|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 16, 2013 10:02:57 GMT
I can't let last nights game pass without comment on our abomination of a formation from the moment we scored our 3rd goal last night.
3-1 up against a Championship team who had clearly thrown the towel in and Pulis, in his infinite wisdom, decided to go with a 5-4-1 formation to see the game out.
That in itself is bad enough but when you consider the personnel used to carry these instructions out it was even more ridiculous.
Tommy Deano, Shawcross, Cameron, Huth, Walters Whelan, N'zonzi, KJ, Etherington Jerome
Just what the flying fuck was all that about? It was utterly ridiculous and one of the most inexplicable things I have ever seen during my near 30 years watching Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 16, 2013 10:27:17 GMT
..we scored one more and didn't let any in so I'd say it was tactical genius.
|
|
|
Post by stokecitydom on Jan 16, 2013 10:30:39 GMT
It was absolutely hilarious.
There legs had gone & we were running riot. So Tone decides to sure it up with a mental bit of tinkering. It reminded me abit of Mike Bassett.
Etherington was confused by it all too, as was Jones.
|
|
|
Post by BigKahunaBurger on Jan 16, 2013 10:34:56 GMT
I wasn't the game so can't really comment, but what's so wrong about putting an extra man back to see out the game?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 16, 2013 10:36:36 GMT
you would MCF! After making the switch, the decision making as to who should take the throw in just inside the half way line was laughable. Cameron trotted over to take it and was ushered back into the middle so Etherington trotted over to take it and was ordered back up the pitch so Walters ran over and took it. The players hadn't got a fucking clue what the manager was asking them to do. Burger - You really don't see the problem? The tactical change meant that we had a midfielder at right back, a midfielder at centre half, a centre forward at left back, a centre forward in central midfield, a central midfielder on the right wing. Now tell me that this makes some kind of sense when we are 3-1 up with 6 or 7 minutes to go against a team from a lower league who had given up on the game and where we actually looked like we would score or fashion a chance every time we got the ball?
|
|
|
Post by stokiejack on Jan 16, 2013 10:37:41 GMT
Poor post.....he was just making sure they didn't get back into the game and to save our legs for sat. He sured it up at the back and played the counter, and it WORKED! We went on to score another goal. How can you have any problem with that?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 16, 2013 10:41:18 GMT
see above Jack.
As for saving legs, surely we would use less energy keeping the ball and creating chances than we would by chasing the ball whilst trying to shut out the game.
Sorry mate. It isn't a poor post at all and the changes made absolutely no sense at all. They were ridiculous, unnecessarily negative and the players hadn't got a fucking clue what they were supposed to be doing.
|
|
jmw
Academy Starlet
Posts: 245
|
Post by jmw on Jan 16, 2013 10:42:46 GMT
Poor post.....he was just making sure they didn't get back into the game and to save our legs for sat. He sured it up at the back and played the counter, and it WORKED! We went on to score another goal. How can you have any problem with that? Agreed and makes complete sense to not go chasing a game that we had already won, especially given the game a the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 16, 2013 10:44:29 GMT
Chasing the game?
We looked like we would score every time we got the ball at that point and you use far less energy with the ball than you do chasing it.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 16, 2013 10:45:05 GMT
tactical genius... ...and the players were in on it... ...just pissing about making out as they didn't know what they were doing to waste time. I've played that card plenty of times myself when playing.
|
|
|
Post by BrenSCFC on Jan 16, 2013 10:46:14 GMT
Please stop spelling shored, sured.. It makes me think of Mark Lawrenson and I start to feel the need to kill.
|
|
|
Post by BigKahunaBurger on Jan 16, 2013 11:00:47 GMT
you would MCF! After making the switch, the decision making as to who should take the throw in just inside the half way line was laughable. Cameron trotted over to take it and was ushered back into the middle so Etherington trotted over to take it and was ordered back up the pitch so Walters ran over and took it. The players hadn't got a fucking clue what the manager was asking them to do. Burger - You really don't see the problem? The tactical change meant that we had a midfielder at right back, a midfielder at centre half, a centre forward at left back, a centre forward in central midfield, a central midfielder on the right wing. Now tell me that this makes some kind of sense when we are 3-1 up with 6 or 7 minutes to go against a team from a lower league who had given up on the game and where we actually looked like we would score or fashion a chance every time we got the ball? I honestly don't see the problem mate, not the first time and wont be the last time thatplayers have been played of position to see out a game. Also hadn't whitehead played at right back since he came on anyway? Cameron is fairly familiar playin at centre half, and golden boy won't kick up a fuss wherever he plays.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 16, 2013 11:02:40 GMT
Whitehead played at left back until extra time started at which point we decided to bamboozle Palace by surprising them with a switch of our full-backs. Whilst such a tactic has previously failed when used against the likes of Wigan, Fulham and Arsenal away, it worked a treat on the hapless Ian Holloway!
