|
Post by ferryside on Mar 20, 2014 11:27:27 GMT
Despite what many posters think, I do not understand the need to sweep Pulis under the carpet. As time passes by the need to reference him will be less and less but it absolutely essential that he is mentioned or otherwise massive pieces of the jigsaw will be missed when judging Hughes. Whether or not Pulis left good players behind matters. Looking at what both managers spend on transfers and wages matters. Points and positions matter. Pulis is our only reference point for Hughes at this stage Jigsaw? Seriously? You say it like you want it to fit all nicely together. Are you still trying to make sense of it all? Different people, different circumstances, different challenges, different fates. It would help if you actually knew these people. Life is messy. There is no true reference point. Just support your club commemorate those who got us here in your own way and move on. Right now it's moving in the intended direction of those who deemed the way it should be. What will pointing at the past achieve, it won't save us the future those decisions were made? The only thing that matters to me right now and I imagine for most people is we stay in the premier league and play entertaining football. Big tick. I imagine it only matters to some because they pin their colours to the mast in an extreme fashion and then try to justify their poorly conceived actions hereafter.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Mar 20, 2014 11:34:14 GMT
Hughes seems to have done what he had to do.
Take on a group of players with a good team spirit but lacking in confidence and ripe for the introduction of a new approach.
Early on i think he was maybe guilty of trying to change too much too soon. Recently he seems to have tailored his approach and we're now reaping the benefits.
What we see on the pitch now is ultimately down to the work of both Pulis and Hughes although as the current manager Hughes rightly gets the bulk of the credit.
Anything other than that is agenda driven bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 20, 2014 11:35:15 GMT
Go on then I'll chip in. As signings go lets list most posters player of the season in order. 1) Shawcross - Pulis signing 2) Bego - Pulis signing 3) Adam - Pulis signing 4) Cameron (unfathomably for me) - Pulis signing 5) Whelan - Pulis signing 6) Crouch - Pulis signing Top legacy Tone and pulis couldnt get cameron to play, could rarely get whelan to play two consectutive games and never took crouch to valencia well done Mark
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 20, 2014 11:36:24 GMT
Despite what many posters think, I do not understand the need to sweep Pulis under the carpet. As time passes by the need to reference him will be less and less but it absolutely essential that he is mentioned or otherwise massive pieces of the jigsaw will be missed when judging Hughes. Whether or not Pulis left good players behind matters. Looking at what both managers spend on transfers and wages matters. Points and positions matter. Pulis is our only reference point for Hughes at this stage The reason one or two are very keen for us all to stop talking about and forget about Pulis, is quite simply because he keeps on proving them wrong, even after he's left.
How many times have we read from certain "experts":
1. Pulis will never get another Premier League job 2. Pulis was a disaster in the transfer market and signed a load of rubbish we're stuck with 3. Jon Walters would never play in The Premier League under anybody else 4. Peter Crouch "doesn't fit our system" (one of my personal favourites) 5. Charlie Adam can't play in a midfield two 6. Pulis got it wrong with Jermaine Pennant who would have been our saviour 7. Pulis shouldn't have "sold" the great white hope that is Ben Marshall 8. Glenn Whelan/Marc Wilson is rubbish (See the SJW argument) 9. Pulis is a tactical dinosaur 10. Pulis somehow disrespects our club because he plays a few mind games in Press Conferences
As far as I can see, all those things have been proved to be incorrect, which is a problem for some people as they have backed themselves so far into a corner over this there is no way back now. We've seen a bit of backsliding from one or two, but they've been so vociferous in their views, they just look a bit daft now.
No wonder they would rather not enter into a debate on this. Tony Pulis has been making them look silly for years, and continues to do so.
It's not about entering a debate. Whether right or wrong, it's all in the past. Pointing fingers and trying to score points now is pathetic. Something only sad cunts who have nothing better to do would partake in.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 20, 2014 11:36:37 GMT
I don't agree, Merk.
I honestly don't think it serves any useful purpose (I'm not saying you shouldn't or shouldn't discuss it just that it serves no positive purpose).
