|
Post by Do eet for Eetinneriseet on May 20, 2010 16:23:27 GMT
not in a million years not even if they threw parker in
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 20, 2010 17:52:25 GMT
Stoke are, for better or worse, a uniquely defensive team in the Premier League. We create the fewest chances in the division, and what few we do create are mainly made by Fuller, either by a bit of magic himself or by getting a corner, free-kick or throw. He is a one-man attack, with a little bit of counter-attacking help from Etherington. I still think he's, by a distance, the best player Stoke have had since the 70s Agreed, although Chambo was close for a season or so.
|
|
|
Post by waitingforwaddo on May 20, 2010 18:16:29 GMT
I'd swap him for Keane. Or Bellamy.
|
|
|
Post by boscfc on May 20, 2010 18:47:10 GMT
But Fuller is still our best player by some distance, he needs a prolific partner, I'll give you that, but I wouldn't get rid of him at any cost Thats my point - Fuller ISN'T our best player. Our defenders contribute more than he does - by keeping clean sheets and coming up with a few goals. Fuller looks great when he's got the ball but people are blinded by that. When he hasn't got the ball he's bone idle. I lost count of the number of times he got caught offside by thrwing a hissy fit when his dive didn't get him a free kick. You obviously watch the games through Fuller tinted specs. I don't. garbage
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 18:50:04 GMT
People who bang on about his lack of goals this season miss the point entirely.
|
|
|
Post by malape on May 20, 2010 19:40:08 GMT
err......no!
|
|
|
Post by griffoisalegend on May 20, 2010 19:40:57 GMT
I thought the myth of Fuller being lazy was dispelled a while ago? Obviously not. The effort he puts in, up against four defenders on his own, whilst constantly chasing hopeless balls smashed up in the corner is brilliant, especially considering what a great player he is whilst on the ball. I fear for us without Fuller, Cole instead of Fuller = No Fuller ;D I think we can replace everyone in our side, arguably even Shawcross, but not him. The goal argument is stupid, Fuller has effectively scored 95 percent of our goals this season, given that without him involved we'd probably have scored about 3 this season Fuller on a par with Whitehead is the funniest sentence i've read on here, bar none. Whenever someone starts reeling Stoke players stats off in terms of scoring goals and compares them alongside Fuller, i die a little inside.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 20, 2010 19:50:44 GMT
Fuller is a very good player (one of my favourites) and a player who would have reached much greater hights but for injuries. I wouldn't swap him for Cole and I have nothing but respect and admiration for the fella. Having said all of that, the adoration heaped upon him, and some of the ridiculous comments about no-one being good enough to replace him are so "red and white stripes tinted" as to be laughable. Pele he's not!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 19:52:21 GMT
Fuller is a very good player (one of my favourites) and a player who would have reached much greater hights but for injuries. I wouldn't swap him for Cole and I have nothing but respect and admiration for the fella. Having said all of that, the adoration heaped upon him, and some of the ridiculous comments about no-one being good enough to replace him are so "red and white stripes tinted" as to be laughable. Pele he's not! It's not about no one being good enough to replace him, it's that there possibly aren't many who fit into our style as well as he does given how rigidly we adhere to 4-4-1-1. Without him we look infinitely less like scoring.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 20, 2010 19:58:32 GMT
I agree with all of that rob. Ric is very important to us and is probably just about as good as we could possibly do within our set-up. I don't disagree at all with those who say he is vital to us at this moment. It's the over the top (for me) comments about him in the wider context that I have an issue with. FOR US and the way we play, he is an absolute star but there are much, much better strikers around than Ric and we've never had a problem 'fighting off' our competitors for his signature. I love the fella and long may he continue for us but it is very much within the very limited context of STOKE CITY that I say that.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on May 20, 2010 20:03:41 GMT
Without Ric, we're a labouring bunch of nobodies up front. It aint nice reading, but it's true. Would I swap him for CC? No!
