Is it all about result?

The notion that if you win it means everything is fine and you're doing a great job is both misguided and short-sighted. The point of the game isn't results; it's playing well. wrote:

The Demon of Carthage wrote:
History doesn't remember the names of those without trophies.

Pirloisjesus wrote:And look where Chelsea is now!

LeBéninois wrote:

Pirloisjesus wrote:And look where Chelsea is now!

Yeah but they still have more titles than AS Roma. Nobody will remember how they won the CL , just that they won it.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

LeBéninois wrote:

Pirloisjesus wrote:And look where Chelsea is now!

Yeah but they still have more titles than AS Roma. Nobody will remember how they won the CL , just that they won it.

That's not true. Everybody remembers it.

You're basically claiming all future football aficionados will be superficial and ignorant and won't bother to educate themselves beyond a winners' list, when actually, compared to our own relation to the past for example, they'll have documents, artifacts, videos, match reports, even forum posts lol, much more readily available to compile more in depth knowledge about history.

LeBéninois wrote:
 '' The casual fan ''  or '' the future young fan ''  won't have time to watch old CL games entirely " ( I don't, no time for that ) .

Bankz wrote:How is this even a debate? I'd rather play for a maureenho led inter side and a di matteo led chelsea side and be guaranteed of winning the CL, league every season than play like prime pepcelona, milan and end up not being sure of a trophy or better still end in the relegation zone..

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Never have cared about it, never will care about it. Would rather finish 17th every year if my team was playing good football and trying to attack the opposition every week and not playing negatively and seeing progress in some form or another.

I watch or did watch football to be entertained as that's what it is for, not to get excited about a result or to brag about a result. Those that do are usually more of a fan of winning to brag about it than they are of the sport they claim to enjoy.

Most people on here support super teams who rarely lose 10 games in two seasons so not sure that here is the place to be asking that question.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Bankz wrote:How is this even a debate? I'd rather play for a maureenho led inter side and a di matteo led chelsea side and be guaranteed of winning the CL, league every season than play like prime pepcelona, milan and end up not being sure of a trophy or better still end in the relegation zone..

I agree that this shouldn't even be a debate.

But not for the confused reasons you give after

It's not a debate because you do not get results without playing well, with the odd exception proving the rule.

LeBéninois wrote:Agree. Playing well doesn't make you lose, at the contrary. If a team plays well and get no results the problems is else where. ( Playing well include all styles of play )

Now, let's get one thing straight off the bat. Playing well doesn't mean entertaining, though that can be a by-product and it doesn't necessarily mean attacking football, either. It simply means executing well. And there are many ways to do it.

The nice thing is there are 22 guys on the pitch, each manager gets to tell 11 of them what to do and the permutations on how you might play well are many. You can resurrect "uber-Catenaccio" from the 1960s and put 10 men behind the ball, hoping to snatch a goal on the break. You can press maniacally high up the pitch. You can stack your team with goliaths and lump the ball continuously into the air. You can hang on to the ball and tiki-taka your way to a shot.

You can choose any combination of the above or indeed many others and, if you're clever, you'll do it based on the personnel at your disposal and, perhaps, on the opposition and circumstances. But your goal -- your endgame -- will be the same. You will look to minimize the chances you concede and look to maximize the chances you create. And because not all chances are created equal, you will try to create more quality chances for yourself and allow fewer for your opponents.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Never have cared about it, never will care about it. Would rather finish 17th every year if my team was playing good football and trying to attack the opposition every week and not playing negatively and seeing progress in some form or another.

I watch or did watch football to be entertained as that's what it is for, not to get excited about a result or to brag about a result. Those that do are usually more of a fan of winning to brag about it than they are of the sport they claim to enjoy.

Most people on here support super teams who rarely lose 10 games in two seasons so not sure that here is the place to be asking that question.

LeBéninois wrote:@rwo 1 example is not enough. Besides , how many people here can tell me about Holland 74 ? I know they were great but I didn't watch their games ... Who did ?

Robespierre wrote:I am glad ONLY when my team wins . I am NEVER glad if my team loses. If my team loses after having played well I can't consolate myself  , probably I can be even angrier ( nay, frustrated ) than before, because everything was useless.
Results >>> everything surely
I think it is a normal thing, probably it's not a case the only ones to have this doubt is who supports team who win basically every match , so they haven't a idea what it means to suffer for  shit leagues played by own club.