We are (hopefully) staying up: the opposition

[BWFC_Insane]

We've no chance of anything at Derby.

For me we've a 3 game season. Barnsley, Burton and Forest.

Anything we get against Derby, Millwall and Wolves is an absolute bonus.

Think we're going sadly......the writing has been on the wall for some time. Without Madine we have to do too much to get results and although we beat BC and AV - both those games relied on us getting the fine margins and sneaking unexpected wins. Come the crunch at the end of the season we don't have the players to play football. We have a team of grafters, if we can't lump it, we're simply not good enough to break down teams in pressure games. Last night was incredibly telling. We tried. But the quality simply isn't there. Birmingham played simple "knock it long football". We can't do that.

Will you fxck off about Madine... Madine has NOTHING to do with losing to Brum.

We'd have had a much better chance of not losing with Madine in the team.

That much was glaringly obvious on the night. Brum had two big lads up front and could just play off them. We had no outlet. And consequently no efforts on goal. Its much harder trying to break a team down when you haven't got the simple ball upfield.

[TANGODANCER]

We'd have had a much better chance of not losing with Madine in the team.

Give it a rest mate. We'd have had a better chance of not losing with Kev Davies in the team, but he isn't he's history, so is Gary Madine. Move on.

[Peter Thompson]

We'd have had a much better chance of not losing with Madine in the team.

That much was glaringly obvious on the night. Brum had two big lads up front and could just play off them. We had no outlet. And consequently no efforts on goal. Its much harder trying to break a team down when you haven't got the simple ball upfield.

You are absolutely correct on that score, but that's by playing hoof ball - which is basically the only way that Parkinson is comfortable playing. Perhaps we may have had a slightly better chance with ALF up front if Parkinson could / would have instructed the likes of Beevers to not aimlessly hoof the ball in the general direction of ALF at every opportunity, whilst he was surrounded by numerous defenders much taller than him.

Its this sort of piss poor repetitive tactic that frustrates me about Parkinson, its obvious to the majority of supporters that its obviously not working, but it still continued throughout the game. It may well be because our midfield is piss poor on the ball & in capable of playing the ball on the deck - but that doesn't mean that you continue launching hoof balls at players who are highly unlikely to win the ball in the air.

Surely during the week in training, they could try a few different systems utilising the players they have available for the next game. I appreciate that most of our players have limited ability on the ball, but that's no excuse for continuing to play hoof ball without Madine.

[BWFC_Insane]

We'd have had a much better chance of not losing with Madine in the team.

That much was glaringly obvious on the night. Brum had two big lads up front and could just play off them. We had no outlet. And consequently no efforts on goal. Its much harder trying to break a team down when you haven't got the simple ball upfield.

You are absolutely correct on that score, but that's by playing hoof ball - which is basically the only way that Parkinson is comfortable playing. Perhaps we may have had a slightly better chance with ALF up front if Parkinson could / would have instructed the likes of Beevers to not aimlessly hoof the ball in the general direction of ALF at every opportunity, whilst he was surrounded by numerous defenders much taller than him.

Its this sort of piss poor repetitive tactic that frustrates me about Parkinson, its obvious to the majority of supporters that its obviously not working, but it still continued throughout the game. It may well be because our midfield is piss poor on the ball & in capable of playing the ball on the deck - but that doesn't mean that you continue launching hoof balls at players who are highly unlikely to win the ball in the air.

Surely during the week in training, they could try a few different systems utilising the players they have available for the next game. I appreciate that most of our players have limited ability on the ball, but that's no excuse for continuing to play hoof ball without Madine.

We didn't generally launch it at ALF. We passed it sideways and backwards as it became increasingly evident that all Birmingham had to do was sit behind the ball and we had no ability to pass through them. We also played down the channels. It was evident that we had no pace.

Birmingham didn't come to play fancy stuff. They came to do what we do. And ultimately they were better at it than us. Probably because they had some actual strikers up front and some pace out wide.

We went longer as the panic set in.

People underestimate how many teams in this division play the long ball. In January we were only the 7th team in terms of long ball. And that was with Madine. We'll be lower now. With limited players to have no viable target man up front, makes it very difficult.

