These things aren't mutually exclusive. You can win with style. In fact, I'd say attacking football is rewarded more over the course of a season than defensive football. A league is a marathon, not a sprint.
I thought it was winning. But I honestly haven't enjoyed it even when we have won for the past 4-5 years for the most part. So i'm just a confused fecker now.
winning with style is preferable, then winning, then style. I'd rather win ugly than lose with style.
The last 5 years have put me firmly in the style bracket. Also, I believe with our resources we would actually win while having style.
Why is this always presented as a choice? We can win in style you know.
However for the sake of answering a hypothetical question, I want style. Watching United has been a chore for a long time, and I hate that. It's supposed to be fun. Bollocks to winning if it means being defensive and cowardly.
However for the sake of answering a hypothetical question, I want style. Watching United has been a chore for a long time, and I hate that. It's supposed to be fun. Bollocks to winning if it means being defensive and cowardly.
Winning with style
Winning
Losing with style
Losing
Not sure where nearly winning without style ranks, but it isnt near the top.
Winning
Losing with style
Losing
Not sure where nearly winning without style ranks, but it isnt near the top.
Style, without it you might as well just check the results.
Unfortunately, we did neither last year, which is why Mourinho is getting criticised.
Gets my vote.
I remember the draws at OT, against teams who we absolutely dominated. We pounded them from all angles, but still came away with a draw. Really depressing.
Getting the win is more important than style.
So you enjoyed those games 2 year ago, when we had umpteen shots on goal against teams like Burnley, but we drew?
Or do you prefer the games like we had against Arsenal last year, when we had few shots on goal, they had many, but we still came away with the win.
I never get this. Not this post specifically but how the cafe seems to get so personally offended at what they perceive to be "boring" football... so many "omgosh this is so boring, get this f*** out of my club even though he's doing better than anyone else post-Fergie, man I don't see any other way out that to buy a rope and end it all, someone call Samaritans".
Like... go mow your lawn or something.
Hate these threads, the answer for Manchester Utd should always be winning with style
If it has to be an "or" then winning > style.
But "style" is an eye of the beholder thing, is it not? A lot of football observers creamed over Spain's style in 2010 but I found it to be unbearable to watch. A lot of our play in the post-Ronaldo era wasn't exactly champagne football but we celebrated the trophy haul none the less. Resolute defending isn't necessarily anti-style at all.
But there is a brand of football, exemplified by Van Gaal, that's hideous to watch. We can accept a certain amount of compromise on style to win, but there's a limit that we can accept.
But "style" is an eye of the beholder thing, is it not? A lot of football observers creamed over Spain's style in 2010 but I found it to be unbearable to watch. A lot of our play in the post-Ronaldo era wasn't exactly champagne football but we celebrated the trophy haul none the less. Resolute defending isn't necessarily anti-style at all.
But there is a brand of football, exemplified by Van Gaal, that's hideous to watch. We can accept a certain amount of compromise on style to win, but there's a limit that we can accept.
It was never a question we had to ask. Style was always part of United. You dont have to play tiki taka to have style ir attacking football. Shame so many chose winning, when they should realise style helps big clubs to win and be a big club
At the moment (not indefinitely) I'd be realistically happiest with good style and a top four finish with a good cup run. Not only would this be much more entertaining than we've seen for a good number of years, it would provide a basis for a title challenge unlike the disjointed mess we have at the moment
We got 81 pts and a final. We got results.
1) Both
2) Winning
3) Style
If anyone tries to say that United have preferred style over winning for most of their modern history then they are lying.
2) Winning
3) Style
If anyone tries to say that United have preferred style over winning for most of their modern history then they are lying.
Winning with style is a no-brainer for long term. Failing that, winning-over-style seems to be the consensus. But is a pragmatic manager more likely to transition his style after initial success, or is an idealist manager more likely to become successful once his team becomes fluent in his philosophy (after a few trophy-barren years)?
My gut feeling is that managers become indoctrinated in their own philosophies; teaching new tricks to old dogs and all that, which is what made Sir Alex such an exception among his peers. It might be easier to gamble on having an attack-minded coach who might latently have the managerial acumen to steer the team towards success. But I'll freely admit that there is no evidence of this. Mourinho's Real Madrid played some swashbuckling football most of the time, while the Premier League is littered with manager's whose visions have not translated to trophies.
Nevertheless, if winning versus style becomes a managerial debate (rather than a tactical one), I would say gamble on two attacking managers in a row. They don't need to have revolutionary ideas, but should be at least capable of implementing basic attacking principles that will consistently test opposition defences. Each would be given 2 or 3 years to implement their style of play and at least challenge for the league. If neither can meet the objectives, bring in a taskmaster who can focus on instilling discipline and a winning mentality. Keep him as long as he is challenging for the title. Fire him if he fails to do that, and replace with someone similar. If he he wins the title, let him see out his contract, and repeat the process with attack-minded coaches again, until we find someone who can be here for the long run.
My gut feeling is that managers become indoctrinated in their own philosophies; teaching new tricks to old dogs and all that, which is what made Sir Alex such an exception among his peers. It might be easier to gamble on having an attack-minded coach who might latently have the managerial acumen to steer the team towards success. But I'll freely admit that there is no evidence of this. Mourinho's Real Madrid played some swashbuckling football most of the time, while the Premier League is littered with manager's whose visions have not translated to trophies.
