|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 6, 2017 23:17:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 6, 2017 23:20:09 GMT
Any advance on 12? Crouch counts as three. Kenwynne Jones (shitehawk) Cameron Jerome (gambler), Peter Odemwingie (cruciate), Guidetti (? chicken difficulties), Bojan (lightweight) Walters (gone nah) Wilfreid Bony (bone China), Joselu (widge), Diouf (family), Berahino (future?) It's a difficult quiz. I'd completely forgotten about Guidetti and was Jerome still here under Hughes? That'd take it to fourteen then!š Amazed you've forgotten Choupo and Jesse already (well probably not!) and he tried Arnie there too.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 6, 2017 23:22:09 GMT
Crouch counts as three. Kenwynne Jones (shitehawk) Cameron Jerome (gambler), Peter Odemwingie (cruciate), Guidetti (? chicken difficulties), Bojan (lightweight) Walters (gone nah) Wilfreid Bony (bone China), Joselu (widge), Diouf (family), Berahino (future?) It's a difficult quiz. I'd completely forgotten about Guidetti and was Jerome still here under Hughes? That'd take it to fourteen then!š Amazed you've forgotten Choupo and Jesse already (well probably not!) and he tried Arnie there too. Ryan played last 5 minutes against Bournemouth upfront so make it 15...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 6, 2017 23:22:52 GMT
I'd completely forgotten about Guidetti and was Jerome still here under Hughes? That'd take it to fourteen then!š Amazed you've forgotten Choupo and Jesse already (well probably not!) and he tried Arnie there too. Ryan played last 5 minutes against Bournemouth upfront so make it 15... š
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Nov 6, 2017 23:35:53 GMT
Crouch counts as three. Kenwynne Jones (shitehawk) Cameron Jerome (gambler), Peter Odemwingie (cruciate), Guidetti (? chicken difficulties), Bojan (lightweight) Walters (gone nah) Wilfreid Bony (bone China), Joselu (widge), Diouf (family), Berahino (future?) It's a difficult quiz. I'd completely forgotten about Guidetti and was Jerome still here under Hughes? That'd take it to fourteen then!š Amazed you've forgotten Choupo and Jesse already (well probably not!) and he tried Arnie there too. I havn't forgotten but not 'judging' them yet. And I'm not entirely against the concept of a False 9 or front 3 either. Interstingly just been told the Lukaku/David Blaine joke. Beat his record for doing nowt in a box.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 7, 2017 0:44:50 GMT
I think 1 & 2 would have done and you have a point, that in the main we are a split fanbase who want polar opposites in football terms. 3 & 4 went off on some sort of bonkers tangent. I'd argue that the chances of making a significant positive difference being slim is wrong. Its a mild form of sacking Pulis will see us in oblivion from a few years ago. Hughes came in was not a universally popular choice but I'd say he made a significant positive difference for at least two years. In the last two and a bit years he's become more like Tone than Tone boring, negative, bizarre selection, hammering very square pegs into round holes. So why is there only a slim chance of someone coming in and making a significant positive difference does Hughes have a monopoly on that? What you really mean is "I don't want to change manager, so anyone who does is just daft". People wouldn't buy it then and they won't now. Hughes has over half a season to start making a significant positive difference or somebody else needs to try doing so instead. I'm not saying anyone who wants to change manager is daft. However some of the options being bandied about are daft and others are uninspiring or unrealistic. I do think Hughes is a pretty good manager and he's put together a pretty good squad that is finding its feet after a tough opening fixture list and some unfortunate injuries to the defence - which hopefully are clearing up. If we're in the bottom three at Xmas talk of changing manager has some merit and if we don't end up top half I think Hughes may well go. But Coates backed Hughes in the close season and the start to the season hasn't been a disaster - it could have been. Hughes was pretty nailed on to see it through to Xmas at least barring a complete nightmare start - and nothing has happened to make me think that position has changed or there is good reason to change direction now. The other thing I have a problem with is the blind faith that changing the manager will automatically change things for the better. It won't. Many of Stokes "problems" are down to the fact we are Stoke and not Man City. Our budget, pulling power and potential are limited by the fact that we are a medium sized club in a medium sized, unfashionable city. A change of manager (or ownership) isn't going to fundamentally change who we are. And to be honest I'm fine