|
Post by GallysGuitar on Jan 14, 2013 12:29:19 GMT
I'm not so sure he doesn't trust Kightly. It's that he's under pressure to justify spending a relatively big fee on Adam. One thing he certainly doesn't trust, though, is Adam in the middle so Walters has no other position than on the wing.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 14, 2013 12:32:45 GMT
Pretty much agree with all of your post Dave, although I don't think Walters is being shoved out on the flank because TP has realised Kightly is rubbish. I think Walters is shoved out on the wing because TP has to play Adam somewhere (in the hole) and Walters of course is first name on the team sheet. Walters is ten times the player he is when he's played in the hole for us and Jones plays better with Walters behind him, in effect we're compromisng nearly a third of outfield postions, just to accomodate Charlie Adam into the team - it is an utterly ridiculous situation of epic proportions. We spent 18 million on Crouch and Palacios 18 months ago and now we wouldn't even get a third of that back for the pair - that is an absolutely shocking use of the Coates family money. Considering the vast sums of money TP has spent in the transfer market since the Cup Final, it beggars belief that we were so befeft of options at the weekend. Although in hindsight, it was an awful deal. Firstly Crouch has improved our image and got us some goals, so that's worth something. Secondly, I don't think it was purely Coates' money, the Premier League give us a bit of money you know ALL the teams in the Premier League receive money from the Premier League, why do you think the likes of ourselves and QPR can massively outspend the likes of Norwich and West Brom? Oh and ...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 12:33:49 GMT
I'm not so sure he doesn't trust Kightly. It's that he's under pressure to justify spending a relatively big fee on Adam. One thing he certainly doesn't trust, though, is Adam in the middle so Walters has no other position than on the wing. Poor excuse for playing Adam he spent more WP than Adam so not sure that is an issue to Pulis, and I disagree about Walters if he has to be played as a winger the other option is sitting on his arse on the bench at least he would do less damage there.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 14, 2013 12:35:24 GMT
I'm not so sure he doesn't trust Kightly. It's that he's under pressure to justify spending a relatively big fee on Adam. One thing he certainly doesn't trust, though, is Adam in the middle so Walters has no other position than on the wing. Yep that's how I see it too mate.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Jan 14, 2013 12:48:49 GMT
Pulis doesn't play people because of their price tag.
Pallasseos, Tuncay and Kitson are fine examples of that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 14, 2013 13:03:02 GMT
Pulis doesn't play people because of their price tag. Pallasseos, Tuncay and Kitson are fine examples of that. It's not necessarily the price tag specifically but the commitment he's made to signing the player. A lot of people said we were mad when some of us suggested that Robert Huth would have to make way when we signed Woodgate but that's exactly what happened. And although it was to the detriment of the team, Pulis was determined to make Woodgate work and carried on for as long as possible before he eventually had to concede defeat, the same will happen with Adam.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jan 14, 2013 13:05:56 GMT
I am in agreement with the points made by Dave after being modified by Paul. It is not an analysis based on one game, it is indicative of our main problem. We have played a very effective defensive style which has served us well, a number of teams have also started to adopt this concept in order to survive. The problem is how we move forward. To be fair to TP he is attempting to do that but with the insistence that we retain his preferred style, therefore we are constantly attempting to fit square pegs in round holes. Too many talented players have been used out of position for this not to be true. The problem is that we do need to evolve if we are to move forward, but not at the risk of survival. Given where we are (10th) now might be the time to experiment with our attacking options. To do this we would need to be solid at the back and I have difficulty seeing how this could be done without proper full backs. We would then have a great goalkeeper, four solid defenders in front and Nzonzi in midfield. This could and should be the base to build from. Personally I feel KJ gets very poor service, he can hold up the ball quite effectively but needs someone alongside him to take advantage of this. We have all those tall strong players and almost no-one (Pennant does it best) to put it in the air where they can use it.
