Is Playing "Beautiful Football" Worth It?

[newyorkcanary 14]

I am very curious as to whatthe masses think of this, but it is my belief that cash-strapped teams cannot expect to play what we call "lovely football" and succeed. It is easy to disparage the Boothryod-led Watford team and the hoofball that got them promoted, but can anyone say we are any better off?  The players we love to watch with their slick passing, constant ball-movement and ability to win on the ground are often the most sought-after and thereby expensive players to attain.  I believe, though it pains me to say, that for Norwich to consider a return to the Premiership, we would need to get bigger, play hoofball, and then we might be winning the 1-0 games as opposed to constantly losing them.

Which leads me to believe that a management team of Aidy Boothroyd with Malky as his #2 would be a perfect fit for Norwich.  If its a question of money, I''d even sell Crofty and put whatever funds we collect either towards Roeder''s cab home or Aidy''s train ticket to Carrow Road.  After listening to today''s horrid display, I find that this is a team that it is very difficult to get behind, and a manager who has clearly lost not only the locker room but the fans as well. If hoofball can get us to the prem then great, sign me up.  Once we get there we can reload and spend on players who can play the type of footy we all want to watch, because its clear to me no one wants to watch the drek we saw (or heard) today. 

[ShrewsCanary 0]

problem is, we dont do we?!

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="newyorkcanary"]

I am very curious as to whatthe masses think of this, but it is my belief that cash-strapped teams cannot expect to play what we call "lovely football" and succeed. It is easy to disparage the Boothryod-led Watford team and the hoofball that got them promoted, but can anyone say we are any better off?  The players we love to watch with their slick passing, constant ball-movement and ability to win on the ground are often the most sought-after and thereby expensive players to attain.  I believe, though it pains me to say, that for Norwich to consider a return to the Premiership, we would need to get bigger, play hoofball, and then we might be winning the 1-0 games as opposed to constantly losing them.

Which leads me to believe that a management team of Aidy Boothroyd with Malky as his #2 would be a perfect fit for Norwich.  If its a question of money, I''d even sell Crofty and put whatever funds we collect either towards Roeder''s cab home or Aidy''s train ticket to Carrow Road.  After listening to today''s horrid display, I find that this is a team that it is very difficult to get behind, and a manager who has clearly lost not only the locker room but the fans as well. If hoofball can get us to the prem then great, sign me up.  Once we get there we can reload and spend on players who can play the type of footy we all want to watch, because its clear to me no one wants to watch the drek we saw (or heard) today. 

[/quote]swansea are well regarded as one of the best passing sides in the league...and are doing ok...for me - it boils down to basics - having a sound defence, fluid midfield and proven strike force...our back 4 are shot to bits,,,while our forward line needs ''a lita...''in our position - ''clever'' gambles will see us crash and burn all the way into league 1...signings of the calibre like tiny taylor and lita are sorely needed to give us a credible chance of escaping the relegation trapdoor///but seemingly,,,there''s no wonga left in the piggyback i fear...

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="newyorkcanary"]

I am very curious as to whatthe masses think of this, but it is my belief that cash-strapped teams cannot expect to play what we call "lovely football" and succeed. It is easy to disparage the Boothryod-led Watford team and the hoofball that got them promoted, but can anyone say we are any better off?  The players we love to watch with their slick passing, constant ball-movement and ability to win on the ground are often the most sought-after and thereby expensive players to attain.  I believe, though it pains me to say, that for Norwich to consider a return to the Premiership, we would need to get bigger, play hoofball, and then we might be winning the 1-0 games as opposed to constantly losing them.

Which leads me to believe that a management team of Aidy Boothroyd with Malky as his #2 would be a perfect fit for Norwich.  If its a question of money, I''d even sell Crofty and put whatever funds we collect either towards Roeder''s cab home or Aidy''s train ticket to Carrow Road.  After listening to today''s horrid display, I find that this is a team that it is very difficult to get behind, and a manager who has clearly lost not only the locker room but the fans as well. If hoofball can get us to the prem then great, sign me up.  Once we get there we can reload and spend on players who can play the type of footy we all want to watch, because its clear to me no one wants to watch the drek we saw (or heard) today. 

