Winning vs Style

[theriddler]

Um. Bayern, PSG, Real, Barcelona, City all win stuff - of late a lot more than United, and all play varying degrees of attractive football.

This isn't West Brom trying to avoid relegation. This is Manchester United who have a lot of quality players - play like United, and not Burnely. You can get trophies with good football - a lot of managers have shown that in recent history. Unfortunately, Mourinho isn't the one to blend the two - he's certainly a winner, or was a serial winner and is a watered down version of his old self, but you don't hire Jose Mourinho and expect great football - you expect trophies, and he's brought a few.

 

[HaliRed]

I have no issue with us playing pragmatic football to get a result in a big match.

But when your manager doesn't have the balls or alternately, the tactical nous to get his team to change tactics against releagtion fodder to win certain matches with some shape of attacking football...

That is the issue that people have. No one is asking for Kamikaze football match in and match out. But for feck's sake, to capitulate against Sevilla as we did, with the team showing no sign of attacking cohesion or ideas...

Mourinho fans love to throw the "this type of football gets you results" or "look at his record, I'd rather wins than style". Well, I am looking at the record. So far, as manager of United, it reads two premier league seasons, no titles. One Champions League campaign, eliminated by Sevilla.

So where are these results we are promised by playing boring football? LVG had won a lot in the past as well, I didn't see anyone pleading for him not to get sacked!

I was opposed to him being hired, due to my knowledge of his tumescent football style, but I chose to support him once he became our manager. The promise of results was obvious, and as long as we were fighting for titles, I would be happy with his appointment. He has to deliver on that for me this season. A run at either.

Or else the argument of style vs winning doesn't even hold water...

 

[ThaReaper01]

Winning ffs. I’ll always feel a hell of a lot better winning a scrappy 1-0 than taking a 4-3 loss. There is no comparison. You play to win. If you don’t get enjoyment out of the team winning, that says a ton about you.

 

[slir32]

It is an issue when you play crap football the whole season. Doing it for some hard away games is fine but when you play the same as your home games there is problems.

 

[RedIke]

I got jumped on the other day for this topic. I dont give a damn what they do, as long as it ends with United getting three points.

I never really even thought it was a real debate.

 

[99withaflake]

For me, when I say I want exciting football, I don't expect 90 minutes of non-stop attacking football. I don't think anyone expects that. But I'd like to see at least a couple of periods of sustained pressure now and again.

For most of last season, and against Leicester on Friday, we didn't often pile pressure on the opposition and over-run them, even if only for 5 minutes a half.

We tend to stay solid, not leave many gaps, and every now and again we'll make a half chance. Throughout a half of football, there will will be 2 or 3 moments, which isn't very many and requires us to be clinical.

I'd personally like us to create 2 or 3 moments in a 5 minute spell, pressure the opposition into making mistakes, create a real atmosphere around the stadium.

We have the players to do it, to play the type of football that fans around the world fell in love with, to play the Manchester United way, but it depends if the coach wants to take risks or not.

Of course in certain games, especially against top opposition, it makes sense to keep a game tight, but over the course of a whole season with the players in our squad we should really be playing some exciting stuff, if only for 10-15 minutes per game!