|
|
Post by duckling on Nov 15, 2017 21:58:04 GMT
I only started following Stoke last season, so I have a lot to learn about the club's history. I have learned a lot reading this forum, including hours spent going through old threads. Here are some questions I have based on what I've read.
1) What did Peter Coates do in his first spell as chairman that upset so many people?
2) What was the Mama role?
3) I've known about the 0-7 defeat against Birmingham for a while, but only recently read a comment that suggested the players were upset and sort of threw the game. Please explain?
4) Why, how, and when did the Pulis hating wankstains vs rimmers divide happen? Does the divide on this board reflect the divide among fans in general, or is it magnified on this board?
|
|
|
|
Post by modfather on Nov 15, 2017 22:22:26 GMT
1) coates was the catering supplier back at the old Vic and there just wasn't enough meat in the pies.
2) to play up front and not score
3) no. We were just very wank back then.
4) pulis = marmite
|
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 15, 2017 22:35:44 GMT
I only started following Stoke last season, so I have a lot to learn about the club's history. I have learned a lot reading this forum, including hours spent going through old threads. Here are some questions I have based on what I've read. 1) What did Peter Coates do in his first spell as chairman that upset so many people? 2) What was the Mama role? 3) I've known about the 0-7 defeat against Birmingham for a while, but only recently read a comment that suggested the players were upset and sort of threw the game. Please explain? 4) Why, how, and when did the Pulis hating wankstains vs rimmers divide happen? Does the divide on this board reflect the divide among fans in general, or is it magnified on this board? 1) Rightly or wrongly, the perception of Coates' first coming was as a vampiric presence who either couldn't or wouldn't put money into the club, had zero ambition for the club and who all too readily sold off the club's best players to the first bidder. The most famous example being the sale of Paul Peschisolido in 1996 when it seemed the team was genuinely in with a chance of promotion to the Premiership. 2) The Mama role was a key position in TP's version of 4-4-2 which involved one striker playing behind the other and doing all the dirty work, dropping in as an extra midfielder when we didn't have the ball, winning flick-ons and creating space for his strike partner, in Mama's case the extraordinary Ricardo Fuller. Mama Sidibe was limited but he performed this role selflessly and brilliantly. As weird as it sounds for a striker, he really wasn't in the team to score goals. Gifton Noel-Williams played the role as a sort of proto-Mama before him. Jon Walters was the sort of T-1000 Mama to Mama's T-800. More gifted strikers who actually wanted to score some goals tended to struggle with it. 3) The players found out on the Monday before the game that nine of them had been put on the transfer list. They found this out by picking up The Sentinel and seeing it on the back page. The idea that they proceeded to down tools that weekend is a fairly reasonable one I think. 4) It was in place from the get-go in 2002. People on both sides shifted allegiance more than once. It developed partly because he felt like such an underwhelming appointment at first (and he'd had a bit of a pop at us when he chose Bristol City over us a couple of years prior) and festered because he has a tendency, with his football and his ways, to rub some folk up the wrong way. I think the divide on the board did reflect the crowd, and it generally is a decent thermometer for supporter feelings in general. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Nov 15, 2017 22:59:08 GMT
Coates made error after error.
Mama role is specific to a Tony Pulis side where there are four centre backs,two midfielders 'in the cage' who absolutely don't get forward.
Either two wingers or two fullbacks playing wide midfield.
A Duracell bunny type upfront.
That leaves oceans of pitch between midfield and that striker.
Neither striker nor midfield.
