: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:22 am
I put "performance" but I don't think it's a sensible question, the way you've done it.
Obviously, if you say is it better for a team to play great but lose every game, or to play boring rubbish but win every game, then it is better for the club's league position and survival to win. Though I would expect, in such an unlikely extreme, that its crowds would gradually fall away - but what do I know, when tens of thousands turn out to watch Onion penaltythons?
The reality is that a team should aim to play fine, entertaining rugby with perhaps the Saints of recent years as the best example. We'd all love, and obviously prefer, our team to play breathtaking, expansive rugby and thrill us for 80 minutes with their supreme skill. However, you have to have a base on which to build. That base is usually a solid defence, and there is no doubt that a team, in a season, in a single game, and over a period of years, can perform better once the important job of winning is done.
So it is not a sensible question, because it is never an "either - or" choice.
And the answer would change depending on the circumstances, too. For example, at the moment, most fans would be happy to see the Bulls grind out wins, by any means necessary, against Catalans in the Cup, and then against Leeds. It would matter much less to me, at the moment, how well or badly we played if we achieved that.
Circumstances.
Whilst the natural outcome of sych an "either-or" poll is always going to be "result", I doubt many would argue with my analysis.
I'd also say that there is a case in the Cas match for saying either. The result was the main thing, as we lost, and we really needed a win; but then the performance was, for most of the match, really an excellent effort in many respects, and the best we've played so far. That was important too.