Hughes should be judged without prejudice on what he achieves and on the resources at his disposal.
We (well most of us) know what a great job Tony did for Stoke City but most will admit things had gone very stale over the last 18 months or more.
Hughes is trying to do things his way (note not a better/worse way) and has done so under tight financial restraints.
The Board said they wanted the club to head in a different direction and we are certainly doing that but if they really want us to succeed they need to get behind the man THEY chose and give him the sufficient funds to make this transition a successful one.
Hughes inherited some seasoned and very well drilled Premier League players that were missing pace and invention. The squad was pretty imbalanced and still needs some work.
Given time and resources I believe Hughes is the man to do it, just like Tone he has made me scratch my head a few times already but the overall view is one of positive change and hope of progression.
I'm not saying what people should or shouldn't discuss but I do believe the time is upon us that as a supporter base we should concentrate on looking forwards not backwards and see where it takes us.
The divisions within our support need to be healed as there is nothing to be gained from petty point scoring as all it does it distract us from what should be our main focus which is getting fully behind the club.
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Mar 20, 2014 11:47:36 GMT
Both sides of the argument go too far. TP signed good players and Mark Hughes has yet to prove he's the savior and tactical genius some people are claiming. But I must say the interplay between the players around the opposition penalty area on Saturday was an improvement on most of the games under TP and the earlier season games under Mark Hughes, where there was the tedium of too much passing around the back. Whether it was just a flash in the pan or the culmination of MH's coaching we will have to see.I'm hoping he is going to improve the footballing experience and at the same time keep up the home form.Which I think all fans want.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 20, 2014 11:48:23 GMT
I don't agree, Merk. I honestly don't think it serves any useful purpose (I'm not saying you shouldn't or shouldn't discuss it just that it serves no positive purpose). Hughes should be judged without prejudice on what he achieves and on the resources at his disposal. We (well most of us) know what a great job Tony did for Stoke City but most will admit things had gone very stale over the last 18 months or more. Hughes is trying to do things his way (note not a better/worse way) and has done so under tight financial restraints. The Board said they wanted the club to head in a different direction and we are certainly doing that but if they really want us to succeed they need to get behind the man THEY chose and give him the sufficient funds to make this transition a successful one. Hughes inherited some seasoned and very well drilled Premier League players that were missing pace and invention. The squad was pretty imbalanced and still needs some work. Given time and resources I believe Hughes is the man to do it, just like Tone he has made me scratch my head a few times already but the overall view is one of positive change and hope of progression. I'm not saying what people should or shouldn't discuss but I do believe the time is upon us that as a supporter base we should concentrate on looking forwards not backwards and see where it takes us. The divisions within our support need to be healed as there is nothing to be gained from petty point scoring as all it does it distract us from what should be our main focus which is getting fully behind the club. There will always be divisions between those that can see and those that can't. Let them fester I say! :-) Pulis has gone with my thanks or should I say I'm thankful he's gone! :-) Let's just see what the end of the season brings and hopefully we can put all this nonsense behind us once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 20, 2014 11:52:24 GMT
Go on then I'll chip in. As signings go lets list most posters player of the season in order. 1) Shawcross - Pulis signing 2) Bego - Pulis signing 3) Adam - Pulis signing 4) Cameron (unfathomably for me) - Pulis signing 5) Whelan - Pulis signing 6) Crouch - Pulis signing Top legacy Tone and pulis couldnt get cameron to play, could rarely get whelan to play two consectutive games and never took crouch to valencia well done Mark Cameron isn't a right back and isn't good enough to play in his proper position under Tone. Hughes dislike of Wilko has meant he has been able to forge out a Stoke career as a passable right back. Whelan played 180 odd times under Pulis and 35 times last season. Hardly not being able to play 'two games together'. Crouch was our top scorer in the first season scoring the second largest amount of goals in a season since Peter Thorne got 30. Top legacy Tone.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 20, 2014 11:57:01 GMT
Jamo
I think you need to distinguish between messageboard world and real life - what goes on this board does not matter in real life one iota.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Mar 20, 2014 11:59:04 GMT
The reason one or two are very keen for us all to stop talking about and forget about Pulis, is quite simply because he keeps on proving them wrong, even after he's left.
