|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 21:48:35 GMT
Is this the same Diouf that shit loads of Stoke fans (not me by the way) have written off as wank? I don't believe that playing on the break is our one and only way of playing when away from home,because if it was then there is no way that our manager would set up like he does. My opinion is,that too many fans,especially on here, like to analyse performances too much,when the truth is,that every now and then we won't play to our potential and we will invariably lose a game of football. Regardless of what team Hughes picked today I'm sure the outcome would have been the same because the simple fact is,we were fucking woeful to a man. What's the point in having a football discussion message board if supporters don't analyse performances? Let's just pat the manager on the back (regardless of how we actually played) when we win and say absolutely nothing (again regardless of how we played) when we lose. If you personally don't want to discuss tactics, formations and selection choices then that's absolutely fine but it does seem a little bit silly for you to come on to a public football forum and criticise football fans who do want to. I'll discuss tactics and formations all day long mate. What I can't understand is that people have to find scapegoats when the whole team were shit to man. My original point was that it's easy for us to sit here with the benefit of hindsight,to pick the bones out of a performance when the team Hughes picked was plenty good enough to beat West Bromwich today,well if we had played anything like our potential.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2015 21:53:05 GMT
What's the point in having a football discussion message board if supporters don't analyse performances? Let's just pat the manager on the back (regardless of how we actually played) when we win and say absolutely nothing (again regardless of how we played) when we lose. If you personally don't want to discuss tactics, formations and selection choices then that's absolutely fine but it does seem a little bit silly for you to come on to a public football forum and criticise football fans who do want to. I'll discuss tactics and formations all day long mate. What I can't understand is that people have to find scapegoats when the whole team were shit to man. My original point was that it's easy for us to sit here with the benefit of hindsight,to pick the bones out of a performance when the team Hughes picked was plenty good enough to beat West Bromwich today,well if we had played anything like our potential. People think the manager got his team selection wrong today and they have articulated WHY they think he got it wrong, people were expressing the same concerns before the game even began ... At the end of the day it's a football discussion forum.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Mar 14, 2015 21:59:55 GMT
Diouf was terrible today when he came on, possibly the worst I've seen him. Arnie didn't improve a shit situation either.
When Moses doesn't turn up we're a pale shadow of the side we could be
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 22:00:34 GMT
I'll discuss tactics and formations all day long mate. What I can't understand is that people have to find scapegoats when the whole team were shit to man. My original point was that it's easy for us to sit here with the benefit of hindsight,to pick the bones out of a performance when the team Hughes picked was plenty good enough to beat West Bromwich today,well if we had played anything like our potential. People think the manager got his team selection wrong today and they have articulated WHY they think he got it wrong, people were expressing the same concerns before the game even began ... At the end of the day it's a football discussion forum. Yes, and I disagree that he got his team selection wrong. His team selection wasn't the problem today. The fact that pretty much to a man we were shit was the problem,plus add the fact that he had his hands tied when it came to game changing substitutions and you get the reason why we lost today. You were suggesting we played Diouf in the hole earlier which I strongly disagree with,that's why we are still in this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Titan Uranus on Mar 14, 2015 22:06:04 GMT
Diouf was terrible today when he came on, possibly the worst I've seen him. Arnie didn't improve a shit situation either. When Moses doesn't turn up we're a pale shadow of the side we could be In my opinion Diouf is the biggest head scratcher of the Hughes era so far. Big money headline signing who really hasn't nailed down the centre forward spot up to press.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2015 22:10:18 GMT
People think the manager got his team selection wrong today and they have articulated WHY they think he got it wrong, people were expressing the same concerns before the game even began ... At the end of the day it's a football discussion forum. Yes, and I disagree that he got his team selection wrong. His team selection wasn't the problem today. The fact that pretty much to a man we were shit was the problem,plus add the fact that he had his hands tied when it came to game changing substitutions and you get the reason why we lost today. You were suggesting we played Diouf in the hole earlier which I strongly disagree with,that's why we are still in this discussion. You haven't once though explained WHY you thought Adam in the hole with Crouch leading the line and Walters on the wing was the right selection to play away at the Hawthornes, save for saying 'because it worked at home to Everton'. Don't you think there's even a possibility that a team might not play well as a collective because the selection of the individuals within that team wasn't actually quite right?
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Mar 14, 2015 22:11:39 GMT
Diouf was terrible today when he came on, possibly the worst I've seen him. Arnie didn't improve a shit situation either. When Moses doesn't turn up we're a pale shadow of the side we could be In my opinion Diouf is the biggest head scratcher of the Hughes era so far. Big money headline signing who really hasn't nailed down the centre forward spot up to press. Difficult to make him out. He tries very hard, hopefully Hughes knows better than us, after all he was a striker himself. It would be brilliant if he found the form that brought him here. Still time yet.?
