Was our third 9th place finish a curse in disguise?

[SamB_SCFC]

I've been thinking about this for a while now. When it started to become clear that the wheels were falling off big time and some fans first started to turn against Hughes around the middle of last season, one of the first things his supporters always said when his position was questioned was 'he led us to three 9th place finishes in a row give him more respect'. Or words to that effect. And that seems to be the position the board took too based on their actions (or lack of) despite the warning alarms ringing off the wall from as early as the end of the 15/16 season.


In my opinion that third 9th place finish was very much a false position and papered over some pretty gaping holes in the second half of that season. Our defending had already gone to pot and the regular 3 and 4 goal thrashings that became characteristic of Hughes' final two years had already started. 13th would have been a better reflection of the season as a whole and our inflated final position happened due to a really strong purple patch around November and December when 'Stokealona' briefly worked and the averageness of the rest of the league which allowed us to finish 9th with a lower than average points total. Had we finished 13th that season instead of the impressive sounding 9th, maybe more people and crucially the board themselves would have clocked on to our alarming decline a bit earlier and heads wouldn't have been buried in the sand for so long?

It's become clear that Hughes should have been sacked in May last year straight after our final game. Would he have been offered that second chance if fewer people hadn't been blinded by our undeserved third 9th place finish? In my opinion I think a higher percentage of supporters would have turned against him earlier and he'd have been under more pressure at the end of last season which could have forced the board's hand.

[Deleted]

I blame "Top Eleven"

[Deleted]

Three upside down 9's are

666

[JoeinOz]

Feb 11, 2018 12:59:40 GMT SamB_SCFC said:

I've been thinking about this for a while now. When it started to become clear that the wheels were falling off big time and some fans first started to turn against Hughes around the middle of last season, one of the first things his supporters always said when his position was questioned was 'he led us to three 9th place finishes in a row give him more respect'. Or words to that effect. And that seems to be the position the board took too based on their actions (or lack of) despite the warning alarms ringing off the wall from as early as the end of the 15/16 season.


In my opinion that third 9th place finish was very much a false position and papered over some pretty gaping holes in the second half of that season. Our defending had already gone to pot and the regular 3 and 4 goal thrashings that became characteristic of Hughes' final two years had already started. 13th would have been a better reflection of the season as a whole and our inflated final position happened due to a really strong purple patch around November and December when 'Stokealona' briefly worked and the averageness of the rest of the league which allowed us to finish 9th with a lower than average points total. Had we finished 13th that season instead of the impressive sounding 9th, maybe more people and crucially the board themselves would have clocked on to our alarming decline a bit earlier and heads wouldn't have been buried in the sand for so long?

It's become clear that Hughes should have been sacked in May last year straight after our final game. Would he have been offered that second chance if fewer people hadn't been blinded by our undeserved third 9th place finish? In my opinion I think a higher percentage of supporters would have turned against him earlier and he'd have been under more pressure at the end of last season which could have forced the board's hand.

No.

[jarhead]

Not at all.

[The Toxic Avenger]

The third one was, 100% yes. It papered over sizeable cracks. Hughes at that stage had enough credit in the bank to carry on but more serious questions would’ve been asked and the complacency reeking from the place in the last few years might’ve been tempered. Instead we fluked a win over West Ham to confirm ninth and Hughes had a pop at the fans and accused them of demanding long ball.

All of the things that eventually did for Hughes - thrashings, disorganisation, poor investments, the lack of a plan, the inability to know how to stop a rot - all surfaced during the first 4-5 months of 2016.

Bayern said it at the time, and he was right.

[Staying up for Grandadstokey]

The board must have been happy to achieve 3 ninth place finishes, and decided that to progress was going to take huge investment , a risk they were not prepared to take, so they opted for a " stand still " budget and we all know what happens when any business tries to stand still.

[iglugluk]

Feb 11, 2018 13:41:05 GMT Staying up for Grandadstokey said:

The board must have been happy to achieve 3 ninth place finishes, and decided that to progress was going to take huge investment , a risk they were not prepared to take, so they opted for a " stand still " budget and we all know what happens when any business tries to stand still.

