|
Post by skip on May 23, 2017 11:03:45 GMT
There are big big differences between Hughes and Pulis, equally frustrating. I'm firmly of the conviction that Pulis throws points as he doesn't want to achieve to a point where expectations rise. On the other hand, Hughes over thinks and over complicates methods, tactics, deployment of players and formations so that he couldn't achieve highly if he tried, at least that's my frustration with him right now.
Given the above, I'd take Hughes' fannying around over Pulis' cynicism any day of the week. You know when pundits, particularly on Sky, say stuff like staying in the Premier League, as if its the be all and end all, Pulis feeds off that, uses it to justify his job, as if the only thing managers have to do is to avoid relegation, unless you're a big club then your job is to get you into Europe, because European football is so important, and bizarrely rendering the Premier League not important enough in itself for a load of players and half a dozen clubs. I digress, but that thinking drives me nuts and Pulis exploits it for his own ends above the dreams of the fans. The most horrid type of pragmatism.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 11:19:35 GMT
There are big big differences between Hughes and Pulis, equally frustrating. I'm firmly of the conviction that Pulis throws points as he doesn't want to achieve to a point where expectations rise. On the other hand, Hughes over thinks and over complicates methods, tactics, deployment of players and formations so that he couldn't achieve highly if he tried, at least that's my frustration with him right now. Given the above, I'd take Hughes' fannying around over Pulis' cynicism any day of the week. You know when pundits, particularly on Sky, say stuff like staying in the Premier League, as if its the be all and end all, Pulis feeds off that, uses it to justify his job, as if the only thing managers have to do is to avoid relegation, unless you're a big club then your job is to get you into Europe, because European football is so important, and bizarrely rendering the Premier League not important enough in itself for a load of players and half a dozen clubs. I digress, but that thinking drives me nuts and Pulis exploits it for his own ends above the dreams of the fans. The most horrid type of pragmatism. Perhaps you could explain in detail how Pulis throws points?
|
|
|
Post by skip on May 23, 2017 11:26:28 GMT
There are big big differences between Hughes and Pulis, equally frustrating. I'm firmly of the conviction that Pulis throws points as he doesn't want to achieve to a point where expectations rise. On the other hand, Hughes over thinks and over complicates methods, tactics, deployment of players and formations so that he couldn't achieve highly if he tried, at least that's my frustration with him right now. Given the above, I'd take Hughes' fannying around over Pulis' cynicism any day of the week. You know when pundits, particularly on Sky, say stuff like staying in the Premier League, as if its the be all and end all, Pulis feeds off that, uses it to justify his job, as if the only thing managers have to do is to avoid relegation, unless you're a big club then your job is to get you into Europe, because European football is so important, and bizarrely rendering the Premier League not important enough in itself for a load of players and half a dozen clubs. I digress, but that thinking drives me nuts and Pulis exploits it for his own ends above the dreams of the fans. The most horrid type of pragmatism. Perhaps you could explain in detail how Pulis throws points? Ask him, he's your mate. I jest. Partly. Pulis quite blatantly sets up his side to not lose, to draw, which is a million miles away from attempting to win. The whole nonsense about bonus games, games where he blatantly makes no attempt to win that even the most disinterested viewer can see that's what he's doing. And this is justified by pundits, in the main by Paul Merson and Phil Thompson because good old Tony knows his place, knows his clubs worth and works to their business model, not the oh so naive ambitions of their fans, but to a business model. I'm beginning to lose all interest in the Premier League business model, because it's not as if the money filters down to the fans in any meaningful way, it just means there are hundreds of millionaire footballers who cheat or celebrate like they've won the European Cup when all they've done is scuffed an equaliser followed by a heavily choreographed routine to the cameras. It's not as if its cheap to watch Premier League football. But as long as Ton gets his 40 points, he gets his God knows how much bonus. For doing his job. Not for excelling, but for doing his job. I thought thats what wages were for. Afterword: And if you think I'm being overly cynical, in the world of work where I am, I've been doing it long enough to know precisely how to under achieve. I don't do it but I know people that do and have done so. And if I know how to do it in my world of management you can bet your bottom dollar someone as smart and as cynical as Pulis knows how to do it too. You can't kid a kidder.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 11:35:19 GMT
There are big big differences between Hughes and Pulis, equally frustrating. I'm firmly of the conviction that Pulis throws points as he doesn't want to achieve to a point where expectations rise. On the other hand, Hughes over thinks and over complicates methods, tactics, deployment of players and formations so that he couldn't achieve highly if he tried, at least that's my frustration with him right now. Given the above, I'd take Hughes' fannying around over Pulis' cynicism any day of the week. You know when pundits, particularly on Sky, say stuff like staying in the Premier League, as if its the be all and end all, Pulis feeds off that, uses it to justify his job, as if the only thing managers have to do is to avoid relegation, unless you're a big club then your job is to get you into Europe, because European football is so important, and bizarrely rendering the Premier League not important enough in itself for a load of players and half a dozen clubs. I digress, but that thinking drives me nuts and Pulis exploits it for his own ends above the dreams of the fans. The most horrid type of pragmatism. Perhaps you could explain in detail how Pulis throws points? Whether his teams 'throw' them or not, they sure do tend to ease up after they secure safety, rather than pushing on and risking any sort of achievement that might raise expectations.
