|
Post by biganddaft on Jan 20, 2013 19:05:33 GMT
Given that 82 of the 92 league clubs would love to be where we are why would e sack the manager? So many on here have said that Southampton are ridiculous to sack Adkins and the whole football would think the same if we sacked the manager who has lead us to our highest position in a generation. Of the 9 clubs above us did any of us realistically expect us to be above Man City, Man United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, or Everton at this stage of the season? I think we are 2 places away from our highest realistic position. We are above Newcastle, Sunderland and Villa, all of whom are bigger clubs than Stoke. Pulis was unfairly derided for not completing the Ba transfer. Newcastle took the gamble and where are they in the league? Sunderland sent a fair few bob on Johnson and Fletcher. Villa spent on Bent. QPR can pay Remy £80'000 a week. And still we're above them. Excellent job Tone keep it going! WE WANT OUR TEAM TO TRY AND WIN A FUCKIN GAME OF FOOTBALL, AND AT THE SAME TIME PERHAPS PASS THE ROUND THING TO THE FEET OF A TEAM MATE. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
|
|
|
Post by lostinafrenchbar on Jan 20, 2013 19:27:30 GMT
Pulis isn't leaving, we all know he's not leaving, so the question doesn't matter. If I ever get the impression there's a cat's chance in hell of him and Coates parting company, I'll start to wonder if it'd be a good idea or not. Till then I'm not wasting what brain cells I haven't burnt out on pointless questions. It's bad enough remembering who won the FA cup in 1964 while not being able to add up the shopping list.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 19:28:19 GMT
He hasn't stuck to his principles and he has been influenced by the outside world. That's the problem! Ever since we got into this league we have been slated by the press for our style of football and in every transfer window Pulis has signed footballers who don't fit our style - by and large! Had he stuck to his principles and signed the players that fit his system none of us would be having this discussion! Your second paragraph is a contradiction to your argument. I would say that Pulis continuing to pursue a style of football that has been "slated by the press" for the last 5 years is ignoring the outside world and is evidence of sticking to his strategy. People seem to forget where Richard Cresswell played for the majority of his time at Stoke, on the wing. He has played people out of position long before our Premier League days. Surely the argument is fans are tired of watching his tried and tested style of play? My answer to that is to not be swayed by short term performance. Everyone who has said "yes" to the OP's question should try this: cast your mind back to Boxing Day, the feeling you had walking away from the ground after the win over Liverpool. You log on to the computer and your presented with the same question. What would your answer be? Mine would still have been a resounding YES. I had had enough of Pulisball last season to be honest and wanted rid last summer. Games like the Liverpool one are extremely few and far between these days. I have had enough of championship standard players,no decent fullbacks,negative away tactics,4 or 5 players played out of position every game,my team not being able to keep the ball for more than 4 passes,a team with no pace or flair,watching every away side have the majority of the ball,hardly scoring any goals...... I could go on but I'm sure even you get my message by now
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 19:29:55 GMT
He hasn't stuck to his principles and he has been influenced by the outside world. That's the problem! Ever since we got into this league we have been slated by the press for our style of football and in every transfer window Pulis has signed footballers who don't fit our style - by and large! Had he stuck to his principles and signed the players that fit his system none of us would be having this discussion! Your second paragraph is a contradiction to your argument. I would say that Pulis continuing to pursue a style of football that has been "slated by the press" for the last 5 years is ignoring the outside world and is evidence of sticking to his strategy. People seem to forget where Richard Cresswell played for the majority of his time at Stoke, on the wing. He has played people out of position long before our Premier League days. Surely the argument is fans are tired of watching his tried and tested style of play? My answer to that is to not be swayed by short term performance. Everyone who has said "yes" to the OP's question should try this: cast your mind back to Boxing Day, the feeling you had walking away from the ground after the win over Liverpool. You log on to the computer and your presented with the same question. What would your answer be? It isn't a contradiction at all. All I'm saying is that Pulis has done nothing but try to re-write his manual