Your thoughts?

The article is a link to another website?

My thoughts are you should have posted your thoughts on here.

It's a blog what do you expect. Don't read it if you don't want to. It wasn't aimed at anyone really other than the LCFC fans who read my stuff.

If others read it then fine. It wasn't really aimed at Rangers fans.

It wasn't really aimed at posters on ja606 either. Otherwise I could have read about Empathetic Nextpectations as I had expected to when clicking on the article!

funny could have swore I posted in a forum to engage in discussion.....

It's just a bit prettier with music and photos and what not that can't be posted on here.

I think without being rude, I'll just ask that if you don't want to discuss our managerial position that you just ignore it.

I think attractive football is subjective.

Watching Spain at the minute, I can see what Sven was trying to do. It worked for the odd game, such as Forest away for 70 mins, but not often enough.

England are trying to get stuck in and disrupt Spain's passing. They are not doing this as well as most Championship sides managed against us.

And...I don't find it that attractive. If you want to watch players pass the ball to each other with little purpose, then why not watch them train?

Nugent's goal against Derby was attractive football. I loved the quick, one-touch passing leading to a run into the box followed by a goal. I also enjoyed the last one against Derby too. It was a long ball from the goalkeeper which was nodded down to Dyer who scored.

While I would not want to watch 90 minutes of long balls to a big centre forward, I think what makes football attractive is that the movement at least carries the potential of a goal. Sven's football this season often did not. I could not see Leicester scoring a lot of the time.

How will Pearson get on with Sven's players? Well I can see a fair few solid professionals who he will have no problems with. To be honest, Sven did not bring in any flair players anyway, so I can't see a problem there.

I suspect Pearson will do just fine with the vast majority of the squad. And I cheer just as much for a route one goal as I do for an intricately worked 20 pass move.

So I suppose I am most respectfully disagreeing with you!

Interesting blog, spherical. On a quick read, hard to argue with any of that.

Like Stourbridge, I am left cold by the kind of football played by Spain, and (same thing, really) Barcelona. One can only admire the astonishing close control which enables them to do it, but oh lor this tippy-tappy five-yard passing stuff is sooooooooo boring to watch.

Give me, any day, the rapid give-and-go and the burst into the box, the raking cross-field pass to release the pacey winger, the belting cross into the six yard box and the crashing header. That's what I call exciting football.

It probably means I am prehistoric, I know.

stourbrige, i agree a goal is a goal whether it is 3 passes or 30 ,spain so far looked very pretty at times without creating much at all england have had far less off the ball but in my eyes have looked more like scoring than spain[i might be biased on this but that is how i see it]leicester are just the same under sven,pretty,pretty football but no goals

i also agree with you malling

Well the thought of the piece is that I hope that at Pearson will not dismantle all passing, and revert to the hoof.

I know he has been hoofing it at Hull as plan b, but he's also been caught using it as plan a too. A bad sign.

We will attract very few players of quality if we stick to the hoof.

I also know that Hull have played some good football. I'd be happy with a nice balance, so as I've indicated I'm willing to give Nigel the benefit of the doubt.

One of my favourite every games is that game with Arsenal where it was 0-2 at 85 minutes and finished 3-3.

You know what, in that last 5 minutes plus injury time...

we may have hoofed once or twice!!!

Ok, the above sounds a bit sarcastic, and I apologies for that but my point is valid.

Pearson is not the hoof ball merchant people remember him as and O'Neill, who was fantastic but not quite as fantastic as people remember him, was not too pure to cram the box with players and knock it long into them.

I didn't want Sven sacked at the time but reverting to the long ball has to be better than continuing with a Plan A which has failed to deliver for the first 70 minutes?

Stourbridge, I'm not saying he has or will turn us into a team of hoofers, but my fear is that is the first plan to come out of the bag if the result is not going our way.

Yes we have been successful in the use of the hoof, and gained valuable points from it.

However, there have been plenty of times where this has been unsuccessful, and I guess for me is that it's more frustrating for me to watch the ball floating up in the air to bounce off the oppositions head and we lose any impetus or momentum in a game.

All you need to do is relook at the Leeds match for a prime example where it failed miserably.

All you need to do is relook at the Leeds match for a prime example where it failed miserably.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it did but that Arsenal game is an example of when it went well. In the O'Neill years, if we were losing towards the end of the game, you always knew we would have a damned good go at getting something out of the game...and we often did.

If you look at the amount of games Pearson's team won in the last 10 minutes, I think his teams had more in common with O'Neill's than the more recent offerings.