with that, If I wanted to support a club like Man City I'd support Man City. If we do change manager (and the end of the season is the best time to do that - not mid season, unless you absolutely have to) I'd like to see us have some ambition - a manager who wants us to play decent football and have aspirations to be in the top half (a bit like that Hughes bloke). However I don't believe we should play good football just for the sake of it - every manager should start pragmatic and build from there (a bit like that Hughes bloke). It might not be Coates' inclination but to move forward I think we should look for a talented overseas manager - I really don't think there are any outstanding British candidates - they are either punts in the dark or a step backwards, It is clearly not the case that changing the manager avoids relegation as almost all teams that are relegated have with odd exceptions like Dyche at Burnley have changed their manager as a vain attempt to avoid the inevitable. Burnley to their credit stuck with Dyche despite relegation and are now reaping the reward. If Hughes keeps us comfortably in the Prem. then that is good enough for me and I suspect Coates as well. Any change to another man with an unproven record in the Prem, British or foreign, is a punt in the dark and as we all know Coates is not a gambler, he takes money off the mugs that are. That's how he and his family have accumulated a massive fortune. I totally agree there are no outstanding British managers presently, in fact IMO Hughes is the best.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 7, 2017 8:09:38 GMT
I'm not saying anyone who wants to change manager is daft. However some of the options being bandied about are daft and others are uninspiring or unrealistic. I do think Hughes is a pretty good manager and he's put together a pretty good squad that is finding its feet after a tough opening fixture list and some unfortunate injuries to the defence - which hopefully are clearing up. If we're in the bottom three at Xmas talk of changing manager has some merit and if we don't end up top half I think Hughes may well go. But Coates backed Hughes in the close season and the start to the season hasn't been a disaster - it could have been. Hughes was pretty nailed on to see it through to Xmas at least barring a complete nightmare start - and nothing has happened to make me think that position has changed or there is good reason to change direction now. The other thing I have a problem with is the blind faith that changing the manager will automatically change things for the better. It won't. Many of Stokes "problems" are down to the fact we are Stoke and not Man City. Our budget, pulling power and potential are limited by the fact that we are a medium sized club in a medium sized, unfashionable city. A change of manager (or ownership) isn't going to fundamentally change who we are. And to be honest I'm fine with that, If I wanted to support a club like Man City I'd support Man City. If we do change manager (and the end of the season is the best time to do that - not mid season, unless you absolutely have to) I'd like to see us have some ambition - a manager who wants us to play decent football and have aspirations to be in the top half (a bit like that Hughes bloke). However I don't believe we should play good football just for the sake of it - every manager should start pragmatic and build from there (a bit like that Hughes bloke). It might not be Coates' inclination but to move forward I think we should look for a talented overseas manager - I really don't think there are any outstanding British candidates - they are either punts in the dark or a step backwards, It is clearly not the case that changing the manager avoids relegation as almost all teams that are relegated have with odd exceptions like Dyche at Burnley have changed their manager as a vain attempt to avoid the inevitable. Burnley to their credit stuck with Dyche despite relegation and are now reaping the reward. If Hughes keeps us comfortably in the Prem. then that is good enough for me and I suspect Coates as well. Any change to another man with an unproven record in the Prem, British or foreign, is a punt in the dark and as we all know Coates is not a gambler, he takes money off the mugs that are. That's how he and his family have accumulated a massive fortune. I totally agree there are no outstanding British managers presently, in fact IMO Hughes is the best. It is the case sometimes though isn't it? Just not every single time. But nothing works every single time. It's a bit of a leap to suggest that because Burnley stuck with Dyche everyone should always stick with their manager at all times?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 7, 2017 8:40:51 GMT