Otherwise it does seem money wasted
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 13:08:20 GMT
Although in hindsight, it was an awful deal. Firstly Crouch has improved our image and got us some goals, so that's worth something. Secondly, I don't think it was purely Coates' money, the Premier League give us a bit of money you know ALL the teams in the Premier League receive money from the Premier League, why do you think the likes of ourselves and QPR can massively outspend the likes of Norwich and West Brom? Oh and ... Obviously some is Peter's money, but because we are now such a well run club, that sticks to wage budgets and have a few years of relative success behind us, we can afford to spend more of the money that is given to us.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmithsupper on Jan 14, 2013 13:09:51 GMT
I don't really want to moan too much about Saturday because for large parts of the game I think we played pretty well and I didn't feel anywhere near as bad leaving the game as I did when I left the Sunderland, QPR, Villa and Norwich games. However, I can't help but feel that on Saturday, quite possibly for the first time, our poor dealings in the last two transfer windows came back and bit us firmly on the arse. Those 15 minutes in the second half cloud a lot of what actually happened on Saturday because our weaknesses, many of which have been discussed to death on here, really were exposed by top quality opposition. I have read postings to the contrary but for me, both of our full-backs on Saturday were absolutely shocking, particularly during that ill-fated 15 minute spell. Cameron goes walkabout regularly, leaving Shawcross exposed doing 2 jobs. You will get that when a full-back bombs forward but my problem is that he doesn't bomb forward very well. Offensively, given that he wasted several good opportunities to create something (I counted 6 at least), he isn't good enough to warrant the problems he causes us defensively. We have got away with it against lesser sides, but against Southampton and again v Chelsea, they exposed this and got behind and down the sides of us too often. Cameron is a utility man and needs to be used as such. Wilko, for me, is a decent right back who for all his faults, rarely lets us down. At left back, he is awful. Absolutely awful and he seems to lose his defensive capabilities from that side as well. He should play at right back or not at all. He was cruelly exposed during that 15 minute spell second half. Not addressing our full-back position has cost us and it is a surprise it hasn't done so before now. Walters is absolutely shit on the wing and should only ever be played in the hole behind KJ. From a wide position, he isn't good defensively because he switches off when he has a specific man to mark. He is a liability when defending corners and I have now lost count of the number of goals he has cost us over the last 3 seasons as a result. However, he plays wide because Pulis has failed to address the problems with our wingers and the solution he has brought to the club is absolutely shit. Yes Mr Kightly, i'm looking in your direction. It takes a special kind of shit to score two own goals and miss a penalty and sadly for us, when he plays on the wing, Jon Walters is that special kind of shit. The only winger that I have seen in this league worse than Walters, is sadly, Michael Kightly. Kightly is causing us and our manager big problems by virtue of being crap. Pulis clearly doesn't think he is good enough so he shoves Walters wide which then means Pulis is duty bound to play the hapless Adam in the hole. It doesn't work and we are affecting pretty much 50% of our attacking threat because of one lousy signing. As for Adam...for me the less said about him the better. He was our glamour signing. The one supposedly set to improve our team and the way in which it plays. Let's be honest, he's crap. He is leggy, is a walking booking, his dead balls are shocking and his ability to pick a pass is seemingly non-existant. He is slow in foot and mind and he contributes very little in the position that he is being asked to play. He could and should have played Matty in for a chance on goal on Saturday. He dallied and by the time he delivered the pass, Matty was offside. (Great decision by Sian Massey AGAIN it has to be said) I appreciate that he is out of position for the most part but he doesn't even show glimpses of being a decent player. KJ is tailor made for the way we play but he doesn't do it often enough for some. I like KJ and thought that he played pretty well on Saturday for the most part. However, even I, as one of his biggest fans, can't defend the fact that in a team that creates few chances, when they do come, he misses too many of them. That early chance was a big miss and he should have scored. Sadly, Crouch isn't the answer as his replacement yet we spent vast sums of money to get him. I am not going into the why's and wherefores on Crouch...they have been done to death already! Whelan, for me, has been playing very well. On Saturday, he didn't have a good game yet we didn't have anyone to relieve him of his duties. Dean "second touch is a tackle" Whitehead is worse still and our 8m summer 2010 signing is a lost cause. Imagine if a fit and firing Palacios had been available to bring on after 50 minutes or so because Whelan was having a poor game? It could all have been so different. Finally we have the dear, departed Ricardo Fuller. We haven't replaced what he gave us both as a team and for a set of fans. Jerome is a decent impact sub, but he is no Ricardo Fuller. What we have instead is Michael Owen who is so fit and so good, that he cannot even get on our bench. In games like yesterday, not having the Ricardo Fuller options seems like pure folly. It was. He should still be here with us to raise and lift the crowd and the team when necessary. Sorry for the long rant/explanation, but for me, Saturday highlighted just how badly wrong we have got our transfer policy over the last two summers. Of all the players we have signed, only N'zonzi and possibly Cameron on the basis that he is a big upgrade on Danny Pugh, can be said to have been good signings. That is a sorry indictment given the money we have spent in the process. As I said at the start, I don't really want to moan too much because I thought we played pretty well on Saturday and I guess that I have just gone on to launch a serious moan. I am simply frustrated that our transfer dealings have resulted in our weaknesses being exposed by that classless, horrible bunch of bastards that are Chelsea FC. I agree with virtually everything you say Dave other than Wilko has never been good enough for this league and gets away with murder because he's a local lad and we want him to do well. That said at times on Saturday Hazard made him look stupid to the point where the crowd were openly laughing at him, his antics and all round lack of ability.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 13:11:40 GMT
Wilko is the best right back at the club and shouldn't be played anywhere other than right back.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 14, 2013 13:13:01 GMT
ALL the teams in the Premier League receive money from the Premier League, why do you think the likes of ourselves and QPR can massively outspend the likes of Norwich and West Brom? Oh and ... Obviously some is Peter's money, but because we are now such a well run club, that sticks to wage budgets and have a few years of relative success behind us, we can afford to spend more of the money that is given to us. That's the point though isn't it ... such well run clubs don't go blowing such vast sums of money on players that decrease in value so rapidly?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 14, 2013 13:16:39 GMT
Yet Hazard did very little until Chelsea had their golden spell JSU.