But anyway...you got a debate!

Some very good points made in both sides but I agree totally with Stourbridge.

I've always said that Man Utd are a better team to watch than Arsenal. Passing football bores the life out of me. I'm entertained by goalmouth action, not sideways passing on the half way line.

And that Arsenal game is one of, of not the greatest I saw at Filbert St. That epitomises what football is about for me. Despair, joy, despair again and then overwhelming joy. Goosebumps just thinking about it!!

Definitely, there is more than one way to score goals in a football match. Personally, I prefer to watch passing football to long ball football but, at the end of the day, for me, it's all about results and if we win every match from a Mills long ball to Howard then I wouldn't care a jot.

But Spherical is right that Nigel has been playing more of a possession orientated game at Hull and if you look at the squad he'll inherit here, it definitely suits passing football because we aren't the tallest of sides and we only have one target man in the squad. What we do have is players full of technical ability and all able to pass a ball and a squad that was bought to play a certain way. So I think it would be naive of Pearson to come here and start playing a style of football that doesn't suit the players we have. Furthermore, I don't think there is anything wrong with having the more direct game as your Plan B and I think that is what we've lacked sometimes.

On a more general note, if you are going to play passing football, then it's not the actual passing that is important; for me, the tempo of the passing and the movement off the ball are what make it work.

For instance, if you watch Barcelona, the speed at which they pass the ball is the thing that wins them most games because teams can try and play 10 behind the ball and be organised defensively, but if you're moving the ball with such rhythm, precision and speed, then it's very hard to get into a good defensive shape without leaving gaps which are invariably exploited. Also, the movement off the ball gives the players options of where to pass and makes it easier to play at a higher tempo if you have more options around you.

With us, the tempo was too slow and we allowed teams to get settled into a shape to defend against us which makes it so much harder to break them down. And also the movement off the ball wasn't good enough and we didn't give the man in possession any options which resulted in this slow, sideways passing.

I wouldn't say passing football is boring; only when the other team make it boring. I'll use the topical example of today's match and England went out to kill the game and make sure they didn't lose and then look to get a goal on the break or, as it was, from a set-piece. If England had gone and approached it like any other game and played more openly, it would have been a great exhibition of football that Spain would probably have won comfortably. Even today you could say that the tempo of Spain's passing wasn't good enough until that last 15 minutes or so when they created a few chances and that is why they struggled to break them down.

So again, I think passing football is only boring if the other side's intention is to make it boring. But even then I find it fascinating to watch the little tactical intricacy's that tend to develop in games like those and see the battle of wits that occurs but I suppose that is just the nerd I am .

I tend to agree with everyone, but GS1884 I think you've summarised it nicely for me. I don't think the type of football Arsenal plays is boring at all, neither Barcelona. This style of football is not on the style that will get us out of the CCC unfortunately.

Sousa learned this very quickly that some players can't adapt to this type of play, others can't consistently play this way, and some teams in the CCC won't let you play football.

A variety of play needs to be utilised. I hope that Pearson keeps the passing up, but when needed and instructed to the team can quickly change to gain a vital goal or 3pts.

What I don't want to see is the Leeds show form last week. If Pearson puts a side out with the instructions to play with the aim of hoofing it, then I will despair and for me I believe we are taking a step backwards.

If he maintains and increases the composure on the ball, simple quick passing, with better movement and understanding then we might weel cope until Xmas where inevitably we will add to the squad.

Good point, Greatness, you are absolutely right - it's the Spanish ability to do the tippy-tappy very fast which makes them especially dangerous.

But to be honest, it still leaves me cold, even as I marvel at the technical prowess needed to pull it off. And insofar as it lulls referees into believing that any physical intervention which breaks up the lovely pattern must somehow be a foul, it is not good for the future of the game as we have come to enjoy it in these isles.

While we are talking, sort of, about Spain, can I be only the latest person to say how absurd was the the BBC's commentary on the England-Spain game yesterday evening?

They and their pundits, with Alan Green and Danny Murphy the chief culprits, were clearly looking forward to another opportunity to bash Capello (of whom I am no fan myself), and were thus rubbing their hands ahead of what they trusted be be an absolute walloping of England. When it didn't happen we were told it was only a friendly, Spain weren't trying, England were lucky, England were humiliated by their lack of possession etc etc. GIVE ME A BREAK! Spain are clearly epochs ahead of us in close control and technical ability, but that counts for zilch if one can't make chances, and put them away when they come along. Which Spain didn't and couldn't. Will they beat us three times out of four? Very probably. Are they likely to win the European Chamionship next year? Yes. Are we? No. But on the day, ie yesterday, England played the more effective game, and thus ran out winners.