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 20:05:48 GMT
I agree with all of that rob. Ric is very important to us and is probably just about as good as we could possibly do within our set-up. I don't disagree at all with those who say he is vital to us at this moment. It's the over the top (for me) comments about him in the wider context that I have an issue with. FOR US and the way we play, he is an absolute star but there are much, much better strikers around than Ric and we've never had a problem 'fighting off' our competitors for his signature. I love the fella and long may he continue for us but it is very much within the very limited context of STOKE CITY that I say that. But it's within said LIMITED CONTEXT that we're talking about isn't it mate
|
|
|
Post by bunnyscfc on May 20, 2010 20:09:46 GMT
I can honestkly say there are only 3or4 players in the world i would swap Ric for. I cant see many other players being able to chase an aimless ball into the channel and turn it into a corner, throw or genuine goalscoring opportunity. his pace, skill and strength are vital to our style of play and i think we will only fully appreiciate his genius when he leaves and we are faced with trying to fill the gigantic void in our attack ^^^ THIS
|
|
|
Post by bunnyscfc on May 20, 2010 20:11:44 GMT
and he's so good for us that he' not only Ricardo Fuller...
.... RF10.
Worth his own alphanumerical title easily
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 20, 2010 20:17:11 GMT
Yes, agreed rob but there will come a day (pretty soon) when we don't have Ric and what then if he is the ONLY player who can deliver what we need? That assessment is what I disagree with but I do accept his importance to us at this moment. It is unlikely that we will go out and find another Ric (though that is a possibility) and so we will have to slightly adapt our game when Ric is no longer available to us. It is only when we (hopefully) see the team play with an improved/refined approach to attacking the opposition that we MAY be able to accept that Ric wasn't our only hope for goals. I admit that he is at the moment but I desperately want that to change. I have nothing but respect for the guy but he stands out as 'outstanding' because of our one-dimentional approach to games. Great player and very important at the moment, but we have, and will, see better strikers at Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 20:19:37 GMT
Yes, agreed rob but there will come a day (pretty soon) when we don't have Ric and what then if he is the ONLY player who can deliver what we need? That assessment is what I disagree with but I do accept his importance to us at this moment. It is unlikely that we will go out and find another Ric (though that is a possibility) and so we will have to slightly adapt our game when Ric is no longer available to us. It is only when we (hopefully) see the team play with an improved/refined approach to attacking the opposition that we MAY be able to accept that Ric wasn't our only hope for goals. I admit that he is at the moment but I desperately want that to change. I have nothing but respect for the guy but he stands out as 'outstanding' because of our one-dimentional approach to games. Great player and very important at the moment, but we have, and will, see better strikers at Stoke. Not in the last 30 years we haven't. I hope you're right that we will see better strikers in the future, but let's not pretend it's going to be easy to replace him. We play, by and large, exactly the same way regardless of whether Ric is playing, so let's hope that we are prepared to adapt our style of play pretty sharpish.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 20, 2010 20:23:55 GMT
Opinions eh rob?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 20:39:17 GMT
Opinions eh rob? Which bit don't you agree with, D?
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 20, 2010 21:00:06 GMT
The last 30 years bit.
Impossible to actually compair on a level field because they played in different divisions and in completely different tactical set-ups whch actually render one-to-one comparrisons quite meaningless. All we can do is take each on his merits within the situation that he operated and you'd have to talk of Ric, Steino, Sheron and Thorne bearing in mind their totally different situations. Steino had no physical advantages since he was tiny (size 3 boots) and yet was a player who got me out of my seat whenever the ball went anywhere near him. Quick in both movement and thought, a lethal finisher and capable with both feet. When you look at the 'monsters' he came up against week-in, week-out, he was absolutely brilliant. His partnership with Bertie was one of my great footballing highlights at Stoke (and I go back to the 60s). Sherron was (for me) quite similar to Ric in that he, more often than not, had to create his own chances. I unashamedly loved Mike Sheron (In a manly way) but he probably comes a poor 4th of the four I highlighted in most peoples book. Thorne was quite simply an excellent striker in every sense of the word. He could do everything that you would expect of a striker in terms of hold up/link play but scored 20 odd goals season after season. Same comments I made about Ric (but for injuries - a real top striker).
