|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 20, 2012 23:38:47 GMT
Huth has started all but two games for us in the League this season (not including his suspension). So TP pretty much does always play him, just not neccesarily always in the right position. No he hasn't. He was relegated to the bench against ManU, Swansea, Fulham, Arsenal and Newcastle before Tone eventually brought him back at, erm ... left back against Bolton!
|
|
|
Post by expectedtoulouse on Apr 20, 2012 23:40:13 GMT
I've seen this suggested a few times but it doesn't add up to me. The suggestion that it was done to try and improve our ability to play football out of defence is completely blown out of the water by the fact that in order for it to happen, Huth would have to play at right back. How do you become a better footballing side from the back by playing Huth at full back? When we signed Woodgate there wasn't ANY suggestion on here that we needed to become a better footballing side from the back, rather the signing of Woody was hailed as a no brainer because he would act as cover for our centre back positions - nobody believed that Tone would split up the Ryan and Huth partnership at the time - anybody who'd have suggested it would have been laughed off the message board. Furthermore, at the time nobody knew if Woody was even going to be fit enough to make the bench more than occasionally, so I don't believe for a minute that Tone signed him as the 'solution' to our inability to play football from the back. I agree Paul.........I think Woodgate was brought in for one major purpose and that was Europe and cover for our centre halves who I suspected were to be to Shawcross and Upson IF Huth was to leave as was widely speculated. If this was the case, then why wasn't he included in the Europa League squad?
|
|
|
Post by expectedtoulouse on Apr 20, 2012 23:42:26 GMT
Huth has started all but two games for us in the League this season (not including his suspension). So TP pretty much does always play him, just not neccesarily always in the right position. No he hasn't. He was relegated to the bench against ManU, Swansea, Fulham, Arsenal and Newcastle before Tone eventually brought him back at, erm ... left back against Bolton! Did you have to bring this game up? Every time I see the words 'against Bolton' or a similar phrase, all I can think about is that absolute horror show and our complete and utter ineptitude from the goalkeeper, to the outfield players, to the management that day.
|
|
|
Post by bettyswallox on Apr 20, 2012 23:45:51 GMT
Huth has started all but two games for us in the League this season (not including his suspension). So TP pretty much does always play him, just not neccesarily always in the right position. No he hasn't. He was relegated to the bench against ManU, Swansea, Fulham, Arsenal and Newcastle before Tone eventually brought him back at, erm ... left back against Bolton! Ah yes, was looking at his minutes played per game and assumed if he played over 50 mins that he'd have started - looking back we had a few injuries early on in those games (Shawcross v Castle and Wilson at Swansea) so I think you're right. Still, hardly a third of a season like you said earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 20, 2012 23:45:53 GMT
Absolutely Joe.
Woodgate wasn't signed for cover and he wasn't signed to make us a better footballing side form the back, he was signed because TP couldn't resist signing Jonathon Woodgate - period.
The moment he could prove his fitness he was always going to be the first name on the team sheet, regardless of what the knock effect was throughout the rest of the team.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 20, 2012 23:49:02 GMT
No he hasn't. He was relegated to the bench against ManU, Swansea, Fulham, Arsenal and Newcastle before Tone eventually brought him back at, erm ... left back against Bolton! Ah yes, was looking at his minutes played per game and assumed if he played over 50 mins that he'd have started - looking back we had a few injuries early on in those games (Shawcross v Castle and Wilson at Swansea) so I think you're right. Still, hardly a third of a season like you said earlier. I said he was relegated to the bench or at best he was played at full back for the first third of the season, which is correct. Isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by expectedtoulouse on Apr 20, 2012 23:49:08 GMT
Absolutely Joe. Woodgate wasn't signed for cover and he wasn't signed to make us a better footballing side form the back, he was signed because TP couldn't resist signing Jonathon Woodgate - period. The moment he could prove his fitness he was always going to be the first name on the team sheet, regardless of what the knock effect was throughout the rest of the team. Exactly. This is the most plausible scenario that anyone has come up with so far. Pulis will have convinced himself otherwise, but deep down, this is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 21, 2012 0:58:12 GMT
Absolutely Joe. Woodgate wasn't signed for cover and he wasn't signed to make us a better footballing side form the back, he was signed because TP couldn't resist signing Jonathon Woodgate - period. The moment he could prove his fitness he was always going to be the first name on the team sheet, regardless of what the knock effect was throughout the rest of the team. But why was that, Paul? I know TP can get a bit starstruck at times, but do you not think that he may have signed him off the back of his reputation as an excellent defender who could play out from the back, regardless of the reality, and that was why he was the first name on the teamsheet despite the obvious ramifications etc? It's not like TP's 'name' signings before have waltzed in to the team when they when they haven't been good enough,- see Tuncay and Gudjohnsen.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 21, 2012 1:07:35 GMT
