by ferrarilover » 27 Nov 2013, 22:20
I think the Knill v Ling debate revolves around what you want to see. The best we could hope for under Ling was extremely boring football, but extremely boring football that was likely to be relatively successful. Knill's style could go disastrously wrong, but if it goes right, it could be really, really good. Last night was better than anything that I ever saw under Ling. It was pacy, exciting, forward thinking and, against a lesser keeper, would have resulted in a comfortable win. Roll the dice and see what happens, versus take the money and run.
Would I have Ling back? No, thanks. Nothing against the bloke, but I'm a gambler. I'd rather take the chance with someone who is capable of producing really exciting football, but who, in so doing, runs the risk of producing hopeless, disjointed football. Others will disagree.
Matt.
I think the Knill v Ling debate revolves around what you want to see. The best we could hope for under Ling was extremely boring football, but extremely boring football that was likely to be relatively successful. Knill's style could go disastrously wrong, but if it goes right, it could be really, really good. Last night was better than anything that I ever saw under Ling. It was pacy, exciting, forward thinking and, against a lesser keeper, would have resulted in a comfortable win. Roll the dice and see what happens, versus take the money and run.
Would I have Ling back? No, thanks. Nothing against the bloke, but I'm a gambler. I'd rather take the chance with someone who is capable of producing really exciting football, but who, in so doing, runs the risk of producing hopeless, disjointed football. Others will disagree.
Matt.