|
Post by oslostokie1 on Nov 4, 2013 23:09:45 GMT
I haven't seen a thread on him on here. Surely he'll never put a Stoke shirt on again? Simply an appalling cameo, beyond hopeless. You were wincing every time he went near the ball since he would almost immediately lay it off three yards to a Southampton player. He's been roundly slated on here, but bringing him on for Whelan completely surrendered the midfield battle. Spot on MD. I thought Whelan introduced a bit of bite in the central midfield battle that we have lacked in recent weeks and i was surprised that he was replaced with the hapless Palacios. If Whelan had laid on some of the beyond dreadful passes that Palacios made then he would have been slaughtered. TP has a lot to answer for in the signing of both Palacios and Wilson in central midfield roles for vastly inflated fees, but at least he did not try to justify their investment when he realised he had dropped a clanger (or two). Whatever you say about Whelan, he retains some of the DNA from the previous regime that we need to retain in this evolutionary period. We cannot go from the 9 honest professionals/leaders, 1 work-class keeper, and 1 magician (ie. Ric) to 3-4 honest professionals/leaders, the same keeper, 2-3 yesterday's men, 3-4 mardarses and 1 magician/mardarse that we now have.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Nov 4, 2013 23:13:45 GMT
It's pretty straightforward. Pulis paid big money for Palacios because, on paper, he was the perfect Pulis player and had he been playing at the standard he first displayed at Spurs, he would have been worth £8,000,000. Nobody was to know that he was completely finished and useless, which was probably apparent from his first training session and the fact that six months later he was still incapable of playing any more than ten minutes. No conspiracy theory, we were just duped.
The great laugh is that the club thought it was a coup that we had managed to force Tottenham into letting us buy both Crouch and Palacios and that we were learning the transfer game.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Nov 4, 2013 23:20:50 GMT
I found that he was popping up quite a lot and picking up loose balls. It was nice that one of our players was actually capable of judging the flight of the ball in the wind. Plus he actually demonstrated some defensive discipline and did a good job of shielding the defence. He also kicked Wanyama a lot, which I rather enjoyed. But, everyone, including Mark Hughes, apparently thinks I was wrong, so I swear this time I'm just going to cut my losses and get out of this thread. Yeah, see I felt he was second to everything and his judging the flight of the ball often seemed to lead to him heading the ball straight back from whence it came and us losing possession again. I thought in the first half the shielding of the defence from the midfield in general was embarrassingly non-existent, as the space they had for the goal underlined. The incident in question was the only example of that from the first half though. It was, in fact, the result of Whelan's one rush of blood to the head where he threw himself into a sticky situation in the opposition half and left a huge gap in front of our defence. He was not helped by N'Zonzi deciding that he wasn't going to take his turn to stay back and cover, instead choosing to have words with Crouch and ball-watch. I also maintain that in the first half we executed our game-plan to a tee, stopping Southampton's pressing and passing game while forcing them to go long and sweeping up every forward (and second) ball. In the second half, the plan seemed entirely absent, with an invisible midfield and Huth and Shawcross taking on the entire Southampton team. Where was I? Oh yes, cutting losses...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2013 23:23:52 GMT
Yet they were far more dangerous in the first half and posed little to no threat in the second, while our best chances came after the break...
|
|
|
Post by greystokie on Nov 4, 2013 23:25:47 GMT
He didn't pick him though did he. That's the point I was making. There was a reason he was never picked. It's obvious he was part of the crouch deal. Are you really saying Pulis spent £16M on peter Crouch and then used £25K of the clubs money every week to pay a player he didn't want/pick to sit on his arse doing nothing. This makes the Crouch deal probably the worst deal in the history of the club. £16M plus £60 odd grand a week in wages for Peter Crouch? I'm on record many times stating my belief that TP's obsession with Crouch was probably the biggest factor in his downfall. If you add the cost of Palacios as a necessary evil in the deal I find it hard to believe TP lasted as long as he did. £16M for Crouch...beyond insane. So far beyond insane you can't see it with the Hubble Telescope. Logic went out of the window where TP and so called "big name" players were concerned. He just got star struck or fixated by the fact that he was able sign such players. Crouch, Palacios, Woodgate, Tuncay, Kitson, Gudjohnsen and Owen all made very little sense when you look at the type of football TP wanted to play. At least three of them, including Palacios, could have been considered as "crocked" before we signed them but he still went ahead and did it, anyway. Totally irrational.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Nov 5, 2013 0:36:15 GMT
Yet they were far more dangerous in the first half and posed little to no threat in the second, while our best chances came after the break... Where was their raft of chances in the first half? Granted Lovren should have scored from our typically crappy set piece defending, but what else? That half chance that Lallana (?) smacked way into the stands? At the same time, where were all our second half chances? The Walters through ball to Arnautovic was a legitimate chance, but asides from that we're looking at what, Assaidi running out of steam and producing a Mama-esque finish?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 5, 2013 4:40:20 GMT
What did Whelan do better on the day? Wasn't passing, that's for sure. Wasn't tackling either. I found that he was popping up quite a lot and picking up loose balls. It was nice that one of our players was actually capable of judging the flight of the ball in the wind. Plus he actually demonstrated some defensive discipline and did a good job of shielding the defence. He also kicked Wanyama a lot, which I rather enjoyed. But, everyone, including Mark Hughes, apparently thinks I was wrong, so I swear this time I'm just going to cut my losses and get out of this thread. For what it's worth, I think if we're going to persevere with this system until January then Whelan basically has to play. Unless we go really outlandish and try one of the defenders there, there is no other option in our squad who is disciplined and committed enough to sit, win the ball, protect the defence, commit niggly fouls when necessary and generally get up people's arses. He's not the answer, he's not the best player in the squad and we need better, but our team is currently missing Glenn Whelan and between now and January he needs to be starting imo.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 8:13:27 GMT
