|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 18, 2013 14:45:58 GMT
THe L'pool game was a cracker and I will give you that - but the S'hampton game was a freak occurrence - to give a true comparison you have to apply the same factors - how many home games where we concede 3 goals against a wank team has Crouch been involved in? Freak occurrence or not, Jones played an absolutely pivotal role in it and I don't think we'd have for back in the game without him. Really? I think there were a number of factors including Jones. Jerome was the most important factor there for me and the fact we actually got men in and around Crouch. Jones flicked it on nicely and linked play well that way. Crouch held it up like he does but because of the formation he actually had support and people to pass to and people running off him. Walters bombed on and supported on one side with Jerome on the other. It was actually a system and a way of playing that helped Crouch I thought.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 18, 2013 14:47:31 GMT
The Palace game was won because of a suicidal opposition manager and not KJ. It was won because of both. Suicidal tactics still actually have to be punished. All four goals came after he'd come on. Any thoughts on why we can't score three goals with Crouchy on? God no but I didn't think we would with KJ on either until the 'keeper gifted him one and then Holloway shifted the number 15 who was winning everything. It was absolutely mental from him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 14:49:23 GMT
It was won because of both. Suicidal tactics still actually have to be punished. All four goals came after he'd come on. Any thoughts on why we can't score three goals with Crouchy on? We probably can Rob. The Palace game was 1-1 at full time. After that it came down to stamina and them having to equalise and leave themselves exposed at the back. I think you dismiss Crouch too easily. He's just off form at the moment and we've played well with him in the side. We don't look like scoring or indeed score nearly as often with him in the side though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 14:50:21 GMT
Freak occurrence or not, Jones played an absolutely pivotal role in it and I don't think we'd have for back in the game without him. Really? I think there were a number of factors including Jones. Jerome was the most important factor there for me and the fact we actually got men in and around Crouch. Jones flicked it on nicely and linked play well that way. Crouch held it up like he does but because of the formation he actually had support and people to pass to and people running off him. Walters bombed on and supported on one side with Jerome on the other. It was actually a system and a way of playing that helped Crouch I thought. A number of factors of which he was one of the biggest, yes, and was involved in all three goals.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 18, 2013 14:52:18 GMT
Really? I think there were a number of factors including Jones. Jerome was the most important factor there for me and the fact we actually got men in and around Crouch. Jones flicked it on nicely and linked play well that way. Crouch held it up like he does but because of the formation he actually had support and people to pass to and people running off him. Walters bombed on and supported on one side with Jerome on the other. It was actually a system and a way of playing that helped Crouch I thought. A number of factors of which he was one of the biggest, yes, and was involved in all three goals. I think the biggest factor was Whelan. And then the 4 front lads all put in a blinder. I'd like to see us use that more when Crouch plays because it suited him down to the ground. He is our best link up player if we use him as we should.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 14:54:40 GMT
A number of factors of which he was one of the biggest, yes, and was involved in all three goals. I think the biggest factor was Whelan. And then the 4 front lads all put in a blinder. I'd like to see us use that more when Crouch plays because it suited him down to the ground. He is our best link up player if we use him as we should. That's not going to happen though is it?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 18, 2013 14:57:37 GMT
I think the biggest factor was Whelan. And then the 4 front lads all put in a blinder. I'd like to see us use that more when Crouch plays because it suited him down to the ground. He is our best link up player if we use him as we should. That's not going to happen though is it? ;D Rob, this always your failsafe response when someone's opinion differs from yours. You two are never going to agree on the Crouch v KJ debate. IMO, I don't believe KJ has transformed our season. Looking at the bigger picture, nothing to suggests that our results are better when he starts.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 18, 2013 14:59:09 GMT
It's very simple for me. Jones is playing very well and, as we all know, he is a very good player when he's at his best. Walters is better in the hole than he is on the wing. We are not playing brilliant stuff and we've not suddenly become a much better team overnight although some of our individuals are playing well. Strangely though, our wingers continue to struggle despite the lack of Peter Crouch to fuck up their game and the inclusion of Jones who (I'm told) is the key to wingers being able to play their game. That's a bit of a cheap shot Doz. Kightly is utterly awful, way out of his depth here - Kenwyne isn't THAT good. And I think Matty's game has improved since Jones and Walters have been reunited.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 18, 2013 14:59:47 GMT