from day one of being in this league. After the signing of Kitson he stated it was to make his system "more rounded". Every season we've seen one or two "footballers" arrive and they haven't fitted in. Tuncay, Gudjohnsen, Adam, Crouch, Owen, Palacios. Yes the system has stayed the same but my argument is why has he gone for those players to try and round a system rather than a better standard of 'functional grinder' to fit and ultimately improve the system? Cresswell out of position kind of proves the point doesn't it? After all, he scored goals out wide. Let's counter act that with Charlie Adam out of position, or Tuncay on the wing in a wide midfield role, or Owen in midfield? Cresswell didn't stick out as much in the system as those three do/did. The reason is simple. Cresswell was asked to get up and down the line. He could do it. Tuncay couldn't, for example. Tuncay couldn't play the withdrawn role in this system because he wasn't hard working enough for long enough and he wasn't good enough in the air. As I've said on another thread, Steven N'Zonzi is the end of argument for me, that proves you don't need to try and rip up your manual or knacker it up to improve your team. Just buy better of the same type of player. Had he done that for the last four years we would be a much better side than we are now and we really wouldn't be here now debating this topic. The Liverpool game was great because we had 11 players who fitted the system, which proves the point i'm making. Just take Walters and Jones out of that and spend the money you did on Tuncay, Kitson, Owen (wages), Crouch and Adam on two identikit replacements with better quality (akin to replacing Whitehead with N'Zonzi for example) and you're cooking on gas.
|
|
|
Post by mrrburgundy on Jan 20, 2013 19:39:48 GMT
Your second paragraph is a contradiction to your argument. I would say that Pulis continuing to pursue a style of football that has been "slated by the press" for the last 5 years is ignoring the outside world and is evidence of sticking to his strategy. People seem to forget where Richard Cresswell played for the majority of his time at Stoke, on the wing. He has played people out of position long before our Premier League days. Surely the argument is fans are tired of watching his tried and tested style of play? My answer to that is to not be swayed by short term performance. Everyone who has said "yes" to the OP's question should try this: cast your mind back to Boxing Day, the feeling you had walking away from the ground after the win over Liverpool. You log on to the computer and your presented with the same question. What would your answer be? Mine would still have been a resounding YES. I had had enough of Pulisball last season to be honest and wanted rid last summer. Games like the Liverpool one are extremely few and far between these days. I have had enough of championship standard players,no decent fullbacks,negative away tactics,4 or 5 players played out of position every game,my team not being able to keep the ball for more than 4 passes,a team with no pace or flair,watching every away side have the majority of the ball,hardly scoring any goals...... I could go on but I'm sure even you get my message by now Fair enough Sid, I respect that view! I'm no great lover of Pulis' style but I'm as happy as I've ever been as Stoke fan looking back on what the club has achieved in the last 5/6 years. I'm cautious of pessimism in the bad times as much as I am of overconfidence in the good. But you pay as much as me to watch Stoke so I can't get annoyed with your view on Pulis. We're all on the same side after all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 19:54:44 GMT
Mine would still have been a resounding YES. I had had enough of Pulisball last season to be honest and wanted rid last summer. Games like the Liverpool one are extremely few and far between these days. I have had enough of championship standard players,no decent fullbacks,negative away tactics,4 or 5 players played out of position every game,my team not being able to keep the ball for more than 4 passes,a team with no pace or flair,watching every away side have the majority of the ball,hardly scoring any goals...... I could go on but I'm sure even you get my message by now Fair enough Sid, I respect that view! I'm no great lover of Pulis' style but I'm as happy as I've ever been as Stoke fan looking back on what the club has achieved in the last 5/6 years. I'm cautious of pessimism in the bad times as much as I am of overconfidence in the good. But you pay as much as me to watch Stoke so I can't get annoyed with your view on Pulis. We're all on the same side after all. I can see people's point about change,and to be honest when I think about it,it is a worry that the stability of the club could be put in jeopardy. I've just got to the point now where I'm more than willing to take that risk.
|
|
|
Post by hchpotter on Jan 20, 2013 20:00:12 GMT
Big and Daft. First of all find your Caps Lock.