There are good times and good reasons to change managers - but if the time isn't right and the reasons aren't good enough its safer to stick. The best time is the end of the season and the best reason is that the manager isn't living up to realistic expectations for the club - and for Stoke that's a mid table finish and the occasional good cup run. Its a crap time to change manager at the moment and Hughes is still (just about) living up to realistic expectations and has a track record with Stoke and other clubs that he can achieve more. I think he's put together a decent squad who clearly respect Hughes as a manager that as yet to realise its full potential. There's every reason to stick with Hughes at the moment and very little good reason to change. The vast majority of reasons given on here amount to not rating Hughes (we are all entitled to an opinion but it would be nice to see a bit more perspective on just how valid that opinion is - Coates appears to have a long shortlist of pretty crap CVs for the next chairman's job) and a blind faith that changing things will make everything rosy.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 7, 2017 8:44:29 GMT
There are good times and good reasons to change managers - but if the time isn't right and the reasons aren't good enough its safer to stick. The best time is the end of the season and the best reason is that the manager isn't living up to realistic expectations for the club - and for Stoke that's a mid table finish and the occasional good cup run. Its a crap time to change manager at the moment and Hughes is still (just about) living up to realistic expectations and has a track record with Stoke and other clubs that he can achieve more. I think he's put together a decent squad who clearly respect Hughes as a manager that as yet to realise its full potential. There's every reason to stick with Hughes at the moment and very little good reason to change. The vast majority of reasons given on here amount to not rating Hughes (we are all entitled to an opinion but it would be nice to see a bit more perspective on just how valid that opinion is - Coates appears to have a long shortlist of pretty crap CVs for the next chairman's job) and a blind faith that changing things will make everything rosy. I think most of that's pretty fair. It certainly is a crap time to be changing managers, especially given the perception that we'll only go British for a replacement, and that the end of the season is a better time to change. Blind faith cuts both ways though and I'd be curious as to what people think is going to change significantly for the better after two years of dreck. Hard to think of a recent instance of that being true, and when you read what went wrong with Bilic at West Ham, some of the parallels are eyebrow raising. www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/06/west-ham-sack-slaven-bilic-comment-david-moyes
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Nov 7, 2017 9:54:22 GMT
There are good times and good reasons to change managers - but if the time isn't right and the reasons aren't good enough its safer to stick. The best time is the end of the season and the best reason is that the manager isn't living up to realistic expectations for the club - and for Stoke that's a mid table finish and the occasional good cup run. Its a crap time to change manager at the moment and Hughes is still (just about) living up to realistic expectations and has a track record with Stoke and other clubs that he can achieve more. I think he's put together a decent squad who clearly respect Hughes as a manager that as yet to realise its full potential. There's every reason to stick with Hughes at the moment and very little good reason to change. The vast majority of reasons given on here amount to not rating Hughes (we are all entitled to an opinion but it would be nice to see a bit more perspective on just how valid that opinion is - Coates appears to have a long shortlist of pretty crap CVs for the next chairman's job) and a blind faith that changing things will make everything rosy. You've made some good posts on his thread, Pepe, and I agree with your stance on this. We are what we are and MH has delivered the best run in our history. We always want more, but the money in the Prem has stifled experimental, expansive football. The bottom 14 is so tight that every point counts from day 1. I suspect Palace will be relegated because their shocking start will leave them with too much to catch up. Let's see how gung ho Watford are next time out after 3 defeats on the spin. As I've said before, I believe MH is "managing" the squad well, given the injuries to key defenders, and there's more to come. The other factor is that some posters back their opinions into a corner from whence there is no return. They have to keep banging that drum for fear of looking as though they may have read it wrong. We've been this way before...
