With so much money spent in the Premier League,why are many games boring?

[BlueAnorak]

Most Premier League games are boring because relegation is so so costly so staying up is more important than trying to win.
I quite like the current system of points accrual but if it was to be changed, I'd go 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and 1 point for scoring 2 or more goals in a game. This would mean a non-scoring or low-scoring draw or 1-0 win would be further penalised. Interestingly both City & Utd would be 1 point worse off. City for 1-0 win @Chelsea, Utd +1 point for 2-2 draw @Stoke(A), -1 for 1-0 win @Southampton (A) & -1 for 1-0 win @Spurs(H).

 

[BlueHammer85]

I had a similar issue about a year or 2 ago and even made a thread about it. I went on to say how my love for the game had been pushed to it's absolute limits of watching tiresome tactics of boring football, 10 at the back and a slow ass paced game. It got to the point where watching league two football was miles better than premier league football, and in some cases it still is.

Watching City now we've adapted to tiresome tactics is so much better and I'm thoroughly entertained week in week out, but I think overall a large percentage of fans have adapted this kind of attitude where they aren't bothered how their team plays, as long as they pick up points on the way.
You don't see the teams of the 90s anymore like Newcastle, United, Leeds, Liverpool that played to win every game rather than draw.... imagine watching United vs Arsenal 15 years ago and both teams set up for a point?

Everton is a prime example this season so far, they were commended for playing so defensively against us this season at our place, but other than that game they haven't had a single good performance under their belt so far, and we're 4 months into the season already.

Man City haven’t ‘adopted’ a formula of exciting football.

You simply can buy the best players in the world - that instantly brings excitement.
When West Ham had Payet we was great to watch - since his been gone, we have been awful. That one player changed whole dynamics of the game. Nothing down to managers tactics or formations (yes you get exceptions)
But I do think Allarydyce and Pulis get a unfair rap - they work on a low budget and get the best out of average players - they simply have to adopt a defensive attitude for the sake of their clubs - give West Brom Sane, Jesus and Sterling and all of a sudden they will become exciting to watch.

 

[Vienna_70]

Man City haven’t ‘adopted’ a formula of exciting football.

You simply can buy the best players in the world - that instantly brings excitement.
When West Ham had Payet we was great to watch - since his been gone, we have been awful. That one player changed whole dynamics of the game. Nothing down to managers tactics or formations (yes you get exceptions)
But I do think Allarydyce and Pulis get a unfair rap - they work on a low budget and get the best out of average players - they simply have to adopt a defensive attitude for the sake of their clubs - give West Brom Sane, Jesus and Sterling and all of a sudden they will become exciting to watch.

I don’t agree.

Pulis couldn’t put together an attacking team if he had the whole City squad at his disposal. It’s just not in his character to play the sort of football that Pep does.

 

[Claytop]

I don’t agree.

Pulis couldn’t put together an attacking team if he had the whole City squad at his disposal. It’s just not in his character to play the sort of football that Pep does.

Pretty sure he just comes on here to try and argue against whatever the discussion is.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

If you have inferior players and an inferior team you don't really have a choice but show little ambition.

Football isn't like the NFL where there is a level playing field.

The rags have 1 player that costs more than Burley's starting 11. So of course Burnley for example can't play tiki taka and expect to win.

I'm really not sure what football fans actually expect when they complain about how inferior teams set up.

More an observation than a complaint. Superior teams that find the path to goal held in a stranglehold where the game is suffocating must draw on their superiority.

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

Man City haven’t ‘adopted’ a formula of exciting football.

You simply can buy the best players in the world - that instantly brings excitement.
When West Ham had Payet we was great to watch - since his been gone, we have been awful. That one player changed whole dynamics of the game. Nothing down to managers tactics or formations (yes you get exceptions)
But I do think Allarydyce and Pulis get a unfair rap - they work on a low budget and get the best out of average players - they simply have to adopt a defensive attitude for the sake of their clubs - give West Brom Sane, Jesus and Sterling and all of a sudden they will become exciting to watch.