[Bijou Bob]

Somewhat alarmingly, Nuhiu, the bloke PP was bigging up last week, is available on a free at the end of the season as Sheff Weds aren't renewing his contract. Looks like we might be playing hoofball next season as well......even if we do survive.

[BWFC_Insane]

Somewhat alarmingly, Nuhiu, the bloke PP was bigging up last week, is available on a free at the end of the season as Sheff Weds aren't renewing his contract. Looks like we might be playing hoofball next season as well......even if we do survive.

Like the rest of the division. Shock horror we might actually have a presence up front.

Can't stand this football snobbery. Don't think Cardiff fans care too much that they play the most long balls in the league.

[Prufrock]

It isn't snobbery. People are paying hundreds of pounds a year to watch their football team, they're entitled to want something beyond big ol' lumps and hope it bounces right.

I was a massive fan of Kevin Nolan as a kid, had his name on the back of my shirt (cheap, see, especially when he moved to #4) and he was the epitome of the Allardyce POMO statistical model, but what I tell my grandkids about will be the goals against United, that volley against Blackburn. You want them to step up in the big games and you want them to do things you can't do.

Now those running the club have different objectives and I wouldn't want a manager who threw pragmatism out of the window in some misguided bid to recreate Holland '74 (Christ, we all know how that ends) but we aren't the manager and it isn't snobbery to want to see your team play at a tempo, on the front foot and with control in what they are doing.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Bang on time, here's something from Opta and Sky on how Cardiff and Millwall are boshing their way to success.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... rent-style

I used to be very idealistic about footballing style. Back in the early days of the internet, when we played nice stuff under Todd and got squashed by Graham Taylor's long-ball Watford, I took on some 'Orns fans about how I couldn't possibly ever love their style and who did they think they were etc. Within two years I was happily watching Sam maximise us – but I must admit, I'm less likely to enjoy forking over the money to watch a ground-out win than a good-looking one. And I guess I'm not alone in that.

Football is a results business but it's also voluntary entertainment. When the results come - even a 0-0 at Norwich - it can be joyous, but if we'd lose that 1-0 to an entirely deserved late Norridge goal it would have been an absolute hound of a day, the sort that would make you a lot less likely to come back in a rush.

[BWFC_Insane]

It isn't snobbery. People are paying hundreds of pounds a year to watch their football team, they're entitled to want something beyond big ol' lumps and hope it bounces right.

I was a massive fan of Kevin Nolan as a kid, had his name on the back of my shirt (cheap, see, especially when he moved to #4) and he was the epitome of the Allardyce POMO statistical model, but what I tell my grandkids about will be the goals against United, that volley against Blackburn. You want them to step up in the big games and you want them to do things you can't do.

Now those running the club have different objectives and I wouldn't want a manager who threw pragmatism out of the window in some misguided bid to recreate Holland '74 (Christ, we all know how that ends) but we aren't the manager and it isn't snobbery to want to see your team play at a tempo, on the front foot and with control in what they are doing.

I want us to win. Primarily. Don't care all that much how. If its via free flowing beautiful footie then great.

What I want and what is going to happen is entirely different. Given we're a club who hasn't invested a single penny in the team for 3 seasons I'm not altogether surprised that we are near the bottom of the league and aren't playing free-flowing attractive football. Especially when you consider Brum came, played lump it up football, created one chance and thats after investing more in the last summer than we have in the entire period since 2012.

When the core of your team is Beevers, Burke, Derik, Henry and Vela what honestly is expected? We're attritional. So were Brum. They just did it better.

[Prufrock]

That's great, good for you, but not everyone is the same. It doesn't make people snobs.

I'd genuinely rather finish, say 8th in the Champo, spending all season pushing and hoping for play-offs, getting it down on the front foot looking a threat, than finish 2nd under Tony Pulis. It's not an ideology; I'd rather long ball then get relegated, and I'd probably take that 2nd if it were in league 1. But there are many things that people want and is isn't snobbery to want "good" football.

[BWFC_Insane]

That's great, good for you, but not everyone is the same. It doesn't make people snobs.

I'd genuinely rather finish, say 8th in the Champo, spending all season pushing and hoping for play-offs, getting it down on the front foot looking a threat, than finish 2nd under Tony Pulis. It's not an ideology; I'd rather long ball then get relegated, and I'd probably take that 2nd if it were in league 1. But there are many things that people want and is isn't snobbery to want "good" football.