Absolutely Joe. Woodgate wasn't signed for cover and he wasn't signed to make us a better footballing side form the back, he was signed because TP couldn't resist signing Jonathon Woodgate - period. The moment he could prove his fitness he was always going to be the first name on the team sheet, regardless of what the knock effect was throughout the rest of the team. But why was that, Paul? I know TP can get a bit starstruck at times, but do you not think that he may have signed him off the back of his reputation as an excellent defender who could play out from the back, regardless of the reality, and that was why he was the first name on the teamsheet despite the obvious ramifications etc? It's not like TP's 'name' signings before have waltzed in to the team when they when they haven't been good enough,- see Tuncay and Gudjohnsen. Because (as I said earlier) the theory is knocked into a cocked hat when it means that Huth is moved to full back as a consequence. It's a best one foot forward, one foot back - but your defence isn't going to become any better at playing football from the back when Huth occupies one of the full back positions. If Huth had been relegated straight to the bench to accommodate Woodgate, then there might have been some mileage to the theory. But he wasn't. And if Tone really was intending on fundamentally altering the way we play, by starting to play the ball out from the back of defence - then why hang that intention on a player who might actually have turned out to be a croc?
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 21, 2012 1:42:10 GMT
But why was that, Paul? I know TP can get a bit starstruck at times, but do you not think that he may have signed him off the back of his reputation as an excellent defender who could play out from the back, regardless of the reality, and that was why he was the first name on the teamsheet despite the obvious ramifications etc? It's not like TP's 'name' signings before have waltzed in to the team when they when they haven't been good enough,- see Tuncay and Gudjohnsen. Because (as I said earlier) the theory is knocked into a cocked hat when it means that Huth is moved to full back as a consequence. It's a best one foot forward, one foot back - but your defence isn't going to become any better at playing football from the back when Huth occupies one of the full back positions. If Huth had been relegated straight to the bench to accommodate Woodgate, then there might have been some mileage to the theory. But he wasn't. And if Tone really was intending on fundamentally altering the way we play, by starting to play the ball out from the back of defence - then why hang that intention on a player who might actually have turned out to be a croc? I never said it was a flawless plan, or a well thought through one. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of him becoming available, TP deciding that he wanted a player of Woodgate's (former) calibre and then thinking, 'hey, if I get him then yeah, we could x, y and z' without thinking it through at all ajd then trying to make it stick. Like I say, when he's signed players on reputation only before and not had much idea of what to do with them, they've never gone straight into the team.
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Apr 21, 2012 1:43:56 GMT
Threads like this make me fear for humanity.
The fact that this thread has reached three pages confirms my belief that persons who are able to contribute to this medium should have a a mandatory iq test before being able to spout the tripe we are all having to digest at this moment.
Pulis bought and played Woodgate due to his undoubted pedigree, full stop.
It didn't work and he was dropped. End of.
It doesn't make him a liar, and the fact that fucking Jarhead can now have a some kind of elevated opinion on this board scares me. Please don't encourage him. Nice lad, no brains.
|
|
blanca
Spectator
I was very, very drunk
Posts: 39
|
Post by blanca on Apr 21, 2012 1:50:03 GMT
RATE! I was posting under this name in FENETRE days but have taken a decade off due to the shit on this board. Now I'm nailing my colours to the wall. I believe I will make many enemies by sayong this but I started following in 1990. I stopp read posting becau see of racism, homophobia and the boskamp/thordarson arvument. It seems that many have forgotten or haven't supported long enough to remember that argument. It ws the same. Boskamp exciting sometimes but we were shit. Thordarson defensive but we did good. The Pulis hating wankstains fall into 2 categorie in my theory- too young to appreciate where we have have cone from in the last 32 years OR bought up on Hudson and Beautiful football who sound like fucking arsenal fans.
At 14ish I went to see City play EXETER under Graham Paddon in a wank 0-0 draw and fell on love with the passion of our fans. We were without hope. We all loved Macari, who bought us success with direct football. We're StokeCity we ' ll play how we want. That makes me feel great. We are individual, there's nobody like us and I love it. I love how others hate it.