How many times have we read from certain "experts":
1. Pulis will never get another Premier League job 2. Pulis was a disaster in the transfer market and signed a load of rubbish we're stuck with 3. Jon Walters would never play in The Premier League under anybody else 4. Peter Crouch "doesn't fit our system" (one of my personal favourites) 5. Charlie Adam can't play in a midfield two 6. Pulis got it wrong with Jermaine Pennant who would have been our saviour 7. Pulis shouldn't have "sold" the great white hope that is Ben Marshall 8. Glenn Whelan/Marc Wilson is rubbish (See the SJW argument) 9. Pulis is a tactical dinosaur 10. Pulis somehow disrespects our club because he plays a few mind games in Press Conferences
As far as I can see, all those things have been proved to be incorrect, which is a problem for some people as they have backed themselves so far into a corner over this there is no way back now. We've seen a bit of backsliding from one or two, but they've been so vociferous in their views, they just look a bit daft now.
No wonder they would rather not enter into a debate on this. Tony Pulis has been making them look silly for years, and continues to do so.
It's not about entering a debate. Whether right or wrong, it's all in the past. Pointing fingers and trying to score points now is pathetic. Something only sad cunts who have nothing better to do would partake in. I agree with MCF that it's a relevant reference point, as well as a part of our recent history.
I repeat a previous argument that if it's OK to eulogise about Ric and wish Rory well, why is it wrong to comment upon he who must not be named?
I'm not point scoring or finger pointing. I genuinely find it amusing that we, as normal supporters, may just not be quite as clever as we thought, and that top football professionals actually earn their living on merit.
I am quite happy to say that I thought that at then time, Kitson, Palacios and Kightly were all great signings. I was wrong. Why is it so hard for some people to say the same kind of things about TP?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 20, 2014 11:59:58 GMT
I don't agree, Merk. I honestly don't think it serves any useful purpose (I'm not saying you shouldn't or shouldn't discuss it just that it serves no positive purpose). Hughes should be judged without prejudice on what he achieves and on the resources at his disposal. We (well most of us) know what a great job Tony did for Stoke City but most will admit things had gone very stale over the last 18 months or more. Hughes is trying to do things his way (note not a better/worse way) and has done so under tight financial restraints. The Board said they wanted the club to head in a different direction and we are certainly doing that but if they really want us to succeed they need to get behind the man THEY chose and give him the sufficient funds to make this transition a successful one. Hughes inherited some seasoned and very well drilled Premier League players that were missing pace and invention. The squad was pretty imbalanced and still needs some work. Given time and resources I believe Hughes is the man to do it, just like Tone he has made me scratch my head a few times already but the overall view is one of positive change and hope of progression. I'm not saying what people should or shouldn't discuss but I do believe the time is upon us that as a supporter base we should concentrate on looking forwards not backwards and see where it takes us. The divisions within our support need to be healed as there is nothing to be gained from petty point scoring as all it does it distract us from what should be our main focus which is getting fully behind the club. There will always be divisions between those that can see and those that can't. Let them fester I say! :-) Pulis has gone with my thanks or should I say I'm thankful he's gone! :-) Let's just see what the end of the season brings and hopefully we can put all this nonsense behind us once and for all. You and the wankstains are the experts on blindness Dave By your admission you spent 5 years in total darkness. Pulis Out!
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 20, 2014 12:01:56 GMT
It's not about entering a debate. Whether right or wrong, it's all in the past. Pointing fingers and trying to score points now is pathetic. Something only sad cunts who have nothing better to do would partake in. I agree with MCF that it's a relevant reference point, as well as a part of our recent history.
I repeat a previous argument that if it's OK to eulogise about Ric and wish Rory well, why is it wrong to comment upon he who must not be named?
