theredfella

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

With those same teams playing exactly the same way against us.

As long as the manager in question believes sincerely that his players are at least as good as or better than those they're facing then they can look to impose themselves on the game at the expense of the other team attacking. When they're facing teams who they know are as good as them or better still then they'll be more pragmatic.

Because their players aren't as good as those that play for the teams who are the title challengers.

Great post, well said.

Agreed about the fans, typical Soccer AM generation. Re the latter point, I don't believe that the one touch footy that Arsenal play and Wenger are mutually exclusive. Fergie has United playing great footy and not a Frenchman in sight (excepting Saha ).

But who's won more trophies, Wenger or Graham?

It's back to the financial implications of throwing caution to the wind. Those at the top worry about CL qualification although the pressure is less than for those who are worrying about relegation. The fact that teams will happily go out of cups playing their U14s purely to concentrate on the Premier League even when they clearly have no chance of winning it says it all really.

Not sure about that.

So should we continue to buy lesser quality players and hope that our tactics against sides technically superior etc to us pay off or do we address the problem and look to improve the standard of the recruitment and the level of play?

Assuming (although I know you can't express this tangibly) the first eleven/squads are of equal quality, that's when the manager's tactics comes to the fore.

That's nice for you.

That's pretty much been the case since 1990 ergo we need to buy better players. With better players you can impose yourself on the game more and let teams worry about you more, a trait shared by most of the successful teams. They still look to neutralise the opposition in certain key areas but also have the confidence and freedom to express themselves at the other end too.

Of course it's not possible for every team to succeed but it is for them to put the foundations in place to have a serious crack at domestic success. We have tried to address this issue but not as well as our rivals, our lack of league titles is partial testament to that. Re the final point, it's a measure of a manager's capability that he can make those decisions so as not to massively undermine one against the other. Our penchant for almost blanket solidity has affected the thrust of our attacking play not just now but for a number of years now.

Just read back through what I've written and can't see how you've come to that conclusion but whatever. As to your second point, yes, I favour a good mix of defensive solidity and attacking punch. Don't you?

You're right but the fact that for a long, long time now that our attacking prowess has been significantly less than that of our rivals is one that has hampered us in the domestic game. Why we've failed to address that conclusively is a little baffling to me but again, another question. The "a bit more cunning" point reads as playing to your strengths? Very well and good but that approach, IMO, will only get you so far against the very top teams. At the zenith of the game, you need a bit more than just hard graft etc.