the expense of points in some cases. Your asking "Arsenal? Why Arsenal aren't they second in the league?" YES! but there are several times in seasons where I find them trying to overplay and create goals that try to awe us, when simpler things can be done. These points may end up being vital at the end of the year, an example being Wigan Athletic and possibly Arsenal who are on the verge of winning the Premier League.

I'm over it. I'm over teams such as Stoke and West Ham being blamed for playing negative football while battling to get out of relegation. I'm over teams being forced into playing style a or b and suffering for doing so. I'm over managers being fired for not living up to a chairmans style. Sure it's nice to watch, but what should be more important at the end of the year is gathering the total amount of points possible from the league.

Again first post of the tread, I hope I did alright and am not talking out my ass, like what I find myself sometimes doing IRL. I'm Australian so not much football talk happens over here. Still trying to come to terms with calling in Football over Soccer so please excuse me if I ever slip up with that. Hope to contribute more   

Cheers Gus

Possession football can be just as effective as generic normal football. It helps if teams have the players to do it too. Playing anti-football/normal football isn't going to stop a team from being relegated. At the end of the day I don't think there's anything wrong with playing anti-football. If that's how a team wants to play and if it's working for them, then fair enough.

Depends on the circumstances, if you are at a club with very little resources and average players then there is nothing you can do. You are going to use the most effective method to survive and get result. If you are at a club who has the resources and quality players then you have to win but also entertain the crowd

Remember that football clubs are businesses, therefore their goal is not winning, but generating profit. Therefore, sometimes it might be more profitable, from a financial perspective, to focus on having a "brand" of football rather than just results.

Think Barca and their "humble" aproach to the media, it works doesnt it? Think about Mourinho, and his self branding, his media antics are not meant to help mentalize his players, but rather to keep his own brand going so he keeps being the best paid and most wanted manager.

Results.

Has to be results like above, winning is the end goal of sports and the money factors etc.

However if your like MJgunner who thinks football should be like WWE where winning is just a bonus and you need to play as a team to entertain the fans then HAH.

the way I see it, if you get worse results than you could get, your style is flawed.

winning in style matters . all those great teams that we remember from the past are due to the excitement they have given to football .

Neutral fans will like stylish football more than winning football .
that why brazil is the most supported team in world . real 2000 and barca this decade had huge fan following due to their style .
arsenal who hasn't won anything has as much a big following as chavs due to attacking stye wenger gave them . man u also played good counter attacking football this decade .

meanwhile chelsea inter wins would have given their fans joy . But their style was pathetic and didn't excite neutrals. and nobody talks about them as a great team other than their own fans .

so if you want to be remembered like ajax 70 brazil 70 france 84 brazil 82 real 60s 2000 you need to play in style and combine them with result

some teams have achieved greatness without result

dutch 74 brazil 82

sure AVB had recently been battered by the likes of Liverpool and City but to say that Spurs were sitting badly in the Premier League table should be (imo) considered harsh considering the next few fixtures that were to be played, which included Southhampton, West Brom, Stoke City, Palace and Swansea.

But don't worry, Sherwood is a GOD for having beaten those teams. It's expected he'll beat Man City too, and lead Tottenham to EPL glory. Wait, you say that game has been played? I wonder what the result was...

As for the actual topic, results are what matter at the end of the day, but I'm always going to support the team that tries to play an attractive style, that is committed to playing the beautiful game in a beautiful way. I don't think a manager should be thrown out because he plays boring football, but I certainly have my fair share of teams and managers I prefer to watch because I love the brand of football they play. Don't we all?

It's all about results, but I'm always going to prefer Barcelona play with a style. That's why I love Barca. Tottenham had a bit of swagger in the last 5 years, too, which is why I like watching them.

Sure, this year has been boring and my support for AVB is at odds with my take on style vs results, but I'm pretty sure AVB could have gotten the team firing eventually. Right before he was sacked they certainly were starting to look the part in some games.

I guess a more apt question would be: Do you prefer results over attractive football with average results?

Results. I've had this discussion before but in 100 years people are more likely to remember who won than how they played. If in 20 years from now, people compare Chelsea of the last decade to Arsenal of the last decade, many people will consider Chelsea to be the better team, because of the results, not the fact that Arsenal have often have the more appealing style. (Sorry to the Arsenal fans but they help my point here)

Results are what drive a team forward. Results are why we watch football. If Chelsea had scored with the last kick of the ball against West Ham, I would have gone crazy and felt much better than if we played beautiful football (not that we didn't) and drew.

