Style over Substance!!

[zemas tendon 0]

All these posts on here regarding Pulis being long ball, dire football or Hughtons dull as dish water style, what would we really want, a performance like at home to Southampton where we played cr@p and won 1-0, or play well like we did against Manure and lost 1-0!! or do we want something inbetween!! I would had took a cr@p 1-0 any day of the week at Fulham on sat!! just want to see us win games!!

[Tetteys Jig 851]

Holloway next season then?

[nutty nigel 7,902]

I would say the vast majority of supporters would choose winning games above style. Stoke loved Pulis until their expectations rose to what I would say was an unnacceptable level. So far the change to Hughes has proved succesful but time will tell if that''s still the case as the Pulis legacy becomes more diluted. Pulis at Palace is testament to his quality and their supporters are loving it!

 

 

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Absolutely right, when you walk out the gate having won the standard of football you''ve just watched is soon forgotten, it''s the result that gives the buzz. I thought the Stoke fans were mad wanting rid of him, but in fairness things haven''t turned out too bad for them.

[Indy_Bones 444]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I would say the vast majority of supporters would choose winning games above style.[/quote]I guess that would put me in the minority then.Pele wasn''t describing the sort of football that teams like Stoke play when he coined the phrase "The Beautiful Game", and it frankly both saddens and sickens me, that modern football has simply been reduced to a pure numbers game, where what happens on the pitch outside of the end result is seen as a mere irrelevance rather than the main reason for playing.The times when most fans were happiest supporting our club were when we''ve played good, attractive, attacking football - even the seasons where we haven''t done that well in regards to final league positions, our approach to the game made it all worthwhile.I genuinely think that anyone who''s willing to spend £40-50 in the current economic climate to watch football played a''la Stoke needs their head examining, no matter how much of a supporter you are there has to be a line drawn, and watching pure dross week in, week out is mine...

[nutty nigel 7,902]

I think there''s a vast difference between football in the stadium and football on tv. I would say that probably as much as half those in the stadium go to support the team more than as a spectator. Obviously there''s a bigger percentage of Palace fans than Arsenal. Ours is probably high because we''ve managed to hold on to a lot of our support from pre 2009. Arsenal is much more a theatre experience. I was amazed at some of the things I saw at the Emirates this season.

 

 

[Salopian 1]

Whatever we feel about style versus substance, there are other things to consider:

How good is he at developing younger players?

How well would he fit in with our ethos at CR?

Is he a good judge of football, articulate and able to communicate accurately after a match.

Is he adaptable, flexible and creative?

Is he a good man manage - able to get the best out of all players?,

[50 years a Supporter 0]

OK then - this is the deciding question. No in-betweens, just a straight one or the other choice

Skin of the teeth survival in the PL this year, but the condition is that CH (and his anti-football style) is given an unbreakable contract to continue for the next three yearsORRelegation into the Championship and the appointment of a manager committed to attractive attacking football ?

[Indy_Bones 444]

Given those two ridiculous choices (as if there''s no option in-between), I''ll take option 2 with the relegation.There''s f**k all point being in this league if the only enjoyment is to watch the football that OPPOSING teams are playing against you...

[Yellowbeagle 0]

What about all the times there was no style and no substance?

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Is that when the players pay for your ticket?