100% grafter vs player with guile

Following on from the thread about our fans being negative I was thinking about Lawnmower's comments regarding our fans preferring a player who is perhaps technically limited but gives 100% to someone who is exciting but is not always perceived to give his all.
(Disclaimer I know the two are not always mutually exclusive and this is just a bit of fun)

But what would you prefer to pay to watch:-


A) players in the mould of Jason Perry, Willie Boland, Don Cowie, Super Kev, Ben Turner, Sol Bamba, Lee Peltier etc - not great on the ball but always guaranteed that they will gives 100% for the cause.

Or

B) players in the mould of Nathan Blake, Jason Fowler, Jason Bowen, Jay Bothroyd, Jason Koumas, Kenneth Zohore - sometimes perceived a bit lazy amd disinterested but can change the game in a flash.


For me its option B every time.

B.

Although a hybrid of the 2 would be ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

B.

Although a hybrid of the 2 would be ideal.

---

That option is not available

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehumblegringo

Following on from the thread about our fans being negative I was thinking about Lawnmower's comments regarding our fans preferring a player who is perhaps technically limited but gives 100% to someone who is exciting but is not always perceived to give his all.
(Disclaimer I know the two are not always mutually exclusive and this is just a bit of fun)

But what would you prefer to pay to watch:-


A) players in the mould of Jason Perry, Willie Boland, Don Cowie, Super Kev, Ben Turner, Sol Bamba, Lee Peltier etc - not great on the ball but always guaranteed that they will gives 100% for the cause.

Or

B) players in the mould of Nathan Blake, Jason Fowler, Jason Bowen, Jay Bothroyd, Jason Koumas, Kenneth Zohore - sometimes perceived a bit lazy amd disinterested but can change the game in a flash.


For me its option B every time.

---

Struggled with this as some of my favourite players are in both categories who gave great memories for different reasons

The second category should be full of players who came with a rep but never showed up? That Italian from Man Utd used to drive me insane as did most of OGS signings to be honest.

The point I am making badly is that I am not sure that any of cat B didn't care or give their all - I know Zohore has been criticised lately but I think he has been given a thankless task since he came back from injury and I am not convinced he is fully fit but I maybe wrong

But if I had to give an answer I would say cat A - I always want players to play like I would if I played for the City (but only better!!)

Good question though :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehumblegringo

Following on from the thread about our fans being negative I was thinking about Lawnmower's comments regarding our fans preferring a player who is perhaps technically limited but gives 100% to someone who is exciting but is not always perceived to give his all.
(Disclaimer I know the two are not always mutually exclusive and this is just a bit of fun)

But what would you prefer to pay to watch:-


A) players in the mould of Jason Perry, Willie Boland, Don Cowie, Super Kev, Ben Turner, Sol Bamba, Lee Peltier etc - not great on the ball but always guaranteed that they will gives 100% for the cause.

Or

B) players in the mould of Nathan Blake, Jason Fowler, Jason Bowen, Jay Bothroyd, Jason Koumas, Kenneth Zohore - sometimes perceived a bit lazy amd disinterested but can change the game in a flash.


For me its option B every time.

---

Got to be B for me as well - I think it was you who said you want to see footballers who can do things you couldn't yesterday wasn't it?

B for me every time too, but I do agree with Lawnmower as a fanbase I think majority of the fans prefer the A's to the B's. You missed Whitts from the B's by the way. Mike, please edit.:biggrin:

Trouble is with option B you can sometimes get bitten in the arse when you don't need it.I remember taking my youngest son for his first matchday experience some years ago and after biggin the city up all week they have a stinker just when we didn't need it (0-3 Boro):frown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

B for me every time too, but I do agree with Lawnmower as a fanbase I think majority of the fans prefer the A's to the B's. You missed Whitts from the B's by the way. Mike, please edit.:biggrin:

---

I meant to put Whitts in there when I was thinking about it earlier to be honest as Whitts, Bothroyd and Koumas are probably the 3 players who epitomize exactly what I'm talking about in the B Category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Got to be B for me as well - I think it was you who said you want to see footballers who can do things you couldn't yesterday wasn't it?

---

Yes Bob I did say that. It is probably the criteria (shit criteria I know) what I judge players on.

I would happily pay to watch a Tomlin, Hoilett, Whittingham, Koumas etc in the hope that a few times in a game I may turn to my son and say "did you see what he just did???"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nobody's Rep

Struggled with this as some of my favourite players are in both categories who gave great memories for different reasons

The second category should be full of players who came with a rep but never showed up? That Italian from Man Utd used to drive me insane as did most of OGS signings to be honest.

