Attending Games: Entertaining football Vs. Results

[Ayrshire Blue]

It's a results business. If you get them buy winning ugly then so be it.

 

[Jcd]

Both please!

 

[Jam_Man]

I would go for entertainment every time. If I go to the cinema or theatre I want to be entertained, if I'm not, I don't go again. I don't apply exactly the same criteria for Southend United as it is more an addiction with them after 40 plus years of watching, but if you get consistent entertainment from the team then I believe that success will eventually follow. By entertainment, I mean the way the side plays rather than some of the nonsense that goes on behind the scenes.

Problem with that is you are saying you can get enjoyment from losing games. Whilst there have been games Ive seen us draw and enjoyed I cant recall a huge amount we have lost and I enjoyed it and Id say that was the same for most. There have also been games Ive seen where we get a last minute winner and people say it was a great game, although up until the 90th minute it was dire. So much relies on the result for people to just accept nice football. If we went 10 games without a win although playing attractive football I cant see the enjoyment levels being particularly high.

 

[RHB]

Problem with that is you are saying you can get enjoyment from losing games. Whilst there have been games Ive seen us draw and enjoyed I cant recall a huge amount we have lost and I enjoyed it and Id say that was the same for most. There have also been games Ive seen where we get a last minute winner and people say it was a great game, although up until the 90th minute it was dire. So much relies on the result for people to just accept nice football. If we went 10 games without a win although playing attractive football I cant see the enjoyment levels being particularly high.

Hmmm, is entertainment the same as enjoyment, I'm not sure. What I'm saying is that if a side produces consistent entertainment through the quality of their football, then success will normally follow. If a side does not win for 10 games then they are probably not producing entertaining football. Entertainment and results are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Suffolk Blue]

Results first for me. Of course if I can have fast flowing football, with plenty of interplay between players, and good quality finishes then I'll be even happier. I'd hope that that style of football doesn't exclude getting results.

 

[RHB]

Results first for me. Of course if I can have fast flowing football, with plenty of interplay between players, and good quality finishes then I'll be even happier. I'd hope that that style of football doesn't exclude getting results.

I think that is the point I've been trying to make. Players only tend to produce your preferred style of play when they are confident and winning.

 

[FarmdogSUFC]

Some of the away games under Sturrock were superbly entertaining. 4-0 v Torquay, 4-1 and 4-0 vs Wimbledon, 3-2 v Daggers, the 5-2 at Northampton.

I have to say going away from home when Paul Sturrock was in charge was a delight, and to be fair to Brown it's not bad at the moment either.

It was the home games where Sturrock's sides fell down. I too remember a time in the autumn of 2011 when we were doing well and winning games, but I wasn't really ever convinced by the performances.

I clicked entertainment value, but ultimately this.

Last season was probably the most disinterested I've been with SUFC home games. This year I've genuinely looked forward to pretty much every game (after the Daggers game aside). Not to say I wouldn't take promotion witnessing 1-0 wins.

 

[Jam_Man]

Hmmm, is entertainment the same as enjoyment, I'm not sure. What I'm saying is that if a side produces consistent entertainment through the quality of their football, then success will normally follow. If a side does not win for 10 games then they are probably not producing entertaining football. Entertainment and results are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, by that definition you have linked entertainment with results which as I said above makes it hard to vote.

If the question was "Win ugly or lose playing attractive football" and it would be far clearer.

I cant imagine many accepting 15th in the table just because you played attractive passing football.

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

the whole poll is based on a false premise that all PS games were boring "hoofball". This has been debated ad nauseam and as far as I'm concerned pretty much discredited.
Let's face it most fans think if we win we're great and if we lose we're crap. And do you know what. We prefer to win. What a strange thing.

 

[Shrimper2thecore]

Winning is winning. I would'nt want to see us play really well and lose 46 matches...

 

[Jam_Man]

the whole poll is based on a false premise that all PS games were boring "hoofball". This has been debated ad nauseam and as far as I'm concerned pretty much discredited.
Let's face it most fans think if we win we're great and if we lose we're crap. And do you know what. We prefer to win. What a strange thing.

Whilst Sturrock didn't always play hoof ball there was a good chunk of his tenure that played in that direct get it forward to the lone striker style, up until Dickinson got injured when we changed. Even then we never really adapted to an entertaining style.

The third season we really didn't play hoofball but results didn't come and many people didn't even seem to notice that we weren't playing as direct as before, yet because results weren't good they focused on that.

As you say if we win people's perception of games is heavily reliant on the result, as I said above Ive seen dire games that people come away "entertained" because of a late winner.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Entertainment for me. Never been more of a fan as when Barry Fry's brand of the game was on show. Whatever you think of the man you can't deny his style of football.

