|
Post by pez75 on May 22, 2013 11:55:42 GMT
I suppose if we do go down it might get called 'Doing a Stoke', which will piss all over Charlton's chips. Of course this is why we should appoint Curbishly. Surely it's impossible to 'do a Charlton' when you've actually hired the man who left them? That's next season when we sack him and replace him with Mick McCarthy, as a prelude to doing a Wolves. Better make sure Terry O'Connor is available in a couple of season's time then - should not be a problem...
|
|
|
Post by LDE76 on May 22, 2013 11:57:44 GMT
That's next season when we sack him and replace him with Mick McCarthy, as a prelude to doing a Wolves. Better make sure Terry O'Connor is available in a couple of season's time then - should not be a problem... Yep, so we can do a Derby.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 22, 2013 12:02:24 GMT
Indeed, sport is all about the balance of probabilities and where you think they lie. I would have stuck with the man who delivered 6 consecutive seasons of top flight football to a club who had hitherto been without it for a quarter of a century. But, as you say, the new man may or may not screw up, it could go either way. You could counter that by asking yourself how much longer you're prepared to watch a well-financed manager continue to send out teams whose sole intention is to simply avoid defeat as well as pretty much waste a considerable amount of money he's handed on players that he struggles to fit into his system. Another season, three, five, ten? I'm not privy to what goes on behind the scenes, so I wouldn't speculate on anything that might have happened within the club, but certainly from a supporter's perspective I was growing pretty weary of watching the same dire fare week in, week out and I'm just not convinced that TP had the will or nous to try and improve things. It's fantastic being in the Premier League, and TP will always get my respect and gratitude for his part in making that happen, but a club with our backing and potential should be offering much more to this league after five years in it. If the club's decision is purely a football one, then you to suspect that they shared that feeling as well. Of course it's a big risk removing our manager, but on the evidence of results and performances this year, so was keeping him. Fair enough Dave. It's probably no secret that I am very much at the "outcomes" end of the spectrum rather than the "aesthetics" end when it comes to football believing it to be a sport governed by a set of hard and fast rules rather than something like ice dance or diving or gymnastics where perfection is in the eye of the judges. So for me improvement will be if we score more goals, concede even fewer goals, draw games we previously lost and win games we previously drew and finish higher up the table and go further in the cup competitions. If that happens under the new man then I too will be happy and remain grateful to Tony for what he did. It has to be said I'm not counting my chickens just yet though although I will back the new man as I always do.
|
|
|
Post by harrysburrow on May 22, 2013 12:33:24 GMT
The "be careful what you wish for" stuff wouldn't seem half so bad if we hadn't been dropping like a stone since Boxing Day? 5pts out of 42 at one stage, with dire football (weeks between goals), dodgy substitutions, no plan B and finishing 3pts above 17th place. The way some of the pro Pulis people bang on, you'd think we'd finished 8th and we're guaranteed indefinite Premier League status if he stayed?
|
|
|
Post by kavinoz on May 22, 2013 12:56:53 GMT
Sorry totally disagree. That was a well balanced and reasonable response to the situation he found himself in. People are, as usual, simply picking bits out of context and highlighting them in order to support their entrenched positions. (Just as they have been doing in relation to Pulis' press conferences and post match interviews.) Balance is something that the majority of posters on this board cannot be accused of having. A situation he just happened to find himself in? What utter nonsense - he wasn't forced to do the interview with talksport was he? Anybody with half a brain cell would have kept well away from doing interviews at such a delicate time. It's not US picking bits out of context to support an entrenched position, it's the media, who wouldn't have been able to, if he'd politely declined their request when they phoned him. Again, with the greatest of repect Paul, the taking out of it's full context and the highlighting any possible negative spin that could possibly put on any statement made by Pulis, or anyone that supports him, has become an art form on this board for a great number of posters. And what would the reaction have been had he been more positive about the parting of ways?
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on May 22, 2013 13:01:10 GMT
I don't think fans have played any part in this, If PC was bothered what fans thought he wouldn't have brought him back in the first place. It's corporate decision.
|
|
|
Post by stokie1130 on May 22, 2013 13:04:13 GMT
What gets me is, it's all the media and other fans that hounded us all the time about Pulis and his style, now he's gone all they can say to us now is "be careful what you wish for....." Wtf ???? U can't win fuck em I say and all the rimmers on here too , anyone who couldn't see we needed a change, has simply not got a clue,
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on May 22, 2013 13:07:06 GMT
Think the vocal fans criticising our football were the football snobs, now the true majority of ordinary fans are commenting on what they feel as an injustice based on results.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on May 22, 2013 13:07:32 GMT
Do these people think TP should have had a job for life at stoke ??? he's got to be replaced sooner or later, much better to do it now in a measured fashion than panic half way through a season and make a bad appointment,
|
|