Ric clearly wins in terms of playing in the Premier League although, in terms of goals to games in the premier League I'm not at all sure he beats Steino who is, by an absolute mile, my favourite. Ric has natural advantages that Steino just didn't and he is without doubt the most exciting, electrifying and talented striker I've seen at Stoke in recent decades.
Like I said, direct comparrisons are fairly useless and it is all pure personal opinion in the final analysis. But there you have mine.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 21:13:26 GMT
The last 30 years bit. Impossible to actually compair on a level field because they played in different divisions and in completely different tactical set-ups whch actually render one-to-one comparrisons quite meaningless. All we can do is take each on his merits within the situation that he operated and you'd have to talk of Ric, Steino, Sheron and Thorne bearing in mind their totally different situations. Steino had no physical advantages since he was tiny (size 3 boots) and yet was a player who got me out of my seat whenever the ball went anywhere near him. Quick in both movement and thought, a lethal finisher and capable with both feet. When you look at the 'monsters' he came up against week-in, week-out, he was absolutely brilliant. His partnership with Bertie was one of my great footballing highlights at Stoke (and I go back to the 60s). Sherron was (for me) quite similar to Ric in that he, more often than not, had to create his own chances. I unashamedly loved Mike Sheron (In a manly way) but he probably comes a poor 4th of the four I highlighted in most peoples book. Thorne was quite simply an excellent striker in every sense of the word. He could do everything that you would expect of a striker in terms of hold up/link play but scored 20 odd goals season after season. Same comments I made about Ric (but for injuries - a real top striker). Ric clearly wins in terms of playing in the Premier League although, in terms of goals to games in the premier League I'm not at all sure he beats Steino who is, by an absolute mile, my favourite. Ric has natural advantages that Steino just didn't and he is without doubt the most exciting, electrifying and talented striker I've seen at Stoke in recent decades. Like I said, direct comparrisons are fairly useless and it is all pure personal opinion in the final analysis. But there you have mine. I too loved Steino and Sheron. Thorney I always thought was slightly overrated. None of them for me though, could do what Ric could do, at any level, in terms of dazzling ability when it comes to running at and terrorising defenders.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 20, 2010 21:26:00 GMT
Rob, think you're dead wrong there about Steino mate. Obviously not the physical strength of Ric but "running at and terrorising defenders" was exactly what he did every week. See this is why we simply have to put it down to personal opinion because Steino got me out of my seat whenever the ball went within 10 yards of him and I think that there's nothing Ric does (apart from the physical side) that Steino didn't do and then some.
I agree that none of those I mentioned would be anywhere near as effective in today's side as Ric and, believe me rob, I fully appreciate this man's worth to us. The thing is, I also think that Ric wouldn't have displaced Steino all those years ago and I doubt that Ric would have got anywhere near Thorney's scoring exploits (even at that level). That's why it is futile to compair to be honest.
Anyway, Ric is a great player and long may he be doing what he does best for us.
|
|
|
Post by offthewall on May 20, 2010 21:29:35 GMT
Cole 15M Ric ??????
There's only one way to find out..................FIGHT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 21:49:27 GMT
Rob, think you're dead wrong there about Steino mate. Obviously not the physical strength of Ric but "running at and terrorising defenders" was exactly what he did every week. See this is why we simply have to put it down to personal opinion because Steino got me out of my seat whenever the ball went within 10 yards of him and I think that there's nothing Ric does (apart from the physical side) that Steino didn't do and then some. I agree that none of those I mentioned would be anywhere near as effective in today's side as Ric and, believe me rob, I fully appreciate this man's worth to us. The thing is, I also think that Ric wouldn't have displaced Steino all those years ago and I doubt that Ric would have got anywhere near Thorney's scoring exploits (even at that level). That's why it is futile to compair to be honest. Anyway, Ric is a great player and long may he be doing what he does best for us. I think it's mental to suggest Fuller wouldn't have got near Thorney's record at lower level given how similar their records are in the Championship (if anything I think Ric's might be slightly better at that level?) I don't remember Steino dribbling around 3-4 players at a time either.
|
|
|
Post by daveray26 nealy 27 on May 20, 2010 21:56:08 GMT
dont know, but i do know you copied my thread earlier
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on May 20, 2010 22:01:10 GMT
Strikers in the prem who I'd swap Fuller for...