|
|
|
Post by skip on May 23, 2017 11:39:56 GMT
^ precisely.
Play a multi player board game with your friends and attempt to not lose but not to win. It's easy.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 11:56:24 GMT
Perhaps you could explain in detail how Pulis throws points? Ask him, he's your mate. I jest. Partly. Pulis quite blatantly sets up his side to not lose, to draw, which is a million miles away from attempting to win. The whole nonsense about bonus games, games where he blatantly makes no attempt to win that even the most disinterested viewer can see that's what he's doing. And this is justified by pundits, in the main by Paul Merson and Phil Thompson because good old Tony knows his place, knows his clubs worth and works to their business model, not the oh so naive ambitions of their fans, but to a business model. I'm beginning to lose all interest in the Premier League business model, because it's not as if the money filters down to the fans in any meaningful way, it just means there are hundreds of millionaire footballers who cheat or celebrate like they've won the European Cup when all they've done is scuffed an equaliser followed by a heavily choreographed routine to the cameras. It's not as if its cheap to watch Premier League football. But as long as Ton gets his 40 points, he gets his God knows how much bonus. For doing his job. Not for excelling, but for doing his job. I thought thats what wages were for. Afterword: And if you think I'm being overly cynical, in the world of work where I am, I've been doing it long enough to know precisely how to under achieve. I don't do it but I know people that do and have done so. And if I know how to do it in my world of management you can bet your bottom dollar someone as smart and as cynical as Pulis knows how to do it too. You can't kid a kidder. This season Pulis won 12 games, which outside the top 7 clubs, was equal too or better than the other 13 teams. These results included a draw at Old Trafford, a home win against Arsenal and a home draw with Spurs. I agree that Pulis sometimes sets up his team and tactics to try and get a draw and it can be fairly dire to watch, but for teams like West Brom relegation is always a potential threat. It's also true that his teams tend to fade in the second half of the season, but that is probably a question of running out of steam rather than the slightly paranoid view that he deliberately sets his team up to fail.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 11:58:04 GMT
Ask him, he's your mate. I jest. Partly. Pulis quite blatantly sets up his side to not lose, to draw, which is a million miles away from attempting to win. The whole nonsense about bonus games, games where he blatantly makes no attempt to win that even the most disinterested viewer can see that's what he's doing. And this is justified by pundits, in the main by Paul Merson and Phil Thompson because good old Tony knows his place, knows his clubs worth and works to their business model, not the oh so naive ambitions of their fans, but to a business model. I'm beginning to lose all interest in the Premier League business model, because it's not as if the money filters down to the fans in any meaningful way, it just means there are hundreds of millionaire footballers who cheat or celebrate like they've won the European Cup when all they've done is scuffed an equaliser followed by a heavily choreographed routine to the cameras. It's not as if its cheap to watch Premier League football. But as long as Ton gets his 40 points, he gets his God knows how much bonus. For doing his job. Not for excelling, but for doing his job. I thought thats what wages were for. Afterword: And if you think I'm being overly cynical, in the world of work where I am, I've been doing it long enough to know precisely how to under achieve. I don't do it but I know people that do and have done so. And if I know how to do it in my world of management you can bet your bottom dollar someone as smart and as cynical as Pulis knows how to do it too. You can't kid a kidder. This season Pulis won 12 games, which outside the top 7 clubs, was equal too or better than the other 13 teams. These results included a draw at Old Trafford, a home win against Arsenal and a home draw with Spurs. I agree that Pulis sometimes sets up his team and tactics to try and get a draw and it can be fairly dire to watch, but for teams like West Brom relegation is always a potential threat. It's also true that his teams tend to fade in the second half of the season, but that is probably a question of running out of steam rather than the slightly paranoid view that he deliberately sets his team up to fail. Remarkable how they 'seem to fade' almost as soon as they hit the 40 points or thereabouts threshold isn't it? And the earlier they hit it, the earlier they 'seem to fade'?