Seems to be likely that was the thought process.........you gotta spend properly to even stand still in this league though. Something that appears to have been badly thought through.

[onionman]

Yes. Mark Hughes had a natural shelf life of three years at Stoke and there was enough evidence to realise that by the end of his third season. The 9th place finish effectively gave the board a cop-out from making a tough decision. The fact it was three 9th places in a row meant that cop-out lasted 18 months too long.

[wapiti]

In a way, yes it was. I recall Hughes being questioned at the end of the season and he pointed to that third ninth place finish as evidence of the team's (and his) solid performance. The only problem with that logic was Leicester City came out of nowhere and won the League that year. Stoke also lost several games that season that they could have/should have won and moved up a spot or two in the table. They were never going to get up into the top five spots but they could have built on the prior two ninth place seasons and gone a bit higher. As I listened to Hughes, he sounded defensive and oddly complacent but he was pointing to mediocrity as evidence of success (of course, he did, it was all he had and was campaigning to keep his job). And from there, it all went downhill.....quickly. But for the win against Hull City, late in the season, Stoke would have been relegated last season. That's when he should have been sacked, if not the year before.

[11wilkosinateam]

Feb 11, 2018 12:59:40 GMT SamB_SCFC said:

I've been thinking about this for a while now. When it started to become clear that the wheels were falling off big time and some fans first started to turn against Hughes around the middle of last season, one of the first things his supporters always said when his position was questioned was 'he led us to three 9th place finishes in a row give him more respect'. Or words to that effect. And that seems to be the position the board took too based on their actions (or lack of) despite the warning alarms ringing off the wall from as early as the end of the 15/16 season.


In my opinion that third 9th place finish was very much a false position and papered over some pretty gaping holes in the second half of that season. Our defending had already gone to pot and the regular 3 and 4 goal thrashings that became characteristic of Hughes' final two years had already started. 13th would have been a better reflection of the season as a whole and our inflated final position happened due to a really strong purple patch around November and December when 'Stokealona' briefly worked and the averageness of the rest of the league which allowed us to finish 9th with a lower than average points total. Had we finished 13th that season instead of the impressive sounding 9th, maybe more people and crucially the board themselves would have clocked on to our alarming decline a bit earlier and heads wouldn't have been buried in the sand for so long?

It's become clear that Hughes should have been sacked in May last year straight after our final game. Would he have been offered that second chance if fewer people hadn't been blinded by our undeserved third 9th place finish? In my opinion I think a higher percentage of supporters would have turned against him earlier and he'd have been under more pressure at the end of last season which could have forced the board's hand.

Exactly this

That last 9th place finish seriously flattered us and we got very lucky by playing some teams at good times.

We have not had such luck this season and some of our rivals have.

We played Chelsea & Everton a few games before the players seemed to down tools and Watford, Leicester & West Ham just after they had picked them back up again.

Not saying we don't deserve to be where we are more that the signs were appearing years ago but were glossed over by that 9th place finish

[tachyon]

Feb 11, 2018 12:59:40 GMT SamB_SCFC said:

I've been thinking about this for a while now. When it started to become clear that the wheels were falling off big time and some fans first started to turn against Hughes around the middle of last season, one of the first things his supporters always said when his position was questioned was 'he led us to three 9th place finishes in a row give him more respect'

Fair assessment.

This is what our overall attacking and defensive process has looked like since 2014/15.

Attachment Deleted

The black horizontal line gets you about a 9th finish. We've spent much of our time below it and have progressively declined.

To have missed such a prolonged and fairly obvious trend and taken the finishing positions at face value is.....unfortunate.

[generationex]

How is that calculated Tachyon?

[stokie23]

Feb 11, 2018 13:16:09 GMT The Toxic Avenger said:

The third one was, 100% yes. It papered over sizeable cracks. Hughes at that stage had enough credit in the bank to carry on but more serious questions would’ve been asked and the complacency reeking from the place in the last few years might’ve been tempered. Instead we fluked a win over West Ham to confirm ninth and Hughes had a pop at the fans and accused them of demanding long ball.