That's the Mama role, to 'do a job' with little opportunity to score.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Nov 15, 2017 23:19:46 GMT
I only started following Stoke last season, so I have a lot to learn about the club's history. I have learned a lot reading this forum, including hours spent going through old threads. Here are some questions I have based on what I've read. 1) What did Peter Coates do in his first spell as chairman that upset so many people? 2) What was the Mama role? 3) I've known about the 0-7 defeat against Birmingham for a while, but only recently read a comment that suggested the players were upset and sort of threw the game. Please explain? 4) Why, how, and when did the Pulis hating wankstains vs rimmers divide happen? Does the divide on this board reflect the divide among fans in general, or is it magnified on this board? 1) Rightly or wrongly, the perception of Coates' first coming was as a vampiric presence who either couldn't or wouldn't put money into the club, had zero ambition for the club and who all too readily sold off the club's best players to the first bidder. The most famous example being the sale of Paul Peschisolido in 1996 when it seemed the team was genuinely in with a chance of promotion to the Premiership. 2) The Mama role was a key position in TP's version of 4-4-2 which involved one striker playing behind the other and doing all the dirty work, dropping in as an extra midfielder when we didn't have the ball, winning flick-ons and creating space for his strike partner, in Mama's case the extraordinary Ricardo Fuller. Mama Sidibe was limited but he performed this role selflessly and brilliantly. As weird as it sounds for a striker, he really wasn't in the team to score goals. Gifton Noel-Williams played the role as a sort of proto-Mama before him. Jon Walters was the sort of T-1000 Mama to Mama's T-800. More gifted strikers who actually wanted to score some goals tended to struggle with it. 3) The players found out on the Monday before the game that nine of them had been put on the transfer list. They found this out by picking up The Sentinel and seeing it on the back page. The idea that they proceeded to down tools that weekend is a fairly reasonable one I think. 4) It was in place from the get-go in 2002. People on both sides shifted allegiance more than once. It developed partly because he felt like such an underwhelming appointment at first (and he'd had a bit of a pop at us when he chose Bristol City over us a couple of years prior) and festered because he has a tendency, with his football and his ways, to rub some folk up the wrong way. I think the divide on the board did reflect the crowd, and it generally is a decent thermometer for supporter feelings in general. Brilliant answers. Close the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Nov 15, 2017 23:25:22 GMT
I only started following Stoke last season, so I have a lot to learn about the club's history. I have learned a lot reading this forum, including hours spent going through old threads. Here are some questions I have based on what I've read. 1) What did Peter Coates do in his first spell as chairman that upset so many people? 2) What was the Mama role? 3) I've known about the 0-7 defeat against Birmingham for a while, but only recently read a comment that suggested the players were upset and sort of threw the game. Please explain? 4) Why, how, and when did the Pulis hating wankstains vs rimmers divide happen? Does the divide on this board reflect the divide among fans in general, or is it magnified on this board? 1) Rightly or wrongly, the perception of Coates' first coming was as a vampiric presence who either couldn't or wouldn't put money into the club, had zero ambition for the club and who all too readily sold off the club's best players to the first bidder. The most famous example being the sale of Paul Peschisolido in 1996 when it seemed the team was genuinely in with a chance of promotion to the Premiership. 2) The Mama role was a key position in TP's version of 4-4-2 which involved one striker playing behind the other and doing all the dirty work, dropping in as an extra midfielder when we didn't have the ball, winning flick-ons and creating space for his strike partner, in Mama's case the extraordinary Ricardo Fuller. Mama Sidibe was limited but he performed this role selflessly and brilliantly. As weird as it sounds for a striker, he really wasn't in the team to score goals. Gifton Noel-Williams played the role as a sort of proto-Mama before him. Jon Walters was the sort of T-1000 Mama to Mama's T-800. More gifted strikers who actually wanted to score some goals tended to struggle with it. 3) The players found out on the Monday before the game that nine of them had been put on the transfer list. They found this out by picking up The Sentinel and seeing it on the back page. The idea that they proceeded to down tools that weekend is a fairly reasonable one I think. 4) It was in place from the get-go in 2002. People on both sides shifted allegiance more than once. It developed partly because he felt like such an underwhelming appointment at first (and he'd had a bit of a pop at us when he chose Bristol City over us a couple of years prior) and festered because he has a tendency, with his football and his ways, to rub some folk up the wrong way. I think the divide on the board did reflect the crowd, and it generally is a decent thermometer for supporter feelings in general. He only used to sell pies didnt he? I think Denise is the legend but allowing her dad to pretend its him *not pukka pies |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 15, 2017 23:38:09 GMT