Nevertheless, if winning versus style becomes a managerial debate (rather than a tactical one), I would say gamble on two attacking managers in a row. They don't need to have revolutionary ideas, but should be at least capable of implementing basic attacking principles that will consistently test opposition defences. Each would be given 2 or 3 years to implement their style of play and at least challenge for the league. If neither can meet the objectives, bring in a taskmaster who can focus on instilling discipline and a winning mentality. Keep him as long as he is challenging for the title. Fire him if he fails to do that, and replace with someone similar. If he he wins the title, let him see out his contract, and repeat the process with attack-minded coaches again, until we find someone who can be here for the long run.
How about winning with style ?
Exactly
Nonsense.
Stupid question. Proper teams have both. Look at last year City, over 100 goals, 100 points. Nobody can say the have not won the title in style.
Correct. People would not moan if at the end of the season we stood at:
P 38
W 38
D 0
L 0
Actually, these lot would.
No team will ever win 38 games whilst playing shite football, so it's a stupid point to try and make.
Yup.
Also, «you might as well just check the results» - nothing can replicate that feeling of watching, live, a winning goal go in! Doesn’t matter how the match has been played in that moment.
lol at the very title of this thread, as if they were mutually exclusive.
The heat has always been winning with style, we used to do that, a lot of teams are doing that right now.
There are a lot of styles of football that are both effective and entertaining, even defensive ones, as long as there is organization and sharp teeth on the break.
There's no excuse to play lethargic boring football at this level, period.
The heat has always been winning with style, we used to do that, a lot of teams are doing that right now.
There are a lot of styles of football that are both effective and entertaining, even defensive ones, as long as there is organization and sharp teeth on the break.
There's no excuse to play lethargic boring football at this level, period.
I'm obviously not saying any team is going to win 38 games out of 38. Come on. The point is, if you win the league, the style in which you do it doesn't really matter. Hardly a stupid point to make, is it?
I agree with this. I should say though I don't remember any team ever winning the league with shitty football. Perhaps everyone has a different idea of what constitutes shitty football.
Winning. The right style makes you more likely to win though.
Winning.
Winning in style is ideal though.
Winning in style is ideal though.
I thought that wasn't bad tonight. You could see the little interchanging passes break down in midfield due to players not even training together never mind play.
Right? You can't take anything from the first match of the season. Mark Noble was in the paper the other day saying regardless of how you prepare, the first game of the PL is always tough and you feel out of sorts in 20 minutes because playing an actual match at that level is very different to any training that you do in preparation.
I’ll admit i will never be a fan of us having less possession at OT against a team like Leicester. It’s just not how i want my club to play football. I will of course be happy when we win, but it’s not giving me the same joy as us dominating a team. We are the biggest club in the world, we should be able to dominate like the other big clubs when they play against an inferior opponent.
I would take how teams like Barca, Real, Bayern, PSG, City, Liverpool and Spurs play over how we play any day of the week.
I would take how teams like Barca, Real, Bayern, PSG, City, Liverpool and Spurs play over how we play any day of the week.
My answer would be different if it hadn't been so long since we won the league, during which time Leicester feckin City has won it.
This question is also very strange to me. League winning teams grinding out games used to be appreciated. It was the hallmark of a good team and champion. We're a bit lopsided nowadays in looking at City, and moreso that great Pep Barca side and thinking every great team must play unblemished possession-based football to be a good team.
Sure I think we 'scrape' through more games than we did under Sir Alex, but it's also a squad that lost it's winning drive and soul, the spine of which was that resilience. Let's bring that back, get used to winning the hard way again (annther thing this club is known for!) and then I'll begin to worry about flair .
This question is also very strange to me. League winning teams grinding out games used to be appreciated. It was the hallmark of a good team and champion. We're a bit lopsided nowadays in looking at City, and moreso that great Pep Barca side and thinking every great team must play unblemished possession-based football to be a good team.
Sure I think we 'scrape' through more games than we did under Sir Alex, but it's also a squad that lost it's winning drive and soul, the spine of which was that resilience. Let's bring that back, get used to winning the hard way again (annther thing this club is known for!) and then I'll begin to worry about flair .
Both or none.
It is possible to dominate your opponent and have less possession. It's when you force them to pass the ball cluelessly between defenders not finding a crack in the marking system. Too often possession of the ball is sterile and doesn't give you the whole picture.
What bothers me about current Mourinho is that when the the opponent has the ball, they usually have no trouble harassing our defence and demanding our keeper.
I'd say that style happens sort of as a byproduct when a team is consistently winning. All the great memorable and succesful teams created their own style or brand of football. They were great because of it and their style was great because they made it so. Thus I think a discussion of style vs winning is beside the point.
This question could be reframed: would you rather be attractive or date attractive people.
brilliantNot always a fan of comparing to different sports but can't help thinking of Floyd Mayweather
Having the ability to put teams to the sword >>> winning.
In that sense, I would much rather take a bunch of 1-0 games over 3-1 or 3-2 games, as long as we dominate other teams. It is great to have teams believe that if you have scored 1-0 over them, they are doomed. I want teams to fear us.
In that sense, I would much rather take a bunch of 1-0 games over 3-1 or 3-2 games, as long as we dominate other teams. It is great to have teams believe that if you have scored 1-0 over them, they are doomed. I want teams to fear us.
I disagree. We came 2nd to an imperious oil-funded squad. Not close, but still 2nd.
There were times when we turned on the style last season, not often as Jose had to protect our league position to make sure of 2nd in a one sided league.
Examples for me: 2nd half against City away, chasing the game we totally outplayed them 2nd half. Arsenal away and Liverpool at home, we ripped both a new one inside the first 20 minutes or so.