|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2011 22:50:09 GMT
Its not just about tactics- its about mentality. Away from home- dont concede.Home score one and shut up shop...if a second comes up wheeyhey!
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 1, 2011 22:55:58 GMT
As I said earlier Rob, I think we might be looking back on earlier in the season with slightly rose tinted specs.
There was plenty of journos criticising us for playing long ball then - because actually, we were.
Take Ric and/or Tuncay and a winger out of that team and you'd end up with what we're seeing now.
I don't see this huge shift at all, indeed I don't think there was a big shift in the first place.
TP does what he does and will always continue to do so, with little deviation from his manual.
I bet most of the people who were criticising us before Christmas, can't even really tell the difference since the New Year, we were essentially playing long ball then and we are doing so now.
If he and Ric were cool and both JP and Matty had remained fit, then I think we would have pretty much continued in the New Year, in the same vain as we had been doing earlier in the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on Mar 1, 2011 22:57:22 GMT
Mark, dead right. It's a good job we aren't health and safety types, as we could sue the club for occasions like last night.
It wasn't only the stress/embarrassment related to our performance, yet again, but the 'Chinese Drip' of knowing that a goal for the opposition was inevitable and just hopelessly awaiting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 1, 2011 23:01:54 GMT
I thought things had changed from last season to this if I'm being honest. I thought we were dire though last season. And at the start of this I thought we played better stuff and involved the wingers more than we do now. Since December/January we've gone back to some dirgy defensive stuff. Whereas before it was long ball but it felt more considered and we were playing better stuff in the final third.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 1, 2011 23:06:26 GMT
I thought things had changed from last season to this if I'm being honest. I thought we were dire though last season. And at the start of this I thought we played better stuff and involved the wingers more than we do now. Since December/January we've gone back to some dirgy defensive stuff. Whereas before it was long ball but it felt more considered and we were playing better stuff in the final third. Isn't that because we had both Matty and JP available and Ric/Tuncay in the team? Take two from three out of that lot and it's inevitable that we're going to become more one dimensional. |
|
|
|
Post by exiledstokie on Mar 1, 2011 23:07:49 GMT
Simply put, the transfer window effectively ended our season.
We weakened our squad with the sale of Tuncay. There was no need to do this. Charlie Adam wanted to leave Blackpool, where is he now? N'Zogbia wanted to leave Wigan, where is he now?
There is only one person to blame for this. Tony Pulis.
Also anybody who believes our players cannot make simple 5 yard passes and find space is talking nonsense. The players are simply not allowed to express themselves on the pitch, which leads to the 'Pulisball'
Pulis does not have the tactical knowledge to set up an attacking team, he will never abandon the cage in the middle of the park.
Supporters are finally starting to catch on to this.
I thank Pulis for the amazing job he has done, but he is not capable of taking us to the next level which he quotes.
|
|
|
|
Post by judder on Mar 1, 2011 23:07:49 GMT
Last night was really strange for me. It was a pathetic performance of pathetic tactics but, for the first time this season, I stayed until after the final whistle just to clap someone who had put in the finest individual Stoke performance in our time in the premier league.
Everything else was embarrasing (maybe Huth did ok?) and as I was clapping I was asking myself some questions
Why; Danny Pugh?
Why; Pennant getting voted man of the match when as a winger he never puts a cross in?
Why; We never have more than five players in the opposition half at home v west brom?
Why; Cant we find a central midfield player who ever has more than two touches at any time in possesion?