I personally think that anyone who genuinely thinks like that should find another hobby. In fact as much as you've said that I don't believe you.

You loved being in the premiership and Europe under Allardyce. When Spurs/West Ham fans said exactly the same you just have.

I'm quite enjoying seeing the likes of Stoke and Southampton fans realise what happens when you get bored of your "boring football managers" and "go for it". Going well for them. Meanwhile the bloke Southampton fans hounded out for being "negative and dour" is in the top half of the premiership. Mind, I've no doubt Southampton fans are happier where they are, so long as they're playing nice football....under Mark Hughes now....oh......

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

While I wouldn't dare presume to tell anyone else what to do with their lives, for me, in general:

Successful passball >> successful hoofball >>>>>>> unsuccessful passball >>>>>>>> unsuccessful passball.

That said, circumstance can influence emotion. I'd been happy to survive via hoof at Chelsea in 1998.

[BWFC_Insane]

While I wouldn't dare presume to tell anyone else what to do with their lives, for me, in general:

Successful passball >> successful hoofball >>>>>>> unsuccessful passball >>>>>>>> unsuccessful passball.

That said, circumstance can influence emotion. I'd been happy to survive via hoof at Chelsea in 1998.

I'm not sure its even that simple. I loved being the team every premiership side hated to visit for a while back in 2003-onwards...

I enjoyed riling Souness et al....

That was more satisfying to me than being the darling Todd side that played nice stuff but ultimately got beat by the big clubs.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

While I wouldn't dare presume to tell anyone else what to do with their lives, for me, in general:

Successful passball >> successful hoofball >>>>>>> unsuccessful passball >>>>>>>> unsuccessful passball.

That said, circumstance can influence emotion. I'd been happy to survive via hoof at Chelsea in 1998.

I'm not sure its even that simple. I loved being the team every premiership side hated to visit for a while back in 2003-onwards...

I enjoyed riling Souness et al....

That was more satisfying to me than being the darling Todd side that played nice stuff but ultimately got beat by the big clubs.

successful hoofball >>>>>>> unsuccessful passball

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Meanwhile, back (somewhat) on topic, Barnsley goalkeeper Nick Townsend has been ruled out for the season after breaking his finger - in what his manager described as a "duel" with team-mate Dimitri Cavare. Gaffer: "I'm not frustrated. If I could give a pair of gloves to both of them and say 'start to fight', they have a fair fight, and it would result in a better shape for the team and a better atmosphere, then I would say the result is good."

Hmm.

[GhostoftheBok]

The team we have at the minute is thrown together from whoever is available on a free and willing to take not much money, plus a load of dross nobody will take off out books. I feel for Parky, in that it's hard to see a way for this collection of players to play successfully.

We can't push-up, because our defenders are too slow to hold a higher line. So we have to sit deeper and find a way of going back to front. The way we did that was to hit Madine, but he's now gone and we've no other useable target man available. The other option is to counter attack with pace, but we've no pace. Lastly we could play retention football and try to pick teams apart, but we've no decent passing/creative players. So you've got the Allardyce model, the Leicester model and the Juve model that we could emulate with the options we have at the back - none of which we can play.

The players themselves, whilst not great, aren't individually awful; but we've got an utterly garbage team. Our players might be useful members of other squads at this level, but as a group they don't offer many tools for the manager to work with. I do think we could do better than we have if Parky worked on organising our attacking play, but it'd still be an uphill battle.

IF we stay up, it's hard to see how we can do enough work in one summer to change our fortunes drastically. We might get a couple of players in who totally change the way we play, but then we'll always be one or two injuries away from this dross.

So I do understand the complaints, I just don't see how we can judge Parky given what he has to work with.

[Prufrock]

That's great, good for you, but not everyone is the same. It doesn't make people snobs.

I'd genuinely rather finish, say 8th in the Champo, spending all season pushing and hoping for play-offs, getting it down on the front foot looking a threat, than finish 2nd under Tony Pulis. It's not an ideology; I'd rather long ball then get relegated, and I'd probably take that 2nd if it were in league 1. But there are many things that people want and is isn't snobbery to want "good" football.

I personally think that anyone who genuinely thinks like that should find another hobby. In fact as much as you've said that I don't believe you.