All of the things that eventually did for Hughes - thrashings, disorganisation, poor investments, the lack of a plan, the inability to know how to stop a rot - all surfaced during the first 4-5 months of 2016.

Bayern said it at the time, and he was right.

Spot on! The 3rd season under Hughes was awful ... think we shot up from 14th to 9th on last day of the season due to 3 much needed points.

[Paul Spencer]

Feb 11, 2018 13:16:09 GMT The Toxic Avenger said:

The third one was, 100% yes. It papered over sizeable cracks. Hughes at that stage had enough credit in the bank to carry on but more serious questions would’ve been asked and the complacency reeking from the place in the last few years might’ve been tempered. Instead we fluked a win over West Ham to confirm ninth and Hughes had a pop at the fans and accused them of demanding long ball.

All of the things that eventually did for Hughes - thrashings, disorganisation, poor investments, the lack of a plan, the inability to know how to stop a rot - all surfaced during the first 4-5 months of 2016.

Bayern said it at the time, and he was right.

Exactly this.

That West Ham game has ultimately really done for us.

If we hadn't fluked that win, we would have finished 13th and the three 9th place finishes mantra that was spouted by those people who couldn't (or didn't want to) see what was starting to unfold wouldn't have carried such weight.

There was an argument that he should have gone that summer but of course (as you have said) he had more than enough credit in the bank, backed up by those three ninth places finishes to make such a sacking look incredibly ridiculous to the outside world, but no doubt the signs were there if you were watching us week in, week out at the time.

He absolutely had to go last summer and it would have been interesting to see how the board would have reacted at that point, if that West Ham fluke the season before hadn't left us in ninth.

And for sure ... Bayern did say it at the time and he was indeed right.

[Davef]

Feb 11, 2018 21:58:08 GMT Paul Spencer said:

Feb 11, 2018 13:16:09 GMT The Toxic Avenger said:

The third one was, 100% yes. It papered over sizeable cracks. Hughes at that stage had enough credit in the bank to carry on but more serious questions would’ve been asked and the complacency reeking from the place in the last few years might’ve been tempered. Instead we fluked a win over West Ham to confirm ninth and Hughes had a pop at the fans and accused them of demanding long ball.

All of the things that eventually did for Hughes - thrashings, disorganisation, poor investments, the lack of a plan, the inability to know how to stop a rot - all surfaced during the first 4-5 months of 2016.

Bayern said it at the time, and he was right.

Exactly this.

That West Ham game has ultimately really done for us.

If we hadn't fluked that win, we would have finished 13th and the three 9th place finishes mantra that was spouted by those people who couldn't (or didn't want to) see what was starting to unfold wouldn't have carried such weight.

There was an argument that he should have gone that summer but of course (as you have said) he had more than enough credit in the bank, backed up by those three ninth places finishes to make such a sacking look incredibly ridiculous to the outside world, but no doubt the signs were there if you were watching us week in, week out at the time.

He absolutely had to go last summer and it would have been interesting to see how the board would have reacted at that point, if that West Ham fluke the season before hadn't left us in ninth.

And for sure ... Bayern did say it at the time and he was indeed right.

Had we not won that game, we'd have finished 10th Paul, and I'm not so sure much would've dramatically changed.

The club could point at it being a season in which we beat both Manchester clubs as well as being undefeated in three games against Chelsea and reaching a cup semi-final. They could also highlight the fact that major end of season slump came when we lost Butland through injury.

[Deleted]

Feb 11, 2018 22:36:49 GMT Davef said:

Feb 11, 2018 21:58:08 GMT Paul Spencer said:

Exactly this.

That West Ham game has ultimately really done for us.

If we hadn't fluked that win, we would have finished 13th and the three 9th place finishes mantra that was spouted by those people who couldn't (or didn't want to) see what was starting to unfold wouldn't have carried such weight.

There was an argument that he should have gone that summer but of course (as you have said) he had more than enough credit in the bank, backed up by those three ninth places finishes to make such a sacking look incredibly ridiculous to the outside world, but no doubt the signs were there if you were watching us week in, week out at the time.

