Boro v Hull City 3-1 (Gestede (2) Bamford)

[Duvel 2,446]

I don't get the entertainment argument, if you want entertainment then go to the cinema.

 

***nal are pleasing on the eye but ask their fans if they'd swap that for another league title.

 

How about asking their fans if they'd swap with West Brom or Stoke.

 

Sport is entertainment, if you don't get it then that's your failing not someone else's.  The ideal situation is your team playing great football and winning.  Everything other than that is a less ideal scenario.  I don't believe there is anyone who would take playing crap football and winning over playing great football and winning.  People might accept playing crap football and winning over playing great football and losing but fortunately that isn't a trade off that has to be made.  At the moment we are playing crap football and not winning a lot of the time so I'm not sure why you can't understand people wanting to watch some decent football if we're going to lose games anyway?

 

We are almost certainly never going to be a successful team, generally speaking.  We are highly unlikely to challenge for the Premier League title or play in the Champions League.  Maybe if everything falls into place you can have one season like Leicester did but I would say the probability of something similar happening again any time soon is pretty small.  I'd also argue that the style of football Pulis has tended to employ is fairly limited in how far it can take you, hence he could only take Stoke and West Brom so far.  We are a similar sized club to those two so why would anyone expect us to be able to go further.  Now, I know the argument, it's not that Pulis will take us to these heights, he will simply take us so far and then someone else will come in and take us forward again.  Has that happened at Stoke and West Brom because it doesn't appear it has to me.

 

There's no reason why we can't be an entertaining side and achieve our goals - other teams have managed it.  We will not be that under Pulis and we certainly aren't that now, which means we are on the wrong track regardless of what your point of view is.

 

My point is that a certain element of fans seem to expect results and entertainment nowadays.

 

I don't think football has ever been a product in which you can demand or expect either. You can take it to extremes where you have Pep playing beautiful football and winning and Pulis doing neither.

 

The priority has always got to be winning games then anything else is a bonus, how many clubs our size play great football and win games consistently.

 

I'm not trying to defend Pulis but saying that you'd prefer to lose 3-4 is nonsense, if we lose a high scoring game tomorrow no one will be happy on here.

[Snowblind 1,734]

I don't get the entertainment argument, if you want entertainment then go to the cinema.

 

***nal are pleasing on the eye but ask their fans if they'd swap that for another league title.

 

Weren't you complaining about the football under Monk...? Just saying ;)

[Changing Times 12,343]

My point is that a certain element of fans seem to expect results and entertainment nowadays.

 

I don't think football has ever been a product in which you can demand or expect either. You can take it so extremes where you have Pep playing beautiful football and winning and Pulis doing neither.

 

The priority has always got to be winning games then anything else is a bonus, how many clubs our size play great football and win games?

 

I'm not trying to defend Pulis but saying that you'd prefer to lose 3-4 is nonsense, if we lose a high scoring game tomorrow no one will be happy on here.

 

But we aren't winning games so I'm still confused as to what your argument is?   I would prefer to lose 3-4 than 0-1 in a similar game to the one we had on Saturday.  Why wouldn't anyone? Watch a good game and lose or watch a bad game and lose?  I'll watch the good game and lose because we're losing anyway.  For some reason people like you continue to make the comparison between playing poorly and winning and playing well and losing as though those are the only two options when they aren't.  My preference for tomorrow would be for us to win and us to play some good football in doing so.

 

I think expecting a good game on any given day is unrealistic but I don't believe it's unrealistic to expect your side to attempt to play good football and win every time they take the field.  That surely should be the aim for every team?  I would say Bournemouth have managed to play decent stuff and have also become a better side than us, despite being a smaller club.  I think Swansea also managed it.  I'm not saying it's easy but it should be our ultimate goal because we aren't going to be regularly challenging for trophies so what else is there to aim for when it comes down to it?

[Betamaxman 14]

My point is that a certain element of fans seem to expect results and entertainment nowadays.