Bring it on PHWS
|
|
blanca
Spectator
I was very, very drunk
Posts: 39
|
Post by blanca on Apr 21, 2012 1:53:00 GMT
Btw sorry 4 spelling, writing this on my smartphone and very, very drunk
|
|
blanca
Spectator
I was very, very drunk
Posts: 39
|
Post by blanca on Apr 21, 2012 1:57:13 GMT
Too drunk to edit it- 22 years x
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Apr 21, 2012 2:08:14 GMT
Threads like this make me fear for humanity. The fact that this thread has reached three pages confirms my belief that persons who are able to contribute to this medium should have a a mandatory iq test before being able to spout the tripe we are all having to digest at this moment. Pulis bought and played Woodgate due to his undoubted pedigree, full stop. It didn't work and he was dropped. End of. It doesn't make him a liar, and the fact that fucking Jarhead can now have a some kind of elevated opinion on this board scares me. Please don't encourage him. Nice lad, no brains. Huth was playing right back for the first two months, spent most of October on the bench and didn't have regular starts at centre back until the middle of November though so it's a little bit cheeky of our manager to be so gushing about a player he's actually messed about quite a bit this season. And Jarhead doesn't have an elevated position. Just because we have an opinion that vaguely chimes with what he's saying doesn't mean we are encouraging him. Anything anti-Pulis and he's on it like a red rag to a bull.
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Apr 21, 2012 2:25:34 GMT
Yep.Huth was asked to play at right back for the first ten game of the season. And guess what, it didn't work, and the natural order was resumed.
The fact that Huth has enjoyed the best form of his career under Pulis cannot be ignored.
He tried a different approach and it didn't work, and as a result,Huth got his place back.
That's it as far as I'm concerned.
Jarhead jumps on anything or everybody until we experience some kind of success.
I remember last year when we reached the FA cup final and he started his heroic speech thread. What was it? 'Get behind the team, we are Stoke,etc,etc.
He's a bad bet, who in the past has been tolerated, like some kind of loud mouth at the back of the class.
Pulis deserves criticism and debate, just not with that vile, biased, shortsighted, excuse of a fan.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 21, 2012 2:29:22 GMT
Because (as I said earlier) the theory is knocked into a cocked hat when it means that Huth is moved to full back as a consequence. It's a best one foot forward, one foot back - but your defence isn't going to become any better at playing football from the back when Huth occupies one of the full back positions. If Huth had been relegated straight to the bench to accommodate Woodgate, then there might have been some mileage to the theory. But he wasn't. And if Tone really was intending on fundamentally altering the way we play, by starting to play the ball out from the back of defence - then why hang that intention on a player who might actually have turned out to be a croc? I never said it was a flawless plan, or a well thought through one. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of him becoming available, TP deciding that he wanted a player of Woodgate's (former) calibre and then thinking, 'hey, if I get him then yeah, we could x, y and z' without thinking it through at all ajd then trying to make it stick.Like I say, when he's signed players on reputation only before and not had much idea of what to do with them, they've never gone straight into the team. To be fair MD that's not really much of a rebuttal to the point(s) I was making mate.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 21, 2012 2:35:06 GMT
Yep.Huth was asked to play at right back for the first ten game of the season. And guess what, it didn't work, and the natural order was resumed. The fact that Huth has enjoyed the best form of his career under Pulis cannot be ignored. He tried a different approach and it didn't work, and as a result,Huth got his place back.That's it as far as I'm concerned.Jarhead jumps on anything or everybody until we experience some kind of success. I remember last year when we reached the FA cup final and he started his heroic speech thread. What was it? 'Get behind the team, we are Stoke,etc,etc. He's a bad bet, who in the past has been tolerated, like some kind of loud mouth at the back of the class. Pulis deserves criticism and debate, just not with that vile, biased, shortsighted, excuse of a fan. That's all very well but it didn't work the season before either, did it ... so why did we go and make exactly the same mistake all over again this season?
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Apr 21, 2012 2:42:34 GMT
Hm. It took Pulis 11 league games (6 at right/left back and 5 on the bench) before he put Huth in the middle with Shawcross. Long enough to suggest a player doesn't have anywhere near the manager's full backing. Like you say, the moment has passed. But if I was Huth I'd be wondering if the same is going to happen yet again in August and I'll be shunted out of my position when we sign a player Pulis considers to be a better option. No wonder he might be thinking of leaving. As for Jarhead, this is a democracy isn't it? What do you want, anyone with extreme views one way or the other to be banned? He provokes debate if nothing else and if you don't like what he says that much, just ignore it and move on to the next message like I do. See Jarhead, think "Pulis is shit" and read on in that context.
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Apr 21, 2012 2:53:12 GMT
Paul.
We have played some really poor stuff this season.
That's a fact.
I think most of us expected Woodgate to be a success.
It proved not to be the case.
We had a one of the best seasons in our history last season. Played well and was exciting to watch.
