forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The comparison is to do with the fact that "nice" football is not always successful football and sometimes "ugly" football is successful. There is no huge correlation between "prettiness" and success or cause and effect that some people like to think there is. I thought my point was pretty obvious. There's no comparison between the caution,caution,caution pass it across the back for 5 minutes mantra adopted by Walter Smith and the blooter it and charge forward asap of Wimbledon. Using your own reasoning there's no correlation between "ugly" football and winning either. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Using your own reasoning there's no correlation between "ugly" football and winning either. I never said there was. However, it's usually far easier achieve a task by using ANY means, than to achieve it in the most stylish way - or the most ugly way. I think that's pretty self evident. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.