Wilko was roughing him up quite nicely and effectively, then the booking happened and Wilko seemed to fall apart.
I know you disagree, but at right back, Wilko rarely lets us down. His positional play at left back seems all to pot though and he doesn't take up the same positions, at or beyond the back post, that he does when he plays at right back.
It is quite strange to watch to be fair. I expect him to struggle tackling down his left side and distributing the ball down his left side but I would expect him to take up similar defensive positions on the other side of the pitch, but he doesn't.
He's all at sea and the upshot is that we have 2 players (Huth and Shawcross) trying to do 4 jobs and make up for both full-backs. It will work sometimes but it is impossible to sustain as we have seen in the last 2 home matches.
Wilko at right back, CAmeron at left back has to be the way forward now, at least until replacements arrive or Wilson recovers from injury.
|
|
jmw
Academy Starlet
Posts: 245
|
Post by jmw on Jan 14, 2013 13:22:23 GMT
JMW...In fairness mate, I think you have missed my point and missed it by some distance. My reaction isn't an emotional one to the weekend defeat against a very good side. It was a game that brought home to roost many of the things that have been discussed on here before. I said, quite categorically that our poor transfer dealings of the last 2 summers had bit us on the arse and I stand by that. Crouch was a signing we didn't need and is no better or more effective than the previous record signing he replaced. Upson is so good that Pulis doesn't even trust him in a cup game v Palace. Woodgate was an unmitigated disaster. Palacios has been mystifying and a shocking signing. Adam is poor. Kightly woeful. Jerome sits in between somewhat because Pulis signed him saying he could get us 15 goals, then quickly learned that he can't play from the start because he "gets lost". Our transfer dealings over the last 12 months have left us with players that don't fit the way we play (Crouch, Adam, Owen), players that actually aren't very good (Kightly, Upson, Jerome, Owen) and players that are downright mystifying (Woodgate, Owen, Palacios). All that has come at massive cost and left us as you rightly highlight, with a great spine and not a lot else besides. The spine of our team is carrying us through games and Saturday showed that perfectly. Our best players played very well (Asmir, Huth, Shawcross & N'zonzi), our decent plays did OK/pretty well in patches (KJ, Whelan, Ethers) whilst our weak players were very weak and exposed easily (Wilko, Cameron, Walters in the wide position and Adam). If you fail to see that then that is your perogative but to me it is blatantly obvious. FCA - I think your thinly disguised attempt to defend the manager miss the point as well to be honest. I am not, per se, bashing the manager here. More trying to point out that the last two summers of spending hasn't been done wisely and that we really now need to address some of our shortcomings properly. EDIT - Paul...perhaps so. Having seen how we played without Adam, I kind of hoped Pulis had seen the light on that score. With regard to your final comment...I really could not agree more. We are doing OK but we have weaknesses that are easy to spot. I can't help but feel that we have pissed away a golden opportunity, since the cup final, to really achieve something very very special as a result of poor transfer dealings since that time. Did not think you were having a pop at Pulis, but I agree with a lot of your comments but not your actual argument. We did not loose the game due to poor transfer dealings. The team has improved consistently since we got back into the premier league. Your premise does not work, we would not be in the current position as a club if we had bad transfer dealings. QPR are in their position due to bad transfer dealings, Reading and Newcastle are suffering from a lack of transfer dealings. Stoke's loss was down to playing a much better team and having some very bad luck during the match. IMO Stoke have been okay in the transfer market, not outstanding but not bad. It has been difficult because we have done a lot in a short period of time and we were coming from a weaker position than a lot of other clubs. As a fan I am pleased with our progression, I do not want to change the manager because I can remember what happened in the 1980s and I do find a lot of the comments strange. For people with very short memories Crouch came in because of Europe. Woodgate and Upson were brought in to give depth to the team and help in the progression of Huth and Shawcross. Crouch is a good striker and has been good for the club, yes he has good and bad runs like every other striker in the world. Yes we might of paid a bit over the odds for him because of our position as a club at that time. So what ... It is great to see some quality players at Stoke, we have built a good squad and we are lucky that the club wants to keep on improving. I would say we are still the building process, we have suffered from the historic lack of youth investment, infrastructure and not the best of profiles as a club. So you will probably find we have another few year of having to buy in more than we develop, frustration as we bring in players that don't quite work out. Everyone wanted us to bring in quality in midfield over the summer, we have done this and improved. We need to add to the team and I would like to see another striker come in, a new winger and a full back.