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 12:01:30 GMT
This season Pulis won 12 games, which outside the top 7 clubs, was equal too or better than the other 13 teams. These results included a draw at Old Trafford, a home win against Arsenal and a home draw with Spurs. I agree that Pulis sometimes sets up his team and tactics to try and get a draw and it can be fairly dire to watch, but for teams like West Brom relegation is always a potential threat. It's also true that his teams tend to fade in the second half of the season, but that is probably a question of running out of steam rather than the slightly paranoid view that he deliberately sets his team up to fail. Remarkable how they 'seem to fade' almost as soon as they hit the 40 points or thereabouts threshold isn't it? And the earlier they hit it, the earlier they 'seem to fade'? It declined this season after they got 44 points, if you check their fixtures though it was a pretty tough run in.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 12:11:53 GMT
Remarkable how they 'seem to fade' almost as soon as they hit the 40 points or thereabouts threshold isn't it? And the earlier they hit it, the earlier they 'seem to fade'? It declined this season after they got 44 points, if you check their fixtures though it was a pretty tough run in. They won three of their last 15 games. They effectively downed tools in February.
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on May 23, 2017 12:13:59 GMT
One thing is for sure there are some disappointed twats on here tonight who were hoping for us to get beaten. Totaly agree, it's sickening Very sad. H v
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 12:30:41 GMT
It declined this season after they got 44 points, if you check their fixtures though it was a pretty tough run in. They won three of their last 15 games. They effectively downed tools in February. In February West Brom played three games, beating Stoke and Bournemouth and drawing with West Ham. Any manager who is in charge of a mid table PL side has a huge task, first to keep their side in the PL and secondly to try and meet fans expectations. In my opinion Pulis and Hughes have both done remarkably well when you consider the type of clubs they have managed, they both deseve credit.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 12:34:51 GMT
They won three of their last 15 games. They effectively downed tools in February. In February West Brom played three games, beating Stoke and Bournemouth and drawing with West Ham. Any manager who is in charge of a mid table PL side has a huge task, first to keep their side in the PL and secondly to try and meet fans expectations. In my opinion Pulis and Hughes have both done remarkably well when you consider the type of clubs they have managed, they both deseve credit. West Brom were in 8th when they hit 40 points and had a real chance to push on. They neglected to do so, in the same way so many of his teams have done when they hit that mark. He has managed 48 Premier League games after his sides have hit 40 points. He has won six of them.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 12:44:32 GMT
In February West Brom played three games, beating Stoke and Bournemouth and drawing with West Ham. Any manager who is in charge of a mid table PL side has a huge task, first to keep their side in the PL and secondly to try and meet fans expectations. In my opinion Pulis and Hughes have both done remarkably well when you consider the type of clubs they have managed, they both deseve credit. West Brom were in 8th when they hit 40 points and had a real chance to push on. They neglected to do so, in the same way so many of his teams have done when they hit that mark. He has managed 48 Premier League games after his sides have hit 40 points. He has won six of them. I will take your word on those stats. Just to say though Mark Hughes has problem at the start of a season, surely that says that teams like Stoke and West Brom will experience significant downturns at some stage of the season, otherwise they would both potentially be in the top seven.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 12:49:42 GMT
West Brom were in 8th when they hit 40 points and had a real chance to push on. They neglected to do so, in the same way so many of his teams have done when they hit that mark. He has managed 48 Premier League games after his sides have hit 40 points. He has won six of them. I will take your word on those stats. Just to say though Mark Hughes has problem at the start of a season, surely that says that teams like Stoke and West Brom will experience significant downturns at some stage of the season, otherwise they would both potentially be in the top seven. It's too consistent with him to be a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 12:57:29 GMT
I don't want to make this a Pulis vs Hughes argument, but look at the last four Stoke starts to a season after ten games.,
13/14 9 points 14/15 12 points 15/16 12 points 16/17 12 points
I take it, applying your logic, that Hughes deliberately sets up to fail in these games.