 

I don't think football has ever been a product in which you can demand or expect either. You can take it so extremes where you have Pep playing beautiful football and winning and Pulis doing neither.

 

The priority has always got to be winning games then anything else is a bonus, how many clubs our size play great football and win games?

 

I'm not trying to defend Pulis but saying that you'd prefer to lose 3-4 is nonsense, if we lose a high scoring game tomorrow no one will be happy on here.

 

But we aren't winning games so I'm still confused as to what your argument is?   I would prefer to lose 3-4 than 0-1 in a similar game to the one we had on Saturday.  Why wouldn't anyone? Watch a good game and lose or watch a bad game and lose?  I'll watch the good game and lose because we're losing anyway.  For some reason people like you continue to make the comparison between playing poorly and winning and playing well and losing as though those are the only two options when they aren't.  My preference for tomorrow would be for us to win and us to play some good football in doing so.

 

I think expecting a good game on any given day is unrealistic but I don't believe it's unrealistic to expect your side to attempt to play good football and win every time they take the field.  That surely should be the aim for every team?  I would say Bournemouth have managed to play decent stuff and have also become a better side than us, despite being a smaller club.  I think Swansea also managed it.  I'm not saying it's easy but it should be our ultimate goal because we aren't going to be regularly challenging for trophies so what else is there to aim for when it comes down to it?

 

Spot on.

[richmfc 41]

I don't get the entertainment argument, if you want entertainment then go to the cinema.

 

***nal are pleasing on the eye but ask their fans if they'd swap that for another league title.

 

How about asking their fans if they'd swap with West Brom or Stoke.

 

Sport is entertainment, if you don't get it then that's your failing not someone else's.  The ideal situation is your team playing great football and winning.  Everything other than that is a less ideal scenario.  I don't believe there is anyone who would take playing crap football and winning over playing great football and winning.  People might accept playing crap football and winning over playing great football and losing but fortunately that isn't a trade off that has to be made.  At the moment we are playing crap football and not winning a lot of the time so I'm not sure why you can't understand people wanting to watch some decent football if we're going to lose games anyway?

 

We are almost certainly never going to be a successful team, generally speaking.  We are highly unlikely to challenge for the Premier League title or play in the Champions League.  Maybe if everything falls into place you can have one season like Leicester did but I would say the probability of something similar happening again any time soon is pretty small.  I'd also argue that the style of football Pulis has tended to employ is fairly limited in how far it can take you, hence he could only take Stoke and West Brom so far.  We are a similar sized club to those two so why would anyone expect us to be able to go further.  Now, I know the argument, it's not that Pulis will take us to these heights, he will simply take us so far and then someone else will come in and take us forward again.  Has that happened at Stoke and West Brom because it doesn't appear it has to me.

 

There's no reason why we can't be an entertaining side and achieve our goals - other teams have managed it.  We will not be that under Pulis and we certainly aren't that now, which means we are on the wrong track regardless of what your point of view is.

 

Sport is sport. I could say if you don’t get that it’s your problem but I wouldn’t Of. Course to some it’s entertainment but isn’t the entertaining part winning of course if you lose and it’s not entertaining that’s a big problem

[Changing Times 12,343]

 

Sport is sport. I could say if you don’t get that it’s your problem but I wouldn’t    Of. Course to some it’s entertainment but isn’t the entertaining part winning  of course if you lose and it’s not entertaining that’s a big problem

 

Sport is also entertainment.  We attend to watch the event.  The event is our entertainment.

 

I'm just going to point out that by saying what you said you wouldn't say you are in fact saying it anyway.  I reckon you knew that though didn't you ya little scamp.  Keep trying rich, I'm sure you'll succeed eventually.

[Betamaxman 14]

I don't get the entertainment argument, if you want entertainment then go to the cinema.

 

***nal are pleasing on the eye but ask their fans if they'd swap that for another league title.

 

How about asking their fans if they'd swap with West Brom or Stoke.

