John N wrote:
Your argument is fallacious. Just because Olham were better than us in playing the same way it does not follow that that was the best way to play. If you have a muddy, bumpy pitch you are more likely to succeed by playing directly than you are by playing short. It's absolutely elementary.
When I watched football as a lad in the 1950s pitches were far worse than they are now. I was watching what would have been a good Championship side nowadays. Our pitch was muddy. My proudest ever moment came when we beat the Manchester United pre Munich Busby Babes 4-0 in the FA cup. We caught them on a muddy pitch and played very direct. They didn't have a clue how to play on the stuff. We did. That was what made the difference. You adapt according to the circumstances.
If Oldham can play that way on that pitch we should’ve been able to. The pitch wasn’t the problem whatsoever it was generally how poor we were and how little creativity we put in.
We have to believe that a style can be played on any surface. Granted results are more important than style atm obviously but if you’re telling me playin direct yesterday would’ve benefitted I completely disagree. I saw a group of players who’ve been here all season playing directly and very poorly. Nothing about the football I’ve seen under Neilson this season fills me with hope that we can do it successfully at any point.
If we had went direct yesterday we’d have lost still. It wasn’t the style or the pitch that lost us the game it was the players being shithouse bottlejobs who can’t perform