No,you don't win games by simply playing football, but that wasn't my point. Maybe I wasn't clear. What I was trying to put across is all that we've heard this season is that the football is better and that we are passing the ball about and that because of this the perception with many is that this then in turn makes us a better side. Well, it doesn't. It's just nicer to watch.
I like us playing this style of football. It's all powder puff though. There is no cutting edge, no penetration and therefore when we have the periods of possession we don't hurt teams enough. Bottom line is that this team isn't better simply because it plays pretty pretty football.
Whereas my point, made until I'm (sky) blue in the face, is that we are getting much better results than we would playing hoof-ball. If we keep giving the ball straight to the opposition, as previous Coventry teams have, we would be conceding much more. Young players are also learning through playing this style whereas they would not be of interest to top-flight teams if we were playing Boothroyd tactics. And the players WANT to play this way, not long-ball, another indicator that performances would be WORSE, not better, if we played a different style.
My point is: short passing football DOESN'T equal bad results, and hoofball doesn't equal good results. It just seems that way as we have a crap squad-and in particular, only 2 strikers worthy of the name, one who has missed pre-season, one who is not a natural goalscorer. That is a major reason why we lack penetration. Hoofing it up to them would NOT solve that, the ball would just come back quicker. They have showed signs of gelling. To abandon the seasons work in favour of a direct game would be entirely counter-productive.