The point I am making badly is that I am not sure that any of cat B didn't care or give their all - I know Zohore has been criticised lately but I think he has been given a thankless task since he came back from injury and I am not convinced he is fully fit but I maybe wrong

But if I had to give an answer I would say cat A - I always want players to play like I would if I played for the City (but only better!!)

Good question though :thumbup:

---

I suppose that's the job of the scouts and management to weigh up whether that player can be accommodated into your style of play etc, and in the case of Macheda whether he can actually play football at all! :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sneggyblubird

Trouble is with option B you can sometimes get bitten in the arse when you don't need it.I remember taking my youngest son for his first matchday experience some years ago and after biggin the city up all week they have a stinker just when we didn't need it (0-3 Boro):frown:

---

:hehe: that game still haunts me.

On the flipside though, if we had a few more option B's in the premier league with Malky we may not have looked so predictable.

I thoroughly enjoy watching the B's more than the A's although neat and tidy players can be good to watch as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

B.

Although a hybrid of the 2 would be ideal.

---

Alex Ferguson had a good eye for this kind of player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehumblegringo

Following on from the thread about our fans being negative I was thinking about Lawnmower's comments regarding our fans preferring a player who is perhaps technically limited but gives 100% to someone who is exciting but is not always perceived to give his all.
(Disclaimer I know the two are not always mutually exclusive and this is just a bit of fun)

But what would you prefer to pay to watch:-


A) players in the mould of Jason Perry, Willie Boland, Don Cowie, Super Kev, Ben Turner, Sol Bamba, Lee Peltier etc - not great on the ball but always guaranteed that they will gives 100% for the cause.

Or

B) players in the mould of Nathan Blake, Jason Fowler, Jason Bowen, Jay Bothroyd, Jason Koumas, Kenneth Zohore - sometimes perceived a bit lazy amd disinterested but can change the game in a flash.


For me its option B every time.

---

Our fanbase would love a team of A's, until they saw the results. Having said that, a team of B's would be infuriating to watch week in, week out. They could blow teams away one week, and then get turned over the next. Basically, see the Dave Jones years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Alex Ferguson had a good eye for this kind of player.

---

When you spend the money he did, he should be able to spot one or two!

My guess is that Most would say B's.

However, if you played a team of A's against B's, my guess is that the A's would win hands down as no fecker in the B's would/could put the graft in.

Its worth noting that the best players in the world are also among the fittest.

Also I think you can get away with fitness and pace over technical ability in the top leagues rather than the other way round.
An example being Theo Walcott.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehumblegringo

That option is not available

---

Hence why I've picked B :biggrin:

I want a mixture of both.

I pay to watch 11/14 of my team go out to beat the opposition and I want to see graft and skill. Super Kev and Koumas. I'm not paying to watch (and support) just one player. The best teams combine the qualities of A and B - and as this is the Championship we are not likely to see too many who combine the best of both in one person - or not too many of them.

I liked and respected Don Cowie more than Lee Tomlin, and appreciated the work he put in to make some of his teammates look good, but the 'wow' moments (the few we saw) came from Tomlin.

After Sol's disallowed goal against Millwall, I'm not sure that 'Beckenbauer' Bamba belongs in list A. He can also pick a mean pass at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

I want a mixture of both.

I pay to watch 11/14 of my team go out to beat the opposition and I want to see graft and skill. Super Kev and Koumas. I'm not paying to watch (and support) just one player. The best teams combine the qualities of A and B - and as this is the Championship we are not likely to see too many who combine the best of both in one person - or not too many of them.

I liked and respected Don Cowie more than Lee Tomlin, and appreciated the work he put in to make some of his teammates look good, but the 'wow' moments (the few we saw) came from Tomlin.

After Sol's disallowed goal against Millwall, I'm not sure that 'Beckenbauer' Bamba belongs in list A. He can also pick a mean pass at times.

---

Of course it's a given that a team is made up of both.
Though I have seen on many occasions teams made up of grafters, however I think only Arsene Wenger is crazy enough to field a team made up of type B players! :hehe:

B for me, but the problem with our 'B players' this year is that apart from Hoilett, they have rarely done anything of note. (although not helped by some poor play by others around them).