I think the biggest factor was Whelan. And then the 4 front lads all put in a blinder. I'd like to see us use that more when Crouch plays because it suited him down to the ground. He is our best link up player if we use him as we should. That's not going to happen though is it? No but it's a plan B for when KJ decides he can't be arsed again!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 18, 2013 15:03:20 GMT
That's not going to happen though is it? ;D Rob, this always your failsafe response when someone's opinion differs from yours. You two are never going to agree on the Crouch v KJ debate. IMO, I don't believe KJ has transformed our season. Looking at the bigger picture, nothing to suggests that our results are better when he starts. It's not a fail safe response though - it's a realistic one, rather than some fanciful idea of how Tony Pulis might play one day play.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 15:10:05 GMT
That's not going to happen though is it? ;D Rob, this always your failsafe response when someone's opinion differs from yours. You two are never going to agree on the Crouch v KJ debate. IMO, I don't believe KJ has transformed our season. Looking at the bigger picture, nothing to suggests that our results are better when he starts. It's true though isn't it? Or do you still think we're going to change having added Charlie Adam and Michael Owen to the list of players we've tried to shoehorn into 4-4-1-1? I believe having KJ in the team is the reason we're scoring more goals, absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 15:10:38 GMT
That's not going to happen though is it? No but it's a plan B for when KJ decides he can't be arsed again! Yep. And that works for me.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jan 18, 2013 15:15:01 GMT
It's very simple for me. Jones is playing very well and, as we all know, he is a very good player when he's at his best. Walters is better in the hole than he is on the wing. We are not playing brilliant stuff and we've not suddenly become a much better team overnight although some of our individuals are playing well. Strangely though, our wingers continue to struggle despite the lack of Peter Crouch to fuck up their game and the inclusion of Jones who (I'm told) is the key to wingers being able to play their game. That's a bit of a cheap shot Doz. Kightly is utterly awful, way out of his depth here - Kenwyne isn't THAT good. And I think Matty's game has improved since Jones and Walters have been reunited. Yeh I thought you might think that Paul. I think Ethers was getting back to something like his best form a couple of months ago but I think he keeps going back into his shell. Point is mate, and we can look for a million good reasons, our play from out wide is just as bad as when Crouch was in the side (arguably worse). You know how long and hard I've argued about our poor support play from out wide this past 18 months and I'm afraid that, for me, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if it's Crouch or Jones in the middle - it remains crap. Jones is playing very well at the moment and I give him great credit for it but my comment wasn't a "cheap shot" but a very fair comment from someone who has been regularly sneered at for being unable/unwilling to see the OBVIOUS fact (as presented to me) that the route of all poor form in the Stoke City line up is quite clearly down to the presence of Peter Crouch on the field. Yes, I'm well over-stating my case as you and several others have been doing for a very long time where the wide players are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 15:22:06 GMT
That's a bit of a cheap shot Doz. Kightly is utterly awful, way out of his depth here - Kenwyne isn't THAT good. And I think Matty's game has improved since Jones and Walters have been reunited. Yeh I thought you might think that Paul. I think Ethers was getting back to something like his best form a couple of months ago but I think he keeps going back into his shell. Point is mate, and we can look for a million good reasons, our play from out wide is just as bad as when Crouch was in the side (arguably worse). You know how long and hard I've argued about our poor support play from out wide this past 18 months and I'm afraid that, for me, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if it's Crouch or Jones in the middle - it remains crap. Jones is playing very well at the moment and I give him great credit for it but my comment wasn't a "cheap shot" but a very fair comment from someone who has been regularly sneered at for being unable/unwilling to see the OBVIOUS fact (as presented to me) that the route of all poor form in the Stoke City line up is quite clearly down to the presence of Peter Crouch on the field. Yes, I'm well over-stating my case as you and several others have been doing for a very long time where the wide players are concerned. Yet the team looks more dangerous without Crouch Doz. Struggling for goals, Kenwyne comes back, plenty of goals? What's that about do you think?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 18, 2013 15:35:26 GMT
I think as much as Jones coming back has revitalised us, TP's decision to have faith in Jerome has been key too. Before about November Jerome couldn't get a look in, now he's the super sub that we know he can be.
