Boring Manchester United

Bilbo said:
Watching a team playing a defensive style is boring. I'll take one United-Arsenal fixture over a hundred Chelsea-Liverpools.

Whats the point of watching football if it isn't entertaining, whatever the result? I'd take less satisfaction out of a dull 1-0 victory as I would from a thrilling 1-0 defeat.
Click to expand...

even in a champions league final?! :wenger:
 
I'm actually feeling ridiculously optimistic on this subject at the moment. The Euros were full of good football this summer. The CL as always was a game of cat and mouse enlivened by some exceptional performances (our first half against Chelsea) and some genuine individual magic. The fact is - across the season the best teams won.

Being fast, organised and working hard might stop you from getting relegated (though Reading might not agree) but it won't win you a title. The players who can play the team game and add something out of the ordinary are in demand - and not just by billionaire owners who've got addicted to Youtube.

Teams that can play quick passing games and patient build-ups aren't losing to the "hoof it" brigade. Any manager quoting those stats about how no one ever scores by passing the ball more than twice is heading for the sack.

Busby said that he wanted his players to show the fans something special and I want that from United still. Only one team can win the League - doesn't mean that the others can't entertain.
 
I think if we went through a real barren spell, I'd probably want us to win the title at all costs.

But fortunately I've seen United win loads in my lifetime, so now, I'd rather take a season in which we play good attacking football an don't win the title over a season where we win it playing ever game like the Barca away one.
 
hycool said:
Agree with you but not on that point. I think we are capable of playing beautiful attacking football better than Arsenal at times, especially when interchanging a mixture of short sweet quick passes and long balls to release Ronaldo or Rooney on the flanks. Could be like the 4-0 beating of Bolton 2 seasons ago which Rooney scored after we cleared a corner, or like the Tevez header in the CL final from Rooney's long ball up which almost resulted in a goal.
Click to expand...

But that's what you hear from the media/pundits/commentators. It's bullshit you know.

I loved that Rooney goal, it took about 8 seconds and 2 passes between Rooney and Ronaldo for that goal. And in the return game Carrick's lobs to Saha and Rooney was amazing as well.
 
malcolm31337 said:
even in a champions league final?! :wenger:
Click to expand...
To be honest, when it comes to the crunch games I'm usually too nervous to really enjoy them anyway. Luckily, the CL final was a great football match, but obviously the Barca away game was horrendously dull. As a neutral, I would have found something better to do halfway through it.
 
hycool said:
What do you mean by anything less? Attacking football is a must but when it comes to tactically defensive teams, might not work as well. But that doesnt mean we have to continue playing attacking football to please the fans. Results and the winning mentality is what fans hope to see as well.
Click to expand...

A team is judged as playing attacking football if its primary instinct on the majority of occasions is to attack, so yes we are an a side that plays attacking football.

However yes I would expect us to be able to play slightly more defensive football when the occasion calls for it, I was actually delighted with the way in which we handled barca last season both home and away. We set out to be defensively tight and hit on the counter attack with speed. plying this way occasionally does not change the fact that we are officially an attacking team.

This is why when you asked the question if manchester united were one day to play boring football that won trophies would I be bothered, I assumed quite rightly that you meant if we played that type of football on the majority of occasions. If we did I would find it unexceptable.

malcolm31337 said:
Bamsola, what if for a few games you could not win the 'right way'? what if you had to settle for a good old battle to have a succesfull season? would you take that?

It seems no one is feckin balanced! You have to have the balance!
Click to expand...

If we had to ground out results for a couple of games I would not mind, after all it wouldn't be the first time we had to, however there is no way that I would except a change in our overall attacking ethos. We are an attacking side and it is only right that we approach the majority of games in this way.
 
I think they are about equal. United have always been known to play exciting attacking football. That's why we are so supported and respected around the world.
 
We have the players(and money) to do both..! Hopefully this will continue to the post-Fergie and why wouldn't it?
 
I'd support them whoever plays or manages United even if that means boring football.

I would have to get used to it though, I remember last year that I absolutely hated the style of play at Barcelona, I actually was disgusted.
 
