I've never quite understood..............

Quoted from rancido

But Bignot was told to get to 50 points so we were safe and then build on that. If he had been allowed to develop his plan then this would have been a promotion pushing season, not next. If these kind of performances persist at home then you will see the attendances drop to a level that will financially hurt the club. If we can't beat mediocre mid-table teams at BP then what chance do we have against the better teams? I go to BP to see my team entertain me and hopefully win,  not to see a boring non-event when a point in a goal less draw is seen as some kind of achievement.

Based on what? He had 27 games and showed no sign of building any style of play, it was a lottery what the line up would be from one match to the next. Results were erratic to say the least and I can only remember about 3 decent performances from those 27 games. Once Bogle had gone we managed 4 wins from 13 games and one of those wins was against Leyton Orient who had a team full of 18 year olds and lost to virtually everybody (12 of their last 15 games). Even in that game they were better than us for large periods of the first half. During that run of 4 wins in 13 games we managed to get hammered three times including conceding five to Crewe who hadn't won in 11 games and in that time had only scored 4 goals! 4 goals in eleven games but managed 3 in 18 minutes against a Bignot-organised defence. The records of Slade and Bignot are actually pretty similar except under Slade we've only been spanked once, as opposed to semi-regularly under Bignot. Slade also inherited a mess of a side whereas Bignot inherited a side that was going pretty strong and had the best and most in-form striker in the league.

For the record, I don't think Slade will take us up this season and I don't think he's the right man going forward if you're looking long term either. But I think it's laughable that people write off Slade whilst suggesting Bignot would have had us challenging. He showed no evidence of any progression or that he knew how to build a side. He's not pulling trees up at Chester either. 2 wins in 7 there and one of those was a last minute job against a managerless Barrow who hadn't won for 9 games.

Quoted from SteffiMariner

Second highlighted bit - football is a results business, winning comes first, entertainment second.

11 blokes are sat about in their village bored on a Saturday afternoon centuries ago:

“Oi lads I’m dead bored. Do you think we could do something with this pigs bladder?”

“We could kick it about against them inbred twits in the next village and see who wins. Maybe our grandads could gesture to their grandads behind a line of the King’s soldiers and tell them that’ll kick their heads in!”

“Yeah but only once the King’s soldiers have finished fondling our fair maidens after the Lord of the Manor put that nonsense on the scroll about them smuggling stuff in their bras.”

Is it entertainment or results based first?

Quoted from LH

Is it entertainment or results based first?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. You can play fantastic football and not win. If this happens a lot, the manager will be sacked. At the end of the day, if a team plays 2-4-4 scores 200 goals in a season but concedes 250, they will not achieve much. If a team plays 4-4-2, scores 46 goals and concedes 0, they will do OK. Kevin Keegan produced teams that were great to watch but they never achieved anything, George Graham took a pragmatic approach and won.

I am of the opinion that if we continue this unbeaten run and somehow creep into the play-offs, the gates will rise. If we start playing fantastic football and start to lose, the gates will continue to decline.

What about a third option- playing decent football and winning?

Even Accrington Stanley can manage that on gates of less than 2000, with a player that couldn't hit a cows bottom with a banjo for us, but can't stop scoring for them. One has to ask why that is so?

Kevin Keegan produced teams that were great to watch but they never achieved anything..

Well, they ended up 2nd in the Premier in that famous 95-96 season.
I'd settle for that level of scintillating football and 2nd place in this division rather than opting for the current style and hoping we somehow creep into the play-offs.

Forgive me for making an error I meant to end with “was entertainment first” rather than is. Results definitely matter now but at the very origin of the game it was always deemed as entertainment - it was something to do. Identity and support came much later on than that.

I don’t turn up at BP hoping to be entertained - nor do I expect us to win - every game because I know from 21 years experience that we get maybe one or two games a season which are entertaining. In that time I reckon there’s been maybe a handful of stand out, truly entertaining games.

I’ll be pleasantly surprised if we can push for the play offs. I don’t feel as though we add enough in the attacking third to be serious contenders. The stats posted on here today from Experimental 361 don’t make for great reading for anyone as pessimistic as I am.

[quote=799]What about a third option- playing decent football and winning?

Even Accrington Stanley can manage that on gates of less than 2000, with a player that couldn't hit a cows bottom with a banjo for us, but can't stop scoring for them. One has to ask why that is so?[/quote]

Better supply from the rest of the team and a run in the side since the start of the season?

Quoted from RoboCod

Kevin Keegan produced teams that were great to watch but they never achieved anything..

Well, they ended up 2nd in the Premier in that famous 95-96 season.
I'd settle for that level of scintillating football and 2nd place in this division rather than opting for the current style and hoping we somehow creep into the play-offs.

They spent what was at the time a fair amount of money for their runners up medals, the shirt colours may be the same but that is where the comparison ends I reckon.  

Quoted from HertsGTFC

They spent what was at the time a fair amount of money for their runners up medals, the shirt colours may be the same but that is where the comparison ends I reckon.  

Money isn't the issue in this one, it's entertaining football and the point is that such football warranted 2nd place, look  at it how you like but 2nd place runner up medals would be promotion in this league and done in style.  Where this notion that you have to play rigid, boring, functional football to win things has come from I don't know. It's like I dreamt up Buckley Mk 1 and 2.

Quoted from RoboCod

Money isn't the issue in this one, it's entertaining football and the point is that such football warranted 2nd place, look  at it how you like but 2nd place runner up medals would be promotion in this league and done in style.  Where this notion that you have to play rigid, boring, functional football to win things has come from I don't know. It's like I dreamt up Buckley Mk 1 and 2.

No you didn't dream them up you just pulled them from history which unfortunately looking at where we are now as a club is sadly unlikely to repeat itself for numerous reasons.

If we are to play the football the revivalists who post on here yearn for we need better players than we have now which in the current game costs more money I'm afraid.