I only started following Stoke last season, so I have a lot to learn about the club's history. I have learned a lot reading this forum, including hours spent going through old threads. Here are some questions I have based on what I've read. 1) What did Peter Coates do in his first spell as chairman that upset so many people? 2) What was the Mama role? 3) I've known about the 0-7 defeat against Birmingham for a while, but only recently read a comment that suggested the players were upset and sort of threw the game. Please explain? 4) Why, how, and when did the Pulis hating wankstains vs rimmers divide happen? Does the divide on this board reflect the divide among fans in general, or is it magnified on this board? 1) What did Peter Coates do in his first spell as chairman that upset so many people? Lacked any noticeable ambition and seemingly had a disdain for fans. 2) What was the Mama role? A role that allowed Fuller to be slightly more majestic than he already was 3) I've known about the 0-7 defeat against Birmingham for a while, but only recently read a comment that suggested the players were upset and sort of threw the game. Please explain? It's linked to answer #1 in a way. We were rotting and the board at the time seemingly had not a shred of consideration for players or fans and therefore the club. 4) Why, how, and when did the Pulis hating wankstains vs rimmers divide happen? Does the divide on this board reflect the divide among fans in general, or is it magnified on this board? Bunch of cunts who were proved wrong who could never let it rest against a bunch of cunts who were proved right, although you might have more luck getting an answer to the Middle East problem than this one. |
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Nov 16, 2017 0:11:43 GMT
1. Coates had limited resources but his intentions were honourable. All most people wanted was him to sell to better financed people if they were available.
2. Mama was a far better player than some would have you believe and he had a superb attitude. Big lad who helped those around him to prosper.
3. We were just a very poor team - no more no less.
4. TP was a great manager for this club - not worth going into the nonsense some people seem to wish to spout.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 16, 2017 0:42:53 GMT
Perhaps ironically one of the things Peter Coates and Keith Humphries were most reviled for was the “golden shares” issue. My memory is sketchy and I’ll no doubt explain this badly but speaking very roughly, on the eve of selling most of the club to the Icelanders, C & H pushed through some kind of resolution which guaranteed that in the event of any board decisions, their votes would always be worth one more than the rest of the directors put together.
At the time it was seen as an incredibly self-serving and cynical way of ensuring they retained power while shedding any responsibility for the state the club was in, but in hindsight maybe it was just a prudent bit of forward planning by someone who genuinely cared about the fate of the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 16, 2017 11:10:45 GMT
Is that really true about Birmingham? They downed tools because they were all put on the transfer list?
To be honest, that's the first rational explanation for Steven Tweed's performance that day. For the past 20 odd years I've just thought he was one the worst fucking footballers I've ever seen in my life.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Nov 16, 2017 13:40:35 GMT
Is that really true about Birmingham? They downed tools because they were all put on the transfer list? To be honest, that's the first rational explanation for Steven Tweed's performance that day. For the past 20 odd years I've just thought he was one the worst fucking footballers I've ever seen in my life. I thought that was one of his better games. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 16, 2017 13:52:55 GMT
Is that really true about Birmingham? They downed tools because they were all put on the transfer list? To be honest, that's the first rational explanation for Steven Tweed's performance that day. For the past 20 odd years I've just thought he was one the worst fucking footballers I've ever seen in my life. Not sure about "downed tools" but I can't imagine they were exactly 100% motivated after reading they were all on the transfer list in the local paper... |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 16, 2017 13:53:33 GMT
Is that really true about Birmingham? They downed tools because they were all put on the transfer list? To be honest, that's the first rational explanation for Steven Tweed's performance that day. For the past 20 odd years I've just thought he was one the worst fucking footballers I've ever seen in my life. I thought that was one of his better games.  Boy come good..... not quite. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 16, 2017 13:54:26 GMT
Is that really true about Birmingham? They downed tools because they were all put on the transfer list? To be honest, that's the first rational explanation for Steven Tweed's performance that day. For the past 20 odd years I've just thought he was one the worst fucking footballers I've ever seen in my life. Not sure about "downed tools" but I can't imagine they were exactly 100% motivated after reading they were all on the transfer list in the local paper... Who'da predicted 20 years later where both clubs would be? |
|
|
|
Post by duckling on Nov 16, 2017 15:23:58 GMT
Thanks for all your answers, particularly to Toxic Avenger.