Option A for me i am afraid, i love to see a player give 110 %, nothing beats it

My fondest memories are of the early 90's team, the Eddie may team, I make no excuses for that, the team looked like they had a connection with us fans, we could argue that Blakey was in the B group, from memory he was the only one who was from that team

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

I want a mixture of both.

I pay to watch 11/14 of my team go out to beat the opposition and I want to see graft and skill. Super Kev and Koumas. I'm not paying to watch (and support) just one player. The best teams combine the qualities of A and B - and as this is the Championship we are not likely to see too many who combine the best of both in one person - or not too many of them.

I liked and respected Don Cowie more than Lee Tomlin, and appreciated the work he put in to make some of his teammates look good, but the 'wow' moments (the few we saw) came from Tomlin.

After Sol's disallowed goal against Millwall, I'm not sure that 'Beckenbauer' Bamba belongs in list A. He can also pick a mean pass at times.

---

Beckenbamba? :sherlock: :getscoat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

Option A for me i am afraid, i love to see a player give 110 %, nothing beats it
My fondest memories are of the early 90's team, the Eddie may team, I make no excuses for that, the team looked like they had a connection with us fans, we could argue that Blakey was in the B group, from memory he was the only one who was from that team

---

Except, of course, 120% :shrug:

Got to be B for me I would've loved a team full of bothroyd's

Not sure - excellent bits of skill with no end product is ultimately very frustrating as we saw with DJ's sides. I loved watching Koumas, Whitts and Chopra produce the odd bit of brilliance but ultimately I want us to win games and competitions.

On balance it is probably A's as there is a curious beauty to good defending and team play too. Maybe I've just been supporting Cardiff too long...

It's a great question, one I don't really have an answer to that I'm convinced by, but I edge marginally towards B.

There's perhaps an interesting flip question to this. What would you find more frustrating:-

a) players in the mould of Jason Perry, Willie Boland, Don Cowie, Super Kev, Ben Turner, Sol Bamba, Lee Peltier etc - whose limitations with the ball could undo the hard work they put into the cause.

b) players in the mould of Nathan Blake, Jason Fowler, Jason Bowen, Jay Bothroyd, Jason Koumas, Kenneth Zohore, Peter Whittingham etc - who despite their undoubted talent, often went missing for a number of games and could be a liability when they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ken smith

B for me, but the problem with our 'B players' this year is that apart from Hoilett, they have rarely done anything of note. (although not helped by some poor play by others around them).

---

But that's what you get with B's

Inconsistency, one week brilliant followed by 6 weeks of nothing.

That's why they need the A's .

With an A it's a given that you'll get their best week in week out.

Ideally you need a bit of both, but if it was exclusive then I'd go with A's

For me though I think it's a bit different.
I don't watch City because they are good. I watch them because they are my club. If they were crap I'd still go - as many of us did for years. So I don't feel the need to be entertained, I want to see the players give what I would if I was out there myself.

It's great to have a bit of excitement and I mostly loved watching Bothroyd, Koumas, Tomlin etc.. but there's nothing worse than seeing a player not give a shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

It's a great question, one I don't really have an answer to that I'm convinced by, but I edge marginally towards B.

There's perhaps an interesting flip question to this. What would you find more frustrating:-

a) players in the mould of Jason Perry, Willie Boland, Don Cowie, Super Kev, Ben Turner, Sol Bamba, Lee Peltier etc - whose limitations with the ball could undo the hard work they put into the cause.

b) players in the mould of Nathan Blake, Jason Fowler, Jason Bowen, Jay Bothroyd, Jason Koumas, Kenneth Zohore, Peter Whittingham etc - who despite their undoubted talent, often went missing for a number of games and could be a liability when they did.

---

The category B players are undoubtedly far more frustrating. You can't really get frustrated with someone get the maximum out of their tool set.

Fair play to them they deserve everything they get. I do hope and believe that option C (the player that has both) has become the order of the day though.

When you look at the demands on players at Champions league level etc you cant afford to carry anyone either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehumblegringo

The category B players are undoubtedly far more frustrating. You can't really get frustrated with someone get the maximum out of their tool set.

Fair play to them they deserve everything they get. I do hope and believe that option C (the player that has both) has become the order of the day though.

When you look at the demands on players at Champions league level etc you cant afford to carry anyone either way.