|
|
|
Post by sutekh on Jan 14, 2013 13:26:59 GMT
The sad thing is that davejohnno1 has pretty much hit the nail right on the head here. The best part of £90m spent and we are still short of quality fullbacks and pacey widemen and still the manager persists in shoehorning his favourites into various positions all to the detrement of the teams balance and shape. We reaped what we have sown on saturday.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 14, 2013 13:29:07 GMT
JMW...In fairness mate, I think you have missed my point and missed it by some distance. My reaction isn't an emotional one to the weekend defeat against a very good side. It was a game that brought home to roost many of the things that have been discussed on here before. I said, quite categorically that our poor transfer dealings of the last 2 summers had bit us on the arse and I stand by that. Crouch was a signing we didn't need and is no better or more effective than the previous record signing he replaced. Upson is so good that Pulis doesn't even trust him in a cup game v Palace. Woodgate was an unmitigated disaster. Palacios has been mystifying and a shocking signing. Adam is poor. Kightly woeful. Jerome sits in between somewhat because Pulis signed him saying he could get us 15 goals, then quickly learned that he can't play from the start because he "gets lost". Our transfer dealings over the last 12 months have left us with players that don't fit the way we play (Crouch, Adam, Owen), players that actually aren't very good (Kightly, Upson, Jerome, Owen) and players that are downright mystifying (Woodgate, Owen, Palacios). All that has come at massive cost and left us as you rightly highlight, with a great spine and not a lot else besides. The spine of our team is carrying us through games and Saturday showed that perfectly. Our best players played very well (Asmir, Huth, Shawcross & N'zonzi), our decent plays did OK/pretty well in patches (KJ, Whelan, Ethers) whilst our weak players were very weak and exposed easily (Wilko, Cameron, Walters in the wide position and Adam). If you fail to see that then that is your perogative but to me it is blatantly obvious. FCA - I think your thinly disguised attempt to defend the manager miss the point as well to be honest. I am not, per se, bashing the manager here. More trying to point out that the last two summers of spending hasn't been done wisely and that we really now need to address some of our shortcomings properly. EDIT - Paul...perhaps so. Having seen how we played without Adam, I kind of hoped Pulis had seen the light on that score. With regard to your final comment...I really could not agree more. We are doing OK but we have weaknesses that are easy to spot. I can't help but feel that we have pissed away a golden opportunity, since the cup final, to really achieve something very very special as a result of poor transfer dealings since that time. Did not think you were having a pop at Pulis, but I agree with a lot of your comments but not your actual argument. We did not loose the game due to poor transfer dealings. The team has improved consistently since we got back into the premier league. Your premise does not work, we would not be in the current position as a club if we had bad transfer dealings. QPR are in their position due to bad transfer dealings, Reading and Newcastle are suffering from a lack of transfer dealings. Stoke's loss was down to playing a much better team and having some very bad luck during the match. IMO Stoke have been okay in the transfer market, not outstanding but not bad. It has been difficult because we have done a lot in a short period of time and we were coming from a weaker position than a lot of other clubs. As a fan I am pleased with our progression, I do not want to change the manager because I can remember what happened in the 1980s and I do find a lot of the comments strange. For people with very short memories Crouch came in because of Europe. Woodgate and Upson were brought in to give depth to the team and help in the progression of Huth and Shawcross. Crouch is a good striker and has been good for the club, yes he has good and bad runs like every other striker in the world. Yes we might of paid a bit over the odds for him because of our position as a club at that time. So what ... It is great to see some quality players at Stoke, we have built a good squad and we are lucky that the club wants to keep on improving. I would say we are still the building process, we have suffered from the historic lack of youth investment, infrastructure and not the best of profiles as a club. So you will probably find we have another few year of having to buy in more than we develop, frustration as we bring in players that don't quite work out. Everyone wanted us to bring in quality in midfield over the summer, we have done this and improved. We need to add to the team and I would like to see another striker come in, a new winger and a full back. It's 'Lose' not 'Loose' for the love of Christ. H
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 14, 2013 13:31:59 GMT
I don't want the manager to change either JMW and I too witnessed the not so glorious 80's.