Secondly, we've lost one home league game in almost a year and, given that we're 10th, we are obviously winning more games at the highest level than we have done since the mid seventies.
I'm sorry but for Stoke fans this is just about as good as it gets. If you want to support a team that wins more games consistently, then Man United, Man City, Chelsea and pretty Arsenal are perhaps more deserving of your hard earned cash and loyalty.
|
|
|
Post by The Stubborn Optimist on Jan 20, 2013 20:12:56 GMT
Having read every post on this thread it is evident that the overwhelming reason people want to stick with Pulis is because they feel relegation will come quickly if he leaves. I can't understand how so many people are crippled by this ridiculous fear. Those like the poster above who says no other manager could take Pulis's team without jeopardising our premiership survival are wrong. We have plenty good enough players now to play a more expansive system effectively and all it needs is the best players to play in the positions to which they are best suited. But just suppose for a minute this was true, Pulis is then guilty of building a flimsy and precarious structure with the millions that he has been given that is totally and utterly reliant on him and would collapse the moment he is dispensed with. Is that the sort of manager we should idolise? Thanks to Peter Coates we have a club that would be very attractive for a top manager ,maybe a manager we have never even heard of? BM You've hit the nail on the head, unfortunately. I fear the whole lot would come down like a pack of cards as the new manager tried to rebuild the squad to fit his philosophy. Out of the current 25 man squad possibly Bego, Ryan, Huth, and Nzonzi would sleep easily knowing their place was safe, the rest would be on the phone to their agents instructing them to start looking for another club. None of the ones surplus to requirements would command big fees so there would have to be a fair wedge spent in rebuilding the squad. Unless the new bloke hit the ground running or was given time by notoriously impatient fans he'd soon find himself under pressure. A lot of Stoke fans now consider us to be a well established Premier side and think we should be pushing on to ever greater success, anything less than the Champions League won't be tolerated never mind losing at Swansea! As for Stoke being attractive to a top manager, I'm not so sure, depends on what you define as top manager. If you're talking Mancini, Wenger, Benitez, Moyes etc. forget it. Stoke don't have the clout, history or fan base to live up to such a manager's expectations. The rest, Clarke, Pardew, Joll, Lambert, Hughton, O'Neil, Hughes, Martinez, McCarthy et. al are all much of a muchness and hardly set the pulse racing. Of course there's life after TP, just be prepared for a bumpy ride after he's gone.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 20, 2013 20:23:26 GMT
Having read every post on this thread it is evident that the overwhelming reason people want to stick with Pulis is because they feel relegation will come quickly if he leaves. I can't understand how so many people are crippled by this ridiculous fear. Those like the poster above who says no other manager could take Pulis's team without jeopardising our premiership survival are wrong. We have plenty good enough players now to play a more expansive system effectively and all it needs is the best players to play in the positions to which they are best suited. But just suppose for a minute this was true, Pulis is then guilty of building a flimsy and precarious structure with the millions that he has been given that is totally and utterly reliant on him and would collapse the moment he is dispensed with. Is that the sort of manager we should idolise? Thanks to Peter Coates we have a club that would be very attractive for a top manager ,maybe a manager we have never even heard of? BM You've hit the nail on the head, unfortunately. I fear the whole lot would come down like a pack of cards as the new manager tried to rebuild the squad to fit his philosophy. Out of the current 25 man squad possibly Bego, Ryan, Huth, and Nzonzi would sleep easily knowing their place was safe, the rest would be on the phone to their agents instructing them to start looking for another club. None of the ones surplus to requirements would command big fees so there would have to be a fair wedge spent in rebuilding the squad. Unless the new bloke hit the ground running or was given time by notoriously impatient fans he'd soon find himself under pressure. A lot of Stoke fans now consider us to be a well established Premier side and think we should be pushing on to ever greater success, anything less than the Champions League won't be tolerated never mind losing at Swansea! As for Stoke being attractive to a top manager, I'm not so sure, depends on what you define as top manager. If you're talking Mancini, Wenger, Benitez, Moyes etc. forget it. Stoke don't have the clout, history or fan base to live up to such a manager's expectations. The rest, Clarke, Pardew, Joll, Lambert, Hughton, O'Neil, Hughes, Martinez, McCarthy et. al are all much of a muchness and hardly set the pulse racing. Of course there's life after TP, just be prepared for a bumpy ride after he's gone. Well surely that is more shame on him then mate that when he goes we will be in a perilous state ?