|
|
|
Post by artvanderlay on Jan 16, 2013 11:11:22 GMT
It's a pity the tactical genius couldn't see the game out inside 90 minutes
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 16, 2013 11:35:46 GMT
Inept officials made sure the game continued rather than it being wrapped up in the 90.
|
|
|
Post by andylgr on Jan 16, 2013 11:43:38 GMT
Didn't really see anything wrong with it. The game was already clearly won, no need to go breaking our necks for the last 10 mins.
|
|
|
Post by hchpotter on Jan 16, 2013 11:59:24 GMT
Was it 5-4-1 or 3-5-2 with Duracell Walters and the relatively fresh Deano as wing backs?
Whatever it was it was certainly pretty peculiar. But it worked - as we didn't concede and went on to increase the lead.
If you can't experiment when 3-1 up at home against a lower league team with a few minutes to play when can you experiment?
Really not worth a thread unless the point of the exercise is to try and find a reason to lambast Pulis after a 4-1 victory.
|
|
jmw
Academy Starlet
Posts: 245
|
Post by jmw on Jan 16, 2013 12:06:05 GMT
Really not worth a thread unless the point of the exercise is to try and find a reason to lambast Pulis after a 4-1 victory. I would add that they are also having a pop because Pulis is doing something we have wanted to see for a few years. With the current squad he can adapt the formation a positive thing, which is then turned into a negative.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 16, 2013 12:20:53 GMT
Sorry JMW...that is an absolute crock of shit.
We lost 4-0 on Saturday and I was reasonably happy with how we played for 62 minutes.
Yesterday we won 4-1 AFTER EXTRA TIME, meaning that with our near strongest team we drew 1-1 with a Championship team that fielded only 4 regular starters in their line up.
It was toss and the only positive from the game was that we won and are in the next round. That is a fact and isn't an atttempt to undermine, bash or suggest that Pulis should be sacked.
As for experimenting, if we ever have to see that group of 11 players being used in that formation again at any point of any game then I humbly suggest that Pulis should indeed be sacked and would deserve to be so.
I'll take the positives of the win thanks but I won't be afraid to discuss the overall performance with people who are happy to do so with honesty and without blinkers of any colour or persuasion.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 16, 2013 12:41:41 GMT
Pulis Out!
What minute did you shout it this week?
;D
|
|
jmw
Academy Starlet
Posts: 245
|
Post by jmw on Jan 16, 2013 12:46:25 GMT
Sorry JMW...that is an absolute crock of shit. It was toss and the only positive from the game was that we won and are in the next round. That is a fact and isn't an atttempt to undermine, bash or suggest that Pulis should be sacked. I'll take the positives of the win thanks but I won't be afraid to discuss the overall performance with people who are happy to do so with honesty and without blinkers of any colour or persuasion. Why the abuse Dave? I did not say that you were suggesting that Pulis needs to be sacked. I know that is not your agenda. I said that you were having a pop about the change in formation. The change had no negative effect on the game and I then said it is a good thing that we can not do this in games. I am trying to talk about the game but you are putting words in my mouth and arguments that I am not making or suggesting you are making.