Two more questions.
5) At the height of hooliganism, how bad were Stoke's hooligans relative to other clubs?
6) When did Stoke start using Rory Delap's long throw as a weapon? Based on the media reports from the debut Premier League season, it seemed to have caught a lot of teams by surprise. Was it not used in the Championship, or not used effectively?
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Nov 16, 2017 15:30:28 GMT
Thanks for all your answers, particularly to Toxic Avenger. Two more questions. 5) At the height of hooliganism, how bad were Stoke's hooligans relative to other clubs? 6) When did Stoke start using Rory Delap's long throw as a weapon? Based on the media reports from the debut Premier League season, it seemed to have caught a lot of teams by surprise. Was it not used in the Championship, or not used effectively? 5) Very bad. Among the worst in the country. 6) It was used in the Champo, it just didn't get much national attention. Hence taking the Premier League and its artful, pansy defenders by storm  |
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Nov 16, 2017 16:13:58 GMT
Thanks for all your answers, particularly to Toxic Avenger. Two more questions. 5) At the height of hooliganism, how bad were Stoke's hooligans relative to other clubs? 6) When did Stoke start using Rory Delap's long throw as a weapon? Based on the media reports from the debut Premier League season, it seemed to have caught a lot of teams by surprise. Was it not used in the Championship, or not used effectively? Stoke fans were certainly involved in Hooliganism in the 1970's but were certainly no worse or better than many other club's fans. We had far worse incidents in the late 90's whenever we came up against Cardiff, and there were incidents of running battles in the centre of Stoke between us. Stoke and Cardiff fans have a long history of emnity from when we were both in the lower leagues and simply just do not like each other The impact of the Rory Delap long throw probably surprised even many Stoke fans when we first played in the Premiership and it was a hugely influential weapon that few clubs had an answer to and took a long while to combat. At the start of our post promotion season Tony Pulis had the width of the Stoke pitch purposely reduced to make it easier for Rory to reach the penalty spot. Such was Rory's reputation, and the fear of our opponents, that I remember one Hull defender, under no real pressure in his own half, put the ball out for a corner for safety rather than a throw in. Various other tactics were used against Stoke, such as moving the advertising hoardings in nearer the pitch to restrict scope for a run up, and in one match Dean Windass repeatedly stood directly in front of Rory at several throws to restict his options. |
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Nov 16, 2017 16:43:45 GMT
I only started following Stoke last season, so I have a lot to learn about the club's history. I have learned a lot reading this forum, including hours spent going through old threads. Here are some questions I have based on what I've read. 1) What did Peter Coates do in his first spell as chairman that upset so many people? 2) What was the Mama role? 3) I've known about the 0-7 defeat against Birmingham for a while, but only recently read a comment that suggested the players were upset and sort of threw the game. Please explain? 4) Why, how, and when did the Pulis hating wankstains vs rimmers divide happen? Does the divide on this board reflect the divide among fans in general, or is it magnified on this board? 1) Rightly or wrongly, the perception of Coates' first coming was as a vampiric presence who either couldn't or wouldn't put money into the club, had zero ambition for the club and who all too readily sold off the club's best players to the first bidder. The most famous example being the sale of Paul Peschisolido in 1996 when it seemed the team was genuinely in with a chance of promotion to the Premiership. 2) The Mama role was a key position in TP's version of 4-4-2 which involved one striker playing behind the other and doing all the dirty work, dropping in as an extra midfielder when we didn't have the ball, winning flick-ons and creating space for his strike partner, in Mama's case the extraordinary Ricardo Fuller. Mama Sidibe was limited but he performed this role selflessly and brilliantly. As weird as it sounds for a striker, he really wasn't in the team to score goals. Gifton Noel-Williams played the role as a sort of proto-Mama before him. Jon Walters was the sort of T-1000 Mama to Mama's T-800. More gifted strikers who actually wanted to score some goals tended to struggle with it. 3) The players found out on the Monday before the game that nine of them had been put on the transfer list. They found this out by picking up The Sentinel and seeing it on the back page. The idea that they proceeded to down tools that weekend is a fairly reasonable one I think. 