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 7, 2017 10:21:06 GMT
There are good times and good reasons to change managers - but if the time isn't right and the reasons aren't good enough its safer to stick. The best time is the end of the season and the best reason is that the manager isn't living up to realistic expectations for the club - and for Stoke that's a mid table finish and the occasional good cup run. Its a crap time to change manager at the moment and Hughes is still (just about) living up to realistic expectations and has a track record with Stoke and other clubs that he can achieve more. I think he's put together a decent squad who clearly respect Hughes as a manager that as yet to realise its full potential. There's every reason to stick with Hughes at the moment and very little good reason to change. The vast majority of reasons given on here amount to not rating Hughes (we are all entitled to an opinion but it would be nice to see a bit more perspective on just how valid that opinion is - Coates appears to have a long shortlist of pretty crap CVs for the next chairman's job) and a blind faith that changing things will make everything rosy. You've made some good posts on his thread, Pepe, and I agree with your stance on this. We are what we are and MH has delivered the best run in our history. We always want more, but the money in the Prem has stifled experimental, expansive football. The bottom 14 is so tight that every point counts from day 1. I suspect Palace will be relegated because their shocking start will leave them with too much to catch up. Let's see how gung ho Watford are next time out after 3 defeats on the spin. As I've said before, I believe MH is "managing" the squad well, given the injuries to key defenders, and there's more to come. The other factor is that some posters back their opinions into a corner from whence there is no return. They have to keep banging that drum for fear of looking as though they may have read it wrong. We've been this way before... Has the 'money in the prem' stifled the football, or has it been our failure to get the right players in to replace what we had or play the way we want to? The inability to replace Nzonzi or the ageing Whelan effectively, the wing back issue, the lack of pace in the final third... Sparky, again like Pulis before him, can't get all the credit for the good and have everything that's gone wrong explained away as things beyond his control.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Nov 7, 2017 10:36:40 GMT
You've made some good posts on his thread, Pepe, and I agree with your stance on this. We are what we are and MH has delivered the best run in our history. We always want more, but the money in the Prem has stifled experimental, expansive football. The bottom 14 is so tight that every point counts from day 1. I suspect Palace will be relegated because their shocking start will leave them with too much to catch up. Let's see how gung ho Watford are next time out after 3 defeats on the spin. As I've said before, I believe MH is "managing" the squad well, given the injuries to key defenders, and there's more to come. The other factor is that some posters back their opinions into a corner from whence there is no return. They have to keep banging that drum for fear of looking as though they may have read it wrong. We've been this way before... Has the 'money in the prem' stifled the football, or has it been our failure to get the right players in to replace what we had or play the way we want to? The inability to replace Nzonzi or the ageing Whelan effectively, the wing back issue, the lack of pace in the final third... Sparky, again like Pulis before him, can't get all the credit for the good and have everything that's gone wrong explained away as things beyond his control. I've consistently said that it isn't perfect. Replacing a player like N'Zonzi is a difficult task. The club have had a couple of attempts and pretty much failed. But a club like Stoke couldn't hope to sign N'Zonzi now, so maybe there is some credit due for getting him in the first place. We differ on the wingbacks. I see a longer term plan and a temporary solution where you see a big hole. Fair enough and I respect your opinion on that. We would be better with "proper" wingbacks, but maybe they're waiting back in the wings, if you see what I mean. I share your frustrations with a general lack of pace in the side, but again, all clubs like us are looking for the same thing. Liverpool and Leicester show what a difference it can make to an otherwise average team. My point was that the fear of relegation and stepping off the gravy train has made all the clubs more cautious and generally made the football dull and safety first. The Championship is so cut throat, there is no guarantee of getting back, even with the parachute payments. Would still argue that given our budget and wage bill we ain't doing too badly.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 7, 2017 10:47:19 GMT
Has the 'money in the prem' stifled the football, or has it been our failure to get the right players in to replace what we had or play the way we want to? The inability to replace Nzonzi or the ageing Whelan effectively, the wing back issue, the lack of pace in the final third... Sparky, again like Pulis before him, can't get all the credit for the good and have everything that's gone wrong explained away as things beyond his control. I've consistently said that it isn't perfect. Replacing a player like N'Zonzi is a difficult task. The club have had a couple of attempts and pretty much failed. But a club like Stoke couldn't hope to sign N'Zonzi now, so maybe there is some credit due for getting him in the first place. We differ on the wingbacks. I see a longer term plan and a temporary solution where you see a big hole. Fair enough and I respect your opinion on that. We would be better with "proper" wingbacks, but maybe they're waiting back in the wings, if you see what I mean. I share your frustrations with a general lack of pace in the side, but again, all clubs like us are looking for the same thing. Liverpool and Leicester show what a difference it can make to an otherwise average team. My point was that the fear of relegation and stepping off the gravy train has made all the clubs more cautious and generally made the football dull and safety first. The Championship is so cut throat, there is no guarantee of getting back, even with the parachute payments. Would still argue that given our budget and wage bill we ain't doing too badly. I would just dispute that's the reason why the football's become safety first. I think it's become that way out of necessity because we've completely ballsed the balance of the side up. Your take on the wingbacks is an enormous leap of faith Okey. Like jumping off a building with an umbrella, but it's fine because your parachute might be ready in a bit. There's more than the oft-quoted 'element of risk' that apparently stops us signing up and coming involved there. We couldn't sign Nzonzi himself now, I don't think it's true to say we couldn't find a player like him now. Again, it comes down to scouting.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Nov 7, 2017 10:59:48 GMT