You loved being in the premiership and Europe under Allardyce. When Spurs/West Ham fans said exactly the same you just have.

I'm quite enjoying seeing the likes of Stoke and Southampton fans realise what happens when you get bored of your "boring football managers" and "go for it". Going well for them. Meanwhile the bloke Southampton fans hounded out for being "negative and dour" is in the top half of the premiership. Mind, I've no doubt Southampton fans are happier where they are, so long as they're playing nice football....under Mark Hughes now....oh......

And I think that if you think there's no difference for a fan in watching a team managed by Tony Pulis and one by Pep Guiadiola so long as the results are the same then you're missing something fundamental and brilliant about football. I'm gracious though, so I'll let you keep your hobby.

A few other points:

1) I think 'short passing and 70% possession'=good football is too simplistic. I don't think it can be defined in a paragraph, but high-tempo, front-foot at pace and with control is a good start. That would not cover lumping Wheater and Beevers up top and twatting it at them but it does cover lots of different styles. I reject entirely the idea that the football under Allardyce, particularly for the first few years we started to punch above our weight, was not entertaining. It was shit at times but any team play badly sometimes, and it got a bit too functional by the end, but I did not just love it because we were getting into Europe. That team, with Okocha in his pomp, Djorkaeff early on and then Campo, Hierro, Stelios, Diouf and Speed was a joy to watch at times. It wasn't tiki taka, but it was a lot more controlled and deliberate that smash it at Davies and see what happens. We'd box teams in and build pressure and make chances.

2) the extent to which I'd sacrifice results for entertainment depends on the context. As I said, I'd sacrifice entertainment to get out of League 1. I picked 2nd in my example above on purpose too as I'd probably sacrifice it to win something. I'd probably sacrifice it to get into Europe again. I wouldn't sacrifice it just to finish 13th again in a league we're never going to win, or to get into that league in the first place.

3)I've never had any quibble with Spurs fans or West Ham fans who want to watch good football. Where they have been ridiculous across the years is when they try to use "good football" as some sort of moral victory. I'd rather finish 8th being entertaining than 2nd not, but I wouldn't argue in that case that we somehow "deserved" to finish 2nd. Lots of the West Ham/Spurs stuff was also nonsense: they were shit without being any good to watch, and no-one wants that. It was sour grapes after they lost. I'm not interested in telling anyone else their team is less worthy because I don't care for their style, that isn't up to me. I just want my lot to have a go, and get me off my seat.

4) I did argue in the past that we should stay up at all costs, and I thought the decision to rest players for Wigan made sense at the time. Then we got relegated and football carried on and I realised that way of thinking is part of the Brand Premiership that Sky are so good at selling. Who cares if you don't enjoy it, if you throw away a chance to make history, to win a trophy, to possibly see Bolton in a European final, in Manchester (Rangers in the semis...). No it's best you make sure you're in the Prem again next year, you might even get 12th.

5) You're enjoying seeing Southampton and Stoke struggle, I think it's deeply sad. Even less than when we were there, no-one can compete with the top 6 anymore. You spend a few years scrapping to stay up and play the big boys and then before you know it you're playing for corners in a home game against Watford hoping to nick a 1-0 so you can do it all again next year.

Nope, not for me. As I say, I'm not an idealist. I broadly agree with DSB's Hierarchy of Needs above, with the caveat that "success" is hard to define and depends on context.

The point though, is that people are entitled to want to be entertained when they watch football, and they aren't worse fans, or snobs, or not 'getting' it because scrapping a 1-0 off a set-piece for 9 months is less than appealing.

[Prufrock]

The team we have at the minute is thrown together from whoever is available on a free and willing to take not much money, plus a load of dross nobody will take off out books. I feel for Parky, in that it's hard to see a way for this collection of players to play successfully.

We can't push-up, because our defenders are too slow to hold a higher line. So we have to sit deeper and find a way of going back to front. The way we did that was to hit Madine, but he's now gone and we've no other useable target man available. The other option is to counter attack with pace, but we've no pace. Lastly we could play retention football and try to pick teams apart, but we've no decent passing/creative players. So you've got the Allardyce model, the Leicester model and the Juve model that we could emulate with the options we have at the back - none of which we can play.