On the last one I dont agree with the 'ball never in there' arguement as both Rory and Dean both picked up plenty of loose balls but all they ever do is touch then give it the nearest man, who 95% of the time is a defender and has quite often got to hoof it as they are under pressure.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 1, 2011 23:09:14 GMT
I thought things had changed from last season to this if I'm being honest. I thought we were dire though last season. And at the start of this I thought we played better stuff and involved the wingers more than we do now. Since December/January we've gone back to some dirgy defensive stuff. Whereas before it was long ball but it felt more considered and we were playing better stuff in the final third. Isn't that because we had both Matty and JP available and Ric/Tuncay in the team? Take two from three out of that lot and it's inevitable that we're going to become more one dimensional. It is but we have a few options better than sticking Delap on the right. And the attitude seems to have changed, we were going for it in TP terms, now even when 3 out of those 4 are available we aren't as adventurous and there has been a change in mentality. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2011 23:11:01 GMT
As I said earlier Rob, I think we might be looking back on earlier in the season with slightly rose tinted specs. There was plenty of journos criticising us for playing long ball then - because actually, we were. Take Ric and/or Tuncay and a winger out of that team and you'd end up with what we're seeing now. I haven't denied that we were playing long ball Paul, just that we were not exclusively playing it - thanks, as you point out, by the presence of Ric/Tuncay and both wingers. I certainly wouldn't suggest (and haven't suggested) that the football then was "good" from a neutral perspective, but it was a damn sight better than what we've churned out over the past couple of months. It was faster and more positive. Compare the Liverpool home game, or the Man City first half, with what we saw yesterday. My point is that taking out Ric/Tuncay and one of the wingers in itself has a seismic impact on the team and how we play. It essentially cripples it, going forward at least. It certainly removes a lot of variety, when what we needed was more. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 1, 2011 23:15:28 GMT
Isn't that because we had both Matty and JP available and Ric/Tuncay in the team? Take two from three out of that lot and it's inevitable that we're going to become more one dimensional. It is but we have a few options better than sticking Delap on the right. And the attitude seems to have changed, we were going for it in TP terms, now even when 3 out of those 4 are available we aren't as adventurous and there has been a change in mentality. Have both our wingers been fully fit at the same time since the New Year? TP's currently cutting of his nose to spite his face with Ric, so I'm struggling to see when these players have actually played (together), in order for you to make that assertion fella.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2011 23:21:37 GMT
It is but we have a few options better than sticking Delap on the right. And the attitude seems to have changed, we were going for it in TP terms, now even when 3 out of those 4 are available we aren't as adventurous and there has been a change in mentality. Have both our wingers been fully fit at the same time since the New Year? TP's currently cutting of his nose to spite his face with Ric, so I'm struggling to see when these players have actually played (together), in order for you to make that assertion fella. Again though Paul, was JP definitely left out of those games in January purely because he wasn't fit? TP claimed he didn't play against Bolton as a tactical measure. He then didn't play him the next week at Fulham, either. Then when we went to Anfield he dropped Ethers. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 1, 2011 23:22:42 GMT
I'm sure they have (without checking it!  ). What I meant by that is exactly what You've said, Ric isn't playing hence he's being less adventurous. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 1, 2011 23:23:25 GMT
As I said earlier Rob, I think we might be looking back on earlier in the season with slightly rose tinted specs. There was plenty of journos criticising us for playing long ball then - because actually, we were. Take Ric and/or Tuncay and a winger out of that team and you'd end up with what we're seeing now. I haven't denied that we were playing long ball Paul, just that we were not exclusively playing it - thanks, as you point out, by the presence of Ric/Tuncay and both wingers. I certainly wouldn't suggest (and haven't suggested) that the football then was "good" from a neutral perspective, but it was a damn sight better than what we've churned out over the past couple of months. It was faster and more positive. Compare the Liverpool home game, or the Man City first half, with what we saw yesterday. My point is that taking out Ric/Tuncay and one of the wingers in itself has a seismic impact on the team and how we play. It essentially cripples it, going forward at least. It certainly removes a lot of variety, when what we needed was more. To be fair Rob, that's exactly the point I've been making throughout this entire thread. I don't think the manager (and I guess I'm repeating myself now) intentionally had a moment where he thought, hey I'm going to play more route one in the second half of the season. Rather a set of circumstances have occurred that have left him with little option but to do so, as I said earlier how he's responded to those issues is open to debate but I really don't think he has intentionally set out to design (and I 'spose that's the important word) what we're seeing now. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 1, 2011 23:34:16 GMT
