melonheadExtended-Phenotypemelonhead i dont think you need to play like swansea/barcelona to stay up or succeed in football.
i dont think the way we play now is any more entertaining than before. its probably less so.
1) True but a better passing game and a broader plan probably helps. But then this could turn into a direct vs flowing football argument which let's be honest, I don't think anyone has succeeded in winning.
2) Agreed to an extent but then I see it as work in progress, so I'm personally not expecting us to have made the transition from direct to 'entertaining' (flowing/passing) football in this short space of time. Personal taste, I like a good passing side - if the journey to get there is a bit ugly, I'm cool with that. It's my opinion that limited football is less likely to keep you up, though of course it isn't impossible.
Some folk like a more 'honest' straightforward approach to sport. Others like things a little more elaborate and attractive. Difficult to say what works best for what level of club but I'm of the opinion that losing doesn't really matter if you put your ass on the line. I'd rather lose by taking the game to the opponent, then by being regimented and systematic and being broken down.
But again, that's a matter of taste I suppose. With Reading, I think Nigel has the right idea (for me) and I think we can achieve that target given enough patience, plus I believe we'd stand a better chance in the top flight if our football evolves in this direction.
Whether Brian could have taken us in this direction, I really don't know - perhaps he was too pragmatic to dare, maybe he was even right to be. But Adkins is our manager now and I'm yet to see anything that merits real complaint.
i dont see pressing, counter attacking quick break football as limited in any way
i do acknowledge that keeping the ball for longer will mean less goals are scored against you though
and i too see no reason for complaint in the start adkins has made on the rebuilding job
Aye, probably a bit condescending in my use of language there, wasn't really meant. Just meant 'direct/systematic' can be less free/unreserved.