|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Dec 15, 2009 12:23:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Beatties Side Boob on Dec 15, 2009 12:27:44 GMT
Beautiful
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 15, 2009 12:28:53 GMT
Cracking article - can't argue with any of it really.
|
|
|
|
Post by luke45 on Dec 15, 2009 12:29:07 GMT
Excellent read that, it's certainly no coincidence we had the most shots at goal in the Wigan game above any game this season, we didn't play well by any means over 90 minutes, but we did look a constant threat going forward with Tunny alongside Ric.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beatties Side Boob on Dec 15, 2009 12:30:50 GMT
With Fuller’s mercurial talent rendering him nigh on ungraspable, it was therefore imperative that Tuncay, on finally receiving his opportunity, should present a strong case for his long-term selection, and nobody who witnessed his display against Wigan could dispute that he passed his audition.
Love it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 12:32:08 GMT
Much appreciated guys - I know it doesn't say a lot that hasn't already been said but I have to come up with two of these bastards a week  |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 15, 2009 12:34:39 GMT
I thought the first half of Rob's article was extremely good but I'd certainly argue that Ric didn't win many balls in the air and didn't look particularly comfortable being asked to do so. I thought the remainder of the article was a gross over simplification with regard to Tuncay's inclusion in the side in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 12:38:36 GMT
I thought the first half of Rob's article was extremely good but I'd certainly argue that Ric didn't win many balls in the air and didn't look particularly comfortable being asked to do so. I thought the remainder of the article was a gross over simplification with regard to Tuncay's inclusion in the side in the future. I would disagree with your View on Fuller Paul. I was surprised at just how much he did win in the air. It's pretty much impossible to predict what's going to happen with Tuncay from here, but Saturday's performance did him a power of good and Pulis is surely faced with more of a selection problem up front than he thought he had. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 15, 2009 12:46:00 GMT
I thought the first half of Rob's article was extremely good but I'd certainly argue that Ric didn't win many balls in the air and didn't look particularly comfortable being asked to do so. I thought the remainder of the article was a gross over simplification with regard to Tuncay's inclusion in the side in the future. I would disagree with your View on Fuller Paul. I was surprised at just how much he did win in the air. It's pretty much impossible to predict what's going to happen with Tuncay from here, but Saturday's performance did him a power of good and Pulis is surely faced with more of a selection problem up front than he thought he had. Rob I thought Fuller didn't have a very good game, won very little in the air and didn't seem best pleased in being asked to do so. There's no doubt in my mind that if we really want to see the best out of the pair as a partnership then we really shouldn't be hitting the ball long and high, or at least we should be doing it a whole lot less - we didn't on Saturday. As I've been banging on about for the last 48hrs (and even longer) this would require a pretty big shift in how we approach the way we play football. I'm not at all sure that I'm ready to make such a pemanent step yet ... and indeed it was your assertion that Ric and Tuncay should now be seen as our long term front two that I'm not completely comfortable with. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 12:52:42 GMT
I would disagree with your View on Fuller Paul. I was surprised at just how much he did win in the air. It's pretty much impossible to predict what's going to happen with Tuncay from here, but Saturday's performance did him a power of good and Pulis is surely faced with more of a selection problem up front than he thought he had. Rob I thought Fuller didn't have a very good game, won very little in the air and didn't seem best pleased in being asked to do so. There's no doubt in my mind that if we really want to see the best out of the pair as a partnership then we really shouldn't be hitting the ball long and high, or at least we should be doing it a whole lot less - we didn't on Saturday. As I've been banging on about for the last 48hrs (and even longer) this would require a pretty big shift in how we approach the way we play football. I'm not at all sure that I'm ready to make such a pemanent step yet ... and indeed it was your assertion that Ric and Tuncay should now be seen as our long term front two that I'm not completely comfortable with. I agree that smashing the Pulis playbook overnight is a bad idea. I also agree that we should be using the long ball less than we did on Saturday - however, the introduction of Whelan saw us play far more savvily I thought, and while Ric didn't have his best game, I thought he still caused them some problems and that the partnership, which really SHOULDN'T work given how we play, actually functioned better than it had any right to. There were plenty of problems with our performance on Saturday, but the front two were not, in my opinion, among them. It will be interesting (assuming he sticks with the partnership, which I'm not convinced he will) to see how it performs - with Lawrence in the side - against a defence less howlingly terrible than Wigan's. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Dec 15, 2009 13:07:49 GMT