|
|
|
Post by The Stubborn Optimist on Jan 20, 2013 20:49:42 GMT
You've hit the nail on the head, unfortunately. I fear the whole lot would come down like a pack of cards as the new manager tried to rebuild the squad to fit his philosophy. Out of the current 25 man squad possibly Bego, Ryan, Huth, and Nzonzi would sleep easily knowing their place was safe, the rest would be on the phone to their agents instructing them to start looking for another club. None of the ones surplus to requirements would command big fees so there would have to be a fair wedge spent in rebuilding the squad. Unless the new bloke hit the ground running or was given time by notoriously impatient fans he'd soon find himself under pressure. A lot of Stoke fans now consider us to be a well established Premier side and think we should be pushing on to ever greater success, anything less than the Champions League won't be tolerated never mind losing at Swansea! As for Stoke being attractive to a top manager, I'm not so sure, depends on what you define as top manager. If you're talking Mancini, Wenger, Benitez, Moyes etc. forget it. Stoke don't have the clout, history or fan base to live up to such a manager's expectations. The rest, Clarke, Pardew, Joll, Lambert, Hughton, O'Neil, Hughes, Martinez, McCarthy et. al are all much of a muchness and hardly set the pulse racing. Of course there's life after TP, just be prepared for a bumpy ride after he's gone. Well surely that is more shame on him then mate that when he goes we will be in a perilous state ? But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. TP doesn't see it that we have a weak squad or his football philosophy has a downside or shortcomings. This is a manager who sees John Walters as an indespensible member of the side, the first name on the team sheet. Yet everyone else sees Walters for what he really is, a dog with a balloon. As far as TP is concerned his legacy is a well esablished Premier side built up from a club heading for League 1 when he arrived. The fact that his successor will have a job on his hands to change things round won't be his problem. TP will ride off into the sunset, no doubt with a big fat pay-off cheque in his back pocket.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jan 20, 2013 23:29:28 GMT
The point is all about why did TP play Crouch and Adam today and them mess with the wingers once he had used his subs. The suggested answer is that he was proving to the club's owners that we will be a shambles if KJ leaves and we don't bring in a winger. I don't think he deliberately made us lose the game, but his bonkers decisions made the result inevitable. And to add strength to the case, TP has plenty of past form for doing this sort of a thing. Are you seriously suggesting that Tony Pulis dropped Kenwyne Jones - a player HE spent £8M on - and replaced him with Peter Crouch - a player who HE spent £10M on to replace Kenwyne Jones - to prove a point to Peter Coates that we'd be a shambles without Kenwyne? And are you suggesting that didn't bring on Michael Kightly - HIS signing - because he doesn't consider him good enough and that we now need another winger to replace him? You are right of course, Tony does have form for this kind of thing, but with a board who he was clearly at loggerheads with. It was also this playing of politics that turned a lot of supporters against him during his first spell here. Are you now saying that he's playing his silly little games with a man who has backed him to the hilt over the last five years? It really is staggering that you can come out with this kind of nonsense, constantly criticise the players he buys and the teams he selects and yet still be solidly behind Tony Pulis. Some of his most fiercest opponents on this message board don't come out with some of the criticism of Tony Pulis you constantly imply.
|
|
|
Post by eastbelfaststokie on Jan 20, 2013 23:30:46 GMT
the man can not take us no further time to go
|
|
|
Post by glasseater on Jan 21, 2013 1:56:42 GMT
That's right sack our manager right after establishing ourselves in the Prem. If we are no better off in 2/3 years or degress then it's time to look at a new manager. It would be a fucking poor decision to be so hasty.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jan 21, 2013 2:12:21 GMT
I've thought long and hard about this (makes a change for me) and i've decided I love TP and also hate him in equal measure..
