The mancityfans.net football forum

Which one do you see more important? Seeing flair football with lots of goals or do you see it as results business first and foremost. Would you take 1-0 win playing Pearce stylee over 5-5 thriller? Or do you expect to be entertained for your hard earned? Would you rather see us win league by playing "efective" football or finish second but have team playing football for ages Brazil 1982 style.

And I know they are not mutually exclusive but sometimes manager has to make these calls planning for a game. And this is NOT about any individual manager but more how you see watching the game and City.

Results for me as it will make my life happier.
Oh, and before some idiot asks, I'm not on a wind up.

The problem comes from believing they're mutually exclusive things. They're not. Entertaining teams can still grind out results too.

But put it this way - i don't think we'd be any higher in the league under Mancini this season and we would have scored a damn sight less so I can at least have more patience in a work in progress that is entertaining.

Both please. I must admit though, I wouldn't mind how we played if we were sat top of the league. If we were there then we must be playing half decent anyway.

twosips wrote:The problem comes from believing they're mutually exclusive things. They're not. Entertaining teams can still grind out results too.

But put it this way - i don't think we'd be any higher in the league under Mancini this season and we would have scored a damn sight less so I can at least have more patience in a work in progress that is entertaining.

Brilliant post

If we were top of the league but playing Sam Allardyce football and only scoring from long punts and corners then I don't know how happy I'd be.

Entertainment is a priority. We've spent hundreds of millions on world class footballers, they should be putting on a show of some sort.

I want us to play entertaining, but also to sacrifice entertainment when necessary, e.g. by packing the midfield and playing only one striker. It's not either or - you have to find a good balance.

I haven't voted because it's kind of one sided I think.

But as i said, if it was only about results I'd just check the classifides.

Original Dub wrote:

twosips wrote:The problem comes from believing they're mutually exclusive things. They're not. Entertaining teams can still grind out results too.

But put it this way - i don't think we'd be any higher in the league under Mancini this season and we would have scored a damn sight less so I can at least have more patience in a work in progress that is entertaining.

Brilliant post

Why do we seem to keep reverting matters to Mancini?

I'm going to say that we'd be top of the league and scored more goals under Mancini, can anybody state why we would be behind where we are now?

Original Dub wrote:I haven't voted because it's kind of one sided I think.

But as i said, if it was only about results I'd just check the classifides.

This.

Silly poll.

ross.mcfc wrote:

Original Dub wrote:I haven't voted because it's kind of one sided I think.

But as i said, if it was only about results I'd just check the classifides.

This.

Silly poll.

Typical NQDP.

I Just Blue Myself wrote:

ross.mcfc wrote:

Original Dub wrote:I haven't voted because it's kind of one sided I think.

But as i said, if it was only about results I'd just check the classifides.

This.

Silly poll.

Typical NQDP.

.

Entertainment for me. I'd be happier finishing third playing the way we do this season than second playing like we did last.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Original Dub wrote:

twosips wrote:The problem comes from believing they're mutually exclusive things. They're not. Entertaining teams can still grind out results too.

But put it this way - i don't think we'd be any higher in the league under Mancini this season and we would have scored a damn sight less so I can at least have more patience in a work in progress that is entertaining.

Brilliant post

Why do we seem to keep reverting matters to Mancini?

I'm going to say that we'd be top of the league and scored more goals under Mancini, can anybody state why we would be behind where we are now?

Because most wouldn't play for him, we wouldn't have Negredo & several of our best players would be going through the motions looking for a move.

I have voted for entertainment, but only because we have won some trophies.

If we had won fuck all, I would take it however it came, but now we have, I think it would be no fun at all to be dull.

It's one thing people being jealous because we came into money but imagine a team who comes into money then plays dull football but keeps winning ? All the years of shit, our dreams come true & then we play like Moyes' Everton ? I'd just chuck it in. No interest in that whatsoever.

I'd probably find a lower league team to watch & go on a Bovril/pie eating old school football thing instead.

Original Dub wrote:

twosips wrote:The problem comes from believing they're mutually exclusive things. They're not. Entertaining teams can still grind out results too.

But put it this way - i don't think we'd be any higher in the league under Mancini this season and we would have scored a damn sight less so I can at least have more patience in a work in progress that is entertaining.