The players themselves, whilst not great, aren't individually awful; but we've got an utterly garbage team. Our players might be useful members of other squads at this level, but as a group they don't offer many tools for the manager to work with. I do think we could do better than we have if Parky worked on organising our attacking play, but it'd still be an uphill battle.

IF we stay up, it's hard to see how we can do enough work in one summer to change our fortunes drastically. We might get a couple of players in who totally change the way we play, but then we'll always be one or two injuries away from this dross.

So I do understand the complaints, I just don't see how we can judge Parky given what he has to work with.

I don't hugely disagree. I don't think Parky is perfect but I think broadly speaking he's done a very good job indeed. I don't think there's much more you can get out of this lot going forward without being catastrophic at the back and so I don't really mind that the football isn't great. He's had no money, an embargo, had to sell all his best players and replace them with freebies. It's all context. I think in a couple of years if we're still in the league we might expect us to be able to be more of a threat, but it takes time and you have to cut your cloth.

Also, whilst I want to watch entertaining football, the manager clearly has different priorities.

[GhostoftheBok]

The team we have at the minute is thrown together from whoever is available on a free and willing to take not much money, plus a load of dross nobody will take off out books. I feel for Parky, in that it's hard to see a way for this collection of players to play successfully.

We can't push-up, because our defenders are too slow to hold a higher line. So we have to sit deeper and find a way of going back to front. The way we did that was to hit Madine, but he's now gone and we've no other useable target man available. The other option is to counter attack with pace, but we've no pace. Lastly we could play retention football and try to pick teams apart, but we've no decent passing/creative players. So you've got the Allardyce model, the Leicester model and the Juve model that we could emulate with the options we have at the back - none of which we can play.

The players themselves, whilst not great, aren't individually awful; but we've got an utterly garbage team. Our players might be useful members of other squads at this level, but as a group they don't offer many tools for the manager to work with. I do think we could do better than we have if Parky worked on organising our attacking play, but it'd still be an uphill battle.

IF we stay up, it's hard to see how we can do enough work in one summer to change our fortunes drastically. We might get a couple of players in who totally change the way we play, but then we'll always be one or two injuries away from this dross.

So I do understand the complaints, I just don't see how we can judge Parky given what he has to work with.

I don't hugely disagree. I don't think Parky is perfect but I think broadly speaking he's done a very good job indeed. I don't think there's much more you can get out of this lot going forward without being catastrophic at the back and so I don't really mind that the football isn't great. He's had no money, an embargo, had to sell all his best players and replace them with freebies. It's all context. I think in a couple of years if we're still in the league we might expect us to be able to be more of a threat, but it takes time and you have to cut your cloth.

Also, whilst I want to watch entertaining football, the manager clearly has different priorities.

I hope he starts to play more adventurous stuff if we get a bit more stable over time, but I agree with you. This is a job for Parky and if he wants to keep it he needs points on the board, not necessarily flashy football on the pitch. There's a reason clubs keep going for Sam and Pulis - and why those two are multimillionaires. If he keeps us up, few chairmen will care what brand of football he played to do it...few fans will either.

We'll be bottom of the pile if we do stay up, though. Not many players will be racing to play for a side that only just stayed up and has a wage cap like ours. Hopefully we get in something that lets us play better football (or just play football at all), but I'll not hold my breath.

[BWFC_Insane]

That's great, good for you, but not everyone is the same. It doesn't make people snobs.

I'd genuinely rather finish, say 8th in the Champo, spending all season pushing and hoping for play-offs, getting it down on the front foot looking a threat, than finish 2nd under Tony Pulis. It's not an ideology; I'd rather long ball then get relegated, and I'd probably take that 2nd if it were in league 1. But there are many things that people want and is isn't snobbery to want "good" football.

I personally think that anyone who genuinely thinks like that should find another hobby. In fact as much as you've said that I don't believe you.

You loved being in the premiership and Europe under Allardyce. When Spurs/West Ham fans said exactly the same you just have.

I'm quite enjoying seeing the likes of Stoke and Southampton fans realise what happens when you get bored of your "boring football managers" and "go for it". Going well for them. Meanwhile the bloke Southampton fans hounded out for being "negative and dour" is in the top half of the premiership. Mind, I've no doubt Southampton fans are happier where they are, so long as they're playing nice football....under Mark Hughes now....oh......