I've consistently said that it isn't perfect. Replacing a player like N'Zonzi is a difficult task. The club have had a couple of attempts and pretty much failed. But a club like Stoke couldn't hope to sign N'Zonzi now, so maybe there is some credit due for getting him in the first place. We differ on the wingbacks. I see a longer term plan and a temporary solution where you see a big hole. Fair enough and I respect your opinion on that. We would be better with "proper" wingbacks, but maybe they're waiting back in the wings, if you see what I mean. I share your frustrations with a general lack of pace in the side, but again, all clubs like us are looking for the same thing. Liverpool and Leicester show what a difference it can make to an otherwise average team. My point was that the fear of relegation and stepping off the gravy train has made all the clubs more cautious and generally made the football dull and safety first. The Championship is so cut throat, there is no guarantee of getting back, even with the parachute payments. Would still argue that given our budget and wage bill we ain't doing too badly. I would just dispute that's the reason why the football's become safety first. I think it's become that way out of necessity because we've completely ballsed the balance of the side up. Your take on the wingbacks is an enormous leap of faith Okey. Like jumping off a building with an umbrella, but it's fine because your parachute might be ready in a bit. There's more than the oft-quoted 'element of risk' that apparently stops us signing up and coming involved there. We couldn't sign Nzonzi himself now, I don't think it's true to say we couldn't find a player like him now. Again, it comes down to scouting. The football has become safety first for everyone. Burnley are a classic case. 10 men behind the ball, super organised and nicking something might take them to European football if the big 6 win the cups too. Brighton will give themselves a chance if they stay organised. No more newly promoted plucky Hull or Blackpool, having a go and "playing the right way" whatever that is. I don't think our wingbacks are as ineffective as my umbrella either. Diouf has grown into the role and whilst Erik isn't a natural, he's a solid defender and his crossing looks way better than last season. I only really see Spurs and Man City who have really good players in that position. Even the king of the back 3 Conte seems to be struggling with the "make-do" Moses injured. As I've said, your reservations about our scouting are valid but it's an extremely difficult job, first identifying the right player, and secondly, getting him here on the right deal. Choupo was a bit left field - I'd never heard of him, but he looks like he could be a player who can cut it in this league.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 7, 2017 11:10:35 GMT
I would just dispute that's the reason why the football's become safety first. I think it's become that way out of necessity because we've completely ballsed the balance of the side up. Your take on the wingbacks is an enormous leap of faith Okey. Like jumping off a building with an umbrella, but it's fine because your parachute might be ready in a bit. There's more than the oft-quoted 'element of risk' that apparently stops us signing up and coming involved there. We couldn't sign Nzonzi himself now, I don't think it's true to say we couldn't find a player like him now. Again, it comes down to scouting. The football has become safety first for everyone. Burnley are a classic case. 10 men behind the ball, super organised and nicking something might take them to European football if the big 6 win the cups too. Brighton will give themselves a chance if they stay organised. No more newly promoted plucky Hull or Blackpool, having a go and "playing the right way" whatever that is. I don't think our wingbacks are as ineffective as my umbrella either. Diouf has grown into the role and whilst Erik isn't a natural, he's a solid defender and his crossing looks way better than last season. I only really see Spurs and Man City who have really good players in that position. Even the king of the back 3 Conte seems to be struggling with the "make-do" Moses injured. As I've said, your reservations about our scouting are valid but it's an extremely difficult job, first identifying the right player, and secondly, getting him here on the right deal. Choupo was a bit left field - I'd never heard of him, but he looks like he could be a player who can cut it in this league. The Burnley and Brighton approach isn't a response to the league though - it's just what sensible newly promoted teams on a budget have done since time immemorial. And Dyche and Hughton are defensive minded managers who'd play that way if they were managing Real Madrid. I think there's a fair few more teams in the league who have, at the very least, full backs who could convert beautifully into wing backs. Even some of the strugglers have ones who'd get into our side. It is a difficult job but as I've said before, we're light years behind some of our competitors on that score. It's also mightily convenient that the exact type of players we need are always mysteriously 'incredibly hard to come by'. It's the excuse people used to use when Tone stuck centre halves at full back.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Nov 7, 2017 11:11:14 GMT
Good point regarding Burnley.
This season looks to be the most defensive by clubs outside the Big 6. Southampton, Everton and even Swansea used to play some pretty stuff.
