|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 31, 2014 10:55:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by huddersstokie on Jan 31, 2014 11:04:45 GMT
Hey up Mark.
I must say I am starting to agree with Higgy on this one.
BTW, I won't be down for footie tonight - just recovering from surgery. See in a few weeks mate.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothicstokelover on Jan 31, 2014 11:07:45 GMT
Me too nice read thanks mcf
|
|
|
|
Post by smiler_andy on Jan 31, 2014 11:15:16 GMT
The problems with Crouch this season is almost same as last season. Crouch though technically gifted is not mobile or quick enough as a lone striker. Last season we had Michael Owen in the squad and would have been ideal to have played alongside Crouch. It did not happen.
Until Crouch is moved on we will always be poor going forward due to the style of play used by the previous & current manager, which is basically a lone striker.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 31, 2014 11:20:32 GMT
pulis the cataylist for our identity is gone we are in the middle of creating a new identity. that would be same who ever took on the job unless we got in big sam or another pulis clone the identity and style of play was always going to change.
i like higgy, but he is a pulis man, he does speak a lot of sense but everytime he speaks i get the feeling its always slightly tinged with his love/respect/friendship/loyalty what ever it is towards pulis
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 31, 2014 11:25:19 GMT
I don't think we are in the middle of creating a new identity and neither does Higgo....that is the point.
It isn't particularly obvious as to what our pattern of play is or if we are evolving one.....which may or may not prove to be a problem.
(Hello Jason, hope it went well mate)
|
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Jan 31, 2014 11:27:41 GMT
He has nailed it in my opinion,trying to play a system without the players to do it, and the players don't look as though they know what is expected from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Cowboy on Jan 31, 2014 11:30:08 GMT
i like higgy, but he is a pulis man, he does speak a lot of sense but everytime he speaks i get the feeling its always slightly tinged with his love/respect/friendship/loyalty what ever it is towards pulis +1 |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 31, 2014 11:42:58 GMT
Indeed ...anyone who raises the prospect of current problems within our team simply has to biased.
nothing in our current form that suggests there are issues....oh no.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 31, 2014 11:44:36 GMT
anyone who posts an article on anyone who raises the prospect of current problems within our team simply has to biased.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 31, 2014 11:46:28 GMT
like when I've posted links to Smudge's articles that I've disagreed with?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jan 31, 2014 11:50:46 GMT
been saying for weeks i think 4-4-2 is the answer.
For all that Pulis, in my opinion, deserved to go, thats not say there was all that much wrong with certain things.
Yes, we needed an overhaul of playing staff, but did we really need to completely revamp the style of play and formation? absolutely not.
All that was required was a more positive variation on the 4-4-2 we were playing, allowing the defense to continue relatively untouched in terms of shape and role, while giving the wide men and forward more freedom.
We seem to be trying to play the ball out and fart about with it because there was a perception that the fans wanted us to "play football" I don't think many people care whether we string 20 passes together or lump it straight up to a big man, what they care about is that a, we are willing/able to do a bit of both as required, and B, that whichever one we do there are enough men in forward positions to make an impact.
We've gone from a team playing one way while achieving neither to a team playing another way in exactly the same boat, but without the solidity in defense we had before.
|
|
|
|
Post by borat on Jan 31, 2014 12:01:30 GMT
I always read Higgy's column and think he's boring and predictable but he's bang on the money with everything he says this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 12:12:57 GMT
Much as I didn't like Tony Pulis style of football, he left us with a platform to improve on. At this moment in time, it is not working, and yet again this is down to the lack of quality in the side. Although one or two of the players brought in are slight improvements, I don,t think that they are that much better than what were already here. Whether it,s down to Peter Coates pulling the reigns in or just bad selections by whoever is making the decisions of who to go for, I,ve no idea, but having seen what is going on, a defensive midfielder was and is a must, along with a decent back up for Shawcross and Huth. Just hoping that we can somehow get the required points to stay up, and then get the required players in. In the previous transfer windows, there has definitely been a lot of money wasted, and this needs to stop!
|
|
|
|
Post by cartman123 on Jan 31, 2014 12:24:18 GMT
Pulis Rimmer he is. And talks rubbish too. Sunderland have identity? Funny because all I saw was a shite team who couldn't keep hold of the ball. We battered them.
As for 442, it is suicide. We'd get hammered through the middle with Adam and Whelan. Rather we should be playing with 4 at the back, an anchor man, two central midfielders, two inside forwards and a lone striker.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay1610 on Jan 31, 2014 12:44:26 GMT
This must be the third or fourth time Danny has alluded to this in his column. True as it may be, I don't recall anybody questioning the team spirit or identity in Pulis' last months.