 

Sport is entertainment, if you don't get it then that's your failing not someone else's.  The ideal situation is your team playing great football and winning.  Everything other than that is a less ideal scenario.  I don't believe there is anyone who would take playing crap football and winning over playing great football and winning.  People might accept playing crap football and winning over playing great football and losing but fortunately that isn't a trade off that has to be made.  At the moment we are playing crap football and not winning a lot of the time so I'm not sure why you can't understand people wanting to watch some decent football if we're going to lose games anyway?

 

We are almost certainly never going to be a successful team, generally speaking.  We are highly unlikely to challenge for the Premier League title or play in the Champions League.  Maybe if everything falls into place you can have one season like Leicester did but I would say the probability of something similar happening again any time soon is pretty small.  I'd also argue that the style of football Pulis has tended to employ is fairly limited in how far it can take you, hence he could only take Stoke and West Brom so far.  We are a similar sized club to those two so why would anyone expect us to be able to go further.  Now, I know the argument, it's not that Pulis will take us to these heights, he will simply take us so far and then someone else will come in and take us forward again.  Has that happened at Stoke and West Brom because it doesn't appear it has to me.

 

There's no reason why we can't be an entertaining side and achieve our goals - other teams have managed it.  We will not be that under Pulis and we certainly aren't that now, which means we are on the wrong track regardless of what your point of view is.

 

Sport is sport. I could say if you don’t get that it’s your problem but I wouldn’t Of. Course to some it’s entertainment but isn’t the entertaining part winning of course if you lose and it’s not entertaining that’s a big problem

 

But surely if the entertaining part is the winning, then you'd never watch any games as a neutral and enjoy them? (If you didn't care who won).

 

I really enjoy watching good quality, fast paced exciting football, between two teams who are having a good. I actually think you get that in quite a few PL games.

 

(The above isn't so good if you're a Boro fan though).

 

Having said that, I do get my most enjoyment out of seeing BORO play fairly well and winning. QPR comes to mind. I enjoyed that game!

[richmfc 41]

 

Sport is sport. I could say if you don’t get that it’s your problem but I wouldn’t    Of. Course to some it’s entertainment but isn’t the entertaining part winning  of course if you lose and it’s not entertaining that’s a big problem

 

Sport is also entertainment.  We attend to watch the event.  The event is our entertainment.

 

I'm just going to point out that by saying what you said you wouldn't say you are in fact saying it anyway.  I reckon you knew that though didn't you ya little scamp.  Keep trying rich, I'm sure you'll succeed eventually.

 

I was in fact saying what I was saying in a way that you obviously understood I was saying yes I agree. Still don’t know how I can succeed though

[Duvel 2,446]

My point is that a certain element of fans seem to expect results and entertainment nowadays.

 

I don't think football has ever been a product in which you can demand or expect either. You can take it so extremes where you have Pep playing beautiful football and winning and Pulis doing neither.

 

The priority has always got to be winning games then anything else is a bonus, how many clubs our size play great football and win games?

 

I'm not trying to defend Pulis but saying that you'd prefer to lose 3-4 is nonsense, if we lose a high scoring game tomorrow no one will be happy on here.

 

But we aren't winning games so I'm still confused as to what your argument is?   I would prefer to lose 3-4 than 0-1 in a similar game to the one we had on Saturday.  Why wouldn't anyone? Watch a good game and lose or watch a bad game and lose?  I'll watch the good game and lose because we're losing anyway.  For some reason people like you continue to make the comparison between playing poorly and winning and playing well and losing as though those are the only two options when they aren't.  My preference for tomorrow would be for us to win and us to play some good football in doing so.

 

I think expecting a good game on any given day is unrealistic but I don't believe it's unrealistic to expect your side to attempt to play good football and win every time they take the field.  That surely should be the aim for every team?  I would say Bournemouth have managed to play decent stuff and have also become a better side than us, despite being a smaller club.  I think Swansea also managed it.  I'm not saying it's easy but it should be our ultimate goal because we aren't going to be regularly challenging for trophies so what else is there to aim for when it comes down to it?

 

You are stating the bleeding obvious, we all want to win games and we'd all love to play beautiful football.