 

[Jam_Man]

Entertainment for me. Never been more of a fan as when Barry Fry's brand of the game was on show. Whatever you think of the man you can't deny his style of football.

Which coincided with good results of course.

 

[GBJ]

Problem with that is you are saying you can get enjoyment from losing games. Whilst there have been games Ive seen us draw and enjoyed I cant recall a huge amount we have lost and I enjoyed it and Id say that was the same for most.

Theres a difference between being entertained & enjoying it though mate. For example, losing to Chelsea at the Hall, wasn't exactly an enjoyable result, but it was an entertaining game, where we went through a roller coaster of emotions, for a short time at least. I felt entertained, even though we got tanked!!

Whereas I've seen us nick a 1-0 win, but the game has been slow & dull. There are no emotional ups & downs there, its just one constant bore. Ultimately we walk away and say "well we got the three points, that's the main thing", which is probably right.

Losing 4-1 every week would certainly get annoying, very quickly, but the thought of going back to that crap we endured of the last few years is a horrible one. I think I'd take a mixture of results & entertaining games, over the dross matches, where we nick a win every time

 

[Jam_Man]

Theres a difference between being entertained & enjoying it though mate. For example, losing to Chelsea at the Hall, wasn't exactly an enjoyable result, but it was an entertaining game, where we went through a roller coaster of emotions, for a short time at least. I felt entertained, even though we got tanked!!

Whereas I've seen us nick a 1-0 win, but the game has been slow & dull. There are no emotional ups & downs there, its just one constant bore. Ultimately we walk away and say "well we got the three points, that's the main thing", which is probably right.

Losing 4-1 every week would certainly get annoying, very quickly, but the thought of going back to that crap we endured of the last few years is a horrible one. I think I'd take a mixture of results & entertaining games, over the dross matches, where we nick a win every time

Thats my point though.

Ive enjoyed plenty of draws and even some defeats, but the question is 'entertainment or results', and if you go for any period without results you quickly stop being entertained.

Some may accept results without entertainment (I was willing to during Sturrocks 2nd season as long as it worked), but I cant see that entertainment without results is actually a valid option.The two are too intertwined to pick entertainment before results and as you say what we all really want is results and entertainment.

I think we can all agree the style of football is good enough now, I guarantee if we were to hit poor form and missed out on the play offs there wouldn't be an atmosphere of contentment on here though.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Which coincided with good results of course.

Due to his style of football IMO - hence the type of players he had

 

[ozzie]

what about euro 2000(i think) ,2 crap teams, england beat germany 1-0,very poor game......euro 96....2 teams,germany (goodish!!) england better,we lost ,.... i know what i like better, ok only 2 games, but winning is the most important

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

If forced I'd probably say entertainment because I've gone home disappointed but not disheartened having enjoyed games we've lost and have gone home feeling flat after games we've won. But it's difficult to distinguish between them as entertainment for me is also about competing, it's about creating chances and opening up the opposition and is about getting results.

I was one of the few who didn't have a problem with the style of football Sturrock used. I thought when Tomlin, Hurst and Clohessy linked up down the right-wing (or in Sturrock's first season Clohessy, Blair and Josh Simpson use to play the same triangles) their interchanges were actually better than anything we've produced this season when we've playing from deep. in truth we've rarely been hurting teams with that passing with much of it not probing so much as just trying not to lose it. Sturrock's team played as direct as Dave Webb's. The difference for me was that Sturrock was more defensive minded. Sturrock's philosophy wasn't a Beck everything long, it was one about playing in the opposition's half. When it didn't work it was ugly and not enjoyable, but no more than a passing team is unenjoyable and insipid when they pass it along the back-line and don't ever look like breaking down the opposition. When Corr did hold it up we actually played some lovely incisive, probing and intelligent football.

Then there's the joy of good defending. I think some people only see half the game, but there is defending as well as attacking and I enjoy watching good defenders reading the game, anticipating and getting in position to make an interception or clearance to snub about the developing danger. The best defensive players (and this applies to midfielders as much as defenders) make the defensive side of the game look easy.

Similarly, watching the tactical battle under Sturrock was also highly enjoyable. It wasn't just 11 v 11 on the pitch but Sturrock outmaneuvering the man in the opposite dug-out. I also got a lot of pleasure from watching young, raw players grow. Seeing the likes of Prosser, Leonard, Bentley, Mohsni, Ferdinand, Hall etc mature into first teamers is very satisfying as you watch their individual stories unfold as they blossomed from nervous fringe players to integral parts of a winning side.

Ultimately there are so many elements to a football match that it's wrong to just pick out one. It's the combination that makes football work.

 

[leeblue]

Entertainment nor results have any bearing on my attendance. I just go........

 

[Bolton Shrimper]

Winning is everything and is usually the result of entertaining football anyway.