I'm not point scoring or finger pointing. I genuinely find it amusing that we, as normal supporters, may just not be quite as clever as we thought, and that top football professionals actually earn their living on merit.
I am quite happy to say that I thought that at then time, Kitson, Palacios and Kightly were all great signings. I was wrong. Why is it so hard for some people to say the same kind of things about TP?
I can understand the odd reference to Pulis, but what has Voldemort got to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by ferryside on Mar 20, 2014 12:03:50 GMT
Despite what many posters think, I do not understand the need to sweep Pulis under the carpet. As time passes by the need to reference him will be less and less but it absolutely essential that he is mentioned or otherwise massive pieces of the jigsaw will be missed when judging Hughes. Whether or not Pulis left good players behind matters. Looking at what both managers spend on transfers and wages matters. Points and positions matter. Pulis is our only reference point for Hughes at this stage The reason one or two are very keen for us all to stop talking about and forget about Pulis, is quite simply because he keeps on proving them wrong, even after he's left.
How many times have we read from certain "experts":
1. Pulis will never get another Premier League job 2. Pulis was a disaster in the transfer market and signed a load of rubbish we're stuck with 3. Jon Walters would never play in The Premier League under anybody else 4. Peter Crouch "doesn't fit our system" (one of my personal favourites) 5. Charlie Adam can't play in a midfield two 6. Pulis got it wrong with Jermaine Pennant who would have been our saviour 7. Pulis shouldn't have "sold" the great white hope that is Ben Marshall 8. Glenn Whelan/Marc Wilson is rubbish (See the SJW argument) 9. Pulis is a tactical dinosaur 10. Pulis somehow disrespects our club because he plays a few mind games in Press Conferences
As far as I can see, all those things have been proved to be incorrect, which is a problem for some people as they have backed themselves so far into a corner over this there is no way back now. We've seen a bit of backsliding from one or two, but they've been so vociferous in their views, they just look a bit daft now.
No wonder they would rather not enter into a debate on this. Tony Pulis has been making them look silly for years, and continues to do so.
But posts like this are no better, everyone has a view some are just extreme. There's no I told you so but there are levels of interpretation. 1. Tony took a lower standing role in a desperate situation that would benefit from his methods in all honesty 2. Pulis was becoming a liability in the transfer market and employing a system that would be a threat to its future 3. He hasn't 4. No but he's not the quickest as a lone striker and has benefitted from a different system to be fair 5. More about Adam than Pulis 6. No some decent wingers last season could have been tones saviour though 7. Scraping the barrel here how long ago was that 8. Every club has their boo boys nothing to do with Pulis. Glenn Whelan has shown more depth to his game under hughes though if we are honest, could just be maturity as a player tho 9 No but he has a rigid defensive philosophy for his system, let's just say he was inflexible at times. 10 Not sure where anyone's coming from on this one Fact is I liked tone but every one has a perception, plus everyone is right or wrong on some occasion. What is for sure is nobodies proving everything to everyone all of the time. Fact is those who wanted Pulis gone got their wish eventually as they didn't want his football primarily. He's hardly in the ascendancy but he's doing a respectable job in a way he good at. I personally think he's a very competent manager at this level but I wouldn't want him back now. It's over.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 12:04:59 GMT
What happens if we lose at Villa? Our away form has been poor and Villa are looking good at the moment. Will it just be a minor blip and Hughes will still be the genius he has become this week? Will this board be full of 'Hughes out' threads? Or will it all be Pulis' fault for leaving him with a shit squad?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 20, 2014 12:06:07 GMT
Both sides of the argument go too far. TP signed good players and Mark Hughes has yet to prove he's the savior and tactical genius some people are claiming. But I must say the interplay between the players around the opposition penalty area on Saturday was an improvement on most of the games under TP and the earlier season games under Mark Hughes, where there was the tedium of too much passing around the back. Whether it was just a flash in the pan or the culmination of MH's coaching we will have to see.I'm hoping he is going to improve the footballing experience and at the same time keep up the home form.Which I think all fans want. Tell me where I go to far? If I'm willing to concede that I was wrong in worrying about what would happen if Tony Pulis left the club then where do I go too far? Do I go too far by supporting many of Tony's players that the PHWs claiming he left a wank legacy? We are 11th for fucksake and Hughes has massively leaned on those players despite brining in numerous of his own. Take a look a okey's list again. There is only 1 group that said Pulis would 'ruin the club' The same group said Pulis was on the verge of ruining in the latter stages yet he has fucked off to turn Crystal Pulisisace around and give them a fighting (if slim) chance.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Mar 20, 2014 12:06:25 GMT
Indeed. It would seem to be more acceptable to invite Lord Voldemort to the Hogwarts Christmas Carol service than for some Stoke City supporters to concede that Tony Pulis might not have been such a chump after all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 12:07:03 GMT
The reason one or two are very keen for us all to stop talking about and forget about Pulis, is quite simply because he keeps on proving them wrong, even after he's left.