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Mar 14, 2015 22:13:53 GMT
Crouch and Adam did well against Everton but were the wrong decision today. It feels Hughes picked the XI based on last week, not looking at today's game being different in terms of opposition. Which is annoying. +1
|
|
|
Post by sufolkstokie on Mar 14, 2015 22:16:20 GMT
In my opinion Diouf is the biggest head scratcher of the Hughes era so far. Big money headline signing who really hasn't nailed down the centre forward spot up to press. Difficult to make him out. He tries very hard, hopefully Hughes knows better than us, after all he was a striker himself. It would be brilliant if he found the form that brought him here. Still time yet.? One thing is for sure - the lad can only play in one position and the wing is not it Today showed we can not start with Crouch and Adam - way too easy to take Adam out of the game and duel up on Crouch It was crying out for Diouf as early as 25 mins in to turn them back (his pace if nothing else scares the opposition) and Arnie on the right as they doubled up on Moses Poor day by many at the office so to speak but Sparky also got it wrong today
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 22:25:18 GMT
Yes, and I disagree that he got his team selection wrong. His team selection wasn't the problem today. The fact that pretty much to a man we were shit was the problem,plus add the fact that he had his hands tied when it came to game changing substitutions and you get the reason why we lost today. You were suggesting we played Diouf in the hole earlier which I strongly disagree with,that's why we are still in this discussion. You haven't once though explained WHY you thought Adam in the hole with Crouch leading the line and Walters on the wing was the right selection to play away at the Hawthornes, save for saying 'because it worked at home to Everton'. Don't you think there's even a possibility that a team might not play well as a collective because the selection of the individuals that team wasn't quite right? Sorry I didn't realise I had to. Come to think of it I don't remember you going into too much detail as to why you think Diouff would have worked in the hole today,other than it worked at Man City. I can't be arsed to look back at last season's games when Diouff wasn't here,to see how many points we picked up with Walters,Crouch and Adam on the same pitch as each other but I should imagine it was a decent amount. As for your last question then I'd like to believe that you would give me more credit than to ask such an obvious question. My point all along has been that I don't believe Hughes did get his starting eleven wrong and that regardless of what team he had started today(perhaps one or two changes people are suggesting)it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome of the game because too many of our players were nowhere near their best.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 22:27:48 GMT
Crouch and Adam did well against Everton but were the wrong decision today. It feels Hughes picked the XI based on last week, not looking at today's game being different in terms of opposition. Which is annoying. +1 And yet most people would have said "why change a winning side" if we had won. Fickle,hindsight bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2015 22:51:57 GMT
You haven't once though explained WHY you thought Adam in the hole with Crouch leading the line and Walters on the wing was the right selection to play away at the Hawthornes, save for saying 'because it worked at home to Everton'. Don't you think there's even a possibility that a team might not play well as a collective because the selection of the individuals that team wasn't quite right? Sorry I didn't realise I had to. Come to think of it I don't remember you going into too much detail as to why you think Diouff would have worked in the hole today,other than it worked at Man City. I can't be arsed to look back at last season's games when Diouff wasn't here,to see how many points we picked up with Walters,Crouch and Adam on the same pitch as each other but I should imagine it was a decent amount. As for your last question then I'd like to believe that you would give me more credit than to ask such an obvious question. My point all along has been that I don't believe Hughes did get his starting eleven wrong and that regardless of what team he had started today(perhaps one or two changes people are suggesting)it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome of the game because too many of our players were nowhere near their best. If you don't want to offer an explanation to support your opinion, fair enough. I have done so though and I didn't mention the Man Citeh game, that actually was somebody else, who offered it as an example because they understood the explanation I making.
|
|
|
Post by StokieAsh13 on Mar 14, 2015 23:02:09 GMT
Diouf was terrible today when he came on, possibly the worst I've seen him. Arnie didn't improve a shit situation either. When Moses doesn't turn up we're a pale shadow of the side we could be So you have a bitch about Arnie and Diouf once then feel the need to do it again on the next page ? Really? Don't understand you at all fella.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Mar 14, 2015 23:03:32 GMT
Diouf was terrible today when he came on, possibly the worst I've seen him. Arnie didn't improve a shit situation either. When Moses doesn't turn up we're a pale shadow of the side we could be So you have a bitch about Arnie and Diouf once then feel the need to do it again on the next page again? Really? Don't understabd you at all fella. How do you feel they played? Please tell me if you feel it's an outrageous comment and completely out of place...