I agree about having to come from a lot further back than most clubs but by the time of the FA Cup Final, we had bridged that gap.
Since then, our transfer dealings haven't been good and we have spent way too much money to have some of the obvious deficiencies that we see on a weekly basis.
Fair enough if you're happy. It's your perogative. I'm happy with many aspects of our team and club but I'm also disappointed with some things as well.
The Pennant situation is stupid. Given our weakness down the right, either get him in the team or fuck him off and get a decent replacement in.
The full-back situation is stupid. 5 years in and we still haven't signed a proper full-back.
The Adam situation is stupid. He is so far removed from being a Pulis player that any bloke with a pair of eyes can see it.
Spending 18m on 2 centre forwards that can't play together is stupid.
Spending 8m on the perfect midfielder, only to find that he isn't the perfect midfielder is stupid.
Our signings since the Cup Final have been poor and the truth is that we will finish the season in a similar position, with similar points to what we did in our first season with what many would consider a much weaker squad than we have now...and certainly a much cheaper squad.
EDIT - I am also disappointed that having witnessed arguably our best performance since that Cup Final season v Liverpool, with the team set up as close to that cup final team as is possible for us now, that TP has moved away from it again to re-include Adam.
That is stupidity beyond the realm and in stating this, I do mean to criticise Pulis. The man is an infuriating idiot at times, none more so than in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 13:33:04 GMT
Wilko is the best right back at the club Sadly, you're probably right
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jan 14, 2013 13:36:06 GMT
Wilko is the best right back at the club Sadly, you're probably right Yes that is part of the problem not the solution
|
|
|
Post by passtheoatcakes on Jan 14, 2013 13:37:34 GMT
This is an excellent thread Dave and I share many of your views too.
Watching us against Crystal Palace at close quarters last week was a real eye opener, as Kightly was dire in the extreme. He looked like I would look after running around like a headless chicken for 5 minutes in a Sunday league game ie no confidence with the ball, incapable of getting past a man and totally knackered.
Adam came on and was blowing out of his rear end after about 10 minutes (ball passing him by, being caught in possession etc) and Michael who? He barely featured.
No disrespect, but those three could leave tomorrow and I would not be too concerned (other than we don't have a right winger of course).
Cameron and N'Zonzi are brilliant for me and Walters with Jones works well for us all to see.
Ethers is obviously still struggling and no way on God's earth is Wilko a left back. I love Wilko, but at best he is a second string right back full stop.
My mate summed it up this morning, there was no plan B again on Saturday. The subs came on way too late in the game. We were three down by 65 mins and it took until 78 mins before TP made a change, almost like he had given up on the game, very strange and certainly not good enough. I am not a TP basher, but he must know he has to change things quickly now and one genuine LB and TWO genuine wingers would do the trick....in my opinion.
|
|
jmw
Academy Starlet
Posts: 245
|
Post by jmw on Jan 14, 2013 13:38:20 GMT
It's 'Lose' not 'Loose' for the love of Christ. H Sorry for a typo unfortunately we are not all quiet so pedantic. But thanks for sharing your great insight and intelligence to the debate. But please enjoy your afternoon trolling.
|
|
|
Post by fentonstokie1 on Jan 14, 2013 13:39:05 GMT
Wilko is the best right back at the club and shouldn't be played anywhere other than right back. Seconded.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 14, 2013 13:45:29 GMT
It's 'Lose' not 'Loose' for the love of Christ. H Sorry for a typo unfortunately we are not all quiet so pedantic. But thanks for sharing your great insight and intelligence to the debate. But please enjoy your afternoon trolling. I wish you were quiet. H
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jan 14, 2013 13:48:04 GMT
Sorry for a typo unfortunately we are not all quiet so pedantic. But thanks for sharing your great insight and intelligence to the debate. But please enjoy your afternoon trolling. I wish you were quiet. H ;D Never look a gift horse.....