Have both our wingers been fully fit at the same time since the New Year? TP's currently cutting of his nose to spite his face with Ric, so I'm struggling to see when these players have actually played (together), in order for you to make that assertion fella. Again though Paul, was JP definitely left out of those games in January purely because he wasn't fit? TP claimed he didn't play against Bolton as a tactical measure. He then didn't play him the next week at Fulham, either. Then when we went to Anfield he dropped Ethers. I guess neither of us know but even if they were dropped it's hardly anything new is it? It's what TP does. Really I think you're building up (parts of) the first part of this season to too greater an extent ... in the second half of 2010, TP didn't have a sudden Road to Damascus moment about how to play footy. We played some great stuff at home last season against Fulham and were 3-0 up at half time and then nearly completely blew it in the second half. We were leading at Bolton and then attempted to consolidate, were we 2-0 up against Wolves at home at half time? The major difference about the first half of this season, for me, was that for the very first time we were playing with two proper old fashioned wingers and that allowed the 'system' to move up a gear but even then I wouldn't have expected Tony Pulis, to play the pair, in every away game. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2011 23:39:52 GMT
I haven't denied that we were playing long ball Paul, just that we were not exclusively playing it - thanks, as you point out, by the presence of Ric/Tuncay and both wingers. I certainly wouldn't suggest (and haven't suggested) that the football then was "good" from a neutral perspective, but it was a damn sight better than what we've churned out over the past couple of months. It was faster and more positive. Compare the Liverpool home game, or the Man City first half, with what we saw yesterday. My point is that taking out Ric/Tuncay and one of the wingers in itself has a seismic impact on the team and how we play. It essentially cripples it, going forward at least. It certainly removes a lot of variety, when what we needed was more. To be fair Rob, that's exactly the point I've been making throughout this entire thread. I don't think the manager (and I guess I'm repeating myself now) intentionally had a moment where he thought, hey I'm going to play more route one in the second half of the season. Rather a set of circumstances have occurred that have left him with little option but to do so, as I said earlier how he's responded to those issues is open to debate but I really don't think he has intentionally set out to design (and I 'spose that's the important word) what we're seeing now. It's within his power to change it though Paul, as you say - he's had enoug games of us underperforming to see that it isn't working, yet he's clinging to it. What's the difference? We're in far more danger playing as we are now than we were before Christmas. It's not as if all of these "circumstances" were or are beyond his control, and he surely must have had an inkling of their potential impact? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2011 23:43:29 GMT
Again though Paul, was JP definitely left out of those games in January purely because he wasn't fit? TP claimed he didn't play against Bolton as a tactical measure. He then didn't play him the next week at Fulham, either. Then when we went to Anfield he dropped Ethers. I guess neither of us know but even if they were dropped it's hardly anything new is it? It's what TP does. Really I think you're building up (parts of) the first part of this season to too greater an extent ... in the second half of 2010, TP didn't have a sudden Road to Damascus moment about how to play footy. We played some great stuff at home last season against Fulham and were 3-0 up at half time and then nearly completely blew it in the second half. We were leading at Bolton and then attempted to consolidate, were we 2-0 up against Wolves at home at half time? The major difference about the first half of this season, for me, was that for the very first time we were playing with two proper old fashioned wingers and that allowed the 'system' to move up a gear but even then I wouldn't have expected Tony Pulis, to play the pair, in every away game. Again though Paul, I haven't said we were great or that we weren't playing long ball during that period at any stage. I believe that our outlook was more positive than it currently is and that we were more inclined to "have a go" at teams, certainly. I certainly didn't suggest we weren't playing to our normal system, but within that system, there has been a signfiicant change owing, as you noted, to the personnel, and that is affecting us massively. I October/November, a set piece goal from us was still probably our most likely means of scoring, but not our only one. Now it is literally the only way a goal looks remotely likely. |
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Mar 1, 2011 23:45:14 GMT