 

I'd also rather lose 4-3 than 1-0 if you gave me a choice, have I ever said otherwise? And yes we should aspire to do both.

 

When did i say it's a choice between winning and entertaining? I said it doesn't happen very often for clubs our size. We won a cup and played in Europe for two season's and a large portion of our fanbase winged all the way through it because it was 'negative'.

 

You seem to have me down as a big supporter of Tony Pulis and his brand of football, if you read any of my messages under Monk I said I'd prefer a progressive foreign coach to replace him, I'm certainly not happy at the moment.

[Uwe 3,545]

I just want to win :(

[Changing Times 12,343]

You are stating the bleeding obvious, we all want to win games and we'd all love to play beautiful football.

 

I'd also rather lose 4-3 than 1-0 if you gave me a choice, have I ever said otherwise? And yes we should aspire to do both.

 

When did i say it's a choice between winning and entertaining? I said it doesn't happen very often for clubs our size. We won a cup and played in Europe for two season's and a large portion of our fanbase winged all the way through it because it was 'negative'.

 

You seem to have me down as a big supporter of Tony Pulis and his brand of football, if you read any of my messages under Monk I said I'd prefer a progressive foreign coach to replace him, I'm certainly not happy at the moment.

 

I don't have you down as anything.  I was simply responding to what you posted earlier in response to what some other people had posted.  You didn't say it was a choice between winning and entertaining but you've intimated it on a couple of occasions.  If I'm stating the bleeding obvious (I agree I am) then what about it can't you understand?  You said earlier you can't understand the entertainment argument yet you clearly fully understand it and I'm fairly sure I explained it well enough.  I don't think anyone is saying they'd rather see us lose 3-4 than win 1-0 but there are some, me included, that would rather see us attempting to play good football as a starting point if we're going to get fairly patchy results anyway, which we are.

[Tom 2,492]

 

 

But we aren't winning games so I'm still confused as to what your argument is?   I would prefer to lose 3-4 than 0-1 in a similar game to the one we had on Saturday.  Why wouldn't anyone? Watch a good game and lose or watch a bad game and lose?  I'll watch the good game and lose because we're losing anyway.  For some reason people like you continue to make the comparison between playing poorly and winning and playing well and losing as though those are the only two options when they aren't.  My preference for tomorrow would be for us to win and us to play some good football in doing so.

 

I think expecting a good game on any given day is unrealistic but I don't believe it's unrealistic to expect your side to attempt to play good football and win every time they take the field.  That surely should be the aim for every team?  I would say Bournemouth have managed to play decent stuff and have also become a better side than us, despite being a smaller club.  I think Swansea also managed it.  I'm not saying it's easy but it should be our ultimate goal because we aren't going to be regularly challenging for trophies so what else is there to aim for when it comes down to it?

 

Nail on head.

 

The bit in bold, I think is fundamental to Gibson entrusting Pulis with this 'top to bottom investigation' that he's doing within in the club. For financial investment, we are considerably underachieving, and I think that Gibson hopes that TP is knowledgeable enough to pinpoint exactly where our failings are, and is probably using Stoke's success as a benchmark. If you go back 10 years, we were breaking our transfer record to sign Alves for £12m, Stoke were breaking there's bringing in Leon Cort for £1.2m, literally one tenth of the price. They have become what we hope to be - a solid Premier League side, and we have had 10 largely fruitless years.

[wilsoncgp 9,283]

Of course winning and playing entertaining style of football is the ultimate goal for any team but winning is the only thing that counts for anything. It's the only reason you get promoted, the only reason you lift league titles, the only reason you win cups, domestic, continental or worldwide.

 

What I disagree with is someone saying they'd rather watch us lose 4-3 than 1-0. You still lose, you still don't pick up any points, there's absolutely no certainty that losing 4-3 will even look better on you than losing 1-0. It still means the opposition scored one more than you, it still means there are problems to be addressed and I guarantee in the post-match aftermath they will be discussed. Nobody is going to come on here after a 4-3 and say "Thank God we didn't just lose 1-0, bring on the next game". They're going to be just as annoyed, instead of why can't we create chances for toffee it will be what happened to the solid defence that took us up, get Ayala/Friend out of the team, bring Fabio and Fry in, etc. etc.