We've gone full circle in the last year, from having a manager who nobody dared question, to a manager who is fighting against the tide.
The performance on Wednesday was hands down the best we've put in at the SoL since promotion, why not focus on that? Put a bit of a positive spin on things rather than perpetuating the negativity all of the time. Danny's Stoke analysis is always tinged with a 'but' that harks back to Tony Pulis.
He is no longer Stoke City's manager, I'd quite like those involved in local media to drum up a bit of support for the man who is.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jan 31, 2014 12:58:03 GMT
Its not a secret how Hughes wants the team to play. 4-3-3 means controlling the midfield and having fast, strong players upfront to play counter-attacking.
Hes always gone for that approach at his other clubs.
Higgy is pointing out the obvious that the system doesnt work with Crouch as the striker.
but he is wrong by saying he cant see a "style". its obvious how Hughes wants to play it we just need to replace Crouch very quickly or revert to 4-4-2
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 13:09:02 GMT
Read it yesterday. Disagree with most of it.
Dont' see how Adam can play in a 442 as it means putting literally all of the defensive side of things in the middle on one player. How are you going to press Man Utd (who are still one of the best teams in the league) high up the pitch if you've surrendered the battle in midfield from the get-go?
My problem with the 'identity' stuff is that for me, rather than stripping the team of its identity Hughes has hugely failed to address the majority of the problems he inherited and added a couple of his own.
|
|
|
|
Post by cliffo23 on Jan 31, 2014 13:20:45 GMT
I think personally, Crouch should be dropped to the bench for this one. I'd go with Odemwingie in the hole with Guidetti leading the line. Playing like this would mean that Adam(Should he play)would have this talked about 'outball' to Odemwingie & we'd have some pace & an unpredictability to our attack. I'd imagine Utd will have a game plan designed to deal with Crouch. If we start with him, they'll be confident & comfortable. What can we say about Guidetti...On loan from Man City, hungry, will want to help city by beating Utd. He's got all the incentive's here to play tomorrow. I think personally, this approach is our best chance of getting something from the game. We've got the chance here to worry the opposition by having a different attack, please Hughes don't set up negative & give Utd control of this game!!
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 31, 2014 13:21:14 GMT
Ex Stoke player in "recognising Stoke need a new striker" shocker. My, My, that Danny Higginbottom will make some manager when he eventually gets an opportunity.
Was Danny Higginbottom saying the same thing for the last 2 seasons when Crouch was continually isolated with a team sitting with 10 men behind the ball and trying to play on the counter attack with no pace whatsoever to do so.
If he was, then fair enough. If he wasn't, then he is either talking shite and forgetting that this current Stoke City side lost its identity a long time before Mark Hughes arrived at the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jan 31, 2014 13:36:31 GMT
Read it yesterday. Disagree with most of it. Dont' see how Adam can play in a 442 as it means putting literally all of the defensive side of things in the middle on one player. How are you going to press Man Utd (who are still one of the best teams in the league) high up the pitch if you've surrendered the battle in midfield from the get-go? My problem with the 'identity' stuff is that for me, rather than stripping the team of its identity Hughes has hugely failed to address the majority of the problems he inherited and added a couple of his own. Well we don't press anyone high up the pitch with our current formation, but get this, when we used to play a genuine 4-4-2, (not the limp dicked one winger/one coverted full back or striker bollocks we saw in the last two yers) well then we used to get in peoples faces quite comfortably. All this bollocks about us getting slaughtered playing 4-4-2, whereas we are supposedly controlling the midfield with 4-5-1 (4-3-3), what are we controlling exactly? We're controlling our own half of the pitch, sporadically, thats about it, it's giving us absolutely nothing in terms of positive possession in the opponents half. 4-4-2 with arnie, assaid, odemwingie and crouch/guidetti we would offer a threat in behind, have a target man to hold it up and a platform to get 3 men into the box instead of the current 1 or 2. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Jan 31, 2014 13:44:21 GMT
Ex Stoke player in "recognising Stoke need a new striker" shocker. My, My, that Danny Higginbottom will make some manager when he eventually gets an opportunity. Was Danny Higginbottom saying the same thing for the last 2 seasons when Crouch was continually isolated with a team sitting with 10 men behind the ball and trying to play on the counter attack with no pace whatsoever to do so. If he was, then fair enough. If he wasn't, then he is either talking shite and forgetting that this current Stoke City side lost its identity a long time before Mark Hughes arrived at the club. Higgy makes some sensible observations about how we are playing and the results we are getting , he does not make any comment about Pulis V Hughes and apart from the few games at the end of last season when Jerome played up with Crouch and results improved the point about our attack applies to both managers equally His job this season is to keep us up and give time for his style to work but he has to get results and his failure to get anything from the Palace and Sunderland games should have all Stokies worried about his ability to keep us up . I thought he had cracked it by New Year and was hoping a good window could help but January has been dire on and off the pitch and Hughes has to take his share of the blame |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 31, 2014 14:05:40 GMT
...the trouble is you can't mention a fucking thing about our current fucking woes without one of the fucking wankstains blaming fucking pulis.