He absolutely had to go last summer and it would have been interesting to see how the board would have reacted at that point, if that West Ham fluke the season before hadn't left us in ninth.

And for sure ... Bayern did say it at the time and he was indeed right.

Had we not won that game, we'd have finished 10th Paul, and I'm not so sure much would've dramatically changed.

The club could point at it being a season in which we beat both Manchester clubs as well as being undefeated in three games against Chelsea and reaching a cup semi-final. They could also highlight the fact that major end of season slump came when we lost Butland through injury.

And if Harry Arter had been sent off for his horror tackle last season we’d have won that game and finished..........9th.

Works both ways.....

[Paul Spencer]

Feb 11, 2018 22:36:49 GMT Davef said:

Feb 11, 2018 21:58:08 GMT Paul Spencer said:

Exactly this.

That West Ham game has ultimately really done for us.

If we hadn't fluked that win, we would have finished 13th and the three 9th place finishes mantra that was spouted by those people who couldn't (or didn't want to) see what was starting to unfold wouldn't have carried such weight.

There was an argument that he should have gone that summer but of course (as you have said) he had more than enough credit in the bank, backed up by those three ninth places finishes to make such a sacking look incredibly ridiculous to the outside world, but no doubt the signs were there if you were watching us week in, week out at the time.

He absolutely had to go last summer and it would have been interesting to see how the board would have reacted at that point, if that West Ham fluke the season before hadn't left us in ninth.

And for sure ... Bayern did say it at the time and he was indeed right.

Had we not won that game, we'd have finished 10th Paul, and I'm not so sure much would've dramatically changed.

The club could point at it being a season in which we beat both Manchester clubs as well as being undefeated in three games against Chelsea and reaching a cup semi-final. They could also highlight the fact that major end of season slump came when we lost Butland through injury.

West Ham should have been out of sight by half time Dave (I think you will agree with that) which would have left us finishing in 11th (I was wrong about it being 13th I concede) but the point is still the same ... when it actually came to the moment when it really mattered - last summer, the three continuous top half finish argument would not have been a card to be dealt.

Whether it would have made a difference or not I don't know and indeed I was simply giving the board the benefit of the doubt ... really, it shouldn't have been too hard to determine that it was time to replace Hughes last summer regardless of that third ninth place finish anyway.

[Deleted]

We were 5 points from a Champions league spot with 7 games to go. Then the rot started.

[Davef]

Feb 11, 2018 22:54:35 GMT Paul Spencer said:

Feb 11, 2018 22:36:49 GMT Davef said:

Had we not won that game, we'd have finished 10th Paul, and I'm not so sure much would've dramatically changed.

The club could point at it being a season in which we beat both Manchester clubs as well as being undefeated in three games against Chelsea and reaching a cup semi-final. They could also highlight the fact that major end of season slump came when we lost Butland through injury.

West Ham should have been out of sight by half time Dave (I think you will agree with that) which would have left us finishing in 11th (I was wrong about it being 13th I concede) but the point is still the same ... when it actually came to the moment when it really mattered - last summer, the three continuous top half finish argument would not have been a card to be dealt.

Whether it would have made a difference or not I don't know and indeed I was simply giving the board the benefit of the doubt ... really, it shouldn't have been too hard to determine that it was time to replace Hughes last summer regardless of that third ninth place finish anyway.

Agree absolutely about the West Ham game, but it would've been 10th Paul. We started the game on 48 points and Everton finished 11th on 47. Chelsea would've taken 9th had we lost or drawn.

But that's by the by. 9th/9th and even 11th would've satisfied the board to the extent that they wouldn't have unduly worried last summer.

You get the feeling that they always think there are three worse teams than us and they'll look back on the fact that we picked up 13 points from the newly promoted teams and another six from eventually relegated Sunderland last season to ram home that point.

Their complacency is biting them on the backside this season though isn't it? We've taken just six points from the newly promoted teams and just haven't won enough points from the teams near the bottom.

