|
|
Post by agingerstokie on Feb 27, 2015 14:22:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Feb 27, 2015 14:24:37 GMT
We are a bit. However, we aren't the only ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by agingerstokie on Feb 27, 2015 14:29:30 GMT
I think we're only inconsistent due to injuries I wouldn't say it's based on ability
|
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 27, 2015 14:29:34 GMT
We've won away at Spurs, Man City and Everton and lost at home to Leicester, Villa and Burnley.
I'd say we're pretty inconcistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Feb 27, 2015 14:33:03 GMT
It's only about four years since the million post debate about the exact definition of 'streaky', the extent to which we were 'streaky' and how this level of streakiness compared to everyone else.
We're inconsistent, but that's the nature of mid-table football.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Feb 27, 2015 14:33:57 GMT
Won 10, lost 10, I would have thought that was as inconsistent as it gets!!
|
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Feb 27, 2015 14:37:57 GMT
We are consistently inconsistent , which means we are consistent in a way  |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 27, 2015 14:41:28 GMT
It's only about four years since the million post debate about the exact definition of 'streaky', the extent to which we were 'streaky' and how this level of streakiness compared to everyone else. We're inconsistent, but that's the nature of mid-table football. Under Pulis we were ruthlessly consistent. In general at home we beat anyone outside the top seven, and maybe drew or won against the top seven. Away we maybe drew against the bottom 13, and lost to the top seven. A generalisation of course, but we stuck pretty well to it and it's part of the reason it became a bit stale and boring. We're a million miles from the under Hughes, which is why I would say we're inconsistent. |
|
|
|
Post by nutterpotter on Feb 27, 2015 14:51:48 GMT
Surely all midtable teams are inconsistent? That's why they are midtable.
|
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 27, 2015 14:53:54 GMT
How often are we the team that ends good or bad runs for other teams? More often than most other teams I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on Feb 27, 2015 15:16:37 GMT
We wouldn't be Stoke if we weren't "notoriously inconsistent".
Put it like this - I'm expecting us to win tomorrow, but I won't be falling off my seat if we lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 27, 2015 15:49:52 GMT
We're a mid table Premier League team. Of course we're inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Feb 27, 2015 16:02:12 GMT
Maybe less predictable is a better way of putting it.
Certainly the result and the number of chances created / goals scored / entertainment value in away games is a lot less predictable than it was, thank goodness.
|
|
|
|
Post by StokeAz on Feb 27, 2015 16:05:20 GMT
We have been inconsistent on the whole but we've recently found a little bit of consistency in the bpl IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by scottzbj on Feb 27, 2015 16:10:51 GMT
Inconsistent? Yes. "Notoriously inconsistent". Bollocks. No more than Citeh, Arse, Spuds and Leicester
|
|
|
|
Post by StokeAz on Feb 27, 2015 16:13:57 GMT
Nobody cares what sky think anyway;p
|
|
|
|
Post by alwich90 on Feb 27, 2015 16:19:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Feb 27, 2015 16:58:30 GMT
It may have something to do with the fact that our locker room looks like a fucking triage unit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Feb 27, 2015 17:12:12 GMT
It's like saying I am notoriously fast - according to the wife and compared to our hedgehog, yes. But without saying what "inconsistent" relates to, it's a bollox statement from poorly trained journos.
SkySports is a notoriously shite forum. Oh wait, that doesn't need any comparison - it's an absolute.
|
|
|
|
Post by 2004 on Feb 27, 2015 17:18:13 GMT
We are inconsistent
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Feb 27, 2015 17:37:22 GMT
Inconsistency means to be that we lose games we should wn and we win games we should lose. So yes we are inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Feb 27, 2015 17:41:43 GMT
WE Are not as consistent has Arsenal, they have been consistent at been cunts for Donkeys years.
|
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Feb 27, 2015 18:00:30 GMT
agreed
|
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Feb 27, 2015 18:17:31 GMT
Sky are a totally consistent RIP OFF!
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Feb 27, 2015 18:22:00 GMT
We are inconsistent and SKY are cunts!
I'll take that!
H
|
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Feb 27, 2015 19:23:33 GMT
It's such a stupid fucking idiotic term to use, that. If we were consistently winning we'd be top of the league. Likewise we could be consistent if we were wank. If you're a mid-table side, you have to be, by definition, inconsistent. Or consistently drawing.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcwebby on Feb 27, 2015 19:29:37 GMT
We're a mid table Premier League team. Of course we're inconsistent. Agree, If we weren't on the inconsistent side then we would be in a top 4 race or a relegation scrap. Saying that we have been in reasonably good form the past couple of months all things considered |
|
|
|
Post by retired1 on Feb 27, 2015 19:31:15 GMT
Lets see if its confirmed tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Feb 27, 2015 20:10:21 GMT
We are... but in a good way. Ask. Arsenal, Man City and Spurs...  |
|
|
|
Post by HappyClapper on Feb 27, 2015 20:15:03 GMT
That's what supporting Stoke is all about. One big rollercoaster ride!
|
|
