|
Post by wuzza on Apr 21, 2014 15:12:52 GMT
Both TP and Hughes have proved that any manager can have a 'blip' in their career (hello Mr Moyes) but quality and hard work will win out. Worked out really well for all concerned which is smashing!!
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 21, 2014 15:30:28 GMT
The OP asked a question, and some posters have given an answer, that's not about agendas or being anti Hughes, or anti Stoke, it's about answering a straight forward question, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with that is that you aren't a Stoke fan so really can't have anything other than an outsiders view.
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Apr 21, 2014 18:19:46 GMT
Truth is they have both done a good job. Hughes has proven that the players Pulis brought in havent lost the Stoke DNA, he hasnt lost the dressing room and they can actually play more than one way. He's also proved that the team can operate with a couple of skillful players and we dont have to rely on set pieces. Pulis has dragged a team from certain relegation to a possible mid table finish, even the biggest Pulis critic has to acknowledge the job he has done even if they dont like it. H +1 For me, TP just shades it based on the fact that Palace were all but written off when he took over and now they sit a place behind us.
|
|
|
Post by lostinafrenchbar on Apr 21, 2014 18:24:54 GMT
I'd put it the other way round....given their reputations at the time they got the respective jobs, have Stoke rescued Hughes and Palace rejuvenated Pulis?
|
|
mt
Youth Player
Posts: 355
|
Post by mt on Apr 21, 2014 18:38:11 GMT
Pulis had the tougher task. That said, Hughes has done a good job, but he didnt exactely start out with a team that was completely doomed.
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Apr 21, 2014 19:05:54 GMT
Both have done great jobs and both enhanced their reputations I think.
For me though manager of the year has to be Rodgers if Liverpool win the title. Martinez is also a good shout Everton have had a great year and I thought they'd struggle under him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 19:27:50 GMT
Pulis had the tougher task. That said, Hughes has done a good job, but he didnt exactely start out with a team that was completely doomed. No and neither did Pulis. Let's not pretend that Palace were cut adrift when Pulis took over from Holloway. Palace were many people favourites for the drop, but we were also widely fancied to be in the relegation mix as well,so in my eyes Hughes has done as equally well as Pulis has to get his team in the position he has. They have both done fantastic jobs given the circumstances,albeit in different ways,and they both deserve immense credit for the jobs they have done. That said,I know who my money is on for who can push on next season and improve their respective team even more.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Apr 21, 2014 20:18:58 GMT
Pulis shades it for me since I think he had the tougher job. Palace were favourites for the drop and at 7 points in 12 games they were being written off. He's done a top job turning them round despite what must have been the overwhelming temptation to force Puncheon and Bolasie onto the bench in favour of extra 6'5" clunkers. I think we had a stronger squad and Hughes got a full pre-season.
But Hughesy has changed our style and I'm glad we've got him.
|
|
|
Post by Danstoke82 on Apr 22, 2014 7:26:14 GMT
If Pulis took over at Man Utd would people stop talking about him then?
Interesting too see The Palace manager get so many mentions.
All for talking about him but surely now, with a season passed time to move on?.
|
|