I also have to add that CL exits like the 2 versus Real in 2000 and 2003 were offcourse not really something to celebrate but United still showed what a great team it was and they made me proud. They are now classic games....

If United would have crashed out in the semies last year after that horrible nou camp performance I would be really angry
 
We did it against Barcelona in the Champions League Last Season and I was reasonably fine with it.... We won didn't we?
 
manutdpuer said:
We did it against Barcelona in the Champions League Last Season and I was reasonably fine with it.... We won didn't we?
Click to expand...
We did win, and fortunately for us that was an isolated incident. Also the fact that Barca were unbelievably good in possession was a factor.

However, there was a lot of talk about it at the time. It didn't go un-noticed.
 
hycool said:
Just a show of hands, if one day Man Utd will to play effective, boring football and win trophies, who will not be happy with it?

For me I don't mind, as long as we win cups and medals, even if it means seeing 1-0 wins most of the time.

And, will we lose fans who came to us because they love our swash buckling attacking football?
Click to expand...

I can't believe what i've just read!
 
We cant afford not to play attacking football now. With the tours around the world and the need for us to sell out tickets, despite the success, I dont see us making as much money abroad. Then again, you never know.

Id prefer a good balance as we have now. I think I would have felt the same as I did when we won the CL if we had scored early and been battered for the remaining 90 minutes holding on.
 
hycool said:
For me I don't mind, as long as we win cups and medals, even if it means seeing 1-0 wins most of the time.
Click to expand...

Well for the record I totally disagree with this and I stand with those who said style comes first, even if it means we lose.

As to those who said we can have both, get off the fence you spineless gits.
 
Football is an entertainment industry - it's an amazing feeling when winning with attacking football, which overwhelms the opposition. Sir Matt set the template - a standard for United to play attacking, exciting football. The Doc, Atkinson and SAF have mostly followed the tradition set by Sir Matt, and have become successful by following this strategy.

I am not naive mind, and do however understand not every game is the same, and we do have to compromise our attacking traditions on occasions. If our footballing philosophy changed to that of grinding out results on a consistent basis I'd probably stop going to football matches.
 
I watched the New Jersey Devils (NHL) win a few Stanley Cups playing the most boring hockey imaginable.

No thanks for that kind of cloggingthemidfieldholdtheball shite for United.
 
Hycool contradicts himself in almost every post, according to the prevailing wind.
 
Sults you can read deleted posts right?
 
If you are considerably better than 90% of the teams you play then attacking football gives you a better chance of winning. It makes no sense for United to switch to defensive football in general. However, in a one-off tie against a top team like Barca, then tactical adjustments can pay off.
 
It's not only about wanting to play attacking football - you also need the squad for it. It's one thing wanting to do it and another doing it, with success.

When we play some mid table team away it can get quite boring in the rain when we kind of settle for 1-0 because there's a bigger game coming up on wednesday. When we played Barca it wasn't really the best opportunity to start running 10 men towards goal, mainly because it was such an important game. It's another thing when you're 2-0 up against a Roma gone flat. Those are the times when you get going. When we played Newcastle last year it was in the air that it would become one way traffic after the first goal at the trafford.

At the end of the day it is all about winning, and we don't play attacking football every day. Chelsea away is quite some example of that. Another example to show that anything is possible in football is this (I have showed it before but it can always be recycled.)

1998

1 AIK 26 11 13 2 25-15 46
2 Helsingborg 26 12 8 6 43-28 44
3 Hammarby 26 11 9 6 39-34 42
4 Halmstad 26 12 5 9 42-40 41
5 V Frölunda 26 10 8 8 29-31 38
6 Örebro 26 10 6 10 35-38 36
7 Norrköping 26 9 8 9 43-35 35
8 Göteborg 26 9 8 9 27-29 35
9 Malmö FF 26 9 6 11 35-30 33
10 Elfsborg 26 8 9 9 36-33 33
11 Trelleborg 26 8 8 10 31-35 32
12 Örgryte 26 7 7 12 35-36 28
13 Häcken 26 7 6 13 27-46 27
14 Öster 26 5 7 14 26-43 22

Take notice of the goals scored for the league winner and compare it to the others...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.