|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 15:17:59 GMT
I honestly wish Stoke well, pretty sure Pulis would have kept you up with ease. I really was suprised you took a major gamble with Mark Hughes if I'm honest!?...... hmm taking a gamble by getting rid of a manager who openly disliked some of the people he now had to work alongside and who's style of play had been well and truly found out and replacing him with someone who managed to get 2 mid table sides into the top ten and both into Europe.....versus replacing a manager who took a team from being a regular relegation battling side and turned them into a regular top 8 side and replacing him with a man who's sole Prem achievement was taking a mid-table side and turning them into relegation fodder year after year. to be fair your gamble was always far far bigger mate but it's amazing how smug people can be with hindsight eh?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Dec 4, 2013 15:22:50 GMT
hindsight?
maybe he just chose to focus on different, more recent things.
Like Pulis keeping us up for 5 years and Hughes totally fucking QPR.
hardly requires hindsight
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 15:24:52 GMT
hindsight? maybe he just chose to focus on different, more recent things. Like Pulis keeping us up for 5 years and Hughes totally fucking QPR. hardly requires hindsight ??? so how would signing Martinez who had just taken Wigan down after a few years of constantly battling against relegation whilst being on the same budget as Bruce and Jewell who both managed to finish mid-table be a case of focusing on "More recent things" exactly? you saying that WASN'T as big a gamble as signing a manager who only really had one really bad managerial appointment?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Dec 4, 2013 15:40:04 GMT
Changing manager is always a gamble and that is why I would avoid it wherever possible.
Time will tell whether or not Martinez will do better than Moyes as it will for our own change.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 15:42:58 GMT
Changing manager is always a gamble and that is why I would avoid it wherever possible. Time will tell whether or not Martinez will do better than Moyes as it will for our own change. agreed but the only reason the everton fan came on talking about how bizarre our change was is simply because of how well they are doing at the moment...it's his hindsight and smugness is what i was referring to. i didn't see him going on about it at the time we got rid of Pulis and signed Hughes because he was probably shitting it with the everton goings on just as much (if not more) as we were. if you looked at it on paper though, our gamble was far less than Everton's and we had far less to lose simply because of their regualr top 8 spot they've had for a while now. worst we could have done is turn from a side that just about stayed up last year into a side that went down this year which could just as easily have happened if Pulis stayed. i don't see why anyone who watched Stoke and saw our complete capitulation last season WOULD think it was a strange decision to get rid and make that change.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Dec 4, 2013 15:54:25 GMT
I completely disagree our gamble was far greater if we fuck up we go down. if they fuck up they will end up mid table. haven't we won or at least got a couple of draws in the past at Everton? he probably just thinks that in comparison to the 1 stoke hughes side that he's seen that we've gone backwards. i don't agree that the likelihood of going down under Pulis was the same either....obviously
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 4, 2013 15:58:39 GMT
He'd lost the half of the squad, we may be better off if we had kept him but the form and the stuff that has come out in the wash since suggests (to me at least) that we wouldn't have been. This season whichever way we went was going to be tough.
The accounts didn't help him either, how we managed to lose 30 million, I will never know.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 16:17:46 GMT
Everton didn't really gamble though, did they? They had no choice, they had to find a new manager. Martinez was bookies favourite from the off and short of going abroad (a bigger chance of failure perhaps?) he was probably the best bet for them. I can't think of anyone they should have brought in instead?
We decided to make two choices. To sack Pulis and appoint his replacement. I think neutrals were probably split 50/50 over the Pulis sacking, but were quite unanimous about the Hughes appointment. I think most non Stoke fans would have considered our combined decision a gamble if asked last summer.
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Dec 5, 2013 14:30:45 GMT
We really are going down, how can people not see this. We are so shit ive honestly just given up now and i am no longer stoke city after that horrible performace on the weekend if you're "No longer Stoke City" after one bad result against a side that haven't lost a competitive match there in the whole calendar year then you never really were "Stoke City" in the first place you overly dramatic, whining cock! Left my account on in the university library, sorry fella's! It was a bit obvious it wasn't me posting though TBH!
|
|
|
Post by adamsson on Dec 5, 2013 14:42:43 GMT
hindsight? maybe he just chose to focus on different, more recent things. Like Pulis keeping us up for 5 years and Hughes totally fucking QPR. hardly requires hindsight ??? so how would signing Martinez who had just taken Wigan down after a few years of constantly battling against relegation whilst being on the same budget as Bruce and Jewell who both managed to finish mid-table be a case of focusing on "More recent things" exactly? you saying that WASN'T as big a gamble as signing a manager who only really had one really bad managerial appointment? Martinez didn't have the same budget as Bruce or Jewell and was relegated the year after he made £39,900,000 profit on transfers Hughes has seen a £20,000,000 cut in funding this season when virtually every other club has spent more. This might be part of the problem
|
|