Leicester are the the highest scorers but they play counter-attack without possession.
Possession stats are looking so exaggerated this season. Many games with the defending team on 20-30% possession
Too much back-to-the-walls stuff, but this is all down to money and the difference between the Have's and Have-Nots
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 7, 2017 11:34:27 GMT
Good point regarding Burnley. This season looks to be the most defensive by clubs outside the Big 6. Southampton, Everton and even Swansea used to play some pretty stuff. Leicester are the the highest scorers but they play counter-attack without possession. Possession stats are looking so exaggerated this season. Many games with the defending team on 20-30% possession Too much back-to-the-walls stuff, but this is all down to money and the difference between the Have's and Have-Nots I'm not convinced it is all down to that. Looking at specific examples, I'm struggling to think of anyone who didn't or wouldn't play that way even before the top 6 resasserted themselves.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 7, 2017 18:41:19 GMT
My take on the defensive/attractive football debate is that any sane manager starts by getting the defensive side right first and once that's been established go on to prettify it. There are some managers who are happy to remain defensive (Pulis is a prime example). Others (and I would say Hughes is a good example) want to play attractive football but if it isn't working out will go back to basics before trying again (which is where we have been lately - unlike some I don't think he's abandoned hope of playing attractive football he just recognises there are times when you need to be pragmatic).
The big clubs have the resources to ensure that the defensive side remains covered and are rarely threatened to the extent that they need to go totally into their shell - but if the had to I'm sure they would.
Decent counter attacking sides (like Leicester) can look attractive - but the entire game plan is based on defence first.
Playing gung ho football is just asking for trouble, Liverpool are getting away with it on the basis that they can attract a high quality of gung ho footballer. They are good enough not to get into real trouble but they are unlikely to win the league given their lack of pragmatism. If any team outside the top six were to play that way they'd be nailed on relegation candidates,
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Nov 7, 2017 19:52:48 GMT
There are good times and good reasons to change managers - but if the time isn't right and the reasons aren't good enough its safer to stick. The best time is the end of the season and the best reason is that the manager isn't living up to realistic expectations for the club - and for Stoke that's a mid table finish and the occasional good cup run. Its a crap time to change manager at the moment and Hughes is still (just about) living up to realistic expectations and has a track record with Stoke and other clubs that he can achieve more. I think he's put together a decent squad who clearly respect Hughes as a manager that as yet to realise its full potential. There's every reason to stick with Hughes at the moment and very little good reason to change. The vast majority of reasons given on here amount to not rating Hughes (we are all entitled to an opinion but it would be nice to see a bit more perspective on just how valid that opinion is - Coates appears to have a long shortlist of pretty crap CVs for the next chairman's job) and a blind faith that changing things will make everything rosy. I think most of that's pretty fair. It certainly is a crap time to be changing managers, especially given the perception that we'll only go British for a replacement, and that the end of the season is a better time to change. Blind faith cuts both ways though and I'd be curious as to what people think is going to change significantly for the better after two years of dreck. Hard to think of a recent instance of that being true, and when you read what went wrong with Bilic at West Ham, some of the parallels are eyebrow raising. www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/06/west-ham-sack-slaven-bilic-comment-david-moyesInteresting read. A bit clunky journalistically. Don't see the 'temerity', which seems to be the main issue, in Hughes do you? Bilic's inability to grasp nettles has lead to his downfall, don't reckon that's a problem with our manager. Some parallels but nowt too eyebrow raising in the context of the expectations etc of the Hamsters in their new bowl.
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Nov 8, 2017 0:55:51 GMT
TAKEN FROM SENTINEL,
am still surprised though that a tiny minority of fans continue to paint a picture thatās way too bleak for me to be comfortable with. To listen to them, youād think weāre a laughing stock in the Premier League and on the brink of relegation, a club gripped by crisis with a board that has lost the plot. In their world, only the immediate removal of Hughes gives us any hope of saving ourselves.
Thatās too dramatic a scenario as far as Iām concerned. The facts, both short-term and over a long period, just donāt support that view. We certainly havenāt progressed in the way we would have hoped over the past two seasons, but we remain a solid Premier League outfit and thereās a lot to be said for that, given our size and stature.
