I think if it was really a choice between attacking flowing football and successful football then I would stop bothering with the darn game. Thankfully , attacking football is ultimately more successful than boring negative football in most cases.burnzy1987 said:after reading a post in the Glasgow Rangers threat i started thinking. (i know i know!!)
anyway its a simple question but i can give a simple answer.
would you rather united played free flowing attacking football for the next 5 years but won nothing (go out quarters and semis of major tournaments and just miss out on the premiership every season)
would you rather united play boring, slow defensive football winning games 1-0 and struggling to break down a defence of any level properly..BUT winning trophies regularly every season?....
everytime i think about it i change my mind....
The way football is structured means that it always favours the team that spends the most time in the opposition box. My belief is that the facts bear this out. Some teams can succeed by playing on the break all the time and defending deep but not many.
United as a club have always bought flair players with attacking intent. Therefore we don't exactly have much choice other than to do what these players do best. As a side note I don't think Chelsea are that boring . They are cagey and rely on defense and power , but they are not boring boring arsenal exactly. However , their tendency to not kill games off and get the second goal has cost them draws and goal difference which we all hope will cost them the league.