[/quote]Terrific post. I was going to start a thread saying much the same thing having just got in from the match.I was quietly confident when Roeder took over, with his history in the game and his principles of playing tidy, passing football. When I looked at the team on the pitch tonight, there was absolutely no backbone, no leadership and no collective strength. I''ve always wanted Norwich to play good football, but in the current situation we''re simply not good enough to compete that way in this division. Last season we saw glimpses of quality football (specifically the 13-game unbeaten run), but we were galvanised by players like Dublin and Huckerby who would give their last ounce of energy to the club crest.When you look at our team, who, as an opposing player, would you be thoroughly scared of coming up against? If we''re going to survive this season, we need to toughen up. We need centre-backs who can mark tightly without giving away so many needless fouls, we need a big presence up front who will batter opposing centre-halves, and we need Clingan and Pattison to start in the middle of the park. Fotheringham was poor again tonight, and how he gets to wear the captain''s armband is a complete mystery to me. Pattison is blood-and-thunder, 100% determined, and also makes more effort than any other central midfielder to bomb into the box and get on the end of things. Far too often we just get shrugged off the ball all across the park, and when Cort came off we had absolutely no attacking threat until Doc went up top for the last three (THREE!) minutes of the match. In the first half, Cort kept coming deep to collect the ball - showed some tidy passes and gave us a lot more continuity. However, this is down to the tactics. The full-backs should add the extra options in midfield by overlapping, thus freeing the big centre-forward to go and pressure the last defender. If Roeder got Cort in to offer an aerial threat, why is he not specifically instructed to drift between the two centre backs and pick up the momentum to win the ball in the air, rather than coming deep in a desperate attempt to get involved in the match? We will have to sell one or two players to get what we need, but what we need is muscle, and lots of it. I''m a football purist at heart, but survival is more important than football ideology. Roeder doesn''t have the capacity to ''play ugly'', and that''s the reason we''ll be in League One if he doesn''t leave. Reading passed their way out of this division with outstanding football and a tactically intelligent manager, but they only used about 16 outfield players in total, and I don''t think they had a single loan player. We''re so far from that scenario, trying to play our way out of trouble will only add to the pressure. The fans just want a team to get behind, a team that''s proud to wear the shirt and will battle until they sweat blood for the cause. We don''t have to become a ''long-ball'' club at heart, but we have to adapt to our surroundings because we''re in a fight; maybe not just for Championship status, but for the very future of the club.I don''t usually go off on one like this, but I''d be very interested to hear people''s views on what I''ve written. I genuinely want to know how many people on this board think that we can actually survive by sticking to our ''technical'' game at the expense of the physical.

[Branston Pickle 3,683]

I see where you are coming from but I don''t agree.  Whilst there is nothing wrong with becoming a bit more physical, I can''t see that Aidy or route-one football would necessarily be the answer, particularly with the players we have at the disposal of whoever the manager is.  I think I''m right in saying that none of them have come from a hoofy background, so it would be rather alien for them to start playing in such a way now.  Being almost at the middle of the transfer window, there would be little time for a manager to shift players out and get new ones of the right sort to function in that way - and what do you do with them if they save us, do we just develop into a long ball side long-term?  Short-term I guess you do what is necessary, but I really wouldn''t my side to forego what I think it stands for.

No, IMO there is no reason why we can''t win playing decent football, we have done so in the past and will surely do so in the future.  We just need to mix it up more.  It seems to me that the problem is not that we are trying to play decent football, but that we are all too often doing it too slowly and methodically, thereby giving sides plenty of time to get back (and we don''t have classy enough players to break through a side), - or too predictably so that sides can counter it relatively easily.  We need to mix it up, get much more urgency into our play, and stop passing backwards so often.  Perhaps a couple of more physical players wouldn''t go amiss, though.

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

I see where you are coming from but I don''t agree.  Whilst there is nothing wrong with becoming a bit more physical, I can''t see that Aidy or route-one football would necessarily be the answer, particularly with the players we have at the disposal of whoever the manager is.  I think I''m right in saying that none of them have come from a hoofy background, so it would be rather alien for them to start playing in such a way now.  Being almost at the middle of the transfer window, there would be little time for a manager to shift players out and get new ones of the right sort to function in that way - and what do you do with them if they save us, do we just develop into a long ball side long-term?  Short-term I guess you do what is necessary, but I really wouldn''t my side to forego what I think it stands for.