In the fanzine at the weekend we ran an article which looked back to our first season in the Premier League in 2008 and the clubs who were our top flight rivals that year. Out of 20 clubs, only eight have remained ever since. Weāre talking about Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham andā¦ STOKE CITY.
While so many other clubs have been relegated and now find themselves languishing in the Championship or worse, it is the ābig sevenā and the Potters who have remained constant fixtures in the top flight for the past 10 seasons. On top of that, weāve never really been in a sustained relegation battle and are just about breaking even financially as a club. Thatās all pretty remarkable.
I am amazed he never mentioned numbnuts or knicker wetters???
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Nov 8, 2017 3:55:22 GMT
I'm not saying anyone who wants to change manager is daft. However some of the options being bandied about are daft and others are uninspiring or unrealistic. I do think Hughes is a pretty good manager and he's put together a pretty good squad that is finding its feet after a tough opening fixture list and some unfortunate injuries to the defence - which hopefully are clearing up. If we're in the bottom three at Xmas talk of changing manager has some merit and if we don't end up top half I think Hughes may well go. But Coates backed Hughes in the close season and the start to the season hasn't been a disaster - it could have been. Hughes was pretty nailed on to see it through to Xmas at least barring a complete nightmare start - and nothing has happened to make me think that position has changed or there is good reason to change direction now. The other thing I have a problem with is the blind faith that changing the manager will automatically change things for the better. It won't. Many of Stokes "problems" are down to the fact we are Stoke and not Man City. Our budget, pulling power and potential are limited by the fact that we are a medium sized club in a medium sized, unfashionable city. A change of manager (or ownership) isn't going to fundamentally change who we are. And to be honest I'm fine with that, If I wanted to support a club like Man City I'd support Man City. If we do change manager (and the end of the season is the best time to do that - not mid season, unless you absolutely have to) I'd like to see us have some ambition - a manager who wants us to play decent football and have aspirations to be in the top half (a bit like that Hughes bloke). However I don't believe we should play good football just for the sake of it - every manager should start pragmatic and build from there (a bit like that Hughes bloke). It might not be Coates' inclination but to move forward I think we should look for a talented overseas manager - I really don't think there are any outstanding British candidates - they are either punts in the dark or a step backwards, It is clearly not the case that changing the manager avoids relegation as almost all teams that are relegated have with odd exceptions like Dyche at Burnley have changed their manager as a vain attempt to avoid the inevitable. Burnley to their credit stuck with Dyche despite relegation and are now reaping the reward. If Hughes keeps us comfortably in the Prem. then that is good enough for me and I suspect Coates as well. Any change to another man with an unproven record in the Prem, British or foreign, is a punt in the dark and as we all know Coates is not a gambler, he takes money off the mugs that are. That's how he and his family have accumulated a massive fortune. I totally agree there are no outstanding British managers presently, in fact IMO Hughes is the best. Err...what about Benitez?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 8, 2017 6:41:44 GMT
It is clearly not the case that changing the manager avoids relegation as almost all teams that are relegated have with odd exceptions like Dyche at Burnley have changed their manager as a vain attempt to avoid the inevitable. Burnley to their credit stuck with Dyche despite relegation and are now reaping the reward. If Hughes keeps us comfortably in the Prem. then that is good enough for me and I suspect Coates as well. Any change to another man with an unproven record in the Prem, British or foreign, is a punt in the dark and as we all know Coates is not a gambler, he takes money off the mugs that are. That's how he and his family have accumulated a massive fortune. I totally agree there are no outstanding British managers presently, in fact IMO Hughes is the best. Err...what about Benitez? What about him?
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Nov 8, 2017 7:01:37 GMT
Err...what about Benitez? What about him? Maybe he's thinking of Ralph Bennettš
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Nov 8, 2017 10:11:31 GMT
Err...what about Benitez? What about him? Was he born in Gibraltar? Or Costa del Wirral?
|
|
|
Post by magwitch on Nov 8, 2017 13:24:30 GMT
It looks to me that the MH tenure at Stoke is drawing to an end, largely due to his failure to rebuild the side as a result of his misjudgements in the transfer market. Peter Coates needs an inspired appointment to replace Hughes, and I believe that Graham Potter should be given a chance to create a reputation for himself in the Premier League, following his outstanding performance in Sweden.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 8, 2017 14:12:38 GMT
It looks to me that the MH tenure at Stoke is drawing to an end, largely due to his failure to rebuild the side as a result of his misjudgements in the transfer market. Peter Coates needs an inspired appointment to replace Hughes, and I believe that Graham Potter should be given a chance to create a reputation for himself in the Premier League, following his outstanding performance in Sweden. His misjudgements? I thought we had a recruitment team. Yes, lets take a wet behind the ears coach from Sweden and let him cut his teeth in the PL. Of course Coates is going to go for that.
