We need to reward attacking football

I have just (excitedly) looked for the article but cannot find it (it is Monday afternoon in NZ). Am I missing something?

what a limited viewpoint. it's arrogance to claim that because someone doesnt live in the area, they are not supporters. care to explain what 'suppporter' means to you? the worldwide support of teams like man u and real madrid has directly contributed to them being the richest clubs in the world. foreign support is incredibly important football is a global game, and the premier league is becoming an increasingly global league.

Really? I remember Ginger Pete, the unused sub in Argentina.

Actually change that, I think Pete Anglesea might be the forwards coach, and PKR just the scrum coach.

"Jones is the guv’nor and Robinson works with the backs. Phil Keith-Roach works with the forwards. Colin knows the details." Aye, that's pretty much how it works. A big shock this week though was James Wade quitting (or getting sacked, I'm not sure which one) as academy director. He's done a fabulous job, spotting and nurturing the likes of Schofield, Cox, Jones, Hodgson, Cueto etc, and has played a huge role in Gaskell and Fearns' development, as well as various other important first team Sale players. "Colin, I see some similarities between KPM and Freud of Football. Do you?" In stance, rather than general interests. Kingplaymaker is on another blog using the same name.

Jones is the guv'nor and Robinson works with the backs. Phil Keith-Roach works with the forwards. Colin knows the details. Colin, I see some similarities between KPM and Freud of Football. Do you?

It is not logical to suggest that the EPL belongs to everyone and yet there is some average Joe EPL fan. By definition if there is such a broad supporter demographic there cannot be a generic average.

Well, such a lengthy and offensive comment deserves response, I think. Firstly, I would have to question what you think you have to gain by being so offensive. I have noticed on your Roar 'contributions' that you are openly rude to people having received no provocation whatsoever. I honestly can't imagine how a mature adult would believe that it's reasonable to act in such a manner? You have falsely accused me before, so perhaps you can clarify this 'attack' that I have launched on you? Further, you can also apologise for the previous false accusations and if you somehow persuade me that I have an agenda against you then I will apologise to you. That strikes me as reasonable. 1. Sport is about winning. You are denying that. Managers claim they are happy with a draw because they haven't lost. I'm not sure how that could be made any clearer to you? Do players take part in sport to purposefully gain a draw or to win? I doubt it's a coincidence that win bonuses exist and not draw bonuses. Obviously the points system cannot be reduced any further because it was already changed in 1981. I would have thought that went without saying. In any case, my initial response was directed toward Pippinu and not you. 'Draws are rewarded with 1/3 of a win, a draw should not be worth 1/3 of a 6-2 win. period.' What does period mean? Now you're changing the tangent of the argument and focusing upon the issue of goals. That sort of erratic logic undermines your position. 2. Because you clearly do miss the point. Re-read the sentences please. The line of argument is straightforward. 'Actually my point was that attacking football is undervalued in the sport in general' Incidentally, you claimed this was the 'point'. I challenged you to locate where you had established such a sentiment and you have failed to do so. I can only draw one conclusion from this. 3. No because it was never a point of debate. That is why I asked you to consider semantics. The point of debate is the genesis of why attacking football should be rewarded. It stuns me that you fail to see how this is the root of your article. ' “You cannot provide a legitimate reason why a points system should be changed and that is the whole crux of the matter. ” – Indeed if you had of read the piece before coming here to have a go at me you would have read this “While the game is in such a healthy state it’s hard to envisage the powers that be tinkering much with the game.” – No, I can’t see this being changed.' I'm not sure what you think you're saying here, or at least trying to say? You have said that the authorities wouldn't change the rules and I haven't challenged that. Your article claims the rules should be changed. As with the point above I am asking you why the rules need to be changed? You have failed to provide a sustained and detailed explanation as to why. Could you explain to me how such a simple and non-offensive comment is having a go at you? ' “Wenger thinks nothing of the sort unless you can find me a quote agreeing with your ‘theory’” ' Again we come back to the issue of semantics. 'I have researched the issue unlike you, your theory is based on lower table clubs who struggle regardless of the rules or points schemes while mine is a hypothesis which I concede is unlikely to ever be implemented.' What is your research? Where is your research? My theory is that lower teams - and I also quite evidently referred to the higher teams - would be even further removed from the top positions, and I offer sensible, coherent logic for why. Your response to my reasoning was a mere 'difference of opinion' when I asked you for detail. Before that you attempted to contrast my view that lower teams would score even less goals which actually contradicts your article: 'Sure the relegation battlers will still come and park the bus, but the top and mid-table teams will be more willing to have a crack if the rewards are greater.', thereby contradicting yourself. 'You think about this all from your own point of view and cannot see that there may be a few hundred others here on the Roar. Or that maybe the TV Rights holders would be more interested in attacking football, or the media, or neutral fans – That's a rather broad presumption. I ask you for accurate reasoning to support your argument. You persistently failed to take advantage of that opportunity. I ask you again, is that unfair? 'No, the Tottenham fan who is smart enough to attend a football match knowing it will be a war can only see this from his own very isolated view on the world and indeed that, after you had a go at me about pom bashing, totally ignoring what I wrote.'' How could I be simultaneously viewing the article from the narrow objective of a fan when apparently I had conceded that attacking football is the opium of the masses? Anyway, what football club I support has nothing to do with reducing your 'article'. What I do in my spare time has nothing to do with reducing 'your' article. Why you would write something like this is bizarre, not to mention insulting and ignorant. I questioned your need to write offensive remarks about England and yet again you took melodramatic offence to that. I don't think it's out of order to question a person who think's it is agreeable to indulge in publicly racist comments. 'If you want to comment on what I write, do so as it is your right but do so based on facts and respect that there are more people than you on The Roar, your opinion is not the be all and end all and I am yet to see you backup one single fact without contradicting yourself.' And I am yet to see you actually highlight a point where I have contradicted myself. If you would like I shall repeat my argument as to why your article lacks substance and is unrealistic.