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on May 23, 2017 12:58:49 GMT
One concern is that the 44 points came almost entirely from playing teams that were mediocre at best. How many points did Stoke have against teams from the top 7, and what was the goal difference? Stoke, along with almost every club 8th to 17th, were lucky that the standard below 7th was complete shit. When everyone is shit, being shit is acceptable. Will the standard be so shit again next year? West Brom did exactly the same with a couple more points to show for it - yet the general concensus is that they have had an excellent season - funny eh?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 13:02:22 GMT
I don't want to make this a Pulis vs Hughes argument, but look at the last four Stoke starts to a season after ten games., 13/14 9 points 14/15 12 points 15/16 12 points 16/17 12 points I take it, applying your logic, that Hughes deliberately sets up to fail in these games. 'My logic' doesn't come into it - they're two different people and you're presenting an across the board solution. Hughes starts seasons slowly because of how he prepares for pre-season (ie badly imo). Pulis, imo, encourages his players to ease of as soon as they're safe because he doesn't want any part of the raised expectations anything more than that brings. Look at the black line in the attachment - everything after it is what happens once his team has hit 39 points that season.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 23, 2017 13:03:48 GMT
You know a thread has reached "lunacy-max" when folks start claiming Pulis somehow and for some reason (no one ever quite explains how or why) sends out his charges with instructions to lose games but strangely there is never a whisper of it from any of his players on the pitch, they just keep shtum and get on with the job of getting beaten.
Get a grip folks, the suggestion is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 13:07:07 GMT
I don't want to make this a Pulis vs Hughes argument, but look at the last four Stoke starts to a season after ten games., 13/14 9 points 14/15 12 points 15/16 12 points 16/17 12 points I take it, applying your logic, that Hughes deliberately sets up to fail in these games. 'My logic' doesn't come into it - they're two different people and you're presenting an across the board solution. Hughes starts seasons slowly because of how he prepares for pre-season (ie badly imo). Pulis, imo, encourages his players to ease of as soon as they're safe because he doesn't want any part of the raised expectations anything more than that brings. Look at the black line in the attachment - everything after it is what happens once his team has hit 39 points that season. I refer you to the post of Gods, who sums it up better than I have.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on May 23, 2017 13:15:45 GMT
You know a thread has reached "lunacy-max" when folks start claiming Pulis somehow and for some reason (no one ever quite explains how or why) sends out his charges with instructions to lose games but strangely there is never a whisper of it from any of his players on the pitch, they just keep shtum and get on with the job of getting beaten. Get a grip folks, the suggestion is laughable. I don't think anyone is suggesting that he sends teams out to lose, but the intensity of his team's performances clearly aren't as great once they reach 40 points. That's a mentality borne out of not wanting expectation levels raised. We saw it here and it's happening again at West Brom. As Toxic Avenger says, it's not a coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 13:16:40 GMT
'My logic' doesn't come into it - they're two different people and you're presenting an across the board solution. Hughes starts seasons slowly because of how he prepares for pre-season (ie badly imo). Pulis, imo, encourages his players to ease of as soon as they're safe because he doesn't want any part of the raised expectations anything more than that brings. Look at the black line in the attachment - everything after it is what happens once his team has hit 39 points that season. I refer you to the post of Gods, who sums it up better than I have. I'm sure Gods has a fine explanation for what is an uncanny phenomenon. And I don't think Pulis sends them out to lose. I think he eases right off and things get a hell of a lot less intense, and that sends its own message.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 13:37:22 GMT
I refer you to the post of Gods, who sums it up better than I have. I'm sure Gods has a fine explanation for what is an uncanny phenomenon. And I don't think Pulis sends them out to lose. I think he eases right off and things get a hell of a lot less intense, and that sends its own message. So if you're correct and Pulis had maintained his intensity he could have delivered a top seven position, is that what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 23, 2017 13:40:53 GMT
You know a thread has reached "lunacy-max" when folks start claiming Pulis somehow and for some reason (no one ever quite explains how or why) sends out his charges with instructions to lose games but strangely there is never a whisper of it from any of his players on the pitch, they just keep shtum and get on with the job of getting beaten. Get a grip folks, the suggestion is laughable. I don't think anyone is suggesting that he sends teams out to lose, but the intensity of his team's performances clearly aren't as great once they reach 40 points. That's a mentality borne out of not wanting expectation levels raised. We saw it here and it's happening again at West Brom. As Toxic Avenger says, it's not a coincidence. Here is what Toxic Avenger said which drew me to my keyboard: >>>>>Pulis, imo, encourages his players to ease of as soon as they're safe because he doesn't want any part of the raised expectations anything more than that brings. The very idea that Pulis is somehow laughing up his sleeve as he misses out on his bonus and is called up in front of the world's press and supporters to account for another defeat because somewhere in the back of his fevered mind at least he hasn't raised expectations is a joke, say what you like about him but he is a proud man and this stuff is so ridiculous its almost untrue. You'd have to be a paid up member of the "Flat Earth Society" to believe any of this utter tosh.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 13:42:17 GMT