Love, for the fact he's brought me Premiership football when I thought that day would never come. Love, for the fact under his leadership we are almost guranteed safety in this league.
However, I feel we are playing too many players out of position for no reason. (Adam 'in the hole' and Walters on the right wing being my main gripe) We are playing route one rubbish when we could easily pass the ball to N'Zonzi (Those who say we "play more football than we're given credit for" are clearly ass kissing because I haven't seen it)
Anyway, with how feel right now I feel the best thing is to get through this season and possibly move on in the summer. Maybe a new manager with new exciting ideas will give us value for money?! I obviously thank Mr Pulis for what he's done for my football club and I will always have a soft spot in my heart for him but sometimes you just have to acknowledge there's a time where we have to move on.. maybe this summer is the time.
|
|
|
Post by kavinoz on Jan 21, 2013 2:19:21 GMT
Well surely that is more shame on him then mate that when he goes we will be in a perilous state ? But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. TP doesn't see it that we have a weak squad or his football philosophy has a downside or shortcomings. This is a manager who sees John Walters as an indespensible member of the side, the first name on the team sheet. Yet everyone else sees Walters for what he really is, a dog with a balloon.As far as TP is concerned his legacy is a well esablished Premier side built up from a club heading for League 1 when he arrived. The fact that his successor will have a job on his hands to change things round won't be his problem. TP will ride off into the sunset, no doubt with a big fat pay-off cheque in his back pocket. Speak for yourself! I find these ridiculous, dogmatic (pun intended!) statements very irritating!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 21, 2013 3:02:35 GMT
Your second paragraph is a contradiction to your argument. I would say that Pulis continuing to pursue a style of football that has been "slated by the press" for the last 5 years is ignoring the outside world and is evidence of sticking to his strategy. People seem to forget where Richard Cresswell played for the majority of his time at Stoke, on the wing. He has played people out of position long before our Premier League days. Surely the argument is fans are tired of watching his tried and tested style of play? My answer to that is to not be swayed by short term performance. Everyone who has said "yes" to the OP's question should try this: cast your mind back to Boxing Day, the feeling you had walking away from the ground after the win over Liverpool. You log on to the computer and your presented with the same question. What would your answer be? It isn't a contradiction at all. All I'm saying is that Pulis has done nothing but try to re-write his manual from day one of being in this league. After the signing of Kitson he stated it was to make his system "more rounded". Every season we've seen one or two "footballers" arrive and they haven't fitted in. Tuncay, Gudjohnsen, Adam, Crouch, Owen, Palacios. Yes the system has stayed the same but my argument is why has he gone for those players to try and round a system rather than a better standard of 'functional grinder' to fit and ultimately improve the system? Cresswell out of position kind of proves the point doesn't it? After all, he scored goals out wide. Let's counter act that with Charlie Adam out of position, or Tuncay on the wing in a wide midfield role, or Owen in midfield? Cresswell didn't stick out as much in the system as those three do/did. The reason is simple. Cresswell was asked to get up and down the line. He could do it. Tuncay couldn't, for example. Tuncay couldn't play the withdrawn role in this system because he wasn't hard working enough for long enough and he wasn't good enough in the air. As I've said on another thread, Steven N'Zonzi is the end of argument for me, that proves you don't need to try and rip up your manual or knacker it up to improve your team. Just buy better of the same type of player. Had he done that for the last four years we would be a much better side than we are now and we really wouldn't be here now debating this topic.The Liverpool game was great because we had 11 players who fitted the system, which proves the point i'm making. Just take Walters and Jones out of that and spend the money you did on Tuncay, Kitson, Owen (wages), Crouch and Adam on two identikit replacements with better quality (akin to replacing Whitehead with N'Zonzi for example) and you're cooking on gas. Absolutely cracking post (not just the bit highlighted but all of it). Doff my cap to you mate.
