SPOT ON DANIS SALMAN

[Andy Holland]

Argyle won 41% of all possible points that season. Crystal Palace made the playoffs with only 54%, that's only a couple more wins and draws.

Incidentally, and I'm sure you'll ignore this as it doesn't fit your argument and thus you have to disregard it, the lowest home attendance that season was 13k.

What was it the following season after we'd been "Pulised" ?

Average attendances:

2004/05 16,925 (11th in CCC)
2005/06 13,776 (16th in CCC)
2006/07 12,576 (20th in CCC)
2007/08 13,002 (18th in CCC)
2008/09 11,485 (23rd in CCC)
2009/10 10,316 (21st in CCC)

Note the drop, even though we were great to watch under Holloway (playing exciting attacking football, lest we forget, not just possession for possession's sake). People want to see a winning team first and foremost, pretentious tippy-tappy in your own half before punting it long to no-one like Argyle specialize in, that's of no interest to anyone.

 

[Greenskin]

Can't we just say that sometimes attractive football is successful in this league (Swindon, Crewe) and sometimes it isn't (Argyle).

Sometimes direct ugly football is successful in this league (Sturrock teams) and sometimes it isn't (Bristol Rovers).

One style isn't inherently more successful than the other. Either style can work depending on tactics, players available, manager capabilities.

And Pulis we wouldn't have made the play-offs Esmer's mostly right, he took over after 9 games to be precise but his form still wasn't play-off form.

Being pedantic Sam, didn't those nine games include cup matches? It would only have been one I suppose.

Nope, Williamson was sacked after 6 league matches, Jocky Scott had 3 games in charge as caretaker. Either way Pulis's form was no more than slightly top half.

48 points from 37 games,probably top ten stuff.But.....Pulis also needed to make some signings to bolster the squad.Interesting to speculate on what would have been had Pulis been manager at the start of the season and had signed Nalis,Ward,Jarrett etc before the first game-useless but interesting.

 

[Pafcintheplace]

Let's win games, if we can do it playing attractive football then great, but firstly... let's win football matches.

It's not an "either or". Developing a team that plays good football will bring long term success and increase the fan base. It's all about delivering a quality product, something that, thankfully, James Brent understands.

No it's not an either or, it's winning that counts.

Losing games 'attractively' is not a quality product.

Quality is about a product that is consistent, and meets expectations.
So... by those standards, even McDonalds is a quality product.

As others have pointed out, you fail to see the point, deliberately it seems. And you do have form for this!

 

[castlegreen]

To be honest a scrappy flukey win will do tmrw - let's not worry too much about the style - we are at the lower end of league 2 - let's be realistic about things given the quality of squad at our disposal

 

[tigertony]

I cannot understand some of the comments about us being ''Pulised''
His interview was probably very short.
Staples ''Can you keep us up Mr Pulis ??''
Mr Pulis ''Yes''
Staples ''You've got the job then''
Result was stayed up with ease.
I have a lot of time for TP if only based on his 36 games with us and very fit players.

I don't care a fig about 'how' - just WIN some games.

 

[esmer]

Argyle won 41% of all possible points that season. Crystal Palace made the playoffs with only 54%, that's only a couple more wins and draws.

Incidentally, and I'm sure you'll ignore this as it doesn't fit your argument and thus you have to disregard it, the lowest home attendance that season was 13k.

What was it the following season after we'd been "Pulised" ?

Average attendances:

2004/05 16,925 (11th in CCC)
2005/06 13,776 (16th in CCC)
2006/07 12,576 (20th in CCC)
2007/08 13,002 (18th in CCC)
2008/09 11,485 (23rd in CCC)
2009/10 10,316 (21st in CCC)

Note the drop, even though we were great to watch under Holloway (playing exciting attacking football, lest we forget, not just possession for possession's sake). People want to see a winning team first and foremost, pretentious tippy-tappy in your own half before punting it long to no-one like Argyle specialize in, that's of no interest to anyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears Pulis knocked 25% off our average attendance - 17,000 the season before he arrived, 12,500 the season after he left.

 

[GreenSam]

Let's win games, if we can do it playing attractive football then great, but firstly... let's win football matches.

It's not an "either or". Developing a team that plays good football will bring long term success and increase the fan base. It's all about delivering a quality product, something that, thankfully, James Brent understands.

James Brent who is on record with multiple statements about how he knows nothing about football? You are determined to ignore the facts here Esmer, our highest recent attendances have come when we've played Sturrock-style direct football, this is absolutely indisputable.

Can't we just say that sometimes attractive football is successful in this league (Swindon, Crewe) and sometimes it isn't (Argyle).

Sometimes direct ugly football is successful in this league (Sturrock teams) and sometimes it isn't (Bristol Rovers).

One style isn't inherently more successful than the other. Either style can work depending on tactics, players available, manager capabilities.

And under Pulis we wouldn't have made the play-offs Esmer's mostly right, he took over after 9 games to be precise but his form still wasn't play-off form.

But persisting with a style that isn't working is an utterly braindead thing to do.

Also, look at the stats I posted. If Pulis had been in charge the next season, we'd have been in with a good chance of making the top 6, regardless of how many goals we didn't score. It's on all here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005–06_Plymouth_Argyle_F.C._season

I agree with the principle of that and if I could trade this situation for Sturrock-esque winning football then believe me I would do at the drop of a hat Andy. I want Fletch out too.

At the same time though, I am quite sure that if a more accomplished manager with more knowledge tried to make us play attractive football (like De Canio, Tidsdale, Steve Davis) then they could make it work a damn sight better than CF is. Just because CF is surplus to requirements going forward (or ought to be) that doesn't mean good football isn't and nor should it be.

Attractive football like less attractive football works if it is executed well. Where Fletcher goes wrong with it is that he doesn't play it the well successful managers play it. Poor defensive organisation, not enough men getting in behind defenders to pick up passes, not enough of a high defensive line usually, poor signings, not enough physicality options to augment the skill. I could go on but if a manager had come in over the Summer, tried to play good football but did more to rectify those 5 basic errors, it'd work a lot better.