|
|
sutt
Youth Player
Ole Ole Ole Ole
Posts: 296
|
Post by sutt on Mar 14, 2015 23:05:13 GMT
Adam was not the problem crouch was not one time did Adam have runners ahead of him to try and hit, wingers didn't deliver either, Diouf shud have started played right into their hands
|
|
|
Post by StokieAsh13 on Mar 14, 2015 23:06:37 GMT
So you have a bitch about Arnie and Diouf once then feel the need to do it again on the next page again? Really? Don't understabd you at all fella. How do you feel they played? Please tell me if you feel it's an outrageous comment and completely out of place... The fact is you said it once then feel the need to say it again moments later. Its puzzling! I thought Arnie free kick aside was ok and Diouf was just his usual self. I find hard to see how you fail to criticise Moses. I saw him once all game and that was a shot he hit well over the top.
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Mar 14, 2015 23:12:42 GMT
How do you feel they played? Please tell me if you feel it's an outrageous comment and completely out of place... The fact is you said it once then feel the need to say it again moments later. Its puzzling! I thought Arnie free kick aside was ok and Diouf was just his usual self. I find hard to see how you fail to criticise Moses. I saw him once all game and that was a shot he hit well over the top. I did criticise Moses, he didn't turn up today and as the only player with any pace in the front four it affected us massively. Diouf was the worst I've seen him today. This is a thread saying Highes should have started him, I'm making the point that it could have made things worse. Very few came out with any credit today
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 23:14:23 GMT
Sorry I didn't realise I had to. Come to think of it I don't remember you going into too much detail as to why you think Diouff would have worked in the hole today,other than it worked at Man City. I can't be arsed to look back at last season's games when Diouff wasn't here,to see how many points we picked up with Walters,Crouch and Adam on the same pitch as each other but I should imagine it was a decent amount. As for your last question then I'd like to believe that you would give me more credit than to ask such an obvious question. My point all along has been that I don't believe Hughes did get his starting eleven wrong and that regardless of what team he had started today(perhaps one or two changes people are suggesting)it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome of the game because too many of our players were nowhere near their best. If you don't want to offer an explanation to support your opinion, fair enough. I have done so though and I didn't mention the Man Citeh game, that actually was somebody else, who offered it as an example because they understood the explanation I making. So you didn't mention the Man City game then,so you haven't actually given me a reason why you think playing Diouff in the hole would have worked then. In my opinion,Charlie Adam did enough in the 60 odd minutes he was on the pitch against Everton to warrant another start today,considering we have pretty much every other player in that position either injured or just coming back from injury. Hughes was well within his right to start with the same side(Shawcross aside) today that beat Everton because it was a solid performance and also because it's the right thing to do in my opinion. Picking an unchanged team when you are winning is something I'm a great believer in,and is something that I've seen a lot of people on here agree with since Hughes took over,well until we lose a game that is anyway! The only change that I could see today would have been Diouff for Crouch,but the way the game panned out I really don't believe it would have made much difference and having said that,all Hughes' plans during the game were shot to shit due to the forced substitutions. These are all the reasons why I believe that Hughes is getting unnecessary stick for his starting eleven and that hindsight is involved in forming people's opinions on here. Hope that's explanation enough for you Mr Spencer
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2015 23:21:04 GMT
If you don't want to offer an explanation to support your opinion, fair enough. I have done so though and I didn't mention the Man Citeh game, that actually was somebody else, who offered it as an example because they understood the explanation I making. So you didn't mention the Man City game then,so you haven't actually given me a reason why you think playing Diouff in the hole would have worked then. In my opinion,Charlie Adam did enough in the 60 odd minutes he was on the pitch against Everton to warrant another start today,considering we have pretty much every other player in that position either injured or just coming back from injury. Hughes was well within his right to start with the same side(Shawcross aside) today that beat Everton because it was a solid performance and also because it's the right thing to do in my opinion. Picking an unchanged team when you are winning is something I'm a great believer in,and is something that I've seen a lot of people on here agree with since Hughes took over,well until we lose a game that is anyway! The only change that I could see today would have been Diouff for Crouch,but the way the game panned out I really don't believe it would have made much difference and having said that,all Hughes' plans during the game were shot to shit due to the forced substitutions. These are all the reasons why I believe that Hughes is getting unnecessary stick for his starting eleven and that hindsight is involved in forming people's opinions on here. Hope that's explanation enough for you Mr Spencer Fella I have given you an explanation why I think it would tactically make sense to play Diouf in the hole away at West Brom, it's there on this thread if you look back - hence why people offered examples agreeing with that explanation. You on the other hand, are still JUST going with 'coz it worked against Everton guv' as you're sole explanation for your opinion - fair enough, if you think that's enough.