But Greeny wouldn't admit this, so made a pompous ass of himself (not for the first time: heavens is he one conceited Irishman) in the face of a stream of calls on 606, all of them making the points I make above. It was silly to the point of hilarity.

I hope Green and Murphy are feeling proper chumps this morning.

So are we agreed that we'll save the beautiful and pure passing football until we are in the Champion's League?

Haha not quite. I think there's room in a game for both. Passing about intricately tires the oppositional midfield if done well, and when the impetus is not on us.

Hoofin it, say following this, and we score I have no problem with.

But hoof it from the backline hopelessly or constantly trying inaccurately to hit Howard's head is counter-productive for the majority of the game.

To me, dependant on the opposition, you can frustrate a tired team by the passing game for the first half. It may not be exciting, but it might get you a goal, but come the second half you have more legs. Then you can attempt something more daring, either on the break or clever through balls etc. (I won't mention the crossing until we have someone who can off a dead ball)

If it's entertainment then surely a trough in the 45mins to a peak in the second is what everyone wants.

Sven was called on numerous occasions for sitting back on a lead. Unfortunately I remember Pearson doing the same on occasion.

I hope there are some lessons learned from his time at Hull and we see a more adventurous man. Because even dull ol' Sven took more risks than Nige does.

I don't think it's impossible to get promoted playing passing football - one only has to look at Swansea last season to know that isn't true.

But if you look at Swansea, when teams tried to kill games against them, they had two wingers who stretched the game and consequently stretched the opposition and made it easier for them to find gaps and create chances.

If we bring this back to Barcelona, they too play David Villa and Pedro wide to stretch the game and even when they come inside, you've got the likes of Dani Alves pushing forward and always providing constant width.

Another problem with us was that, fair enough, we tried to play through teams, but when teams defended very narrow against us, we rarely had that option to go wide and stretch the game and create space.

So, it is definitely possible to get promotion playing passing football, but you have to have variety and have movement and play at a quicker tempo and have width and be able to stretch the play. I still think we'll see more of a passing game under Pearson.

I think there are two strands to this argument. The first is what kind of football is better to watch, the second is which is more effective.

I suppose I must be a pragmatic soul because for me attractive football is that which is most effective....to a point. I wouldn't have liked to have John Beck as manager, which was muted when Little left.

Another thing, I don't think Sven is necessarily a manager of dull football. Last season saw some truly attractive and effective football under Sven. I don't know why he changed the recipe so much for this season.

Hi SF, don't get be wrong, the accusation of dull aul Sven was aimed that those who accused him before he started from his England days and then on to us how dull and extraordinarily he would fail us.

Sven failed when he couldn't either find or attract a competant winger(s). From the market to the opposition there were few ready to part with valuable commodities, either for sale or for loan, so all faut cannot be aimed solely at Sven for not addressing the issue.

I think there are a fair few Sven-haters who will use this as testament to why they always knew he would fail us, when while he was here his first season was a patched up disjointed team leaking goals for fun, and a summer of building a team based in a market that knew we had money. Sven has brought in some very good players.

This season for me has not been wasted, Sven might have had the final pieces for his puzzle brought in in January.

If the owners are listening to the senior players, let's hope they like what Pearson has to say...

I liked Sven from his time with England so I was chuffed when we got him. Then, my faith seemed to be justified when we went on that 7 game (?) unbeaten run after Christmas last year. As I've said, the football was fantastic and when we missed the playoffs, I wasn't too concerned because I was certain we would continue as we had after Christmas once Sven had a Summer to build and his own team.

Signing new players into double figures did concern me a little and I wasn't too upset when we had a shaky start. But...the Millwall game seemed to suggest we were not getting any better, or at least not quickly.

I was shocked when Sven left and thought it was too early in the season to write him off. Then the owners pointed out the low points tally since the Cardiff away game last season and I began to wonder whether we had just had a bad start or whether the unusual part of Sven's reign was the winning run and what he was actually capable of producing was some very mediocre results in the long term.

So, much as I loved Sven for who he was, I have come around to agreeing with the owners that it was not good enough for a longer period than the first 13 games.

I also think Pearson is a great choice because I think he will do what is necessary to win games without being hung up on any notions of anything other than winning football being of any value.

Pragmatic? Cynical? Lacking in taste? Maybe.

But success counts more for me than any commentator complimenting our passing style.