Quote Originally Posted by Lawnmower View Post
Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. ��
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.
So we have proven that we didn't have enough quality to stay up.

I don't know if you read a piece I wrote about scoring and conceding after promotion to the Premier League. It showed that we didn't necessarily have a lack of goals this season but we conceded far too many given our miserly defence last season. Much of the reason for us conceding so many goals was the amount of possession we allowed our opposition to have. We didn't have defenders and forwards of the quality that Burnley had. Etheridge saved more shots bar one keeper.

Surely if we could have kept hold of the ball a little better in midfield, our defence would have been under slightly less pressure each game, opponents would have had less shots on goal and we might have stayed up. If we had better defenders and attackers, maybe the issue wouldn't be highlighted as much, but we didn't. Therefore, basics. If you have the ball, they don't. This isn't suggesting we play like the Jacks did when they went up, but it's about having some control in the middle of the park and relieving pressure on the defence.