|
|
|
Post by mrrburgundy on Jan 21, 2013 8:36:47 GMT
Your second paragraph is a contradiction to your argument. I would say that Pulis continuing to pursue a style of football that has been "slated by the press" for the last 5 years is ignoring the outside world and is evidence of sticking to his strategy. People seem to forget where Richard Cresswell played for the majority of his time at Stoke, on the wing. He has played people out of position long before our Premier League days. Surely the argument is fans are tired of watching his tried and tested style of play? My answer to that is to not be swayed by short term performance. Everyone who has said "yes" to the OP's question should try this: cast your mind back to Boxing Day, the feeling you had walking away from the ground after the win over Liverpool. You log on to the computer and your presented with the same question. What would your answer be? It isn't a contradiction at all. All I'm saying is that Pulis has done nothing but try to re-write his manual from day one of being in this league. After the signing of Kitson he stated it was to make his system "more rounded". Every season we've seen one or two "footballers" arrive and they haven't fitted in. Tuncay, Gudjohnsen, Adam, Crouch, Owen, Palacios. Yes the system has stayed the same but my argument is why has he gone for those players to try and round a system rather than a better standard of 'functional grinder' to fit and ultimately improve the system? Cresswell out of position kind of proves the point doesn't it? After all, he scored goals out wide. Let's counter act that with Charlie Adam out of position, or Tuncay on the wing in a wide midfield role, or Owen in midfield? Cresswell didn't stick out as much in the system as those three do/did. The reason is simple. Cresswell was asked to get up and down the line. He could do it. Tuncay couldn't, for example. Tuncay couldn't play the withdrawn role in this system because he wasn't hard working enough for long enough and he wasn't good enough in the air. As I've said on another thread, Steven N'Zonzi is the end of argument for me, that proves you don't need to try and rip up your manual or knacker it up to improve your team. Just buy better of the same type of player. Had he done that for the last four years we would be a much better side than we are now and we really wouldn't be here now debating this topic. The Liverpool game was great because we had 11 players who fitted the system, which proves the point i'm making. Just take Walters and Jones out of that and spend the money you did on Tuncay, Kitson, Owen (wages), Crouch and Adam on two identikit replacements with better quality (akin to replacing Whitehead with N'Zonzi for example) and you're cooking on gas. I don't believe he's trying to re-write the manual though. He's bought players who he thinks can fit into his system. Some have worked out well, some haven't. A player like Wilson Palacios was a fit for our system if you look back at the way he played at Wigan and Spurs. Sometimes things don't work out the way you planned. Our lineup vs Bolton in 2008 and who we have replaced them with: Sorensen - Begovic Wilkinson - Cameron Cort - Huth Shawcross Griffin - Wilson Delap - Etherington Olofinjana - N'Zonzi Whelan Cresswell - Walters Kitson - Crouch Sidibe - Jones You see, there's plenty of examples for my argument as well. But I take your points, and as I said to Sid, we're on the same side after all! Who do you see as a replacement for Pulis then? I've got to say, I'd like to see Di Canio given a shot in the Prem. Would certainly be a complete change for us!