This season our expectations have been elevated and, we came up short.
In my opinion we made the right signings.
We paid too much for Crouch, but think , once palacious is fit, will prove to be both good signings.
Europe affected our season, and, ,from a personal point of view, was embarrassed by the losses to Newcastle and QPR after the previous mid week games.
Pulis has taken a lot of unjustified flak for the money spent during the first season, but, during that time period, it was an unknown quantity to most of us, with most of us approving of the signings he made during that period.
We can all review after the fact, that's football, but we have to take into consideration the circumstances that surrounded the decisions that were made.
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Apr 21, 2012 3:00:00 GMT
I have never asked for Jarhead to be banned. Just ignored.
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Apr 21, 2012 3:01:07 GMT
I have never asked for Jarhead to be banned. Just ignored. You brought him up.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 21, 2012 3:01:50 GMT
Paul.We have played some really poor stuff this season. That's a fact. I think most of us expected Woodgate to be a success. It proved not to be the case. We had a one of the best seasons in our history last season. Played well and was exciting to watch. This season our expectations have been elevated and, we came up short. In my opinion we made the right signings. We paid too much for Crouch, but think , once palacious is fit, will prove to be both good signings. Europe affected our season, and, ,from a personal point of view, was embarrassed by the losses to Newcastle and QPR after the previous mid week games. Pulis has taken a lot of unjustified flak for the money spent during the first season, but, during that time period, it was an unknown quantity to most of us, with most of us approving of the signings he made during that period. We can all review after the fact, that's football, [/size]but we have to take into consideration the circumstances that surrounded the decisions that were made.[/quote] Absolutely we can. That's why I always try to offer an opinion at the time fella.
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Apr 21, 2012 3:03:37 GMT
And that's why I'm having the conversation we you bud.
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Apr 21, 2012 3:07:28 GMT
I did bring him up. First time I have hit out.
Sometimes enough is enough.
I know you guys understand.
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Apr 21, 2012 3:12:27 GMT
We kick off in less than 11 hours with Ryan Shotton the right wing. I cannae wait, as the Geordies would say.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 21, 2012 3:15:26 GMT
prettything
Not all of us thought Woodgate would be a success, indeed some of us dared to suggest that Huth would be shoved out to right back to accommodate him and were ridiculed for suggesting as much, even before Woody had even signed.
I think it's absolutely inexcusable the way Huth was messed around at the beginning of this season.
Last season it didn't work with him being played at right back ... so what possible justification could there have been for doing it again this season - especially after he'd just been voted player of the season by both the supporters and by his colleagues?
Whatever spin anybody tries to put on the decision to do so, is just that ... spin - in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Apr 21, 2012 3:31:17 GMT
Absolutely Joe. Woodgate wasn't signed for cover and he wasn't signed to make us a better footballing side form the back, he was signed because TP couldn't resist signing Jonathon Woodgate - period. The moment he could prove his fitness he was always going to be the first name on the team sheet, regardless of what the knock effect was throughout the rest of the team. That's what happened, yes. Didn't Woodgate play in an away Europa qualifier early in the season - when Huth or Shawcross was injured - and do really well? At that point Pulis was asked which two of the three he was going to pick when all three were fit. He dodged the question, but it seemed to me that he didn't know what his plan was. The next game, Huth was at right-back, which seemed to be his solution of squeezing all three of them into the team. He then stubbornly tried to make that plan work for several games before finally giving up the ghost. I really think it's a lesson learnt now though, and I can't see him messing about with his best centre-back partnership again. Pratting about with Huth-Shawcross ended up with 4-0 and 5-0 hammerings to average teams. Pulis hates that and will do everything he can to avoid repeating it. Remember how we never saw Karl Henry again after the 6-0 drubbing at Forest? Pulis bought Woodgate because he could, like a woman might buy a fancy pair of shoes she doesn't really need, but happen to be on sale. Eventually, when it becomes obvious the shoes don't match any of her outfits and are uncomfortable to walk in, they end up in a pile in the closet next to Tom Soares.
|
|
|
Post by lstokie on Apr 21, 2012 3:37:17 GMT
Bore off you miserable fuck. Huth is by far the best centre back for a long time, and paired with shawcross I think they are unstoppable. But why would he sign Woodgate and Upson and then at least, not try them out ? If we had conceded more goals than usual there would be the same boring cunts posting threads asking why he didn't drop Huth/Shawcross to try out Upson or Woodgate. Can not win
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Apr 21, 2012 3:46:05 GMT
'inexcusable' really?
He tried something and it didn't work.
Pulis has tried many things, and most have paid off.
Give the guy a break.
|
|