4) It was in place from the get-go in 2002. People on both sides shifted allegiance more than once. It developed partly because he felt like such an underwhelming appointment at first (and he'd had a bit of a pop at us when he chose Bristol City over us a couple of years prior) and festered because he has a tendency, with his football and his ways, to rub some folk up the wrong way. I think the divide on the board did reflect the crowd, and it generally is a decent thermometer for supporter feelings in general. I rated gifton unfortunately his knees were made of soggy biscuit and broke down more than my wife’s old punto |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 16:46:42 GMT
2) What was the Mama role? 2) The Mama role was a key position in TP's version of 4-4-2 which involved one striker playing behind the other and doing all the dirty work, dropping in as an extra midfielder when we didn't have the ball, winning flick-ons and creating space for his strike partner, in Mama's case the extraordinary Ricardo Fuller. Mama Sidibe was limited but he performed this role selflessly and brilliantly. As weird as it sounds for a striker, he really wasn't in the team to score goals. Gifton Noel-Williams played the role as a sort of proto-Mama before him. Jon Walters was the sort of T-1000 Mama to Mama's T-800. More gifted strikers who actually wanted to score some goals tended to struggle with it. Perfect answer from the Avenger! See Mama doing his unsung but very necessary work here: 0:30: Delap's assist for Ric's headed goal. Look at Mama manufacturing space, occupying not one but two defenders at the near post. 2:14: Causing chaos in their six yard box. Gives the centre half nightmares, then jumps across the keeper. 2:21: Again at the near post for the throw in. Again occupying two defenders and backing into the keeper's sight-line. 2:58: Arsenal player mistakenly heads it to a Stoke player. Watch it again and see why. Just as he jumps, a subtle bump in the back from Mama. 3:53: Great athleticism and energy. With 10 minutes left in the game Denilson is too knackered to match Mama's pace. Then a pinpoint cross from Mama for Ric's second. 4:28: Mama is the target man for Tommy's long kick. He wins a good flick on. Tuncay competes for it well, but loses out. Who's there to mop up... 4:34: ...Mama picks up the pieces to set up the attack that leads to the third. |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Nov 16, 2017 17:06:58 GMT
Thanks for all your answers, particularly to Toxic Avenger. Two more questions. 5) At the height of hooliganism, how bad were Stoke's hooligans relative to other clubs? 6) When did Stoke start using Rory Delap's long throw as a weapon? Based on the media reports from the debut Premier League season, it seemed to have caught a lot of teams by surprise. Was it not used in the Championship, or not used effectively? 5) Very bad. Among the worst in the country. 6) It was used in the Champo, it just didn't get much national attention. Hence taking the Premier League and its artful, pansy defenders by storm The throw was bizarrely far more successful in the Prem, largely because it wasn't especially a novelty in the Champo, whereas gilded, cultured international defenders were far less accustomed to it and didn't know whether to shit or wind their watch. |
|
|
|
Post by cr4zyd4ve on Nov 16, 2017 17:09:21 GMT
Perhaps ironically one of the things Peter Coates and Keith Humphries were most reviled for was the “golden shares” issue. My memory is sketchy and I’ll no doubt explain this badly but speaking very roughly, on the eve of selling most of the club to the Icelanders, C & H pushed through some kind of resolution which guaranteed that in the event of any board decisions, their votes would always be worth one more than the rest of the directors put together. At the time it was seen as an incredibly self-serving and cynical way of ensuring they retained power while shedding any responsibility for the state the club was in, but in hindsight maybe it was just a prudent bit of forward planning by someone who genuinely cared about the fate of the club. Am I right in thinking that there used to be a thread pinned to the top of this board about Coates' and Humphries' 'golden shares'? |
|
|
|
Post by cr4zyd4ve on Nov 16, 2017 17:22:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Nov 16, 2017 18:25:26 GMT
All mention of Stenhousemuir airbrushed out of Oatcake history - touching a raw nerve, perchance?