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Jan 21, 2013 8:58:48 GMT
Pulis success as a manager has been getting more out of a team of players than the sum of their individual parts. His concentration on shape and organisation in training has seen him getting teams results that on paper you wouldn't expect. Unfortunately with the quality of players we now have, the same approach is resulting in him getting less out of the team than the sum of their individual parts. Turning up to matches hoping to still be in the game after 60 minutes (his words not mine), just isn't acceptable any more. Neither is a target of 40 points. Like many posters have said, all of the issues that we have at the moment, and that we've been suffering from for at least 18 months are of the managers own making. Do people really think he is going to change? Do people really think he is going to get rid of the inept Kemp and bring in someone who might challenge his thinking and improve him? It just doesn't seem likely to me at all. The reaction on here isn't a knee-jerk response to a poor result at Swansea. It's more a case of the straw that broke the camels back. On saturday afternoon I couldn't even face listening to the match, so I went off out to get some jobs done. I bumped into 3 different people who used to go to away games religiously. Their reasons for being out and about rather that at the game were all the same, Pulis has drained every ounce of enthusiasm they had for watching stoke away. The same is true of myself. I never thought I'd see the day when I was in a supermarket on a Saturday at 3pm rather than supporting stoke. In the past I've moved heaven and earth to attend matches. During two bouts of lymphoma I even arranged my treatment so that I wouldn't miss a game. Now I don't even have the enthusiasm to turn on the radio when we are playing away. Sorry if that sounds self indulgent, but to me its gutting that its come to this. For all of the above, it's my strong opinion that Mr Pulis has to go. Cracking post, agree with all of it. I've spent the last 20 years being obsessed with getting coverage of the game, from ringing my mum to listening to Radio Stoke commentary over the phone to effectively tying up most Saturdays I'm not working so my lad and me can either go or watch a stream. My lad seems to be gradually losing interest in watching the streams, and I really can't blame him, to be fair he falls asleep a lot of the time Liverpool game was superb, all 4 of us there as a family, great game and result, but they're far too few and far between to justify suffering the boring shit the manager has consistently turned out since he's been here. Yes from me, the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by albanianstokie on Jan 21, 2013 9:14:55 GMT
no but I can understand why some people think differently.
I do think though that TP has taken us as far as he can, the question I suppose being, could we go further with someone else?
|
|
|
Post by jstoke7 on Jan 21, 2013 9:25:20 GMT
no but I can understand why some people think differently. I do think though that TP has taken us as far as he can, the question I suppose being, could we go further with someone else? Probably not much further in terms of league position but in terms of being entertained every week and getting value for money, definitely. I've just had enough of the football, my uni team keeps the ball better than we do, and I think thats a bit embarrassing tbh, we're in the Prem remember, it would be nice to feel like I'm watching a Premiership game not a game down the local park. EDIT: I know thats an exaggeration, but you get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Jan 21, 2013 9:27:05 GMT
no but I can understand why some people think differently. I do think though that TP has taken us as far as he can, the question I suppose being, could we go further with someone else? The million dollar question. We are not big enough, nor will we EVER be big / good enough to hit the heights of the top 6. Resource wise we are light years behind Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool - their turnover eclipses ours hence why they spend the majority of their time (Liverpool aside - due to mismanagement) at the top end of the table. So our best hope would be regular finishes in 7th, 8th, 9th... and I can't think of any club who does this apart from Everton (who again are ahead of us resource wise). Villa maybe, but even they have turned shit of late. Has any club our size consistently finished in the top half of the table? No. So whilst we may be underachieving slightly, i'm not sure how much further the club can go - with or without Pulis. Not very far is my opinion. The reason why most people wanting Pulis out feel that way, isn't due to league position - it's due to negativity. If we had a manager in charge who played more positive, attacking football, but we were still finishing mid table, I think there would be much less grumbling.
|
|
|
Post by The Stubborn Optimist on Jan 21, 2013 10:23:49 GMT
But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. TP doesn't see it that we have a weak squad or his football philosophy has a downside or shortcomings. This is a manager who sees John Walters as an indespensible member of the side, the first name on the team sheet. Yet everyone else sees Walters for what he really is, a dog with a balloon.As far as TP is concerned his legacy is a well esablished Premier side built up from a club heading for League 1 when he arrived. The fact that his successor will have a job on his hands to change things round won't be his problem. TP will ride off into the sunset, no doubt with a big fat pay-off cheque in his back pocket. Speak for yourself! I find these ridiculous, dogmatic (pun intended!) statements very irritating! You obviously didn't see anything of the Chelsea game then. The attempted overhead kick, when the ball smacked him in the face, was the proverbial picture that spoke a thousand words. Woof, woof!
|
|
|
Post by CongyStokie on Jan 21, 2013 10:26:56 GMT
Yes - Pulis out
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 21, 2013 10:27:55 GMT
I think you'll find that 'everyone' thinks Walters is great. The media, the fans and even people who don't have a clue who he is.
