Leeds is 4 points off Tottenham, Chelsea (Blues having played one more game) and Everton (one less game).
And still some people on HFBoards think attacking at all cost is a recipe for disaster.
Some people just don’t understand this:
Long term, negative football is - by nature - unsustainable and destructive to a team.
The attacking teams, even if they lose by more when they do, are better than their negative counterparts long term, because they get more repetition attacking. This is why it is wrong when Bielsa gets criticized for losing by large margins, because essentially it is a sign of why they are overperforming. Players will eventually get fed up of playing low risk defensive football, and the team will fall apart. This has happened to pragmatic managers like Mourinho everywhere they have gone. Simeone is the only defensive manager I can ever think of who has been successful for more than three years at the same club ( and is he even genuinely defensive? His teams like to play but are just very compact off the ball).
People also never acknowledge how risk encouragement is how you get players to explode way beyond their ceilings. Some examples of players exploding way past their perceived potential while playing an attack at all costs style of play are.
Ilicic under Gasperini
Fabregas under Wenger
Bamford under Bielsa
Many players reach their potential without risk-positive managers, but few ever exceed it without risk-positive managers.