How many times have we read from certain "experts":
1. Pulis will never get another Premier League job 2. Pulis was a disaster in the transfer market and signed a load of rubbish we're stuck with 3. Jon Walters would never play in The Premier League under anybody else 4. Peter Crouch "doesn't fit our system" (one of my personal favourites) 5. Charlie Adam can't play in a midfield two 6. Pulis got it wrong with Jermaine Pennant who would have been our saviour 7. Pulis shouldn't have "sold" the great white hope that is Ben Marshall 8. Glenn Whelan/Marc Wilson is rubbish (See the SJW argument) 9. Pulis is a tactical dinosaur 10. Pulis somehow disrespects our club because he plays a few mind games in Press Conferences
As far as I can see, all those things have been proved to be incorrect, which is a problem for some people as they have backed themselves so far into a corner over this there is no way back now. We've seen a bit of backsliding from one or two, but they've been so vociferous in their views, they just look a bit daft now.
No wonder they would rather not enter into a debate on this. Tony Pulis has been making them look silly for years, and continues to do so.
But posts like this are no better, everyone has a view some are just extreme. There's no I told you so but there are levels of interpretation. 1. Tony took a lower standing role in a desperate situation that would benefit from his methods in all honesty 2. Pulis was becoming a liability in the transfer market and employing a system that would be a threat to its future 3. He hasn't4. No but he's not the quickest as a lone striker and has benefitted from a different system to be fair 5. More about Adam than Pulis 6. No some decent wingers last season could have been tones saviour though 7. Scraping the barrel here how long ago was that 8. Every club has their boo boys nothing to do with Pulis. Glenn Whelan has shown more depth to his game under hughes though if we are honest, could just be maturity as a player tho 9 No but he has a rigid defensive philosophy for his system, let's just say he was inflexible at times. 10 Not sure where anyone's coming from on this one Fact is I liked tone but every one has a perception, plus everyone is right or wrong on some occasion. What is for sure is nobodies proving everything to everyone all of the time. Fact is those who wanted Pulis gone got their wish eventually as they didn't want his football primarily. He's hardly in the ascendancy but he's doing a respectable job in a way he good at. I personally think he's a very competent manager at this level but I wouldn't want him back now. It's over. Yes he has, Mark Hughes is someone else
|
|
|
Post by ferryside on Mar 20, 2014 12:17:44 GMT
But posts like this are no better, everyone has a view some are just extreme. There's no I told you so but there are levels of interpretation. 1. Tony took a lower standing role in a desperate situation that would benefit from his methods in all honesty 2. Pulis was becoming a liability in the transfer market and employing a system that would be a threat to its future 3. He hasn't4. No but he's not the quickest as a lone striker and has benefitted from a different system to be fair 5. More about Adam than Pulis 6. No some decent wingers last season could have been tones saviour though 7. Scraping the barrel here how long ago was that 8. Every club has their boo boys nothing to do with Pulis. Glenn Whelan has shown more depth to his game under hughes though if we are honest, could just be maturity as a player tho 9 No but he has a rigid defensive philosophy for his system, let's just say he was inflexible at times. 10 Not sure where anyone's coming from on this one Fact is I liked tone but every one has a perception, plus everyone is right or wrong on some occasion. What is for sure is nobodies proving everything to everyone all of the time. Fact is those who wanted Pulis gone got their wish eventually as they didn't want his football primarily. He's hardly in the ascendancy but he's doing a respectable job in a way he good at. I personally think he's a very competent manager at this level but I wouldn't want him back now. It's over. Yes he has, Mark Hughes is someone else My apologies I read that as he would never play for anyone else. In all honesty though I can't see him being a regular under any other prem club and he won't be next season. He was the ultimate under Tone in playing an out of form player. Undoubtedly worth a role in any team as the boy has such a big heart. In a squad with some depth though he needs to be used more sparingly.