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Nov 8, 2017 14:32:02 GMT
It looks to me that the MH tenure at Stoke is drawing to an end, largely due to his failure to rebuild the side as a result of his misjudgements in the transfer market. Peter Coates needs an inspired appointment to replace Hughes, and I believe that Graham Potter should be given a chance to create a reputation for himself in the Premier League, following his outstanding performance in Sweden. HEHEHEHEHE
|
|
|
Post by magwitch on Nov 8, 2017 14:35:50 GMT
It looks to me that the MH tenure at Stoke is drawing to an end, largely due to his failure to rebuild the side as a result of his misjudgements in the transfer market. Peter Coates needs an inspired appointment to replace Hughes, and I believe that Graham Potter should be given a chance to create a reputation for himself in the Premier League, following his outstanding performance in Sweden. His misjudgements? I thought we had a recruitment team. Yes, lets take a wet behind the ears coach from Sweden and let him cut his teeth in the PL. Of course Coates is going to go for that. They may have a recruitement team, but as Harry Truman had on his desk 'the buck stops here'. You may well be right, Pugs, about Peter Coates but a good chairman should have the capacity to spot and back talent. If he doesn't, someone someone-else will and it will be Clubs with this kind of chairman who will reap the rewards. Also Graham Potter would probably be relatively cheap initially, which should appeal to Peter Coates.
|
|
|
Post by mozzer on Nov 8, 2017 15:03:45 GMT
TAKEN FROM SENTINEL, am still surprised though that a tiny minority of fans continue to paint a picture thatās way too bleak for me to be comfortable with. To listen to them, youād think weāre a laughing stock in the Premier League and on the brink of relegation, a club gripped by crisis with a board that has lost the plot. In their world, only the immediate removal of Hughes gives us any hope of saving ourselves. Thatās too dramatic a scenario as far as Iām concerned. The facts, both short-term and over a long period, just donāt support that view. We certainly havenāt progressed in the way we would have hoped over the past two seasons, but we remain a solid Premier League outfit and thereās a lot to be said for that, given our size and stature. In the fanzine at the weekend we ran an article which looked back to our first season in the Premier League in 2008 and the clubs who were our top flight rivals that year. Out of 20 clubs, only eight have remained ever since. Weāre talking about Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham andā¦ STOKE CITY. While so many other clubs have been relegated and now find themselves languishing in the Championship or worse, it is the ābig sevenā and the Potters who have remained constant fixtures in the top flight for the past 10 seasons. On top of that, weāve never really been in a sustained relegation battle and are just about breaking even financially as a club. Thatās all pretty remarkable. I am amazed he never mentioned numbnuts or knicker wetters??? Tiny minority.....really!! Yep...no one laughed when we got spanked by 7 or by 4 on a regular occasion
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 8, 2017 15:47:57 GMT
His misjudgements? I thought we had a recruitment team. Yes, lets take a wet behind the ears coach from Sweden and let him cut his teeth in the PL. Of course Coates is going to go for that. They may have a recruitement team, but as Harry Truman had on his desk 'the buck stops here'. You may well be right, Pugs, about Peter Coates but a good chairman should have the capacity to spot and back talent. If he doesn't, someone someone-else will and it will be Clubs with this kind of chairman who will reap the rewards. Also Graham Potter would probably be relatively cheap initially, which should appeal to Peter Coates. I doubt Peter Coates would worry too much about an odd million here or there on the mangers salary, the important thing is someone who will keep us up, if we get relegated the Ā£100m per year gravy train will be switched out like a light. At the moment he has a man who has delivered 9th, 9th, 9th and 13th, will he trade that for a fella thriving in the 25th strongest league in the world in Sweden even if he did play 40 odd games for Stoke a quarter of a century ago? I can't see it, it won't happen in a million years, he may have been a contender at the Vale had they not gone for the Aspin/Rudge combo.
|
|