How can a team playing so poorly have such good current form

[Negative_Jeff]

The OP was actually a good one and despite the introduction of Roberts which meant more balls played into feet we effectively won the Championship playing shite football, not easy on the eye and with a reliance on defensive organisation and teamwork.
This is now developing into a pattern though. Chelski win the Champions League by parking the bus and being outplayed by Napoli, Barcelona and Bayern. Mourinho wins La Liga with Real Madrid and now England win the qualifying group at the Euros after apparantly being second best in all three games. Meanwhile Guardiola and Redknapp from the stylish camp leave the scene and Wenger seems to have lost the plot.

So whats going on? Conventional wisdom used to dictate that get the ball forward early tactics could only get you so far and possession was the ultimate criteria. There now seems to be a bit of a sea change running through the game. Of course England could go on to win the Euros playing like this but then what? There are parallels with 1966 when a functional team that rode their luck in avoiding the flair of Brazil and Hungary triumphed. But we have since stewed for the best part of fifty years wondering why we were simply not good enough.

I suppose what goes round comes around but as a bit of a purist and despite not being particularly keen on the Scousers I rather hope that Brendan Rodgers can buck the trend next season.

[Extended-Phenotype]

So whats going on?

Dunno - boring people huffing and puffing about bollocks?

Reading were the 5th highest scoring team in a league of 24. We let in fewer goals than anybody else in the championship. Our football wasn’t always pretty, but who are you measuring prettiness against? What other teams did you watch play beautiful football every week? We play functional football as a platform for the few with flair; I don’t see how you call it sh/te when it not only won the league but beat the top teams head-to-head as well.

As for England, France looked the better side but we kept them out – defence is as much part of the football performance as attack. There is no way on the planet Sweden looked the better side, and Ukraine? F/ck off, their ‘football’ consists of madly running around like mental patients and shooting the minute they get possession. I used to play in games like that when I was 8. How that can be judged better than soaking that sh/t up and winning the game is beyond me.

Football is as football always was. Completing a billion passes does not earn you a goal, only scoring them does that. What is pretty about football which achieves nothing?

I watch football for the competition. Perhaps you should be watching Keepy Uppy tournaments.

[Einstein agogo]

Winning is what it's all about
I suppose you aren't satisfied losing in a game of trivial Pursuit unless the winner has answered the questions that you deem the most tricky???
what if you spent weeks looking at form then made a bet on the winner of a certain horse race but lost out to a mate who did a random selection based on an eenimeenimineemoo punt?
what if a tennis star , won wimbledon , purely from an un-returnable serve , not a single volley , or passing shot or lob , just purely ace after ace after ace ? Is that an unacceptable win??
Just getting you to think critically about your ideas.....

[Royal With Cheese]

England are putting in some Readingesque performances of late. That gives me the horn.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Winning as a priority is alright - but it only lasts do so long. There has to be some entertainment and creativity to make you keep coming back.

[Negative_Jeff]

So whats going on?

Dunno - boring people huffing and puffing about bollocks?

Reading were the 5th highest scoring team in a league of 24. We let in fewer goals than anybody else in the championship. Our football wasn’t always pretty, but who are you measuring prettiness against? What other teams did you watch play beautiful football every week? We play functional football as a platform for the few with flair; I don’t see how you call it sh/te when it not only won the league but beat the top teams head-to-head as well.

As for England, France looked the better side but we kept them out – defence is as much part of the football performance as attack. There is no way on the planet Sweden looked the better side, and Ukraine? F/ck off, their ‘football’ consists of madly running around like mental patients and shooting the minute they get possession. I used to play in games like that when I was 8. How that can be judged better than soaking that sh/t up and winning the game is beyond me.

Football is as football always was. Completing a billion passes does not earn you a goal, only scoring them does that. What is pretty about football which achieves nothing?

I watch football for the competition. Perhaps you should be watching Keepy Uppy tournaments.

Cheers for the five paragraphs in reply to my boring post. Plenty of teams have achieved something playing pretty football and I did use the term "apparantly" when assessing the England performances having to rely on Alan Green and Chris Waddle on Radio North....sorry Five Live. If England are in fact playing far better than that then fair do`s.

[Royal With Cheese]

Winning as a priority is alright - but it only lasts do so long. There has to be some entertainment and creativity to make you keep coming back.