I don't think it's about having the best players, obviously that helps in certain situations like we're in now.
For example under Joe Royle I enjoyed watching us, despite a run of some bad games, and then Keegan came in with his attacking style, granted it was the cause of some of our heavy defeats such as 5-0 vs Arsenal and 5-1 vs Chelsea, but then we would spring a few surprises like 1-0 vs Chelsea, 4-1 vs United and 2-1 vs Liverpool... neither of them games we just sat back.

If I saw City play like I see Palace or Stoke play I think I would have lost interest by now. It's no coincidence that during the Pearce era when we were playing some of the worse football (at the time) in the last decade our average attendance dropped and people gave their season cards up.

People want some form of entertainment, if not able to be dazzled by skill then they want to see a team fight to win, not survive 10 games into a season, you're basically conceding the fact your team has very little chance of staying up early in the season, fans don't want to see their team give up like that.

 

[BlueHammer85]

I don't think it's about having the best players, obviously that helps in certain situations like we're in now.
For example under Joe Royle I enjoyed watching us, despite a run of some bad games, and then Keegan came in with his attacking style, granted it was the cause of some of our heavy defeats such as 5-0 vs Arsenal and 5-1 vs Chelsea, but then we would spring a few surprises like 1-0 vs Chelsea, 4-1 vs United and 2-1 vs Liverpool... neither of them games we just sat back.

If I saw City play like I see Palace or Stoke play I think I would have lost interest by now. It's no coincidence that during the Pearce era when we were playing some of the worse football (at the time) in the last decade our average attendance dropped and people gave their season cards up.

People want some form of entertainment, if not able to be dazzled by skill then they want to see a team fight to win, not survive 10 games into a season, you're basically conceding the fact your team has very little chance of staying up early in the season, fans don't want to see their team give up like that.

Fair points - but did Pearce have the riches you have now ?

Agree fans don’t want to see survival football, but ask a Charlton fan if they could have Curbishley back with his defensive brand of football in the ‘non entertaining’ Premiership - or what they have now

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

Fair points - but did Pearce have the riches you have now ?

Agree fans don’t want to see survival football, but ask a Charlton fan if they could have Curbishley back with his defensive brand of football in the ‘non entertaining’ Premiership - or what they have now

No Pearce didn't, but neither did Joe Royal or Keegan, in fact Keegan relied on a lot of free-bees especially after splashing the cash on Anelka and Fowler.
Season under Pearce we scored something like 11 goals at home, shocking that for a team who finished 9th the season prior.

I think with the money the Premier League pumps in now, and the funds clubs are able to pay it should be a lot more entertaining than it is currently.
Some of the games on sky/BT can be a right snooze fest, games like Swansea vs West Brom can be a right bore majority of the times.
It's the teams below the top 6 I feel sorry for because no one is going to want to watch them clubs for the sake of being bored, but even when the top 6 play eachother it'll be a snooze fest for the neutrals. I can almost 99.9% guarantee you that the Manchester Derby this season will be a shit spectacle for a neutral to watch, as a city fan or a united fan it'll probably be nerve wrecking, till the final whistle and it ends 0-0 or 1-1.

 

[Vienna_70]

Fair points - but did Pearce have the riches you have now ?

Agree fans don’t want to see survival football, but ask a Charlton fan if they could have Curbishley back with his defensive brand of football in the ‘non entertaining’ Premiership - or what they have now

The point isn’t whether Pearce had the resources that our managers since have had; it is that supporters want to be entertained, not bored to death by insipid, dully defensive football.

In Psycho's last season, we didn’t score a goal at home in the league from 1st January until Michael Johnson netted against Derby in the first game of the next campaign.

 

[FlemishDuck]

There are many arguments of value here. For myself i would add that the premier league is traditionally the most physical one and that as a result there are a lot of small faults that get whistled and for which the game is put on a small pause, this often pulls the tempo out of the game, ive seen some games in the PL where play was almost more stopped because of fouls than that actual football was been played, it can be rather frustrating atleast if the whistle is going to go every 30 seconds after 3-4 passes have been done. I'm not saying that this is the most important reason here, but it's an element imho.