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Mar 20, 2014 12:19:52 GMT
So Glenda's number 1 boo boy is now championing him as a universal success just to prove his pathetic, agenda driven obsession? Classic.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 20, 2014 12:39:59 GMT
What happens if we lose at Villa? Legacy
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 20, 2014 12:41:11 GMT
What happens if we lose at Villa? Legacy Brilliant
|
|
|
Post by nononsense on Mar 20, 2014 13:03:50 GMT
Go on then I'll chip in. As signings go lets list most posters player of the season in order. 1) Shawcross - Pulis signing 2) Bego - Pulis signing 3) Adam - Pulis signing 4) Cameron (unfathomably for me) - Pulis signing 5) Whelan - Pulis signing 6) Crouch - Pulis signing Top legacy Tone I am not a Pulis fan whatsoever. But, I always said that for the most part, he had a very good eye for talent, noted by the list of signings above, amongst a few others. It was his complete ineptitude in getting those players to do well after they came to Stoke City that I had a big problem with !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 13:05:29 GMT
The only way things were going to change is if the manager was given the funds to bring in the players required to essentially replace the ones that didn't work out - which were mainly wide players. With Pennant kicked out, Ethers injuries and Kightly/Shea both being wank then we were woefully short here. This is what the vast majority of us knew regardless of which side of the fence we sat. I don't disagree with your comments on Hughes and on the face of it, the managerial change looks to have been a good one. I will go as far as to say that I was wrong in that I needn't have worried about swapping Pulis as much as I did. What I won't agree on is that Pulis had to go, couldn't rectify a few of the mistakes that he made or that he left a bag of wank behind. He was taking his sweet time rectifying them though Merk and they were mainly of his making. The thing about the 'steak and chips' line is he was right. We'd rarely had it so good as the promotion season and at least two of the three seasons that followed. But then he was given another huge wodge of cash to spend and a load more players came in and yet things got worse. He has to take a large part of the blame for that just as he takes the lion's share of the credit for the success. People stick the knife into Cartwright (and to an extent with some justification, it seems) but do we thing the club would even have felt the need for that type of role had there none been some serious question marks over how the money was starting to be spent?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 13:06:23 GMT
Despite what many posters think, I do not understand the need to sweep Pulis under the carpet. As time passes by the need to reference him will be less and less but it absolutely essential that he is mentioned or otherwise massive pieces of the jigsaw will be missed when judging Hughes. Whether or not Pulis left good players behind matters. Looking at what both managers spend on transfers and wages matters. Points and positions matter. Pulis is our only reference point for Hughes at this stage The reason one or two are very keen for us all to stop talking about and forget about Pulis, is quite simply because he keeps on proving them wrong, even after he's left.
How many times have we read from certain "experts":
1. Pulis will never get another Premier League job 2. Pulis was a disaster in the transfer market and signed a load of rubbish we're stuck with 3. Jon Walters would never play in The Premier League under anybody else 4. Peter Crouch "doesn't fit our system" (one of my personal favourites) 5. Charlie Adam can't play in a midfield two 6. Pulis got it wrong with Jermaine Pennant who would have been our saviour 7. Pulis shouldn't have "sold" the great white hope that is Ben Marshall 8. Glenn Whelan/Marc Wilson is rubbish (See the SJW argument) 9. Pulis is a tactical dinosaur 10. Pulis somehow disrespects our club because he plays a few mind games in Press Conferences
As far as I can see, all those things have been proved to be incorrect, which is a problem for some people as they have backed themselves so far into a corner over this there is no way back now. We've seen a bit of backsliding from one or two, but they've been so vociferous in their views, they just look a bit daft now.
