SPOT ON DANIS SALMAN

[Greenskin]

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.

Hypothetical situation.Pulis did not move to Stoke in 2006 after all.He stayed at Home park and continued to play the same style of "hoofball" [whatever that may mean] which was his previous trademark and ground out enough 1-0 wins to take the club into the premier league and then stay there [as he has done at Stoke].Do you really think that our gates would have declined to below 6000 under those circumstances? Our support declined because we finished 17th in the first season in the CCC,then fought a long battle against relegation,as simple as that-nothing to do with the style of football,it was results only.Argyle started to get some very good gates towards the end of that Pulis season,in spite of the methods used by the manager,which would seem to further enhance the point.To say that a particular style can't,by definition,bring success simply isn't true-Pulis and many others have proved it over the years.

 

[esmer]

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.

We are going to have to agree to differ, I'm very much with Monkeywrench on this, although, not being a big fan of it, I was quite happy to accept Sturrock's style of play when we were being successful in the lower leagues but it should not be forgotten what a disastrous failure it was in the Championship.

Stoke are much maligned, by the way, and prove the old saying about how hard it is to get rid of a bad reputation, they play decent football nowadays, evidenced by their signing of Charlie Adam.

 

[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.

Hypothetical situation.Pulis did not move to Stoke in 2006 after all.He stayed at Home park and continued to play the same style of "hoofball" [whatever that may mean] which was his previous trademark and ground out enough 1-0 wins to take the club into the premier league and then stay there [as he has done at Stoke].Do you really think that our gates would have declined to below 6000 under those circumstances? Our support declined because we finished 17th in the first season in the CCC,then fought a long battle against relegation,as simple as that-nothing to do with the style of football,it was results only.Argyle started to get some very good gates towards the end of that Pulis season,in spite of the methods used by the manager,which would seem to further enhance the point.To say that a particular style can't,by definition,bring success simply isn't true-Pulis and many others have proved it over the years.

Would you truly have been happy watching the dire football that Pulis served up for year on end? His way of playing was designed for one thing and one thing only and that was to avoid relegation, it would never have seen us promoted. At Stoke he had a far bigger budget and far better players.

 

[Andy Holland]

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.

We are going to have to agree to differ, I'm very much with Monkeywrench on this, although, not being a big fan of it, I was quite happy to accept Sturrock's style of play when we were being successful in the lower leagues but it should not be forgotten what a disastrous failure it was in the Championship.

Stoke are much maligned, by the way, and prove the old saying about how hard it is to get rid of a bad reputation, they play decent football nowadays, evidenced by their signing of Charlie Adam.

Whereas Doncaster, the ultimate passing team who won lots of acclaim for their style...how did they get on? Oh, relegated. Still, I bet they had huge crowds all the time. Oh...

EDIT: Just saw what you wrote about Pulis. If the points per game Argyle had under him that season had been applied for a full season, we'd have made the play-offs.

 

[esmer]

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.

We are going to have to agree to differ, I'm very much with Monkeywrench on this, although, not being a big fan of it, I was quite happy to accept Sturrock's style of play when we were being successful in the lower leagues but it should not be forgotten what a disastrous failure it was in the Championship.

Stoke are much maligned, by the way, and prove the old saying about how hard it is to get rid of a bad reputation, they play decent football nowadays, evidenced by their signing of Charlie Adam.

Whereas Doncaster, the ultimate passing team who won lots of acclaim for their style...how did they get on? Oh, relegated. Still, I bet they had huge crowds all the time. Oh...

As I said we will have to agree to differ.

 

[Pafcintheplace]

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

 

[esmer]

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.

We are going to have to agree to differ, I'm very much with Monkeywrench on this, although, not being a big fan of it, I was quite happy to accept Sturrock's style of play when we were being successful in the lower leagues but it should not be forgotten what a disastrous failure it was in the Championship.

Stoke are much maligned, by the way, and prove the old saying about how hard it is to get rid of a bad reputation, they play decent football nowadays, evidenced by their signing of Charlie Adam.

Whereas Doncaster, the ultimate passing team who won lots of acclaim for their style...how did they get on? Oh, relegated. Still, I bet they had huge crowds all the time. Oh...

EDIT: Just saw what you wrote about Pulis. If the points per game Argyle had under him that season had been applied for a full season, we'd have made the play-offs.

Now that's b*llocks he took over after only 5 or 6 league games.

 

[GreenSam]

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.

 

[esmer]

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.

 

[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.

 

[esmer]

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.

 

[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" ?

 

[GreenSam]

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.

 

[Andy Holland]

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

 

[Greenskin]

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.

Hypothetical situation.Pulis did not move to Stoke in 2006 after all.He stayed at Home park and continued to play the same style of "hoofball" [whatever that may mean] which was his previous trademark and ground out enough 1-0 wins to take the club into the premier league and then stay there [as he has done at Stoke].Do you really think that our gates would have declined to below 6000 under those circumstances? Our support declined because we finished 17th in the first season in the CCC,then fought a long battle against relegation,as simple as that-nothing to do with the style of football,it was results only.Argyle started to get some very good gates towards the end of that Pulis season,in spite of the methods used by the manager,which would seem to further enhance the point.To say that a particular style can't,by definition,bring success simply isn't true-Pulis and many others have proved it over the years.

Would you truly have been happy watching the dire football that Pulis served up for year on end? His way of playing was designed for one thing and one thing only and that was to avoid relegation, it would never have seen us promoted. At Stoke he had a far bigger budget and far better players.

I didn't think that the football under Pulis was actually that dire-there some very good performances and games in his time here-Wolves,Coventry,Southampton,Ipswich,Palace etc were all despatched pretty convincingly as i recall.Away from home it was pretty tedious,i'll grant you that-Argyle always seemed to lose 1-0 when i went to away games,which was quite frequently back then.I would disagree that Stoke had far better players than Argyle-the two squads were almost equal in terms of results before our best players were sold off in 2007 but i'll agree that Stoke offered a far better off the field prospect than Argyle,especially financially.But i can't agree that the style of football he offered could never have got Argyle promotion-don't get me wrong,i would rather see a team which uses crisp passing,intelligent running off the ball,good technique etc than one with a more direct approach.But as i said in my earlier post,Pulis DID use similar methods at Stoke to get them promoted and i'd have been perfectly happy to see them used at HP if the premier league and massive long term benefits had been the result.