Simply put, the transfer window effectively ended our season. We weakened our squad with the sale of Tuncay. There was no need to do this. Charlie Adam wanted to leave Blackpool, where is he now? N'Zogbia wanted to leave Wigan, where is he now? There is only one person to blame for this. Tony Pulis. Also anybody who believes our players cannot make simple 5 yard passes and find space is talking nonsense. The players are simply not allowed to express themselves on the pitch, which leads to the 'Pulisball' Pulis does not have the tactical knowledge to set up an attacking team, he will never abandon the cage in the middle of the park. Supporters are finally starting to catch on to this. I thank Pulis for the amazing job he has done, but he is not capable of taking us to the next level which he quotes. "Charlie Adam wanted to leave Blackpool, where is he now?" Pulis's fault Adam wanted to leave! I have heard it all now  Adam would have cost £10-£20M and wasn't Stoke bound was he? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 1, 2011 23:53:25 GMT
To be fair Rob, that's exactly the point I've been making throughout this entire thread. I don't think the manager (and I guess I'm repeating myself now) intentionally had a moment where he thought, hey I'm going to play more route one in the second half of the season. Rather a set of circumstances have occurred that have left him with little option but to do so, as I said earlier how he's responded to those issues is open to debate but I really don't think he has intentionally set out to design (and I 'spose that's the important word) what we're seeing now. It's within his power to change it though Paul, as you say - he's had enoug games of us underperforming to see that it isn't working, yet he's clinging to it. What's the difference? We're in far more danger playing as we are now than we were before Christmas. It's not as if all of these "circumstances" were or are beyond his control, and he surely must have had an inkling of their potential impact? I think he certainly had an inkling about Ric and the potential impact of his absence, hence why he attempted to replace him. There's not a lot he could do about injuries to the wingers, most people on here said they'd rather see Carew here than Tuncay because at least he would know what to do with Carew. What can he change at the moment? Well he can most certainly start Ricardo Fuller but just how well Carew is going to perform when being restricted to the 'hole' is anybody's guess. He can also start both of the wingers if they're fit but having said that, West Ham's midfield three completely took apart Liverpool's midfield two last week. Essentially he's hamstrung by not having a pair of central midfielders, or a pair of full backs who are of Premiership quality and when we then lose players in other key positions, it's always going to become pretty ugly to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2011 23:57:49 GMT
It's within his power to change it though Paul, as you say - he's had enoug games of us underperforming to see that it isn't working, yet he's clinging to it. What's the difference? We're in far more danger playing as we are now than we were before Christmas. It's not as if all of these "circumstances" were or are beyond his control, and he surely must have had an inkling of their potential impact? I think he certainly had an inkling about Ric and the potential impact of his absence, hence why he attempted to replace him. There's not a lot he could do about injuries to the wingers, most people on here said they'd rather see Carew here than Tuncay because at least he would know what to do with Carew. What can he change at the moment? Well he can most certainly start Ricardo Fuller but just how well Carew is going to perform when being restricted to the 'hole' is anybody's guess. He can also start both of the wingers if they're fit but having said that, West Ham's midfield three completely took apart Liverpool's midfield two last week. Essentially he's hamstrung by not having a pair of central midfielders, or a pair of full backs who are of Premiership quality and when we thenl ose players in other key positions, it's always going to become pretty ugly to watch. Again, it's not so much that it's ugly to watch that's the problem as that it's less effective. With fewer alternatives to relying entirely on set pieces, teams just have to organise themselves well, double mark the winger(s), and there you go. Fulham did this. WBA were punished for the one time they went to sleep. Sunderland would have had a fairly comfortable day had they been able to do it. What he could have done about the injuries to wingers (and again, do we know that leaving Pennant out in those games wasn't tactical?) is either kept hold of Tuncay or tried to bring in some competition for the wings, knowing that his exit was always a distinct possibility. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 2, 2011 0:08:50 GMT
I think he certainly had an inkling about Ric and the potential impact of his absence, hence why he attempted to replace him. There's not a lot he could do about injuries to the wingers, most people on here said they'd rather see Carew here than Tuncay because at least he would know what to do with Carew. What can he change at the moment? Well he can most certainly start Ricardo Fuller but just how well Carew is going to perform when being restricted to the 'hole' is anybody's guess. He can also start both of the wingers if they're fit but having said that, West Ham's midfield three completely took apart Liverpool's midfield two last week. Essentially he's hamstrung by not having a pair of central midfielders, or a pair of full backs who are of Premiership quality and when we thenl ose players in other key positions, it's always going to become pretty ugly to watch. Again, it's not so much that it's ugly to watch that's the problem as that it's less effective. With fewer alternatives to relying entirely on set pieces, teams just have to organise themselves well, double mark the winger(s), and there you go. Fulham did this. WBA were punished for the one time they went to sleep. Sunderland would have had a fairly comfortable day had they been able to do it. What he could have done about the injuries to wingers (and again, do we know that leaving Pennant out in those games wasn't tactical?) is either kept hold of Tuncay or tried to bring in some competition for the wings, knowing that his exit was always a distinct possibility. I wouldn't disagree with a word of that Rob but I don't think that essentially, any of those failings are something that's new about Tony Pulis. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2011 0:12:32 GMT
Again, it's not so much that it's ugly to watch that's the problem as that it's less effective. With fewer alternatives to relying entirely on set pieces, teams just have to organise themselves well, double mark the winger(s), and there you go. Fulham did this. WBA were punished for the one time they went to sleep. Sunderland would have had a fairly comfortable day had they been able to do it. What he could have done about the injuries to wingers (and again, do we know that leaving Pennant out in those games wasn't tactical?) is either kept hold of Tuncay or tried to bring in some competition for the wings, knowing that his exit was always a distinct possibility. I wouldn't disagree with a word of that Rob but I don't think that essentially, any of those failings are something that's new about Tony Pulis. I just think it's a noticeable step backwards from how we were playing around November/December time Paul. While I agree that TP perhaps didn't have the intention of wreaking this havoc on the team going into the new year, he surely had an inkling of what might happen, and yet he's clinging to it. Even his bold new full backs had clearly been told to hoof it last night, to the extent that we may as well have played Huth and Higgy there. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 2, 2011 0:22:12 GMT
I wouldn't disagree with a word of that Rob but I don't think that essentially, any of those failings are something that's new about Tony Pulis. I just think it's a noticeable step backwards from how we were playing around November/December time Paul. While I agree that TP perhaps didn't have the intention of wreaking this havoc on the team going into the new year, he surely had an inkling of what might happen, and yet he's clinging to it. Even his bold new full backs had clearly been told to hoof it last night, to the extent that we may as well have played Huth and Higgy there. I think if Matty had been fit last night he would have started both wingers. Hopefully he's not so stubborn, that he will continue to cling on to the Jones/Carew nonsense and if there's any good to come from last night, then hopefully we'll see Big John and Ricardo starting together, by the time the quarter final comes around. We've still got West Ham (cup), Wigan, Newcastle and Wolves to come at home, if all four of Matty, JP, Ric and Carew are fit for these games and he doesn't start all four in these matches, then quite frankly he deserves everything that's coming to him. |
|
jmw
Academy Starlet
Posts: 245
|
Post by jmw on Mar 2, 2011 0:28:01 GMT
This interview is spot on Brian Clough on the over analysis of the games, players and refs. Shut up and show the football.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 2, 2011 7:22:47 GMT
Simply put, the transfer window effectively ended our season. We weakened our squad with the sale of Tuncay. There was no need to do this. Charlie Adam wanted to leave Blackpool, where is he now? N'Zogbia wanted to leave Wigan, where is he now? There is only one person to blame for this. Tony Pulis. Also anybody who believes our players cannot make simple 5 yard passes and find space is talking nonsense. The players are simply not allowed to express themselves on the pitch, which leads to the 'Pulisball' Pulis does not have the tactical knowledge to set up an attacking team, he will never abandon the cage in the middle of the park. Supporters are finally starting to catch on to this. I thank Pulis for the amazing job he has done, but he is not capable of taking us to the next level which he quotes. "Charlie Adam wanted to leave Blackpool, where is he now?" Pulis's fault Adam wanted to leave! I have heard it all now Adam would have cost £10-£20M and wasn't Stoke bound was he? Oh dear I hope you are joking? That is not what the post is suggesting at all. H |
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Mar 2, 2011 7:37:23 GMT
You're up early, H. Have you shit the bed? ??? Can you imagine the fun we'd have if he came back in charge.   M. |
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Mar 2, 2011 8:32:31 GMT
"Charlie Adam wanted to leave Blackpool, where is he now?" Pulis's fault Adam wanted to leave! I have heard it all now Adam would have cost £10-£20M and wasn't Stoke bound was he? Oh dear I hope you are joking? That is not what the post is suggesting at all. H Personally I blame Kitson  |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 2, 2011 11:06:46 GMT
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to see TP as a victim of circumstance in all this to be honest. The pursuit of Ba and Jerome (and subsequent capture of Carew) at the expense of Fuller and no effort whatsoever to replace the flair of Tuncay tell you all you need to know about the direction he sees us going in.