|
|
|
Post by BuzzB on Mar 14, 2015 23:22:43 GMT
If Ireland was fit enough for the bench then he should have started. Adam has filled in adequately without shining, we are much more fluid with SI in the team. After having ten days rest and preparation for todays game, you have to wonder why such a shit tepid display. Already on the beach is a bit of a cliche but it does make you wonder. Forget it and move on, I will say this though, for all those fawning over our ex manager, watching him today tells me he doesn't give a flying fuck for this club any more, regardless of his spin. Time to put him into room 101.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 23:31:51 GMT
So you didn't mention the Man City game then,so you haven't actually given me a reason why you think playing Diouff in the hole would have worked then. In my opinion,Charlie Adam did enough in the 60 odd minutes he was on the pitch against Everton to warrant another start today,considering we have pretty much every other player in that position either injured or just coming back from injury. Hughes was well within his right to start with the same side(Shawcross aside) today that beat Everton because it was a solid performance and also because it's the right thing to do in my opinion. Picking an unchanged team when you are winning is something I'm a great believer in,and is something that I've seen a lot of people on here agree with since Hughes took over,well until we lose a game that is anyway! The only change that I could see today would have been Diouff for Crouch,but the way the game panned out I really don't believe it would have made much difference and having said that,all Hughes' plans during the game were shot to shit due to the forced substitutions. These are all the reasons why I believe that Hughes is getting unnecessary stick for his starting eleven and that hindsight is involved in forming people's opinions on here. Hope that's explanation enough for you Mr Spencer Fella I have given you and explanation why I think it would tactically make sense to play Diouf in the hole away at West Brom, it's there on this thread if you look back - hence why people offered examples agreeing with that explanation. You're still JUST going with 'coz it worked against Everton guv' as you're sole explanation for your opinion - fair enough, if you think that's enough. All you said is that Diouf has the pace to go past Crouch on the counter. I said in reply to that,that I don't believe that is the fundamental way that we approach all our away games under Hughes. The fact that keeping a winning side together is never a bad idea,seems to be lost on you as an explanation for us starting with the side we did today and I will never believe that that is the main reason why we lost today's game. Diouf in the hole would have made no difference whatsoever today in my opinion,although he might have done playing on his only worthwhile position which is upfront,the performance of the other 10 players in red and white would have rendered it pointless. Oh and when you say people offered examples agreeing with you,I can only recall one
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2015 23:43:52 GMT
Fella I have given you and explanation why I think it would tactically make sense to play Diouf in the hole away at West Brom, it's there on this thread if you look back - hence why people offered examples agreeing with that explanation. You're still JUST going with 'coz it worked against Everton guv' as you're sole explanation for your opinion - fair enough, if you think that's enough. All you said is that Diouf has the pace to go past Crouch on the counter. I said in reply to that,that I don't believe that is the fundamental way that we approach all our away games under Hughes. The fact that keeping a winning side together is never a bad idea,seems to be lost on you as an explanation for us starting with the side we did today and I will never believe that that is the main reason why we lost today's game. Diouf in the hole would have made no difference whatsoever today in my opinion,although he might have done playing on his only worthwhile position which is upfront,the performance of the other 10 players in red and white would have rendered it pointless. Oh and when you say people offered examples agreeing with you,I can only recall one There are numerous people suggesting that Adam and Crouch won't work away from home on this thread, they aren't doing it necessarily because they agree with me specifically or because it's an opinion borne out of hindsight today but they most certainly ARE saying it for exactly the same reason that people have been saying it for the last two and a half seasons under two different managers. I think it's a pretty fundamental and an obvious mistake on the part of Hughes and I don't think he'll do it again this season but I also acknowledge that you don't agree and I'm also quite happy to agree to disagree on it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 23:56:05 GMT
All you said is that Diouf has the pace to go past Crouch on the counter. I said in reply to that,that I don't believe that is the fundamental way that we approach all our away games under Hughes. The fact that keeping a winning side together is never a bad idea,seems to be lost on you as an explanation for us starting with the side we did today and I will never believe that that is the main reason why we lost today's game. Diouf in the hole would have made no difference whatsoever today in my opinion,although he might have done playing on his only worthwhile position which is upfront,the performance of the other 10 players in red and white would have rendered it pointless. Oh and when you say people offered examples agreeing with you,I can only recall one There are numerous people suggesting that Adam and Crouch won't work away from home on this thread, they aren't doing it necessarily because they agree with me specifically or because it's an opinion borne out of hindsight today but they most certainly ARE saying it for exactly the same reason that people have been saying it for the last two and a half seasons under two different managers. I think it pretty fundamental and an obvious mistake on the part of Hughes and I don't think he'll do it again this season but I also acknowledge that you don't agree and I'm also quite happy to agree to disagree on it. Fair enough mate and I don't disagree with the general notion that we need more pace in the side. I just don't see how we could have incorporated it today,other than Diouf up front instead of Crouch. In my opinion Diouf is either up front or he isn't on the pitch because he has proved he can't play out wide and I really don't see him as an in the hole player at all. I still don't think that Hughes got his starting line up wrong and the game would have been different if his players had performed anywhere near their best. Like you say though I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one otherwise we could be going round in circles all night
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Mar 15, 2015 0:29:53 GMT
I think everyone on here knows what I think of Diouf and Arnie but today was the day we should have played them.