Brilliant post

Horrible post. I said they aren't mutually exclusive AND said this isn't about individual managers.

Original Dub wrote:I haven't voted because it's kind of one sided I think.

But as i said, if it was only about results I'd just check the classifides.

So if it came to that you'd prefer entertainment. Pretty straightforward.

Also, there's no right or wrong answer here. Just matter of opinion.

Beefymcfc wrote:Both please. I must admit though, I wouldn't mind how we played if we were sat top of the league. If we were there then we must be playing half decent anyway.

In agreement here Beefy. Has there ever been a league title winner who played purely results football, i.e. Stoke or any of Big Sams teams as i assume this is what the thread is about. I've been following and watching football for well over 30 years and i dont recall it.

Blackburn with Shearer were a little bit reliant on him but remember them playing good stuff. Likewise the rags usually played good stuff as id the Arse and the dippers before that. Chelsea under Jose were a bit more attritional but still played tasty stuff most of the time.

The common denominator here is good defence. You don't get to be champions if your defence isn't sound. Ask Newcastle fans. See if they would have preferred to win a few games more by winning ugly and winning Prem or by always playing attacking entertaining stuff. The season with Keegans rant they did play better than rags but were perhaps a little naive

twosips wrote:The problem comes from believing they're mutually exclusive things. They're not. Entertaining teams can still grind out results too.

But put it this way - i don't think we'd be any higher in the league under Mancini this season and we would have scored a damn sight less so I can at least have more patience in a work in progress that is entertaining.

Well , i most certainly think we would be top of the league right now with Roberto.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Original Dub wrote:

twosips wrote:The problem comes from believing they're mutually exclusive things. They're not. Entertaining teams can still grind out results too.

But put it this way - i don't think we'd be any higher in the league under Mancini this season and we would have scored a damn sight less so I can at least have more patience in a work in progress that is entertaining.

Brilliant post

Why do we seem to keep reverting matters to Mancini?

I'm going to say that we'd be top of the league and scored more goals under Mancini, can anybody state why we would be behind where we are now?

Because most wouldn't play for him, we wouldn't have Negredo & several of our best players would be going through the motions looking for a move.

I have voted for entertainment, but only because we have won some trophies.

If we had won fuck all, I would take it however it came, but now we have, I think it would be no fun at all to be dull.

It's one thing people being jealous because we came into money but imagine a team who comes into money then plays dull football but keeps winning ? All the years of shit, our dreams come true & then we play like Moyes' Everton ? I'd just chuck it in. No interest in that whatsoever.

I'd probably find a lower league team to watch & go on a Bovril/pie eating old school football thing instead.

It's all hypothetical though. In the Champions season we'd scored more and let in less than this, also having far more points.

And, if Mancini was still here, it's mean the team would play for him and he'd have brought in a few more players of his choice.

Pellers task is to get us winning with good football. If that happens, I'm more than happy but if he starts scraping wins with shit performances, I'll take them as well.

We won't win fuck all if we carry on our away form, it'll keep us exactly where we are, fighting for the also rans.

nottsblue wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:Both please. I must admit though, I wouldn't mind how we played if we were sat top of the league. If we were there then we must be playing half decent anyway.

In agreement here Beefy. Has there ever been a league title winner who played purely results football, i.e. Stoke or any of Big Sams teams as i assume this is what the thread is about. I've been following and watching football for well over 30 years and i dont recall it.

Blackburn with Shearer were a little bit reliant on him but remember them playing good stuff. Likewise the rags usually played good stuff as id the Arse and the dippers before that. Chelsea under Jose were a bit more attritional but still played tasty stuff most of the time.

The common denominator here is good defence. You don't get to be champions if your defence isn't sound. Ask Newcastle fans. See if they would have preferred to win a few games more by winning ugly and winning Prem or by always playing attacking entertaining stuff. The season with Keegans rant they did play better than rags but were perhaps a little naive

Sutton was on fire that season as well + David Batty, Colin Hendry, Le Saux and Tim Flowers were all quality.

Lot of people are saying they would never want Mourinho because of the brand of football he'd bring.

George Graham era Arsenal was fucking boring to watch. Hard to believe now. Last two rag teams to win it hasn't been exactly illustrious.