Should Football be Entertaining?

[Blue Walter]

In reference to last night's game where the England players strolled through the match, knowing they could win without exerting themselves. Did they have a duty to put on an entertaining display for the thousands of people who made the effort to watch them at Wembley, including millions of viewers on TV? In my opinion is that they did and I thought they failed in their obligation to put on more of a show for the viewing public. I disagreed with Southgate's view that he understood, and agreed, that the players would want to 'take it easy'. I have said before that I think coaches don't see that they are in the enterainment business. I thought it was almost contemptuous that they played in the manner they did. The Maltese team put their all into the match and thousands travelled to the game only to watch a training session.

[Pompey1984+1]

In reference to last night's game where the England players strolled through the match, knowing they could win without exerting themselves. Did they have a duty to put on an entertaining display for the thousands of people who made the effort to watch them at Wembley, including millions of viewers on TV? In my opinion is that they did and I thought they failed in their obligation to put on more of a show for the viewing public. I disagreed with Southgate's view that he understood, and agreed, that the players would want to 'take it easy'. I have said before that I think coaches don't see that they are in the enterainment business. I thought it was almost contemptuous that they played in the manner they did. The Maltese team put their all into the match and thousands travelled to the game only to watch a training session.

I understand why the players couldn't get up for the game, why would they? I also understand that football is about results more than anything these days - so why not play some players who wouldn't normally get a look in for England?

[eltorrro]

Let's be honest here..last nights starting 11 was not a 'first team' due to the opposition who England thought they could beat easily plus England wanted to rest their 'best' players for the next match on Monday. But that didn't happen because Malta played a brilliant tactical game that completely nullified England; they packed their defence and midfield, harried England so much never allowing them time on the ball (apart from letting England pass endlessly across the back!) and played superbly as a team. Yes, Malta lost but to my mind they were the far more entertaining team to watch and in the end England were forced to field their 'best' players in order to win.

Will be interesting to see how they play on Monday...better we hope!!

[NSRailings]

I don't think football has a duty to be entertaining for every game. There was nothing hanging on last night's game and we're well into the domestic season. So I wouldn't expect players to give their all unless we needed to get a result. But as 84+1 says, it might have produced a more entertaining game if fringe players were given a chance, as well as increasing Southgate's options.

There are loads of negative comments on the BBC site and it just makes me think "what did you expect?" Sure, Southgate needs to be more attack minded when it matters and the tip-tapping around the back can be really annoying and counter productive. Brighton do it too much and hopefully we've started to do it less as it gives the opposition a chance to reorganise etc.

[Blue Walter]

In reference to last night's game where the England players strolled through the match, knowing they could win without exerting themselves. Did they have a duty to put on an entertaining display for the thousands of people who made the effort to watch them at Wembley, including millions of viewers on TV? In my opinion is that they did and I thought they failed in their obligation to put on more of a show for the viewing public. I disagreed with Southgate's view that he understood, and agreed, that the players would want to 'take it easy'. I have said before that I think coaches don't see that they are in the enterainment business. I thought it was almost contemptuous that they played in the manner they did. The Maltese team put their all into the match and thousands travelled to the game only to watch a training session.

I understand why the players couldn't get up for the game, why would they? I also understand that football is about results more than anything these days - so why not play some players who wouldn't normally get a look in for England?

I agree, and that's the cause of some of my dissatisfaction with last night. We should easily be able to field a team of fringe players where the game would have meant something to them, showing the manager what they can do. I obviously understand that it is results that count in the end but going into this game the result should have been a forgone conclusion. The players may have found it difficult to raise themselves to the heights of the Italy game, for instance, but I still don't think that excuses their performance. I also think it's wrong for Southgate to make allowances for them too.

[Blue Walter]

Let's be honest here..last nights starting 11 was not a 'first team' due to the opposition who England thought they could beat easily plus England wanted to rest their 'best' players for the next match on Monday. But that didn't happen because Malta played a brilliant tactical game that completely nullified England; they packed their defence and midfield, harried England so much never allowing them time on the ball (apart from letting England pass endlessly across the back!) and played superbly as a team. Yes, Malta lost but to my mind they were the far more entertaining team to watch and in the end England were forced to field their 'best' players in order to win.