I'm sure Gods has a fine explanation for what is an uncanny phenomenon. And I don't think Pulis sends them out to lose. I think he eases right off and things get a hell of a lot less intense, and that sends its own message. So if you're correct and Pulis had maintained his intensity he could have delivered a top seven position, is that what you're saying? Not a top 7 no. But he could have been a fairly comfortable 8th.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 13:44:16 GMT
I don't think anyone is suggesting that he sends teams out to lose, but the intensity of his team's performances clearly aren't as great once they reach 40 points. That's a mentality borne out of not wanting expectation levels raised. We saw it here and it's happening again at West Brom. As Toxic Avenger says, it's not a coincidence. Here is what Toxic Avenger said which drew me to my keyboard: >>>>>Pulis, imo, encourages his players to ease of as soon as they're safe because he doesn't want any part of the raised expectations anything more than that brings. The very idea that Pulis is somehow laughing up his sleeve as he misses out on his bonus and is called up in front of the world's press and supporters to account for another defeat because somewhere in the back of his mind he heasn't raised expectations is a joke, say what you like about him but he is a proud man and this stuff is so ridiculous its almost untrue. You'd have to be a paid up member of the "Flat Earth Society" to believe any of this utter tosh. So why does it keep happening then? He is an expert manager of expectations, one of several tricks he learned from his mentor and neighbour in Sandbanks. The other explanation is that his teams just stop listening to him at a specific point of the season, which sounds like a pretty glaring managerial weakness to me.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 13:55:34 GMT
So if you're correct and Pulis had maintained his intensity he could have delivered a top seven position, is that what you're saying? Not a top 7 no. But he could have been a fairly comfortable 8th. So in reality, at least according to you, one of the reasons he lost his job was that he was managing expectations and he tripped himself up. Had he not done that he could have delivered the highest league placing for the club since Tony Waddington, are you sure you've got this right.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 14:02:33 GMT
Not a top 7 no. But he could have been a fairly comfortable 8th. So in reality, at least according to you, one of the reasons he lost his job was that he was managing expectations and he tripped himself up. Had he not done that he could have delivered the highest league placing for the club since Tony Waddington, are you sure you've got this right. To an extent, yes. He certainly could have reached the top 10 with the team that reached the cup final with the right signings. Yet he inexplicably dismantled it.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 23, 2017 14:07:29 GMT
So in reality, at least according to you, one of the reasons he lost his job was that he was managing expectations and he tripped himself up. Had he not done that he could have delivered the highest league placing for the club since Tony Waddington, are you sure you've got this right. To an extent, yes. He certainly could have reached the top 10 with the team that reached the cup final with the right signings. Yet he inexplicably dismantled it. So now TP is deliberately dismantling his teams so they don't keep doing so well, even Davef is going to give up on cheerleading for you at this rate!
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 14:09:08 GMT
To an extent, yes. He certainly could have reached the top 10 with the team that reached the cup final with the right signings. Yet he inexplicably dismantled it. So now TP is deliberately dismantling his teams so they don't keep doing so well, even Davef is going to give up on cheerleading for you at this rate! I don't know if he did it deliberately or not, all I know is he did it and it defied rational explanation. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for yours on the 40 point thing. You're great at saying what things aren't, not so hot at saying what they are...
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 23, 2017 14:23:34 GMT
So now TP is deliberately dismantling his teams so they don't keep doing so well, even Davef is going to give up on cheerleading for you at this rate! I don't know if he did it deliberately or not, all I know is he did it and it defied rational explanation. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for yours on the 40 point thing. You're great at saying what things aren't, not so hot at saying what they are... I think the difference in quality between the clubs outside of the big 6 or 7 is wafer thin and even the smallest inadvertant reduction in the raw hunger of the players as you pass the safety line is enough to see your results drop off.
|
|