No wonder they would rather not enter into a debate on this. Tony Pulis has been making them look silly for years, and continues to do so.
People seem convinced that it's a dig at Crouch to say he didn't/doesn't fit the system when it wasn't and never has been. I don't think Adam can play in a midfield two. I'm not having it that that's been disproved definitively. Marshall might not be a great white hope. I refuse to believe he's a worse option out wide than Ryan Shotton. You crow about all this stuff when a lot of what you're saying is still hugely open to question.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Mar 20, 2014 13:15:58 GMT
Despite what many posters think, I do not understand the need to sweep Pulis under the carpet. As time passes by the need to reference him will be less and less but it absolutely essential that he is mentioned or otherwise massive pieces of the jigsaw will be missed when judging Hughes. Whether or not Pulis left good players behind matters. Looking at what both managers spend on transfers and wages matters. Points and positions matter. Pulis is our only reference point for Hughes at this stage The reason one or two are very keen for us all to stop talking about and forget about Pulis, is quite simply because he keeps on proving them wrong, even after he's left.
How many times have we read from certain "experts":
1. Pulis will never get another Premier League job 2. Pulis was a disaster in the transfer market and signed a load of rubbish we're stuck with 3. Jon Walters would never play in The Premier League under anybody else 4. Peter Crouch "doesn't fit our system" (one of my personal favourites) 5. Charlie Adam can't play in a midfield two 6. Pulis got it wrong with Jermaine Pennant who would have been our saviour 7. Pulis shouldn't have "sold" the great white hope that is Ben Marshall 8. Glenn Whelan/Marc Wilson is rubbish (See the SJW argument) 9. Pulis is a tactical dinosaur 10. Pulis somehow disrespects our club because he plays a few mind games in Press Conferences
As far as I can see, all those things have been proved to be incorrect, which is a problem for some people as they have backed themselves so far into a corner over this there is no way back now. We've seen a bit of backsliding from one or two, but they've been so vociferous in their views, they just look a bit daft now.
No wonder they would rather not enter into a debate on this. Tony Pulis has been making them look silly for years, and continues to do so.
Other than completely misrepresenting views by boiling them down and generalising to such a degree that it wasn't worth typing them I think that is a great summary. Your opinion is of course your opinion to which you are absolutely entitled.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 20, 2014 13:17:59 GMT
The only way things were going to change is if the manager was given the funds to bring in the players required to essentially replace the ones that didn't work out - which were mainly wide players. With Pennant kicked out, Ethers injuries and Kightly/Shea both being wank then we were woefully short here. This is what the vast majority of us knew regardless of which side of the fence we sat. I don't disagree with your comments on Hughes and on the face of it, the managerial change looks to have been a good one. I will go as far as to say that I was wrong in that I needn't have worried about swapping Pulis as much as I did. What I won't agree on is that Pulis had to go, couldn't rectify a few of the mistakes that he made or that he left a bag of wank behind. He was taking his sweet time rectifying them though Merk and they were mainly of his making. The thing about the 'steak and chips' line is he was right. We'd rarely had it so good as the promotion season and at least two of the three seasons that followed. But then he was given another huge wodge of cash to spend and a load more players came in and yet things got worse. He has to take a large part of the blame for that just as he takes the lion's share of the credit for the success. People stick the knife into Cartwright (and to an extent with some justification, it seems) but do we thing the club would even have felt the need for that type of role had there none been some serious question marks over how the money was starting to be spent? He wasn't given the funds to rectify them in the last window though was he? If that was because they didn't trust him with it then fair enough but then no one can be surprised if the results went downhill. To be honest, I still struggle to comprehend why he was given so much money but there you go. Some of it wasted, some of it paid off.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 13:23:08 GMT