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 16, 2017 18:36:15 GMT
5) Very bad. Among the worst in the country. 6) It was used in the Champo, it just didn't get much national attention. Hence taking the Premier League and its artful, pansy defenders by storm The throw was bizarrely far more successful in the Prem, largely because it wasn't especially a novelty in the Champo, whereas gilded, cultured international defenders were far less accustomed to it and didn't know whether to shit or wind their watch. Indeed. Most Championship defenders looked at it and seemed to give it a dismissive 'what the fuck was that!' look and it only had moderate success. I don't think it's an underestimate to say for a time in the Premier League, probably less time than we imagine but nevertheless it caused absolute havoc! |
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Nov 16, 2017 18:53:16 GMT
Thanks for all your answers, particularly to Toxic Avenger. Two more questions. 5) At the height of hooliganism, how bad were Stoke's hooligans relative to other clubs? 6) When did Stoke start using Rory Delap's long throw as a weapon? Based on the media reports from the debut Premier League season, it seemed to have caught a lot of teams by surprise. Was it not used in the Championship, or not used effectively? 5) We had some of the finest hooligans in the land and we were very proud of them. They were well in to tattoos long before they became fashionable. Pots, pits & punching, that's what Stoke was famous for. 6) Used in the Championship but wasn't such a novelty there. Premier league namby-pambys were under the impression that there was a rule that the ball had to be passed at least 12 times after a throw-in before you were allowed to cross it. As we didn't pass it 12 times in a whole match it took them a while to figure us out. |
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Nov 16, 2017 19:25:32 GMT
I only started following Stoke last season, so I have a lot to learn about the club's history. I have learned a lot reading this forum, including hours spent going through old threads. Here are some questions I have based on what I've read. 1) What did Peter Coates do in his first spell as chairman that upset so many people? 2) What was the Mama role? 3) I've known about the 0-7 defeat against Birmingham for a while, but only recently read a comment that suggested the players were upset and sort of threw the game. Please explain? 4) Why, how, and when did the Pulis hating wankstains vs rimmers divide happen? Does the divide on this board reflect the divide among fans in general, or is it magnified on this board? 1) Rightly or wrongly, the perception of Coates' first coming was as a vampiric presence who either couldn't or wouldn't put money into the club, had zero ambition for the club and who all too readily sold off the club's best players to the first bidder. The most famous example being the sale of Paul Peschisolido in 1996 when it seemed the team was genuinely in with a chance of promotion to the Premiership. 2) The Mama role was a key position in TP's version of 4-4-2 which involved one striker playing behind the other and doing all the dirty work, dropping in as an extra midfielder when we didn't have the ball, winning flick-ons and creating space for his strike partner, in Mama's case the extraordinary Ricardo Fuller. Mama Sidibe was limited but he performed this role selflessly and brilliantly. As weird as it sounds for a striker, he really wasn't in the team to score goals. Gifton Noel-Williams played the role as a sort of proto-Mama before him. Jon Walters was the sort of T-1000 Mama to Mama's T-800. More gifted strikers who actually wanted to score some goals tended to struggle with it. 3) The players found out on the Monday before the game that nine of them had been put on the transfer list. They found this out by picking up The Sentinel and seeing it on the back page. The idea that they proceeded to down tools that weekend is a fairly reasonable one I think. 4) It was in place from the get-go in 2002. People on both sides shifted allegiance more than once. It developed partly because he felt like such an underwhelming appointment at first (and he'd had a bit of a pop at us when he chose Bristol City over us a couple of years prior) and festered because he has a tendency, with his football and his ways, to rub some folk up the wrong way. I think the divide on the board did reflect the crowd, and it generally is a decent thermometer for supporter feelings in general. That Mama role is so right. Heskey did the sane for England. Playing upfront not to score goals but to bring the best out of the man who does (Ric/Owen). His partnership with Fuller was the best we've had for a long time |