Rooney Drogba Defoe Tevez
That's about it.
If I came home from work and found Ricardo shagging my wife, I'd not only fan him down while he did it, I'd let him wipe his cock on my bedroom curtains afterwards.
He's the best player i've seen at Stoke in 25 years of watching them, and anyone who slags him off based on his goalscoring record or "being idle" hasn't got the first idea about football. It's as simple as that really.
The bloke is a legend.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 20, 2010 22:02:24 GMT
rob, I'm not going to get into a never-ending argument on this because it's all personal opinion to me but, suffice to say, I 100% disagree with you on Steino. Mental I may be but I don't think Ric's scoring record in terms of games to goals is anywhere near that of Thorney but I could be proved wrong. Thorney tended to miss a quarter of the season injured every season and still reglarly topped (or neared) 20 goals a season. Someone may have the stats but I very much doubt that Ric is anywhere close to that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 22:06:20 GMT
rob, I'm not going to get into a never-ending argument on this because it's all personal opinion to me but, suffice to say, I 100% disagree with you on Steino. Mental I may be but I don't think Ric's scoring record in terms of games to goals is anywhere near that of Thorney but I could be proved wrong. Thorney tended to miss a quarter of the season injured every season and still reglarly topped (or neared) 20 goals a season. Someone may have the stats but I very much doubt that Ric is anywhere close to that. Fuller's no stranger to missing chunks of the season through injury Doz. If you look at their respective second tier records, they're pretty similar (again, I think if anything Ric edges it in terms of goals scored). I think Ric would comfortably have scored a hatful in the lower leagues, given that he comfortably got into double figures every Championship season and in the Prem in 08/09.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on May 20, 2010 22:09:07 GMT
rob, I'm not going to get into a never-ending argument on this because it's all personal opinion to me but, suffice to say, I 100% disagree with you on Steino. Mental I may be but I don't think Ric's scoring record in terms of games to goals is anywhere near that of Thorney but I could be proved wrong. Thorney tended to miss a quarter of the season injured every season and still reglarly topped (or neared) 20 goals a season. Someone may have the stats but I very much doubt that Ric is anywhere close to that. Fuller's goals-to-starts ratio is slightly superior, Doz. His record is actually surprisingly excellent - 62 in 143 starts at that level. Thorney's isn't bad either - 38 in 90
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on May 20, 2010 22:17:47 GMT
Thanks FM, knew I could rely on your vast knowledge even if it doesn't exactly reinforce my case. So pretty similar records I think we could say. I stand corrected but it does highlight that fact that we have had other strikers that equate (albeit in the lower divisions) when it comes to scoring. I fully appreciate (said many, many times) that Ric has special qualities which make him priceless to us and I'm not in the business of 'knocking' Ric by any means. When asked for personal opinions on 'better' strikers over the past 30 years though, it will come down to pure personal opinion and mine will always be Steino as an all-round footballer and striker. Incidentally FM, I'd love to know what Thorney's goals to games ratio looked like in our second division days (purely out of interest).
rob: I stand corrected mate (as usual ;D). Even I'm not stupid enough to argue with FM's stats. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 22:21:16 GMT
Thanks FM, knew I could rely on your vast knowledge even if it doesn't exactly reinforce my case. So pretty similar records I think we could say. I stand corrected but it does highlight that fact that we have had other strikers that equate (albeit in the lower divisions) when it comes to scoring. I fully appreciate (said many, many times) that Ric has special qualities which make him priceless to us and I'm not in the business of 'knocking' Ric by any means. When asked for personal opinions on 'better' strikers over the past 30 years though, it will come down to pure personal opinion and mine will always be Steino as an all-round footballer and striker. Incidentally FM, I'd love to know what Thorney's goals to games ratio looked like in our second division days (purely out of interest). Mine will always be that, as an all-round footballer, none of them comes close to Ric.
|
|