Again, squad rotation has been poor.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Jan 18, 2013 15:36:39 GMT
Yeh I thought you might think that Paul. I think Ethers was getting back to something like his best form a couple of months ago but I think he keeps going back into his shell. Point is mate, and we can look for a million good reasons, our play from out wide is just as bad as when Crouch was in the side (arguably worse). You know how long and hard I've argued about our poor support play from out wide this past 18 months and I'm afraid that, for me, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference if it's Crouch or Jones in the middle - it remains crap. Jones is playing very well at the moment and I give him great credit for it but my comment wasn't a "cheap shot" but a very fair comment from someone who has been regularly sneered at for being unable/unwilling to see the OBVIOUS fact (as presented to me) that the route of all poor form in the Stoke City line up is quite clearly down to the presence of Peter Crouch on the field. Yes, I'm well over-stating my case as you and several others have been doing for a very long time where the wide players are concerned. Yet the team looks more dangerous without Crouch Doz. Struggling for goals, Kenwyne comes back, plenty of goals? What's that about do you think? Rob: Jones is playing well mate and I think THAT is the difference. Our wide play hasn't markedly improved because he's on the pitch and it's that aspect of our game that I'm talking about specifically. We all know that Jones is a big asset when he's at his best. We also know that it tends not to last but I'm happy to row in with him at the moment because Crouch was looking off his game prior to his injury. I actually think Jones is playing better than I've ever seen him at Stoke and I really do give the guy credit. However, the problems out wide continue, despite all that.
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Jan 18, 2013 15:50:37 GMT
When KJ in on the pitch we can play more ball into the channels and corners which he can chase we can thenget the whole team to move further up the pitch. We've also started to win a few more corners and throw ins as KJ's pressure on defenders makes this happen.
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Jan 18, 2013 17:51:06 GMT
I'm not sure how relevant this best suited to the system debate is any more.
For me, last season Crouch made up for the things he lacks by often playing well and scoring goals. I think other players played poorly and whether that was down to Crouch's suitability is hard to say.
This season though I think Crouch has just been generally wank. Even when he was scoring earlier in the season I didn't think he was playing all that well.
His recent performances have been shocking and if Jones put in the same level of effort people would give him hell. Given this I think it's neither here nor there how suited he is at the minute.
He needs to improve asap.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 18, 2013 18:05:31 GMT
I think as much as Jones coming back has revitalised us, TP's decision to have faith in Jerome has been key too. Before about November Jerome couldn't get a look in, now he's the super sub that we know he can be. Again, squad rotation has been poor. Sorry but in what way has TP shown faith in Jerome? Hes on the bench every week despite scoring and changing games on almost every occasion. The only reason Jerome got a look in in the first instance was because Owen got injured. Jerome then scored against Newcastle meaning TP couldnt leave him out the squad. He changed the game at Wigan at the start of the season. Shortly after he was taken out the squad. TP has done many things during his time at Stoke. Showing faith in Cameron Jerome isnt one of them. Next you will be saying he showed faith in Tuncay
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 18, 2013 18:07:29 GMT
I think as much as Jones coming back has revitalised us, TP's decision to have faith in Jerome has been key too. Before about November Jerome couldn't get a look in, now he's the super sub that we know he can be. Again, squad rotation has been poor. Sorry but in what way has TP shown faith in Jerome? Hes on the bench every week despite scoring and changing games on almost every occasion. The only reason Jerome got a look in in the first instance was because Owen got injured. Jerome then scored against Newcastle meaning TP couldnt leave him out the squad. He changed the game at Wigan at the start of the season. Shortly after he was taken out the squad. TP has done many things during his time at Stoke. Showing faith in Cameron Jerome isnt one of them. Next you will be saying he showed faith in Tuncay By playing him again rossi. It's a little bit of faith and more than was shown from August to November! And he could have easily left him out, it is TP after all.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Jan 18, 2013 18:13:49 GMT
Sorry but in what way has TP shown faith in Jerome? Hes on the bench every week despite scoring and changing games on almost every occasion. The only reason Jerome got a look in in the first instance was because Owen got injured. Jerome then scored against Newcastle meaning TP couldnt leave him out the squad. He changed the game at Wigan at the start of the season. Shortly after he was taken out the squad. TP has done many things during his time at Stoke. Showing faith in Cameron Jerome isnt one of them. Next you will be saying he showed faith in Tuncay By playing him again rossi. It's a little bit of faith and more than was shown from August to November! And he could have easily left him out, it is TP after all. Well either way...i'd like him to show a lot more faith in him. Would certainly give him a start tomorrow up front with Jones, with Walters out wide. Or put him out wide with Jones and Walters up front.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jan 18, 2013 18:16:04 GMT
By playing him again rossi. It's a little bit of faith and more than was shown from August to November! And he could have easily left him out, it is TP after all. Well either way...i'd like him to show a lot more faith in him. Would certainly give him a start tomorrow up front with Jones, with Walters out wide. Or put him out wide with Jones and Walters up front. I don't trust him or Walters on the wing tbh. I wouldn't mind him starting a game up front though that isn't Man City away.
