SPOT ON DANIS SALMAN

[jollygreenjohn]

Couldnt disagree more about your relative opinions of Gurrieri and Young in terms of end product for the team but never mind that's what this place is all about - opinions.

I am happy when they are both in the side but Gurrieri in the centre rather than than wing is imperative, he is wasted out wide. His work rate is phenomenal and he pops up all over the pitch and is just as important in ball retrieval as attack.

 

[GreenMatt]

This article is absolute rubbish. If we got to the premier league playing the ugliest football imaginable would we still be getting the same gates as now? F**k off would we. Winning and league position are what brings in fans, not the style of play.

 

[Liam Birch]

This article is absolute rubbish. If we got to the premier league playing the ugliest football imaginable would we still be getting the same gates as now? F**k off would we. Winning and league position are what brings in fans, not the style of play.

Spot on. Winning brings in fans, not pretty football.

 

[ElDuderino]

Forgot all about his article on Thursday's.

Good timing really as it saves me nipping out later to get some toilet roll.

This.

 

[dunlop]

I normally agree with DS but on this occasion I think he is way off the mark, what we want is high octane football Sturrock MK1.

 

[briangreen]

This article is absolute rubbish. If we got to the premier league playing the ugliest football imaginable would we still be getting the same gates as now? F**k off would we. Winning and league position are what brings in fans, not the style of play.

Spot on. Winning brings in fans, not pretty football.

are we now advocating the virtues of hoof ball?

 

[Mark Smith]

This article is absolute rubbish. If we got to the premier league playing the ugliest football imaginable would we still be getting the same gates as now? F**k off would we. Winning and league position are what brings in fans, not the style of play.

Spot on. Winning brings in fans, not pretty football.

Yes, Salman is well wide of the mark when he says "To get bums on seats, you've got to try and find a way of entertaining as well."

This has been disproved over and over again, our last promotion out of the basement being a case in point. Ok, we got edgy when we went 1-0 up and Sturrock put 11 men behind the ball, but rather large crowds still left the ground happy as I recall. You might get marginally more people in by winning pretty, but it's inconsequential to most people, especially at our beleagured club. Moreover, it's rather hard to prove that you would get bigger crowds winning pretty than simply by winning.

Finding the "winning style" is the whole point of any manager's existence. If you think that to win you have to play pretty football then that's your opinion, but it's a different argument and there's plenty of evidence to suggest the contrary.

 

[Pafcintheplace]

This article is absolute rubbish. If we got to the premier league playing the ugliest football imaginable would we still be getting the same gates as now? F**k off would we. Winning and league position are what brings in fans, not the style of play.

Spot on. Winning brings in fans, not pretty football.

are we now advocating the virtues of hoof ball?

No, just the virtues of winning football.

 

[Andy Holland]

This article is absolute rubbish. If we got to the premier league playing the ugliest football imaginable would we still be getting the same gates as now? F**k off would we. Winning and league position are what brings in fans, not the style of play.

Spot on. Winning brings in fans, not pretty football.

Exactly. This mythical "nice football" malarkey that somehow a few people on here think we play is a just a crutch to support their backing of a rubbish manager.


Man Utd aren't famed for their intricate passing football, more direct counter-attacking wallops and they do alright, support-wise. Want something a little closer to home? Our Championship-winning season in this league under Sturrock, were crowds were far higher than they are now.

When did football get so pretentious? Who says this passing/possession style is the correct way anyway? How boring would football be if every team played in exactly the same style?

EDIT: I see Mark has said largely the same thing as me!

 

[esmer]

The problem with playing sh*te football is when you stop winning the support disappears, as evidenced in our decline over the past few seasons. Hoofball will not work in the Championship as we well know, and nowadays it is unlikely to get us out of League 1, and maybe not League 2 come to that. We have to adopt a style of football now which will bring long term success and generate a sizeable, loyal fan base.

 

[Andy Holland]

Esmer, Reid and Fletcher both gave us your beloved "passing football", and we've were terrible under both, losing most weeks and barely scoring a goal. Do you think that possibly, maybe, THAT may be a bigger reason why attendances have fallen?

No amount of pretentious keepball in our own half is going to persuade the populace of Plymouth to support their team, not when they can watch their darling Liverpool or Chelsea on TV for less money. Winning football is 99% of what's important, anything on top is just a bonus.

 

[esmer]

Esmer, Reid and Fletcher both gave us your beloved "passing football", and we've were terrible under both, losing most weeks and barely scoring a goal. Do you think that possibly, maybe, THAT may be a bigger reason why attendances have fallen?

No amount of pretentious keepball in our own half is going to persuade the populace of Plymouth to support their team, not when they can watch their darling Liverpool or Chelsea on TV for less money. Winning football is 99% of what's important, anything on top is just a bonus.

Reid did not play passing football when we were in League 1, he did, unsuccessfully,try it for a few games in League 2 with a bunch of kids, most of whom were out of their depth. I'm talking about the descent from 16,000 gates in the Championship to 6,000 gates in League 2 on the back of dire, boring, long ball football, which is what we had to endure week after week, apart from a brief spell when Hollaway was here. People have short memories.

 

[Andy Holland]

So do you. Sturrock's teams never sacrificed winning for increased possession stats.

You have a breathtaking ability to ignore things that don't support your arguments.

 

[Pafcintheplace]

I'm talking about the descent from 16,000 gates in the Championship to 6,000 gates in League 2 on the back of dire, boring, long ball football, which is what we had to endure week after week, apart from a brief spell when Hollaway was here. People have short memories.

That's because it was losing direct football. If we were playing winning direct football then crowds would not have deteriorated.

Stoke seem to be doing quite nicely attendance wise.

 

[monkeywrench]

I was no fan of Sturrocks style. Hated it in fact. I want to see football played as it should, on the deck and through the midfield.

I have no time for Danis Salmon either. Long ball merchant, nasty style of football.