He's just all round awesome.
|
|
|
Post by ianlovatt on Jan 21, 2013 10:34:48 GMT
Just a thought let TP finish the season, (with rest of the games we'll be OK - no relegation scrap worries) thank him for getting us to the Premiership and staying here and let him go upstairs,Director of something, then get Rafa Benitez in (he'll be let go by chelsea) With the new money, that would be really exciting.
Oh! and my son was playing FIFA recently and Stoke were in the Champions League...a premonition of things to come Go on Stoke!
|
|
|
Post by biganddaft on Jan 21, 2013 10:45:08 GMT
Big and Daft. First of all find your Caps Lock. Secondly, we've lost one home league game in almost a year and, given that we're 10th, we are obviously winning more games at the highest level than we have done since the mid seventies. I'm sorry but for Stoke fans this is just about as good as it gets. If you want to support a team that wins more games consistently, then Man United, Man City, Chelsea and pretty Arsenal are perhaps more deserving of your hard earned cash and loyalty. First of all, the post was in capitals because I was fuming, not by accident. I still don't understand why you can't grasp the reason so many are pissed off. It has nowt to do with league position or home form, but the manner in which we take the game to the opposition. The tactics against Swansea, our offensive plan, in the main, was to hoof the ball from just inside our own half and hope it found a Stoke head. On numerous occasions this happened on Saturday and it's the plank on the sideline bellowing out the instructions to do it, it can't be denied, you can here him doing it. Why does he not put any value in us having possesion of the football? it's universally acknowlegded that we have better players in the squad now, but he still enforces the same method of getting the ball into the oppostion box. Which in most cases leads to us losing the ball and having to soak up another attack. The style of play has not improved one iota since we were promoted. We were promised a three year plan of stability, which we have achieved, but the man clearly has no intention of trying to change the style of "football". And it's not as good as it gets, is it? it's feckin dire to watch, fans are not even looking forward to going matches anymore, so how can that be described as progression? I have no intention of supporting another club, marra. The very suggestion leads me to believe you are on another planet. I do expect to see players selected in their true positions, unless forced upon by injuries. I do expect to see players who earn in one week what I earn all year, to have the confidence instilled in them, so they can complete more than five passes before they are instructed to hoof it forward. It's Sunday league stuff and highlights the managers shortcomings and ability to take the next step forward. I do expect us to at least look like we want to win a game away from home, and the manager to grow some balls, instead of conceding defeat to the mighty Swansea and Villa, (who are a shadow of the side they used to be), before a ball has even been kicked. Is that too much to ask for? He is paid well, to make the decisions and select tactics for each match, based on the threat of the opposition. So why does he set-up the side the same for every game?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 21, 2013 10:48:07 GMT
I wouldn't openly encourage us to sack him and to the outside world it would appear ridiculous (of Nigel Adkins proportions which I guess is why we should be careful of passing comment on his departure) but if I woke up tomorrow to learn that TP had resigned for personal reasons, I would be absolutely delighted. TP doesn't only split the supporter base. He has a very canny ability of being able to split individuals right down the middle!
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Jan 21, 2013 10:48:08 GMT
Big and Daft. First of all find your Caps Lock. Secondly, we've lost one home league game in almost a year and, given that we're 10th, we are obviously winning more games at the highest level than we have done since the mid seventies. I'm sorry but for Stoke fans this is just about as good as it gets. If you want to support a team that wins more games consistently, then Man United, Man City, Chelsea and pretty Arsenal are perhaps more deserving of your hard earned cash and loyalty. First of all, the post was in capitals because I was fuming, not by accident. Oooo I'm so angry! HEAR ME ROAR!!!
|
|
|
Post by biganddaft on Jan 21, 2013 10:51:40 GMT
First of all, the post was in capitals because I was fuming, not by accident. Oooo I'm so angry! HEAR ME ROAR!!!
|
|
|
Post by pickins on Jan 21, 2013 14:53:41 GMT
No but get rid of the yes men and get some fresh coaching talent around the place.
|
|