I don't agree with that. If you win they will come. Playing attractively is a bonus in my book. I'd rather see my team win than play attractively and lose.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Winning as a priority is alright - but it only lasts do so long. There has to be some entertainment and creativity to make you keep coming back.

I don't agree with that. If you win they will come. Playing attractively is a bonus in my book. I'd rather see my team win than play attractively and lose.

But for how long? Grinding out results is all very well, but surely it gets boring in due course.

That's my view, anyway.

[Fox Talbot]

agree that England are playing like Reading - a consistent back 7, rely on the wingers for flair and set-pieces (altho' Gerrard is doing the winger's job as well).

Winning's great in the short term (don't knock it) but I took more pleasure from watching the 2006, 1994, 1979, 1976 promotion teams. What gets you remembered in the long term is style - Brazil and Reading in 1970, Holland 1974, AC Milan in the 90s, Barca nowadays.

[Mr Angry]

I don't think there is anything in the laws of the game that says football has to be played in 1 particular way.

The relegation side in 2008 were entertaining enough; you can't get more entertaining than 7-4 and 6-4 games.....just a shame they were defeats. And just a shame that our poor midfield and defence shipped just enough goals to get us relegated that season.

So the question is; do you go home happier after a 7-4 defeat, or a scrappy 1-0 win?

I know which I prefer.

(Oh, and at some point, someone will post the: "if you want to see entertainment, go to a circus" quote.)

(Arse - it was me!)

[Alexander Litvinenko]

I'd like a mixture of both, if it's all the same to you.

A team that's solid at the back and hard to beat, but which has sufficient style, flair and creativity to occasionally send me home with something special to remember.

Because the danger is morphing into a Sam Allardyce-style Bolton. yes, they stayed in the Premier League a long time, but their supporters endured them rather than enjoyed them.

[Tommy Youlden's Ears]

I'd like a mixture of both, if it's all the same to you.

Surely Southampton 1-3 Reading was a bit of both. We faced a lot of pressure from an allegedly 'more attractive team' and destroyed them with three breakaway goals, the first two of which were beautiful.

Good plan, well executed by talented and intelligent players.

[Royal With Cheese]

Winning as a priority is alright - but it only lasts do so long. There has to be some entertainment and creativity to make you keep coming back.

I don't agree with that. If you win they will come. Playing attractively is a bonus in my book. I'd rather see my team win than play attractively and lose.

But for how long? Grinding out results is all very well, but surely it gets boring in due course.

That's my view, anyway.

That's where there's possibly a difference between league and cup. To win the FA Cup you only need to beat 6 teams. That could be 6 dire 1-0 wins. Are you seriously suggesting that in years to come people would moan about that?

For Pompey, that's just about all they've got left to hold onto!

I'm actually enjoying watching England stutter their way through the group stages - partially because it's annoying pundits and the anti-English press.

[pea]

England aren't playing like Reading, they're just soaking up pressure when they need to which is what all good teams do. They don't pressure high up the pitch like us, theres no urgency in attack, they are more patient where we are more counter-attacking. Certainly no use of a holding player like Roberts from what I've seen so far, even with Carroll on the pitch the focus is completely different.

[Hampshire Royal]

A friend of mine is a Leeds fan. We got talking about Leeds in the 60's and 70's. I said they were the most boring team to have ever won the league. He passionately disagreed saying that they were the best team he'd ever seen. All my 'but they were so dull, how can you have enjoyed watching them?''s were countered with 'But we won the league'.

Someone in a post above mentioned the 1970 team who, it must be said, played attractive football. Funnily they don't mention 1971 when the same team under the same manager, got relegated to Div 4 for the first time in our history.

Give me a winning team any day. As long as they don't kick teams into the air, they can play whatever football they like as long as we can have the sort of success we are now having.

[Fox Talbot]

Someone in a post above mentioned the 1970 team who, it must be said, played attractive football. Funnily they don't mention 1971 when the same team under the same manager, got relegated to Div 4 for the first time in our history.

Not quite the same team - Denis Allen was never properly replaced - and not quite the same tactics or quality of football. Bobby Williams said they were asked to lump it forward a bit more to Terry Bell the following season. They never reached the heights of Jan-Apr 1970 true but they still weren't a bad team - 8th in table in March 1971 - until they fell to bits in the style of 1998 team and got relegated after a horrendous run.