 

People on here were delighted that the club was moving in the direction of attacking, attractive football when Monk came in. But the end result is the same if the fella you bring in isn't a good manager. And managers who play effective, attractive football at this level? How many of them do you know about who a club like Middlesbrough could bring in?

 

At this level in particular, in the position we're in... we need promotion. We need to establish ourselves as a Premier League team. We need to do that, any way necessary. We're not in the position where we can try and experiment. We thought we were because the club felt like promotion was guaranteed, we'd smash the league regardless. Then Garry Monk happened.

 

If you offered me a situation between another young, inexperienced team of coaches who were insistent on playing attacking football vs. an experienced head, someone who knew how to get promoted, but played pretty dull football, I'd take the latter every time, particularly after the ***-show of the first half of this season.

 

Someone's always undoubtedly going to say "Why not both? Why not an experienced head who offers attractive, effective football?" As far as I'm concerned based on this season... quite simply a luxury we're not in a position to afford, or Monk would never have been brought in in the first place. As ever, people are welcome to suggest the kind of names we could have gone for and I will keep my mind open... but I'm willing to bet suggestions will be either unrealistic or non-existent due to 'not being the person who should be deciding those things'.

[Duvel 2,446]

You are stating the bleeding obvious, we all want to win games and we'd all love to play beautiful football.

 

I'd also rather lose 4-3 than 1-0 if you gave me a choice, have I ever said otherwise? And yes we should aspire to do both.

 

When did i say it's a choice between winning and entertaining? I said it doesn't happen very often for clubs our size. We won a cup and played in Europe for two season's and a large portion of our fanbase winged all the way through it because it was 'negative'.

 

You seem to have me down as a big supporter of Tony Pulis and his brand of football, if you read any of my messages under Monk I said I'd prefer a progressive foreign coach to replace him, I'm certainly not happy at the moment.

 

I don't have you down as anything.  I was simply responding to what you posted earlier in response to what some other people had posted.  You didn't say it was a choice between winning and entertaining but you've intimated it on a couple of occasions.  If I'm stating the bleeding obvious (I agree I am) then what about it can't you understand?  You said earlier you can't understand the entertainment argument yet you clearly fully understand it and I'm fairly sure I explained it well enough.  I don't think anyone is saying they'd rather see us lose 3-4 than win 1-0 but there are some, me included, that would rather see us attempting to play good football as a starting point if we're going to get fairly patchy results anyway, which we are.

 

I have said that if we are getting results then I'm happy, I go to the match to see my team win and that's the priority for me, the style of football is secondary. If Pulis replicates with us what he did with Stoke I'll take that, I'd rather do it like Bournemouth did but that's the exception rather than the norm in my opinion.

 

The thing I can't understand is the expectation of entertainment AND results. I think it's great to aspire to but it's not always realistic. As I said previously I sat near people at the match who moaned all the way through McClaren's spell and were unable to enjoy the most successful spell in the club's history.

[Changing Times 12,343]

I have said that if we are getting results then I'm happy, I go to the match to see my team win and that's the priority for me, the style of football is secondary. If Pulis replicates with us what he did with Stoke I'll take that, I'd rather do it like Bournemouth did but that's the exception rather than the norm in my opinion.

 

The thing I can't understand is the expectation of entertainment AND results. I think it's great to aspire to but it's not always realistic. As I said previously I sat near people at the match who moaned all the way through McClaren's spell and were unable to enjoy the most successful spell in the club's history.

 

I am talking about aspiration.  I'm saying that should be our goal.  What we've done instead is appoint a manager who almost certainly won't give us at least one of those things - entertaining football.  So we've already screwed ourselves out of one of those two aims and therefore everything rests on winning because without that all we've got is a crap football and patchy results.