Will be interesting to see how they play on Monday...better we hope!!

I agree Malta played well and not only in defending as well, they were inches away from taking the lead in the first couple of minutes. I think the English players attitude made Malta look better than they were. No this wasn't England's 'first team' but not that far off. Kane played when he could have stood aside to give another striker a run out instead of chasing records.

I don't think it was Malta that was being too good as the problem for England. It was more like England being too poor to give Malta more of a game.

[Blue Walter]

I don't think football has a duty to be entertaining for every game. There was nothing hanging on last night's game and we're well into the domestic season. So I wouldn't expect players to give their all unless we needed to get a result. But as 84+1 says, it might have produced a more entertaining game if fringe players were given a chance, as well as increasing Southgate's options.

There are loads of negative comments on the BBC site and it just makes me think "what did you expect?" Sure, Southgate needs to be more attack minded when it matters and the tip-tapping around the back can be really annoying and counter productive. Brighton do it too much and hopefully we've started to do it less as it gives the opposition a chance to reorganise etc.

'What did we expect'? Professional players repaying the public that turned up by giving them entertainment. The entertainment comes from, obviously, winning the game, good football and excitement with goals. We won the game but I think the players treated the game, and the supporters that spent money and made the trip to Wembley, in almost contemptuous fashion. They only had to raise their game a bit and they could have blown Malta away but they chose to use it as a kick about. So, yes, I think the players had a duty to repay the paying customers with more than they got.

If you paid for a ticket to see your favourite singer and travelled to London to see them but all the done was go through voice training exercises, what would you think? Or your favourite comedian but when you got to the show they went through their mildest jokes making them completely unfunny. Would you say 'oh never mind he was probably saving himself for the next show'? No you wouldn't you would be naffed off.

I suppose I should have been happy with last night really. Yesterday was my birthday and I thought about going up to London to meet my Granddaughter and go to the match. The problem is that I left it too late really because she had a commitment that she couldn't get out of with the relatively short notice. We both dodged a bullet that I never expected.

[New Forester]

Belated happy birthday!

[Blue Walter]

Belated happy birthday!

Thanks

[GreenBlue]

France failed to break down the Gibraltar defence for 26 minutes between minute 37 and minute 63.

[GreenBlue]

Okay... they did score 14 goals in the other 64 minutes...

[BlueinPLtwenty]

Results are the major motivation, Did England lose, no. Did they give a run out to some fringe Players, yes. Did they suffer from some bizarre refereeing decisions, yes! England have drawn just one of their seven games, they have qualified. Perfection is very rarely achieved!

[pompeygunner]

I think they're entitled to one relatively poor performance. Lets think about both Italy games, both entertaining & both great wins. Me, I'll easily forget the Malta game but will remember the Italy games & the smashing of Scotland for a long long time.

[Blue Walter]

Results are the major motivation, Did England lose, no. Did they give a run out to some fringe Players, yes. Did they suffer from some bizarre refereeing decisions, yes! England have drawn just one of their seven games, they have qualified. Perfection is very rarely achieved!

Who is talking about perfection? I am well aware of what the result was and the ramifications of the previous group games. I also recognise that one or two fringe players got a run out. The question was should football be entertaining. We're those people that spent money and time travelling to watch the national team be entitled to see them give a bit back in return. You may well be happy to travel a few hours to watch your team pass the ball around at walking pace and put little effort in playing the match, but there were many people who didn't and I agree with them.

[Blue Walter]

I think they're entitled to one relatively poor performance. Lets think about both Italy games, both entertaining & both great wins. Me, I'll easily forget the Malta game but will remember the Italy games & the smashing of Scotland for a long long time.

Yes, those games will live long in the memory for the results and for the manner in which they were achieved. I agree any team can be excused for the odd bad performance but I think Friday's game was more than just a poor performance. I think it was the contemptuous way that England approached the game without any consideration for those that did actually put some effort to attend the game that were very short changed.