He was taking his sweet time rectifying them though Merk and they were mainly of his making. The thing about the 'steak and chips' line is he was right. We'd rarely had it so good as the promotion season and at least two of the three seasons that followed. But then he was given another huge wodge of cash to spend and a load more players came in and yet things got worse. He has to take a large part of the blame for that just as he takes the lion's share of the credit for the success. People stick the knife into Cartwright (and to an extent with some justification, it seems) but do we thing the club would even have felt the need for that type of role had there none been some serious question marks over how the money was starting to be spent? He wasn't given the funds to rectify them in the last window though was he? If that was because they didn't trust him with it then fair enough but then no one can be surprised if the results went downhill. To be honest, I still struggle to comprehend why he was given so much money but there you go. Some of it wasted, some of it paid off. Is it not fair to say that the 'wasted' was starting to outweigh the 'paid off' in his last few windows though? I think it was, given only 2/3 of the last 14 players he brought in really cemented themselves in the team. Results were going downhill before they 'failed to back him' the end of 11/12 saw four wins out of 19. Even with a lack of funds, he was still picking the team and tactics every week and that squad had amassed a fair number of points (even if there were a fair few problems evident) in the first half of that season. I think the very appointment of Carto suggests they stopped trusting him in the transfer market.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 20, 2014 13:34:01 GMT
Go on then I'll chip in. As signings go lets list most posters player of the season in order. 1) Shawcross - Pulis signing 2) Bego - Pulis signing 3) Adam - Pulis signing 4) Cameron (unfathomably for me) - Pulis signing 5) Whelan - Pulis signing 6) Crouch - Pulis signing Top legacy Tone I am not a Pulis fan whatsoever. But, I always said that for the most part, he had a very good eye for talent, noted by the list of signings above, amongst a few others. It was his complete ineptitude in getting those players to do well after they came to Stoke City that I had a big problem with ! Ok,let's put that into context based on the total number of signings he made, how much resale value he got back, how much deadwood sat in the club and drained wages for years and how much those listed above actually cost out of the 100m+ he spent in 5/6 years.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 20, 2014 13:40:13 GMT
He wasn't given the funds to rectify them in the last window though was he? If that was because they didn't trust him with it then fair enough but then no one can be surprised if the results went downhill. To be honest, I still struggle to comprehend why he was given so much money but there you go. Some of it wasted, some of it paid off. Is it not fair to say that the 'wasted' was starting to outweigh the 'paid off' in his last few windows though? I think it was, given only 2/3 of the last 14 players he brought in really cemented themselves in the team. Results were going downhill before they 'failed to back him' the end of 11/12 saw four wins out of 19. Even with a lack of funds, he was still picking the team and tactics every week and that squad had amassed a fair number of points (even if there were a fair few problems evident) in the first half of that season. I think the very appointment of Carto suggests they stopped trusting him in the transfer market. Maybe Rob but then it sometimes can take time for players to settle in. Nzonzi, Adam, Jerome, Crouch, Cameron (a Carto signing thou?) were all good signings IMHO and played their part. Most of the money was here too wasn't it? Edu, Ness, Kightly, Shea (Carto), Pally were a waste Butland - clearly one for the future and not meant for now Not sure who I have missed from recent windows. If you look at the cold, hard reality of the contributions of this season then I'd say a number of them have taken well more than half the season before they look like they are going to contribute. They have played an important part though. As an example, Arnie's done fuck all really apart from West Ham. He looks like he could be a real player in the future though.
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Mar 20, 2014 13:44:16 GMT
Jamo I think you need to distinguish between messageboard world and real life - what goes on this board does not matter in real life one iota. I think I've got more of a grip on reality than many on here, mate. There are more than enough members on here with very different view points that go to games. You can't tell me those views disappear for 90 minutes on a Saturday? They are there, bubbling below the surface and the lack of unity is in my opinion a contributing factor to our poor atmospheres at games. That's my opinion of course, you probably think I've lost my grip on what's real and what isn't?
|
|