"You really are a twat KO" How uncouth. Where did you learn such disgraceful anglo-saxon terminology?

"They should have held on to Chabal." That would have been impossible, Chabal was under contract until 2011, but left because his family was still based in France and he wanted to be closer to them. "If so, was Philippe Saint Andre right to say that the locals should do more to support the club?" I don't quite know what that means? Do you mean that more locals should have come out to support the side? If Phillips Saint-Andre wanted more supporters then he should have got a very talented playing better rugby. Under Jim Mallinder and the early Saint-Andre days, the atmosphere at Edgely Park was superb, but because of the dross served up in recent years, the crowd has been somewhat quiet. It was his fault we didn't get through to the quaters in last yeasr Heineken Cup, and his fault we didn't qualify for the play-offs for the last two years.

Colin N, Is Sale your team ( sorry, I ain't read all the comments...) ??? If so, was Philippe Saint Andre right to say that the locals should do more to support the club ? I still live in the NW, so perhaps I should turn up to watch them. I don't know any of the players, though. They should have held on to Chabal.

How does it work there ? Who is in charge ? Jones or Billy Whizz Robinson ? I don't understand. Presumably Robinson can't really tell the forwards what to do. How does he understand their task ?

A cold Friday night watching rugby in Stockport? Not for me, sir. No offence, Colin. It's unfortunate that Sale has been forced to play on Fridays.

I couldn't be bothered with this simplistic model anymore. Don't bother responding.

'Actually my point was that attacking football is undervalued in the sport in general' Maybe you can point out where you say this. 1. Yes there is. Sport is based on winning. The winner takes 3 points. That can't be reduced any further. 2. Obviously you miss the point. I was responding to Pippinu who suggested that the tables show little had changed. Well obviously it hadn't because the table doesn't change in line with the variables. 'The general consensus is that attacking football is better to watch (which you have also conceded)' This isn't the point, and it isn't something I have 'conceded', and this is an alleged general consensus that you haven't actually confirmed from an Australian based thread hardly reflects any form of judgement coming from the UK. You cannot provide a legitimate reason why a points system should be changed and that is the whole crux of the matter. Further, Wenger thinks nothing of the sort unless you can find me a quote agreeing with your 'theory'. Just think of the semantics for once. If what you mean is that he favours attacking football, well then good for him, but utilising the evidence of one man hardly does much to cement what is a shaky argument. I have repeatedly pointed out large and obvious flaws with an article that relies on a very simple and unstable premise, and you have no response at all and generally avoided with bland responses. Thus perhaps you should take your own advice and actually attempt to debate.

You'd think that Kingsley Jones would be the man to guide Seymour.