And I think that if you think there's no difference for a fan in watching a team managed by Tony Pulis and one by Pep Guiadiola so long as the results are the same then you're missing something fundamental and brilliant about football. I'm gracious though, so I'll let you keep your hobby.

A few other points:

1) I think 'short passing and 70% possession'=good football is too simplistic. I don't think it can be defined in a paragraph, but high-tempo, front-foot at pace and with control is a good start. That would not cover lumping Wheater and Beevers up top and twatting it at them but it does cover lots of different styles. I reject entirely the idea that the football under Allardyce, particularly for the first few years we started to punch above our weight, was not entertaining. It was shit at times but any team play badly sometimes, and it got a bit too functional by the end, but I did not just love it because we were getting into Europe. That team, with Okocha in his pomp, Djorkaeff early on and then Campo, Hierro, Stelios, Diouf and Speed was a joy to watch at times. It wasn't tiki taka, but it was a lot more controlled and deliberate that smash it at Davies and see what happens. We'd box teams in and build pressure and make chances.

2) the extent to which I'd sacrifice results for entertainment depends on the context. As I said, I'd sacrifice entertainment to get out of League 1. I picked 2nd in my example above on purpose too as I'd probably sacrifice it to win something. I'd probably sacrifice it to get into Europe again. I wouldn't sacrifice it just to finish 13th again in a league we're never going to win, or to get into that league in the first place.

3)I've never had any quibble with Spurs fans or West Ham fans who want to watch good football. Where they have been ridiculous across the years is when they try to use "good football" as some sort of moral victory. I'd rather finish 8th being entertaining than 2nd not, but I wouldn't argue in that case that we somehow "deserved" to finish 2nd. Lots of the West Ham/Spurs stuff was also nonsense: they were shit without being any good to watch, and no-one wants that. It was sour grapes after they lost. I'm not interested in telling anyone else their team is less worthy because I don't care for their style, that isn't up to me. I just want my lot to have a go, and get me off my seat.

4) I did argue in the past that we should stay up at all costs, and I thought the decision to rest players for Wigan made sense at the time. Then we got relegated and football carried on and I realised that way of thinking is part of the Brand Premiership that Sky are so good at selling. Who cares if you don't enjoy it, if you throw away a chance to make history, to win a trophy, to possibly see Bolton in a European final, in Manchester (Rangers in the semis...). No it's best you make sure you're in the Prem again next year, you might even get 12th.

5) You're enjoying seeing Southampton and Stoke struggle, I think it's deeply sad. Even less than when we were there, no-one can compete with the top 6 anymore. You spend a few years scrapping to stay up and play the big boys and then before you know it you're playing for corners in a home game against Watford hoping to nick a 1-0 so you can do it all again next year.

Nope, not for me. As I say, I'm not an idealist. I broadly agree with DSB's Hierarchy of Needs above, with the caveat that "success" is hard to define and depends on context.

The point though, is that people are entitled to want to be entertained when they watch football, and they aren't worse fans, or snobs, or not 'getting' it because scrapping a 1-0 off a set-piece for 9 months is less than appealing.

There are many things in this post broader than what was originally discussed. If we had the sort of money to fund a Guardiola team then I'd be disappointed if we had Pulis.

The realities of football nowadays are that the top teams take so many players that unless you're competing financially with them (even then) its hard to compete like for like. So you have to find players that can do other things usually to be successful. That often involves a less exciting, more functional brand of football.

When Leicester won the league by sitting deep often and using Vardy's pace and Maherez's individual brilliance they certainly didn't play football as well as Spurs did....but I bet their fans couldn't care less. Like you couldn't care less that Allardyce was roundly criticised for the style he had here...so much so that you're almost re-writing history. Yes we had good players and things were exciting, but the actual style of football on display generally wasn't "free flowing tiki-taka". It was mostly get people behind the ball and try and nick one up the other end. People forget because it was exciting in itself having good players and winning. But people forget Okocha being turned into a long throw machine. They forget clinging on for 0-0 at places like Southampton, and barely having an attack all game. They forget home games against lower league teams and creating only 1 chance all game. Because generally we had a hugely successful team and it was an exciting time.