Obviously the ultimate is style and results (Barca under Pep) but if I had to choose, it would be results every time.

Both of them can be concurrently achieved with appropriate resources at disposal. For me, 'style' doesn't necessarily correlate to attractive football. The best teams have a balance of both, style and results.

Welcome to the forum mate. Quite a bit of Aussies here, so I'm sure you'll feel settled in no time. (Pity you go for Spurs, though. )

To answer your question in simple terms as I don't want to write an essay, results any day of the week.

CBarca wrote:

sure AVB had recently been battered by the likes of Liverpool and City but to say that Spurs were sitting badly in the Premier League table should be (imo) considered harsh considering the next few fixtures that were to be played, which included Southhampton, West Brom, Stoke City, Palace and Swansea.

But don't worry, Sherwood is a GOD for having beaten those teams. It's expected he'll beat Man City too, and lead Tottenham to EPL glory. Wait, you say that game has been played? I wonder what the result was...

I think you might of read this wrong. That was exactly what I was trying to say. AVB was battered by good sides that were in the form of there life and I wasn't trying to criticize that. I was trying to point out that Sherwood is praised for his style of play which includes getting players into the box and creating scoring opportunities, but AVB gets criticized for playing a negative brand of football while also beating the sides that he is expected to beat.

I dunno.. Maybe I read your statement wrong, but from what I can see we both have the same opinion about the AVB, Sherwood Saga.

It seems we do. I was sarcastic with my talking of Sherwood.

I don't even think Spurs have been scoring more because of Sherwood, it's been due mostly to Adebayor and his great form, while Eriksen has found his feet too. Chances were created under AVB they just weren't finished well and Soldado has been awful with his finishing.

His praise and his style and everything about him has so far been hyped because he's an English manager managing a team like Tottenham...in England.

Well, if you look at the German NT, when we won our World Cups, we were admired due to our efficiency, but I guess secretly everybody would have liked our opponents to have won. Funnily now that people admire us due to our style, we share the fate of a couple of other teams who didn't win in the end, but who are remembered for their style. (e.g. neither in 2006 or 2010, anyone would have begrudged us a win for once). ^^

my rank for this issue

tier 1:
team with result + style (beauty) = brazil, real, barca

tier 2:
team with result = greece, chelsea

tier 3:
team with style (beauty) = arsenal, dortmund

To answer my own question, I think it depends on the expectations I've set out for the club. Last season I could of watched Roma under Zeman no matter what, because win or lose we were the sex

This season, I thought we made the right transfers to challenge for Europe and that's what I expected. However, now that we are flirting with the Scudetto I'm extremely critical that we get the result first.

i would say style, but like most said, style with result makes football complete

Result is what matters. Winning is the main part, winning with style is a bonus.

guest_07 wrote:my rank for this issue

tier 1:
team with result + style (beauty) = brazil, real, barca

tier 2:
team with result = greece, chelsea

tier 3:
team with style (beauty) = arsenal, dortmund

Dortmund won back to back leagues, one cup added, with a squad bought for an apple and an egg, and reached a CL final, finishing 2nd in the league, after. How are they not getting results?

And they won it BECAUSE of their style, not just on top of it.
This style vs. results thing is a flawed dichotomy.

Arsenal are consistent BECAUSE of their style, too, not despite it. If they one day manage to win something again, it will be because they will have managed to IMPROVE their style in order to do it.

I never understand why it has to be style vs results.

Nearly every advocate of "style" would tell you that they also believe that their way of football is also the best way to get the best results.

The Franchise wrote:I never understand why it has to be style vs results.

Nearly every advocate of "style" would tell you that they also believe that their way of football is also the best way to get the best results.

Agreed. I think it only ever becomes style vs. results if the coach decides to go plan b and abandon the usual style because of circumstances (e.g. red card - do you continue playing possession and pressing high or do you park the bus?)

This needs bumping with last night's match.

Chelsea were heavily criticised for their approach, however it might very well be the style that gets them to the CL final or even win it.

Where does everyone stand in this?