Yet they were far more dangerous in the first half and posed little to no threat in the second, while our best chances came after the break... Where was their raft of chances in the first half? Granted Lovren should have scored from our typically crappy set piece defending, but what else? That half chance that Lallana (?) smacked way into the stands? At the same time, where were all our second half chances? The Walters through ball to Arnautovic was a legitimate chance, but asides from that we're looking at what, Assaidi running out of steam and producing a Mama-esque finish? There was their goal, the Lovren chance, the back stick ball Shawcross had to head behind. The Arnie chance, the Assaidi chance, the two powder puff efforts from Arnie and Nzonzi - all were the closest we came to getting even a sniff of goal since the opening 10 minutes. Surely you can't deny we had the ball in the final third a lot more? Our 'game plan' in the first half seemed to be to knock it long (which was sensible) and then pose no threat whatsoever for most of the half while they dominated the game.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 8:14:07 GMT
I found that he was popping up quite a lot and picking up loose balls. It was nice that one of our players was actually capable of judging the flight of the ball in the wind. Plus he actually demonstrated some defensive discipline and did a good job of shielding the defence. He also kicked Wanyama a lot, which I rather enjoyed. But, everyone, including Mark Hughes, apparently thinks I was wrong, so I swear this time I'm just going to cut my losses and get out of this thread. For what it's worth, I think if we're going to persevere with this system until January then Whelan basically has to play. Unless we go really outlandish and try one of the defenders there, there is no other option in our squad who is disciplined and committed enough to sit, win the ball, protect the defence, commit niggly fouls when necessary and generally get up people's arses. He's not the answer, he's not the best player in the squad and we need better, but our team is currently missing Glenn Whelan and between now and January he needs to be starting imo. I think he's still probably the best option overall as well.
|
|
|
Palacios
Nov 5, 2013 9:27:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by generationex on Nov 5, 2013 9:27:52 GMT
Must be the most disappointing signing of the last 6 years. He looked absolutely like the player we needed and there was real excitement about his signing on this board... But we got stiffed good and proper by Spurs who must have known he was finished.
What I don't understand is why Hughes decided not to sell him to Hull - getting conned when he's not your player is one thing, but refusing to sell him when he's clearly not up to it is just daft.
Hughes has wasted a years wages he could have spent elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Nov 5, 2013 9:34:24 GMT
Must be the most disappointing signing of the last 6 years. He looked absolutely like the player we needed and there was real excitement about his signing on this board... But we got stiffed good and proper by Spurs who must have known he was finished. What I don't understand is why Hughes decided not to sell him to Hull - getting conned when he's not your player is one thing, but refusing to sell him when he's clearly not up to it is just daft. Hughes has wasted a years wages he could have spent elsewhere. Hull have dodged a bullet there, did some pretty decent business since with Livermore and Huddlestone too.
|
|
|
Palacios
Nov 5, 2013 9:38:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by generationex on Nov 5, 2013 9:38:04 GMT
I know! Bloody annoying after watching him this season too.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Nov 5, 2013 9:43:10 GMT
For what it's worth, I think if we're going to persevere with this system until January then Whelan basically has to play. Unless we go really outlandish and try one of the defenders there, there is no other option in our squad who is disciplined and committed enough to sit, win the ball, protect the defence, commit niggly fouls when necessary and generally get up people's arses. He's not the answer, he's not the best player in the squad and we need better, but our team is currently missing Glenn Whelan and between now and January he needs to be starting imo. I think he's still probably the best option overall as well. I agree with this comment, we are missing commitment in the middle. I would have liked to see Glenn play into the second half and with a chance of getting all 3 points, take the risk and bring on Adam. (Are we sure that Whelan was subbed because of his first half appearance, he was named as a doubt before the game?) Adam would have been prepared to take shots on and possible unnerve their GK. - we didn't test him after a very anxious start for him The downside could have been N'Zonzi getting even more frustrated and Adam giving away a few more free kicks. We have to try and get the best out of what we have and get some better options in as soon as possible at the beginning of January
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Nov 5, 2013 14:03:00 GMT
Whelan was subbed because of a hamstring injury.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 16:31:26 GMT
I haven't seen a thread on him on here. Surely he'll never put a Stoke shirt on again? Simply an appalling cameo, beyond hopeless. You were wincing every time he went near the ball since he would almost immediately lay it off three yards to a Southampton player. He's been roundly slated on here, but bringing him on for Whelan completely surrendered the midfield battle. oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/221670?page=1What a difference, A week makes 168 little hours.
What a differe ...
|
|
|
Post by miggo on Nov 5, 2013 17:26:57 GMT
I can't think of a slower, more one paced plodder we've had in midfield in the last 30 years. He makes Keith Downing look dynamic. Unfortunately MH appears to rate him, until he realises he's dog shit we're going to have to put up with him. Brammer. Oldfield??
|
|