Rob I thought Fuller didn't have a very good game, won very little in the air and didn't seem best pleased in being asked to do so. There's no doubt in my mind that if we really want to see the best out of the pair as a partnership then we really shouldn't be hitting the ball long and high, or at least we should be doing it a whole lot less - we didn't on Saturday. As I've been banging on about for the last 48hrs (and even longer) this would require a pretty big shift in how we approach the way we play football. I'm not at all sure that I'm ready to make such a pemanent step yet ... and indeed it was your assertion that Ric and Tuncay should now be seen as our long term front two that I'm not completely comfortable with. I agree that smashing the Pulis playbook overnight is a bad idea. I also agree that we should be using the long ball less than we did on Saturday - however, the introduction of Whelan saw us play far more savvily I thought, and while Ric didn't have his best game, I thought he still caused them some problems and that the partnership, which really SHOULDN'T work given how we play, actually functioned better than it had any right to. There were plenty of problems with our performance on Saturday, but the front two were not, in my opinion, among them. It will be interesting (assuming he sticks with the partnership, which I'm not convinced he will) to see how it performs - with Lawrence in the side - against a defence less howlingly terrible than Wigan's. You are right about Whelan Rob, however the manager knew that Tuncay would be playing in the hole but still started with three defensive midfield players. This is the way that he plays and it can't be argued that it has served him (and us) well and regardless (it seems) of who played in the hole we still played to exactly the same game plan. I don't really see too much desire on the part of the management (and I'm not suggesting that they even should) to change the way we play and if that is going to be the case then I'd be extremely concerned with Tuncay becoming a permanent fixture in that role. It's one thing or the other for me, getting caught between two stools isn't really an option. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2009 13:14:05 GMT
I agree that smashing the Pulis playbook overnight is a bad idea. I also agree that we should be using the long ball less than we did on Saturday - however, the introduction of Whelan saw us play far more savvily I thought, and while Ric didn't have his best game, I thought he still caused them some problems and that the partnership, which really SHOULDN'T work given how we play, actually functioned better than it had any right to. There were plenty of problems with our performance on Saturday, but the front two were not, in my opinion, among them. It will be interesting (assuming he sticks with the partnership, which I'm not convinced he will) to see how it performs - with Lawrence in the side - against a defence less howlingly terrible than Wigan's. You are right about Whelan Rob, however the manager knew that Tuncay would be playing in the hole but still started with three defensive midfield players. This is the way that he plays and it can't be argued that it has served him (and us) well and regardless (it seems) of who played in the hole we still played to exactly the same game plan. I don't really see too much desire on the part of the management (and I'm not suggesting that they even should) to change the way we play and if that is going to be the case then I'd be extremely concerned with Tuncay becoming a permanent fixture in that role. It's one thing or the other for me, getting caught between two stools isn't really an option. I think Lawrence would have played on Saturday if he was fit Paul. That might have made for a view of the bigger picture as to whether it will work. As I say, it worked better than I expected it to. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 15, 2009 13:38:44 GMT
1st half we lumped it forward which with the midfield we put out (Ethers excepted)we were always going to.
Fuller & Tuncay struggled for a good 35 mins imho.
courtesy of Wigan giving our front to the ball (rather than good play by us imho,again Ethers excepted he linked up on the deck with Fuller & Tuncay well second half) our strikers caused problems second half.
Ric & Tuncay got in each others way a couple of times & Ric should have scored his chance.
we can only play Ric & Tuncay imho if we are going to play through midfield (or at least a lot more than we did saturday) &/or if we can play the ball behind defenders rather than in the air upto Ric's head.
otherwise we will need to play a target man.
|
|
|
|
Post by StoKeith on Dec 15, 2009 17:29:44 GMT
I agree with the article and think that this "front 6" is our best, particularly at home vs weak sides...
..............................Fuller.........Tunny.........................
Ethers..........Whelan........Whitehead/Delap...........Lawrence
|
|
|
|
Post by Linx on Dec 15, 2009 20:18:14 GMT
That's probably the most incisive neutral article on Stoke that I've read since we've been in the Prem.
|
|
