|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 14:32:41 GMT
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. And Tone's players have had that 'inadvertent reduction' across three clubs spanning a decade have they? How does that keep happening? You'd think he'd work on it...
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on May 23, 2017 14:42:13 GMT
This board is creating more lunatics every day.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on May 23, 2017 14:56:30 GMT
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. And Tone's players have had that 'inadvertent reduction' across three clubs spanning a decade have they? How does that keep happening? You'd think he'd work on it... We've seen it at Stoke the last 2 seasons haven't we, its a challenge for all the 'smaller' teams, to maintain momentum once 40 points has been achieved, there is no easy answer I'm sure of that. But I doubt Pulis, or any other managers for that matter, send their teams out to lose the last few games for some vague notion of managing expectations. They have bonuses and personal pride on the line for a start.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 23, 2017 14:59:06 GMT
And Tone's players have had that 'inadvertent reduction' across three clubs spanning a decade have they? How does that keep happening? You'd think he'd work on it... We've seen it at Stoke the last 2 seasons haven't we, its a challenge for all the 'smaller' teams, to maintain momentum once 40 points has been achieved, there is no easy answer I'm sure of that. But I doubt Pulis, or any other managers for that matter, send their teams out to lose the last few games for some vague notion of managing expectations. They have bonuses and personal pride on the line for a start. I don't think he 'sends them out to lose' but I'm saying the 'reduction in hunger' isn't a coincidence and seems to kick in in very similar circumstances most seasons...
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on May 23, 2017 15:53:06 GMT
In points terms your post is close to the mark (not pun!)
However,the real point is that Hughes was brought in, not to improve our points tally (not much) but to improve the quality of the football.Better footballers were purchased and for a while it did indeed appear that we were improving in quality terms. However, since Christmas 2015, when we hit a fantastic purple patch, the quality of the football has slowly declined to the point where we are now producing worse football than TP. Hughes sets out in much the same way as TP, to retain his point and hope to sneak three. For much of the latter half of the season, even this mediocre aim has not been fulfilled. Hughes told us that the team will always improve towards the end of the season due to his science based training. Patently this is not true. Hughes can't even point to injuries as we must be well ahead in terms of fit players. Seven strikers on the books and we still rely on the veteran Crouch to scrape us our points
Desperate stuff and I would be surprised, should we see no improvement early next season, if Hughes is not replaced by a younger man who at least has some positive ambition
|
|
|
Post by skip on May 23, 2017 17:20:35 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. No - quite the opposite. If you re-read my post that you replied to, I said Mark Hughes fails due to a rather idiosyncratic approach to team selection, formation, and arguably, earlier in the season, fitness and focus. So, no, he doesn't set out to draw (read: 'not lose') so in effect, his season management is worse than Pulis. Pulis knows full well what he's doing whereas Hughes' over reaches himself, tries too hard if you like.
|
|
|
Post by skip on May 23, 2017 17:25:10 GMT
And Tone's players have had that 'inadvertent reduction' across three clubs spanning a decade have they? How does that keep happening? You'd think he'd work on it... We've seen it at Stoke the last 2 seasons haven't we, its a challenge for all the 'smaller' teams, to maintain momentum once 40 points has been achieved, there is no easy answer I'm sure of that. But I doubt Pulis, or any other managers for that matter, send their teams out to lose the last few games for some vague notion of managing expectations. They have bonuses and personal pride on the line for a start. Pulis' 40 point bonus overrides any personal pride at finishing eighth or twelfth. His personal pride is 'never gets relegated'. Call me cynical.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on May 23, 2017 18:37:36 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. No - quite the opposite. If you re-read my post that you replied to, I said Mark Hughes fails due to a rather idiosyncratic approach to team selection, formation, and arguably, earlier in the season, fitness and focus. So, no, he doesn't set out to draw (read: 'not lose') so in effect, his season management is worse than Pulis. Pulis knows full well what he's doing whereas Hughes' over reaches himself, tries too hard if you like. Pulis achieved an average of 45 points per season, Hughes 49.7, which is quite close. Both managers though have failed to deliver a good start and a good finish to any of the seasons they were in charge, in my opinion that's mainly due to the quality and depth of the squads they had/have. There's no hidden agenda with either manager, just two hard working men trying to make Stoke a respected PL club.
|
|
|
Post by davyboy on May 24, 2017 6:52:43 GMT
I get a bit frustrated when people like trouserdog keep referring to us as a small club, despite his being a well written piece. Liverpool have only really been a 'top' club since Biull Shankly took them to new levels. We have one of the richest owners in world football and are 30th ranked in terms of club wealth. The fan base has increased year on year since going into the Prem and will be 30,000 when new corner is finished.Season ticket sales have improved year on year. We need a little more ambition and belief that this club can move to that next level. Everton this season, being a good example. Yes, being realsitic Champions league football is possibly a dream too far, but Europa league is not. Getting there and doing well would mean that we attract a better quality of player. If, as sems likely, Mr Coates sticks with Hughes, then I hope he spends the money wisely and not only recruits the players who will ensure that we are competing for that top 8/7 place and good cup runs, but he has a good, hard thaink about his tactics and game management. There has been a real deficiency in those areas, which has played a significant part in the decline in the last 18 months - though I will be there next season with my family supporting and shouting the lads on!! I have been a Stoke suppoprter for 55 years and that won't change!!
|
|