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Jan 18, 2013 18:16:32 GMT
We shouldn't sell, but extend his contract with another 2 years!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 18, 2013 18:28:00 GMT
The fact is we've been in a mini slump since the West Brom game (KJ's first start back) with one win in seven. We have also failed to score in 4 of those 7 games. Jones deserves to be in the team because he's in better form than Crouch but any perceived increase in our potency since his return is largely imagined.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 18:36:37 GMT
The fact is we've been in a mini slump since the West Brom game (KJ's first start back) with one win in seven. We have also failed to score in 4 of those 7 games. Jones deserves to be in the team because he's in better form than Crouch but any perceived increase in our potency since his return is largely imagined. Three goals. Three goals. Four goals. Why don't we manage that pretty much ever with Crouchy starting Sheiky? What's your theory?
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Jan 18, 2013 18:37:22 GMT
The fact is we've been in a mini slump since the West Brom game (KJ's first start back) with one win in seven. We have also failed to score in 4 of those 7 games. Jones deserves to be in the team because he's in better form than Crouch but any perceived increase in our potency since his return is largely imagined. I really disagree with you as I now see a Stoke team capable of create chances which we rarely did with Crouchy up front. For me KJ is our first choice up front without a shadow of a doubt!
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jan 18, 2013 18:51:04 GMT
I'm in agreement with those who suggest our wide players are not providing sufficient chances (not a new problem), that we seem to get more chances when KJ is than when Crouch is on; the difference for me is that the ball doesn't stick to Crouch but KJ is more able to hold up the ball.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jan 18, 2013 18:56:16 GMT
Looking at the equation for next season....
If sell KJ, we lose a player on form for £4-5m
We have Crouch who is out of form and is 32 this month, is not going to improve at this age, and whose sell on value must be approaching zero
So we have max £5m to replace both KJ and PC!
Is this 'the best thing for this football club'?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 18, 2013 19:07:07 GMT
The fact is we've been in a mini slump since the West Brom game (KJ's first start back) with one win in seven. We have also failed to score in 4 of those 7 games. Jones deserves to be in the team because he's in better form than Crouch but any perceived increase in our potency since his return is largely imagined. Three goals. Three goals. Four goals. Why don't we manage that pretty much ever with Crouchy starting Sheiky? What's your theory? Three goals of that final four were in extra time against a tiring championship second string Rob, after we had effectively drawn the match. Southampton are horrendous at the back, the Liverpool game however stands out like a beacon in terms of potency and if we could play even half like that most week I would be a happy man. Beyond that game though and perhaps the final half hour against Southampton, its business as usual in terms of how threatening we look. I think four blanks in seven tells its own story. Jones is in very decent form and only a fool would want him dropped or sold (his season at least) but we remain a shot shy outfit and his reintroduction hasn't done a great deal to improve that. We may look a little more threatening as we move forward but our continued general working of all opposition keepers remains a dismal spectacle. That's not Kenwyne's fault but neither has he massively improved things as much as people make out.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 19:15:13 GMT
Three goals. Three goals. Four goals. Why don't we manage that pretty much ever with Crouchy starting Sheiky? What's your theory? Three goals of that final four were in extra time against a tiring championship second string Rob, after we had effectively drawn the match. Southampton are horrendous at the back, the Liverpool game however stands out like a beacon in terms of potency and if we could play even half like that most week I would be a happy man. Beyond that game though and perhaps the final half hour against Southampton, its business as usual in terms of how threatening we look. I think four blanks in seven tells its own story. Jones is in very decent form and only a fool would want him dropped or sold (his season at least) but we remain a shot shy outfit and his reintroduction hasn't done a great deal to improve that. We may look a little more threatening as we move forward but our continued general working of all opposition keepers remains a dismal spectacle. That's not Kenwyne's fault but neither has he massively improved things as much as people make out. I can buy that the differences aren't significant and that maybe I'm imagining us looking more threatening and positive with Jones in the team. As Paul says, the way we play isn't conducive to many creating many chances. What seems fairly indisputable at this stage though is there's at least the potential to create and score more with an in-form Jones in the team than with Crouch. If you look at all the times we've put three or more past a team since promotion (ignoring the feared Parkin/Pericard combo that put the mighty Cheltenham to the sword) the vast vast majority involve the fabled 'mobility up front' in the side, be it either Ric or KJ. I'm just wondering, if the mobility thing is horseshit and it makes no difference whatsoever, why we haven't managed it as much with Crouchy?
|
|