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Jan 14, 2013 13:49:16 GMT
Great stuff! And don't people use loose instead of lose ironically now? You have 5 years to make a basic team, this so called evolution. Pulis has failed to do this by not buying players for these basic positions. Basic rule is play an average player in his proper position rather than a good player out of position. Another by product of this mental man's mind is you lo ose the good player from his proper position. It's not hard is it?
|
|
jmw
Academy Starlet
Posts: 245
|
Post by jmw on Jan 14, 2013 13:52:57 GMT
This is an excellent thread Dave and I share many of your views too. Agree it is an excellent thread even though I don't agree with the premise. I do agree with a lot of what is said about the areas of the team that need improving.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 14, 2013 13:54:07 GMT
;D Never look a gift horse..... H
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jan 14, 2013 13:55:23 GMT
Yet Hazard did very little until Chelsea had their golden spell JSU. Wilko was roughing him up quite nicely and effectively, then the booking happened and Wilko seemed to fall apart. I know you disagree, but at right back, Wilko rarely lets us down. His positional play at left back seems all to pot though and he doesn't take up the same positions, at or beyond the back post, that he does when he plays at right back. It is quite strange to watch to be fair. I expect him to struggle tackling down his left side and distributing the ball down his left side but I would expect him to take up similar defensive positions on the other side of the pitch, but he doesn't. He's all at sea and the upshot is that we have 2 players (Huth and Shawcross) trying to do 4 jobs and make up for both full-backs. It will work sometimes but it is impossible to sustain as we have seen in the last 2 home matches. Wilko at right back, CAmeron at left back has to be the way forward now, at least until replacements arrive or Wilson recovers from injury. Totally agree Johnno, especially where the fullbacks are concerned. H
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Jan 14, 2013 14:16:02 GMT
I agree with plenty of what Johnno has put above that it seems superfluous to comment too much.
I would say, however, that I do share the view espoused above that Wilko is not, and never has been, Premier League standard - nor is he the best right back at the club, which is Wilson. He just about gets by at right back most weeks when he intimidates opponents physically, and gets cover from the immaculate Shawcross, but his total lack of adaptabilitiy when it comes to switching sides shows his lack of a footballing brain. Hazard made him look what he is - a journeyman lower league thug - and Pulis should have put him out of his misery well before the end.
I would also put it to you that there are few, if any, managers who have spent 22m so badly as Tony Pulis did on deadline day August 2011. The ones that have (Fergie on Veron?) could afford to do it far more given the funds at their disposal to spend.
|
|
jmw
Academy Starlet
Posts: 245
|
Post by jmw on Jan 14, 2013 14:20:13 GMT
Sorry for a typo unfortunately we are not all quiet so pedantic. But thanks for sharing your great insight and intelligence to the debate. But please enjoy your afternoon trolling. I wish you were quiet. H Yet more intelligence ... on fire today!
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jan 14, 2013 14:23:28 GMT
I agree with plenty of what Johnno has put above that it seems superfluous to comment too much. I would say, however, that I do share the view espoused above that Wilko is not, and never has been, Premier League standard - nor is he the best right back at the club, which is Wilson. He just about gets by at right back most weeks when he intimidates opponents physically, and gets cover from the immaculate Shawcross, but his total lack of adaptabilitiy when it comes to switching sides shows his lack of a footballing brain. Hazard made him look what he is - a journeyman lower league thug - and Pulis should have put him out of his misery well before the end. I would also put it to you that there are few, if any, managers who have spent 22m so badly as Tony Pulis did on deadline day August 2011. The ones that have (Fergie on Veron?) could afford to do it far more given the funds at their disposal to spend. Can't agree re. Wilko. He's steady and generally reliable. Coming up against players like Hazard he will sometimes struggle. That said he normally does a good job at right back. His weaknesses are more exposed at left back but for such a one footed player that's not surprising. I'm not sure Ashley Cole would be too reliable if forced to play right back. The fault is Pulis's but it's not for playing Wilko, it's for his failure to back up the full back positions with quality. Positions that are crucial to playing Pulisball well.
|
|