|
|
|
Post by andylgr on Jan 16, 2013 13:04:24 GMT
We lost 4-0 on Saturday and I was reasonably happy with how we played for 62 minutes. Yesterday we won 4-1 AFTER EXTRA TIME, meaning that with our near strongest team we drew 1-1 with a Championship team that fielded only 4 regular starters in their line up. It was toss and the only positive from the game was that we won and are in the next round. That is a fact and isn't an atttempt to undermine, bash or suggest that Pulis should be sacked. As for experimenting, if we ever have to see that group of 11 players being used in that formation again at any point of any game then I humbly suggest that Pulis should indeed be sacked and would deserve to be so. I'll take the positives of the win thanks but I won't be afraid to discuss the overall performance with people who are happy to do so with honesty and without blinkers of any colour or persuasion. In that respect yes we should be easily beating teams like Palace, but sometimes football just doesn't work out like that. We played crap and won. Saturday we played much better (I thought) and lost. I think your point about the formation only seems to be relevant if we had surrendered the lead and ended up losing or drawing. As it happened it didn't matter too much come the end of the game and ironically we went on and grabbed another. But to be fair they were fucked and we could and should of won by more.
|
|
|
Post by hchpotter on Jan 16, 2013 14:52:42 GMT
Suggesting that Pulis be sacked, and deservedly so, for fielding a formation you don't approve of is far from being humble Dave (may I humbly suggest?).
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Jan 16, 2013 17:05:09 GMT
I have to agree with you DaveJonno If it ain't broke ... break it! When folks say, 'it worked' , I think it was a less effective way of seeing out the game than leaving things as they were. Most (?) of the players didn't quite know what to do, so, why did he bother?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 16, 2013 17:07:49 GMT
It was strange. Whelan was called over to TP, TP told him the plan. Cameron chased the ball from left back to about the half line in the middle, my Brother says "where the fuck is Cameron going, he's the left back" and then he saunters seamlessly to centre half. It did seem pretty pointless.
|
|
|
Post by jonnynico on Jan 16, 2013 18:03:51 GMT
It's a pity the tactical genius couldn't see the game out inside 90 minutes He just kept waing the players back as usual with 10 or 15 mins left, let them keep coming at us and guess what they scored.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 0:14:06 GMT
Wow, this guy says its one of the most inexplicable things he's seen in thirty years.
Now talking of ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 17, 2013 14:23:38 GMT
To me this feels like having a pop at the manager just for the sake of it. We played 3 at the back with wing-backs, which is a well-established football formation ( and not necessarily a defensive one) which TP has used before ( the last time I think was at Villa Park) and will no doubt use again ( without deserving to be sacked for doing so ). I very much doubt whether the players didn't understand what to do. Whatever other criticisms may be levelled at TP, I doubt whether you can include not being clear about how he wants his team to set itself up. You can only judge any system by what actually happens on the pitch. In this case, we extended our lead from 2 goals to 3. I really don't see what the problem is.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jan 17, 2013 14:27:42 GMT
I thought it was because Etherington was knackered and was struggling to track back?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 17, 2013 15:13:47 GMT
Malcolm....let me assure you that it isn't a pop at the manager in the form of demanding he go or other silly things but it is a "WTF" exclamation on the basis that no other manager would have chosen to do what TP did on Tuesday.
The game was won, they had thrown the towel in and we looked like we would score at every opportunity. Rather than run the clock down in the way we were (keeping the ball and scoring goals) we chose to see it out by playing countless players out of position and chasing the ball...surely the more tiring option after 110 minutes of football already played?
It was clear for anyone to see that the players didn't know what they were doing or meant to be doing and it wasn't a timewasting tactic by pretending to be aware of what was being asked of them.
If you also think that even in TP's best laid plans he envisaged finishing like that, given the personnel available, and had prepared his team to do so, then I can only assume that you are a blinkered apologist who is unable to see a single thing wrong with anything that Pulis does in his infinite wisdom.
As for it being inexplicable, to me it was. I have seen some shit over the years but it was clear as day that it was shit and it was clear as to why it was shit.
For me, I would never have dreamed of seeing a midfielder at right wing back, a midfielder as sweeper in a back 5, a centre forward at left wing back, a central midfielder on the right side of a midfield 4 and a supposedly idle centre forward plying his trade in the middle of midfield.
It was that very fact, rather than using any combination of a back 5 or 3 system that you want, which prompted my claim that he should be sacked if he deliberately did it in a match and was a direct response to him being praised for experimenting.
Use those players, in that system again, and I think anyone would be perfectly entitled to ask just what the fucking hell he was playing at. We scored another goal against a team that had given up the ghost. Big deal. Had they scored, and they had a couple of half chances to play someone in, I am sure you would be equally as forgiving had we fucked up right royally.
Over to you guys! See you at Swansea for the latest installment of "away day blues".
|
|