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Nov 16, 2017 20:55:19 GMT
All mention of Stenhousemuir airbrushed out of Oatcake history - touching a raw nerve, perchance? Like it never happened. This morning people were readressing the issue in this excellent thread, but now it has disappeared. Maybe for the best. |
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Nov 16, 2017 22:15:26 GMT
Thanks for all your answers, particularly to Toxic Avenger. Two more questions. 5) At the height of hooliganism, how bad were Stoke's hooligans relative to other clubs? 6) When did Stoke start using Rory Delap's long throw as a weapon? Based on the media reports from the debut Premier League season, it seemed to have caught a lot of teams by surprise. Was it not used in the Championship, or not used effectively? Stoke fans were certainly involved in Hooliganism in the 1970's but were certainly no worse or better than many other club's fans. We had far worse incidents in the late 90's whenever we came up against Cardiff, and there were incidents of running battles in the centre of Stoke between us. Stoke and Cardiff fans have a long history of emnity from when we were both in the lower leagues and simply just do not like each other The impact of the Rory Delap long throw probably surprised even many Stoke fans when we first played in the Premiership and it was a hugely influential weapon that few clubs had an answer to and took a long while to combat. At the start of our post promotion season Tony Pulis had the width of the Stoke pitch purposely reduced to make it easier for Rory to reach the penalty spot. Such was Rory's reputation, and the fear of our opponents, that I remember one Hull defender, under no real pressure in his own half, put the ball out for a corner for safety rather than a throw in. Various other tactics were used against Stoke, such as moving the advertising hoardings in nearer the pitch to restrict scope for a run up, and in one match Dean Windass repeatedly stood directly in front of Rory at several throws to restict his options. Hi Duckling I'm glad you have stuck around instead of bouncing from club to club mate Good on ya! Found a true Football Club to be part of. Regarding RORY, it went a bit mental on a few fronts... i think it was WEst HAm away, under Zola or grant ? they purposely pushed the advertising hoardings up almost to the touchline, to prevent him being able to have a bit of a room to wind up his throws. was a total safety hazard looking back, you could barely warm up on the touchline. He literally just picked up a section and threw it to one side  Rory also used to have towels to dry the ball given by ball boys, and sometimes the away ballboys would help us with this as well (I think i even learned this must be agreed prior) But soon that good will dried up and Rory had towel stitched into to his undershirt. Did Shotton's mum do those up? I'm Not making this up! He had a towel attactched to him he would dry the ball with which was part of this kind of spandex top he would wear (Rory almost always wore a long sleeve) www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/7530926/West-Hams-sneakily-placed-adverts-still-fail-to-scupper-Stoke-and-Rory-Delap.htmlMiss Rory, was nice thinking back about him, wonderful player and so much more to his game than that throw. Pure Stoke Legend! |
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Nov 16, 2017 22:26:45 GMT
and in one match Dean Windass repeatedly stood directly in front of Rory at several throws to restict his options.
My daughter and I were chuckling about that the other day. Funniest thing we've ever seen - silly sod got a yellow card for blocking Rory even before he got on the pitch. It was right below us.
|
|
|
|
Post by djduncanjames on Nov 16, 2017 22:36:10 GMT
and in one match Dean Windass repeatedly stood directly in front of Rory at several throws to restict his options.
My daughter and I were chuckling about that the other day. Funniest thing we've ever seen - silly sod got a yellow card for blocking Rory even before he got on the pitch. It was right below us. I also want to say it was BOAZ MYHILL -- The HULL keeper who was parrying his blocks out for corners rather than giving us a throw, was a while back but i think i am correct |
|