pulis meanwhile picks up a far wanker team in terms of form and points that he left here (13th) and his driving them up the table.
you couldn't make it up
|
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 31, 2014 14:36:07 GMT
Aah good old Higgy
The man who allegedly refused to play/ feigned injury at Rochdale to force through a move to Sunderland
That's the one inna it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jan 31, 2014 14:47:06 GMT
...the trouble is you can't mention a fucking thing about our current fucking woes without one of the fucking wankstains blaming fucking pulis. pulis meanwhile picks up a far wanker team in terms of form and points that he left here (13th) and his driving them up the table. you couldn't make it up - regardless of which side of the fence you sit, Stoke current fortunes and Tony Pulis are completely inter-linked, to suggest otherwise is complete madness. Is he to blame for leaving an paceless squad with little resale value? yes, is he to blame for our current pigheaded insistance on a formation that isn't working? no. he left a solid defence which has been exposed by the change in formation, but also left an ineffective attack which needed oodles spent on it. On a completely seperate note, do you think Pulis would have walked had he been given the same budget to work with Hughes has this year, the more I see of the way we're operating in the market now the more i think Pulis was pushed before he jumped. |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 31, 2014 14:49:48 GMT
...the trouble is you can't mention a fucking thing about our current fucking woes without one of the fucking wankstains blaming fucking pulis. pulis meanwhile picks up a far wanker team in terms of form and points that he left here (13th) and his driving them up the table. you couldn't make it up - regardless of which side of the fence you sit, Stoke current fortunes and Tony Pulis are completely inter-linked, to suggest otherwise is complete madness. Is he to blame for leaving an paceless squad with little resale value? yes, is he to blame for our current pigheaded insistance on a formation that isn't working? no. he left a solid defence which has been exposed by the change in formation, but also left an ineffective attack which needed oodles spent on it. On a completely seperate note, do you think Pulis would have walked had he been given the same budget to work with Hughes has this year, the more I see of the way we're operating in the market now the more i think Pulis was pushed before he jumped. A good post mate but one thing wrong with it He DID NOT leave a solid defense......it's a well played out myth |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 31, 2014 14:55:53 GMT
Hughes has been given a good budget hasn't he?
3m for pieters
2m+ for arnie
pennant
2 loan players that would have cost a bit
munny
made a 5-6m bid for a forward in the summer, making 4-5m bid today
guidetti
odemwinge
yep, its less but still reasonable based.
why would he want pace anyway? he loaned the one forward that we had with pace to Palace?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 31, 2014 14:57:11 GMT
is it a myth that we've already let in 2 more goals away from home this season than the whole of last year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Jan 31, 2014 14:57:46 GMT
- regardless of which side of the fence you sit, Stoke current fortunes and Tony Pulis are completely inter-linked, to suggest otherwise is complete madness. Is he to blame for leaving an paceless squad with little resale value? yes, is he to blame for our current pigheaded insistance on a formation that isn't working? no. he left a solid defence which has been exposed by the change in formation, but also left an ineffective attack which needed oodles spent on it. On a completely seperate note, do you think Pulis would have walked had he been given the same budget to work with Hughes has this year, the more I see of the way we're operating in the market now the more i think Pulis was pushed before he jumped. A good post mate but one thing wrong with it He DID NOT leave a solid defense......it's a well played out myth I suppose a team that knew how to defend as a team would be more accurate. The defence certainly wasn't rock solid last year, but it certainly wasn't this bad either. Blame there, well, 50/50 for me, Pulis went the best part of 18 months without proper cover at CB or a proper full back, Hughes failed to address the issue of CB cover. How he could have thought Muniesa could ever be a premier league CB, lord only knows. |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 31, 2014 15:00:45 GMT
we let 45 goals in all of last season and i think we have already let in 37 so far this.
not keeping enough clean sheets is costing us
|
|