There may be some rose tinted specs about our pre Christmas form but it WAS miles better than the shit we’re pumping out now. I’m afraid to say there has been a complete loss of bottle somewhere along the line which has caused him to go in to pig headed, flak jacket mode because that’s where he feels most comfortable.
He had long since abandoned the two out and out wingers before the niggles set in.
I don’t get all theological about it, winning football is what I want but we have to accept that in terms of viewing we are currently as bad as we’ve ever been in the Premier League and going back to the original sentiment of the thread, it’s pretty hard to defend the club from the football snobs and ignorant hacks right now. We’re as willfully basic as we’ve ever been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 2, 2011 11:10:39 GMT
"Charlie Adam wanted to leave Blackpool, where is he now?" Pulis's fault Adam wanted to leave! I have heard it all now Adam would have cost £10-£20M and wasn't Stoke bound was he? Oh dear I hope you are joking? That is not what the post is suggesting at all. H Although you are right RAF and prem4stoke did miss the point here, I still don't believe that exiledstokie's point is a particularly sound one. Wigan received an offer for N'Zogbia that they accepted, they would have let him go if he could have agreed terms with Brum. If Blackpool had received an acceptable offer for Adam, then they too would have let him go. Comparing Adam with Tuncay, isn't really comparing like with like. A comparison with (say) Shawcross would be far more valid. With Tuncay (a bit part player for us) an acceptable offer was received for him and he was able to agreee terms with his new club. Once a player has indicated that he wants out and both of the above criteria have been met, then invariably the move will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 2, 2011 11:13:29 GMT
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to see TP as a victim of circumstance in all this to be honest. The pursuit of Ba and Jerome (and subsequent capture of Carew) at the expense of Fuller and no effort whatsoever to replace the flair of Tuncay tell you all you need to know about the direction he sees us going in. There may be some rose tinted specs about our pre Christmas form but it WAS miles better than the shit we’re pumping out now. I’m afraid to say there has been a complete loss of bottle somewhere along the line which has caused him to go in to pig headed, flak jacket mode because that’s where he feels most comfortable. He had long since abandoned the two out and out wingers before the niggles set in. I don’t get all theological about it, winning football is what I want but we have to accept that in terms of viewing we are currently as bad as we’ve ever been in the Premier League and going back to the original sentiment of the thread, it’s pretty hard to defend the club from the football snobs and ignorant hacks right now. We’re as willfully basic as we’ve ever been. I see somebody else has worked out Momo's password  |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 2, 2011 11:15:23 GMT
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to see TP as a victim of circumstance in all this to be honest. The pursuit of Ba and Jerome (and subsequent capture of Carew) at the expense of Fuller and no effort whatsoever to replace the flair of Tuncay tell you all you need to know about the direction he sees us going in. There may be some rose tinted specs about our pre Christmas form but it WAS miles better than the shit we’re pumping out now. I’m afraid to say there has been a complete loss of bottle somewhere along the line which has caused him to go in to pig headed, flak jacket mode because that’s where he feels most comfortable. He had long since abandoned the two out and out wingers before the niggles set in. I don’t get all theological about it, winning football is what I want but we have to accept that in terms of viewing we are currently as bad as we’ve ever been in the Premier League and going back to the original sentiment of the thread, it’s pretty hard to defend the club from the football snobs and ignorant hacks right now. We’re as willfully basic as we’ve ever been. I see somebody else has worked out Momo's password I must change it from scholesisacunt |
|
).
Adam would have cost £10-£20M and wasn't Stoke bound was he? 