---

How many of those have we seen at Cardiff down the years? I reckon if you went back, say, thirty years you'd be lucky to get ten. I'd say Kav had a bit of both, as did Carl Dale (for the level he played at), Whitts would always put the effort in, but he just wasn't very good at the aspects of the game that a type A player excels at and in the current team, Hoilett has a very good work ethic for a "flair" player. Danny Gabbidon was always very languid and his coolness meant that you could be thinking that a disaster, which never came, was just around the corner, but I reckon you could never really question his commitment.

I think Michael Chopra worked really hard in his first spell for us, Steve McPhail always gave 100 per, but, like Whitts, there were weakness to his type A game, while the way he reacted to one of our Play Off defeats showed that Chris Burke cared. Mark Delaney was superb for us and could never be accused of just being a type B player, while Joe Ledley would come up with something every now and again (e.g. his Semi Final goal against Barnsley) to show that he had type B player elements to his game, but I'm beginning to take liberties there which probably means that I've hit the stage where I'm not going to think of anyone else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

How many of those have we seen at Cardiff down the years? I reckon if you went back, say, thirty years you'd be lucky to get ten. I'd say Kav had a bit of both, as did Carl Dale (for the level he played at), Whitts would always put the effort in, but he just wasn't very good at the aspects of the game that a type A player excels at and in the current team, Hoilett has a very good work ethic for a "flair" player. Danny Gabbidon was always very languid and his coolness meant that you could be thinking that a disaster, which never came, was just around the corner, but I reckon you could never really question his commitment.

I think Michael Chopra worked really hard in his first spell for us, Steve McPhail always gave 100 per, but, like Whitts, there were weakness to his type A game, while the way he reacted to one of our Play Off defeats showed that Chris Burke cared. Mark Delaney was superb for us and could never be accused of just being a type B player, while Joe Ledley would come up with something every now and again (e.g. his Semi Final goal against Barnsley) to show that he had type B player elements to his game, but I'm beginning to take liberties there which probably means that I've hit the stage where I'm not going to think of anyone else!

---

I think Bellamy and Ramsey and even probably Delaney should be added to that list as well Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehumblegringo

I think Bellamy and Ramsey and even probably Delaney should be added to that list as well Bob

---

Agreed about Bellamy and Ramsey - I mentioned Delaney and would certainly include him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Agreed about Bellamy and Ramsey - I mentioned Delaney and would certainly include him.

---

Sorry Bob somehow I missed that. I'd probably put Stant in that list too. I think Mccormack before Chopra came could be a shout and I'd probably even put Robbie James and Ratcliffe in that list.

I have seen this debate over the decades so many times. A fascinating debate, but one that hasn’t changed conclusion for me since I first started taking an interest in football in the 1980s, and I saw the same answer across many other areas of life since.

The pattern so often goes like this. For a while we have a manager whose players play pretty football but fail to deliver. He peppers his team with fancy Dans who got show a bit of skill but lacked the mindset to win and deliver often enough to meet the club’s targets. For this, think Dave Jones, or for a worse example of failure, Solsjkaer or Trollope.Then in comes a man who overcompensates by building a team of brutish, fit men who mainly lack class but are tough to beat. Think Mackay / Warnock, or when it goes wrong, Russell Slade. Often these swings are due the fact we are rarely flush with cash and have to choose between cheaper available players, who often fall into either category. Skillful but weak,brutish but less classy. Occasionally you get a bargain and get both but these are atypical. The only time this often changes is when we are flush with cash and can pick up better quality players and choose a bit more, or if you hire an exceptionally good manager whose methods are advanced. But as is so often the case, we do not have that luxury. So we have a simple choice. Stylish failure? Or being brutishly hard to beat but standing a change of making it? To me the answer is no different to other aspects of life. Heard these lines before?

"Perspiration, not just inspiration". “Winners never quit, and quitters never win”.

Different quotes. Same message. But how many people still don’t get it, or meet it with a wall of cynicism, when the evidence is in clear plain sight? How many still have this endless debate to which the answer is so obvious if you want any person or group to do well? You see it in all fields of life. Businessmen, football, rugby, careers, family life, politics. Think about it. How many times have you heard these lines?

“I had a great business idea but didn’t do it. He took the risk and did it”.

“He tried so many times but in the end he just got lucky”.