No, IMO there is no reason why we can''t win playing decent football, we have done so in the past and will surely do so in the future.  We just need to mix it up more.  It seems to me that the problem is not that we are trying to play decent football, but that we are all too often doing it too slowly and methodically, thereby giving sides plenty of time to get back (and we don''t have classy enough players to break through a side), - or too predictably so that sides can counter it relatively easily.  We need to mix it up, get much more urgency into our play, and stop passing backwards so often.  Perhaps a couple of more physical players wouldn''t go amiss, though.

[/quote]I''m not saying we should resort to out-and-out long-ball football; although Boothroyd''s Watford certainly weren''t pretty, they did have enough footballing ability to enable them to get into the Premiership and, although they were outclassed, make a decent fist of trying to stay there. Being physically strong doesn''t mean you have to play long-ball all the time; let''s not forget that we got a lot of success from making something out of nothing with Iwan chasing long up-and-unders and unsettling their defenders when we were successful. As you said, it''s important to be able to ''mix it up''. We need to have that physical option available to us, and at the moment it''s just not there. Last season under Grant, when we had no conceivable tactics or structure, we still got a bit of mileage from having Dion causing panic up front, even in the absence of anything else. If you''re trying to play tidy football, you either pull it off and look great or don''t pull it off and get beaten. At least if you can scrap and be physical, you can still put people under pressure and make something from relatively little.Boothroyd coached the academy here so well that West Brom snapped him up and within 18 months he was a Championship manager; I doubt he got head-hunted because he was teaching our kids to play ''hoofball''. He''s not a total long-ball merchant, he just plays to his means. The current squad can''t play that way, but with three or four really tough players in the team, it''d certainly be easier to get a galvanised unit through collective strength, work-rate and battling than it would be to try to stick with the current crop of lightweights and praying they can pass their way out of trouble. I accept that it''s a backwards step in terms of our footballing heritage, but now''s not the time for a ''thinker''. We need a motivator; maybe Boothroyd/Mackay, maybe Ince, maybe someone else, but someone who can do what nobody in the current management setup can do (since Clark left, at least) and make these players believe in themselves and give them a fighting mentality. The players have tried to pass their way out of trouble and failed; the only way to survive in a fight as visceral as the one for Championship survival is to be able to fight.

[Branston Pickle 3,683]

I think I should ''check'' what I said above re: Boothroyd - what I meant above was that I didn''t want the "style" that came at Watford, in the end it seemed that it was going wrong with no alternative option (ring any bells with GR?!).  As we both said, there is nothing wrong in mixing it up, but I was rather surprised at Watford''s mode of play under him as it went far too far - though as you say, it could well be that he was playing the best way with what was available.  He certainly would not have been teaching/having sides playing like that either here or at WBA. 

As long as he kept to our ''traditions'', I have actually been one of the people thinking that he''d do a decent job here (possibly with Malky at his side), and would be a good appointment.  IMO, because he knows NCFC so well - including some of its current players and the board - he would need little time to bed down and get used to the club and area, and would probably be my ideal candidate for if/when GR goes (which you''d think will be soon based on current form/performances - I''d be amazed if he can turn it round now.)  

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

I think I should ''check'' what I said above re: Boothroyd - what I meant above was that I didn''t want the "style" that came at Watford, in the end it seemed that it was going wrong with no alternative option (ring any bells with GR?!).  As we both said, there is nothing wrong in mixing it up, but I was rather surprised at Watford''s mode of play under him as it went far too far - though as you say, it could well be that he was playing the best way with what was available.  He certainly would not have been teaching/having sides playing like that either here or at WBA. 

As long as he kept to our ''traditions'', I have actually been one of the people thinking that he''d do a decent job here (possibly with Malky at his side), and would be a good appointment.  IMO, because he knows NCFC so well - including some of its current players and the board - he would need little time to bed down and get used to the club and area, and would probably be my ideal candidate for if/when GR goes (which you''d think will be soon based on current form/performances - I''d be amazed if he can turn it round now.)  

[/quote]Trouble is, if the board don''t act now then there''d be little point bringing Boothroyd (or anyone else) in after the window has closed. Boothroyd/Ince might have found other jobs by then, and even if they haven''t then they''d have no scope to bring new players in. All we really need to make a decent shot at survival is a new manager, one big, strong centre-half and a proper target man. If we have to sacrifice one of Hoolahan, Bell or Croft to get those players then let''s go for it, because I can''t for the life of me see how we''re going to turn it around from here. Roeder''s good at tidying up other people''s mess in the short term, but once he starts making his own mess it only ever gets worse.