Roger Moore scores: Winning Ugly

I don't know about you, but first and foremost I want my team to win. For a start that means at least one leap of joy and the occasional hug with a random supporter during the course of a game. It makes my 130-mile round-trip worthwhile. It justifies the cost of the ticket and the wardrobe full of merchandise; not to mention the signed footballs and shirts bought in moments of madness. A win, as they say, is a win and surely that's what it's all about?

Well, apparently not, if you believe at least one caller to last Saturday's 606 on Radio Five Live. This disheartened soul from Watford bemoaned Aidy Boothroyd's long-ball tactics in search of the team's first Premiership win.

Better, our caller claimed, to win pretty in the Championship than ugly in the top division. It's an argument with some supporters in our own stands. There are those who were most unimpressed not with our victory over Stoke but the manner of it.

Well, I think they're wrong and here's why.

By far the best type of victory is that which has been achieved regularly by Arsene Wenger's Arsenal. Although sometimes guilty of overplaying in search of the ‘perfect goal', no real football fan can fail to admire the quality served up by the Frenchman's mix of proven and young talent.

Intricate one-touch passing and defence-splitting movement epitomises the armoury in Wenger's Arsenal. A focus on pace, skill and intelligence makes some of their play simply irresistible, whoever you support. I don't believe I would pay to watch any team other than Southampton play, but if I did, it would be Arsenal.

Surely then, this is the holy grail for the football purist, a team that wins with style. They used to call Chelsea the Kings of the King's Road. If they were, then Arsenal were the Highnesses of Highbury, Aristocrats of Ashburton Grove.

They also say the mark of a good team is one that can play badly and win. And some clubs have made a living out of it. Direct football of the Sheffield United variety or strong football of the Wimbledon variety, ‘ugly football' is usually the domain of the underdog, but not always.

In the days before Wenger, Arsenal won a previous double on the strength of their off-side trap. And the regency tag applied to Chelsea was not evident in Mourinho's first season, where the blues played some pretty resilient but turgid stuff.

But that old cliché is true, the record books don't record the manner of the result, just the outcome. And if, for whatever reason, winning pretty is not an option, go for winning ugly, because at least the euphoria of victory can mask its manner.

Then comes that most infuriating of performances, the beautiful loss. Crisp interplay, incisive passing, attacking threat, fluid movement, creativity – all might be on display when you play pretty and get beaten.

You can clap the players from the field, reflect on what might have been, console yourself with the chances made, but ultimately a loss is still just that. No points, no progress in a cup, nothing. Any warm glow is purely a veneer on failure.

These are the games from which we claim to take ‘positives'. They are the games littered with excuses and bad luck, but where we ought to ask, had we played a little uglier might we have won? Our last home game against Everton in the Premiership is a prime example.

You might take a positive from losing ‘well'. I can't.

By far the worst type of loss, of course, is the type which became common place under Ian Branfoot. Playing long-ball, defensive and unimaginative football, and then losing, is a sin. It gives nothing to the fan and completely misrepresents the game as ‘entertainment'.

Worse, it can't possibly take a club forward to be playing this kind of football if it's ineffective. It's hard to comprehend what any young player could learn from hoofing the ball the length of the field only to see it returned with ice.

No, we've done losing ugly and it hurts.

I couldn't give a monkey's that we played poorly and beat Stoke City. I really couldn't. And if that Watford fan had any sense, he wouldn't care how his team played if they were winning at the top level. For a football club to progress, both literally and metaphorically, it must win, regardless. Perhaps Arsene Wenger today is reaping the rewards of George Graham's ugly victories?

There is no financial gain to be had in playing pretty football in the lower leagues. And that, sadly, is the be all and ell of the modern game. Without money, success is simply an illusion. Worse, survival is in doubt without it.

That's why, if we make it to the Premiership this season, I'll be happy to watch us clog our way there, and clog our way around it, if necessary.

Because, winning is everything!