“I was way more talented at <whatever sport> in school than him, but he made it”

“Ooh he’s so boring all he does is work”

Isn’t it "strange" that most of the time success comes to those who most of the time are mentally harder, fitter and keep going? An idea isn't enough. Creativity isn't enough. Ability isn't enough. Winners are those who go a little further. And when things get difficult they don’t duck or dive but keep fighting until they eventually come out on the other side. Those who do better are those that do more. More effort often means more output, which means more performance. It's the 5-10% of extraness on top of their ability that nudges them ahead of those not willing to put in the same effort. In sport it is called "The Theory of Marginal Gains" - a jargonistic and posh way of saying "finding many or several ways to do just a bit more". No magic formula, but a simple rule of sport, and simple rule of life. So simple, but many don’t do it because mentally it is too much to ask for most.

Warnock epitomises that. It's just that he applies those simple rules into the realm of football. So do his players. It is the only and simple explanation as to why light-mentality footballers that Dave Jones selected so often buckled under pressure, and routinely failed at promotion, and why Warnock has a litany of success in this division in getting promotion. No magic formula, but a simple rule of life – applied to The Championship. We don’t spend like Wolves. And I don’t want us failing like Trollope. I want us to win. Win at all costs. And whilst there are no guarantees, Warnock is the best guy to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

I have seen this debate over the decades so many times. A fascinating debate, but one that hasn’t changed conclusion for me since I first started taking an interest in football in the 1980s, and I saw the same answer across many other areas of life since.

The pattern so often goes like this. For a while we have a manager whose players play pretty football but fail to deliver. He peppers his team with fancy Dans who got show a bit of skill but lacked the mindset to win and deliver often enough to meet the club’s targets. For this, think Dave Jones, or for a worse example of failure, Solsjkaer or Trollope.Then in comes a man who overcompensates by building a team of brutish, fit men who mainly lack class but are tough to beat. Think Mackay / Warnock, or when it goes wrong, Russell Slade. Often these swings are due the fact we are rarely flush with cash and have to choose between cheaper available players, who often fall into either category. Skillful but weak,brutish but less classy. Occasionally you get a bargain and get both but these are atypical. The only time this often changes is when we are flush with cash and can pick up better quality players and choose a bit more, or if you hire an exceptionally good manager whose methods are advanced. But as is so often the case, we do not have that luxury. So we have a simple choice. Stylish failure? Or being brutishly hard to beat but standing a change of making it? To me the answer is no different to other aspects of life. Heard these lines before?

"Perspiration, not just inspiration". “Winners never quit, and quitters never win”.

Different quotes. Same message. But how many people still don’t get it, or meet it with a wall of cynicism, when the evidence is in clear plain sight? How many still have this endless debate to which the answer is so obvious if you want any person or group to do well? You see it in all fields of life. Businessmen, football, rugby, careers, family life, politics. Think about it. How many times have you heard these lines?

“I had a great business idea but didn’t do it. He took the risk and did it”.

“He tried so many times but in the end he just got lucky”.

“I was way more talented at <whatever sport> in school than him, but he made it”

“Ooh he’s so boring all he does is work”

Isn’t it "strange" that most of the time success comes to those who most of the time are mentally harder, fitter and keep going? An idea isn't enough. Creativity isn't enough. Ability isn't enough. Winners are those who go a little further. And when things get difficult they don’t duck or dive but keep fighting until they eventually come out on the other side. Those who do better are those that do more. More effort often means more output, which means more performance. It's the 5-10% of extraness on top of their ability that nudges them ahead of those not willing to put in the same effort. In sport it is called "The Theory of Marginal Gains" - a jargonistic and posh way of saying "finding many or several ways to do just a bit more". No magic formula, but a simple rule of sport, and simple rule of life. So simple, but many don’t do it because mentally it is too much to ask for most.

Warnock epitomises that. It's just that he applies those simple rules into the realm of football. So do his players. It is the only and simple explanation as to why light-mentality footballers that Dave Jones selected so often buckled under pressure, and routinely failed at promotion, and why Warnock has a litany of success in this division in getting promotion. No magic formula, but a simple rule of life – applied to The Championship. We don’t spend like Wolves. And I don’t want us failing like Trollope. I want us to win. Win at all costs. And whilst there are no guarantees, Warnock is the best guy to do this.

---

Pretty much sums it up.... and a clear message, be careful what you wish for! :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehumblegringo

I think Bellamy and Ramsey and even probably Delaney should be added to that list as well Bob

---

Delaney was some player. A real shame with his injuries.

Andy Legg could be both as well. Robbie James was a special type of player. He was head and shoulders above most at that time in that league. An old pro who had the skill but work was in his DNA and just because he had dropped down he didn't rest on his laurels. Wouldn't abide it.