Attractive Football? OR Hoof-Ball?

[Coeus]

Got to say that football played at HS has been boring whilst Cox was in charge. There was the occasional good match, and good moments in most matches, but on the whole it was boring. When, one sets that against the entry price, it makes you think twice before attending. I reckon I've missed several matches over last two seasons, that I might have gone to, if the style of football had been more entertaining.

[Soulboy]

A fair few gave thought the same these last years. Edmondson was the first then cox. I preferred coxys methods as he didn't try to hide from what he was doing. It worked and football is all about results at the end of the day.
I saw cox as the only manager of late to get us promoted. He wasn't far away. Yes I would have chosen purist football but for me the trip back to league status was the important issue and still is.
Sometimes the journey isn't ideal but if we got there by less perfect football then I can do that.
The national league now is very hard. Only the strong survive.

[boyliegladbach]

Can't wait to see 3000 in the ground next Tuesday.

[Soulboy]

Are you bringing 1600 friends?

[Moribund]

Do any teams at our level really play "attractive" football?
Forest Green claimed to, but their game was so stop-start due to players falling over that they were one of the worst teams of the lot to watch. Kidderminster tried last season but they looked pretty poor aside from that.

There are teams that pass it about a bit, but I can't see any football being attractive enough to bring people through the gates. The only thing that will do that, football-wise, is results.

Needs to be a mixture of the two styles, but there's nowt wrong with a scrappy, battling team if you're steam-rolling the opposition each week.

[Soulboy]

Leeds in 60s and 70s. Liverpool 70s and80s. Hard teams set up to win.

[Soulboy]

In our league apart fgr.... Mansfield...Luton... Wimbledon.....Cheltenham....,Newport.....

[Soulboy]

Grimsby and Stevenage.....all physically hard teams that bullied others and won through

[PRR]

It's probably testament to Cox's achievements that we can consider sides in the National inferior to us. In my history of supporting the club it always felt like we were there to make up the numbers. Now we can go into certain games expecting to win. Not just because of tactics but because we have better quality players.

With that being said, it's frustrating (or was frustrating) to go into a game against what we would now consider lesser sides but playing exactly the same percentage tactics week in week out. When we come against top teams, I'm happy for us to play percentage football as statistically we'd have a better chance of a result.

If Cox could have took a few more risks against poorer sides and let the players open up a bit, it would have kept the crowd happy, probably the players too and we would have got maybe even better results.

Case in point Halifax earlier this season. Gash side but we were so one dimensional they ended up with a point as they could read our game so easily. If we'd had got it down and played maybe we could have stuck a couple more in.

I guess the point I'm making is if you use hoofball 100% of the time you'll be found out. Teams can sit back and grind out results by packing the defence.

It has its place but not every single game.

[geobarrovian]

It depends which is the most effective and what you are geared up best to play, I think at Vanarama National the style of football is going to veer more towards the direct end of the spectrum as players that play at this level probably don't have the ability and/or aren't cut out to playing a more extreme verison of the short passing game (i.e. short goal kicks and playing the ball out of defence).

However, i feel that Cox's football was at the far end of the long ball end of the spectrum and I think in order to be less predictable, more pragmatic and adaptable and with the hope of attracting more fans there has to be a variation in the way that football teams at this level play, where there is a blend of short passing (i.e. through the midfield) when it is appropriate and more direct football (i.e. from goal kicks and demonstrated by defenders) when it is appropriate in order to break other teams down.

I do hope that we are now showing signs of mixing up our signs of play post-Cox but I can understand why he decided to play football like that, although like I say a more extreme version of direct and long ball football.

[PerthBluebird]

Which one would get all these so called stay away fans back to Holker Street and boost the attendances?

These stay away fans is nonsense look at the average age of holker street attendance, age is catching up with the club

[BAFC_Lewis]

3 points

[Jonty]

I don't ever remember leaving HS with a smile on my face after taking a hammering by a Paul Cox side but I've left a few times delighted that we've got the win against the run of play.

3 points and n e a if we score in the first minute, shut up shop or scruff it in on the 93 minute after being played off the park.

It's all about the win. Attractive football doesn't always win the prize. See Brazil '82.

[Tom Brownlee]

How many teams play attractive brand at this level? How many players can you get at this level that can play it? And if you tried to play it with the calibre of National league footballer where would you hope to be? Just the notion that people are not turning up, which is a decision being based on the brand of football is nonsense IMO. That is completely unrealistic and an excuse. Go and watch your Arsenal or Barca on your Sky box cos Barrow is about supporting your local football club not complaining about the build up play to moves and goals.

[spirit of 1990]

Just the notion that people are not turning up, which is a decision being based on the brand of football is nonsense IMO. That is completely unrealistic and an excuse. Go and watch your Arsenal or Barca on your Sky box cos Barrow is about supporting your local football club not complaining about the build up play to moves and goals.

I've never once stopped going to watch BAFC since the mid-eighties whatever style of football was on offer along with a lot of others who attend HS on match days BUT, I do know a lot of "potential" fans who have shown an interest in the past and said they won't go back and pay to watch a ball spend more time forty foot in the air than it does on the ground.
Simply winning does not guarantee an improvement in attendances as was proven last year, it was also proven when D&D were in charge (not promotion winning season) and we went on a cracking run (stopped on a Tuesday night IIRC)

What will improve attendances is a mixture of things, good football, winning, facilities, more advertising, more offers, getting children involved at a young age & probably lots more.....it's a lot to ask for and there wont be many get all of that right.