I'm absolutely amazed at Hughes naivety today, he tried to out Pulis Tony Pulis when there was absolutely no need.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 7:48:23 GMT
Modern day football dictates a horses for courses mentality because of the natural drift of the game and the introduction of specialist footballers.
That in itself leads to a need to chop and change depending on the opposition.
Years ago you could, injuries and suchlike permitting, put out the same 11 all season. Now we have defensive and attacking midfielders, rather than midfielders that can do the lot, that you can ask to do a slightly different job each game. We have wingers or Inside forwards, rather than wingers that can do both. We have forwards that play with their back to goal or the other way and not do a bit of both.
We also have modern systems that are designed to give us "lines" and split lines far across the length of the pitch, with specialist roles, rather than a generic 4 4 2 that is flexible and compact.
Whether that's modern coaching, speed of the game or both I don't know but that is the way it is now.
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Mar 15, 2015 8:02:00 GMT
No Arnie, No Diouf... Adam at CAM, Geoff at the back instead of wilson or tex in... setup for failure... Makes me wonder what Hughes thinks at times, he can be brilliant and make a miraculous substitute in a match or switch players around or in retrospect make no substitute at all when it's clearly needed. Roller coaster type of management and just baffling and inconsistent at times and then marvelous the next minute. Weird. But thrilling to watch. So different from the alternative side in that match. Very up and down season, injuries, luck, wins and losses. Hell even player performances are inconsistent all over. Yet still mid-table and with all the players out due to injury it's been a good mark to go forward. Has to be up there for manager of the overall season looking at each week.
|
|
|
Post by kurt on Mar 15, 2015 8:40:53 GMT
It was definitely a wrong team selection by MH yesterday. It seemed, that Hughes wanted to beat Pulis with Tony Pulis football
|
|
|
Post by huddy on Mar 15, 2015 9:04:15 GMT
When are people going to realise pace is not always the answer.All the opposition has to do is sit deep as everyone does when Diouf is starting and not leave any space in behind.Countless teams have rendered him ineffective this year doing that.Also agree lack of pace is a problem but one player with great feet and a brain and a quick player alongside gives team problems.A quick player with an awful touch and no footballing brain doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Mar 15, 2015 9:27:49 GMT
Given the run of injuries which seriously reduced the fully fit options available to Hughes it was an understandable selection. Hughes chose to stick with players who had got decent results in the last few games, rather than risk players in unfamiliar combinations.
We were a shocking error from our RB of getting an away point. There was a time not too long ago when any point away from the Brit was met with mass euphoria.
Hopefully Ireland will be fully fit next week. That will see us with a proper link between midfield and the forwards, which was clearly missing yesterday. We have covered the loss of Wingie and Bojan fantastically for most of the season but yesterday we were unable to compensate for both of Crouch's and Adam's lack of movement. We got away with playing them both against Everton but it just didn't work yesterday. Charlie Adam is not fit enough to play for the 90 mins that injuries forced him to play, nor is he really suited to the link role. I am sure the plan was for Ireland to play the last half hour. Hindsight is 20:20.
Ryan will be better for the game, and Wolly and Muniesa will be closer to fitness and to improving the defensive options.
|
|
|
Post by 2004 on Mar 15, 2015 9:29:52 GMT
Why start Adam??? Why? When has starting Adam ever panned out? He's too F'n slow to begin with... Why he didn't have Arnie or Cameron start at CAM then bring on Adam is baffling, just baffling... Did you see Cameron at CAM against Fulham?
|
|