And let's be honest, when your chairman is coming out with a line like "I don't know what all the fuss is about" as we lurch from one disaster to another, it's hard to put forward a case that he should've seen this coming 18 months ago.

[JoeinOz]

Feb 11, 2018 23:16:43 GMT Davef said:

Feb 11, 2018 22:54:35 GMT Paul Spencer said:

West Ham should have been out of sight by half time Dave (I think you will agree with that) which would have left us finishing in 11th (I was wrong about it being 13th I concede) but the point is still the same ... when it actually came to the moment when it really mattered - last summer, the three continuous top half finish argument would not have been a card to be dealt.

Whether it would have made a difference or not I don't know and indeed I was simply giving the board the benefit of the doubt ... really, it shouldn't have been too hard to determine that it was time to replace Hughes last summer regardless of that third ninth place finish anyway.

Agree absolutely about the West Ham game, but it would've been 10th Paul. We started the game on 48 points and Everton finished 11th on 47. Chelsea would've taken 9th had we lost or drawn.

But that's by the by. 9th/9th and even 11th would've satisfied the board to the extent that they wouldn't have unduly worried last summer.

You get the feeling that they always think there are three worse teams than us and they'll look back on the fact that we picked up 13 points from the newly promoted teams and another six from eventually relegated Sunderland last season to ram home that point.

Their complacency is biting them on the backside this season though isn't it? We've taken just six points from the newly promoted teams and just haven't won enough points from the teams near the bottom.

And let's be honest, when your chairman is coming out with a line like "I don't know what all the fuss is about" as we lurch from one disaster to another, it's hard to put forward a case that he should've seen this coming 18 months ago.

The don't know what the fuss is about line could become the thing Coates is most remembered for. I don't think he actually meant it, but he said it, and it's there forever.

[Paul Spencer]

Feb 11, 2018 23:16:43 GMT Davef said:

Feb 11, 2018 22:54:35 GMT Paul Spencer said:

West Ham should have been out of sight by half time Dave (I think you will agree with that) which would have left us finishing in 11th (I was wrong about it being 13th I concede) but the point is still the same ... when it actually came to the moment when it really mattered - last summer, the three continuous top half finish argument would not have been a card to be dealt.

Whether it would have made a difference or not I don't know and indeed I was simply giving the board the benefit of the doubt ... really, it shouldn't have been too hard to determine that it was time to replace Hughes last summer regardless of that third ninth place finish anyway.

Agree absolutely about the West Ham game, but it would've been 10th Paul. We started the game on 48 points and Everton finished 11th on 47. Chelsea would've taken 9th had we lost or drawn.

But that's by the by. 9th/9th and even 11th would've satisfied the board to the extent that they wouldn't have unduly worried last summer.

You get the feeling that they always think there are three worse teams than us and they'll look back on the fact that we picked up 13 points from the newly promoted teams and another six from eventually relegated Sunderland last season to ram home that point.

Their complacency is biting them on the backside this season though isn't it? We've taken just six points from the newly promoted teams and just haven't won enough points from the teams near the bottom.

And let's be honest, when your chairman is coming out with a line like "I don't know what all the fuss is about" as we lurch from one disaster to another, it's hard to put forward a case that he should've seen this coming 18 months ago.

You're absolutely right Dave it would have been 10th (more fool me for not checking before posting and you are absolutely right to pull me up on it) but (and you knew that 'but' was coming) surely as custodians of our club, we as supporters, should have an expectation that they can smell the shit before it gets anywhere near even hitting the fan, regardless of what they say to the media but if they genuinely couldn't (smell it) and they genuinely believed what they said at the time, then it really is a real big worry going forwards, isn't it?

[tony1234]

Feb 11, 2018 13:04:16 GMT @theloony1 said:

Three upside down 9's are

666


Yes and three 9s signal an emergency

[CalgaryPotter]

I said a couple of months back that the third season we got lucky and I got shot down.
It was a shit league & we should have bettered past years. Weve been in decline since.

[Deleted]

Feb 12, 2018 5:17:08 GMT CalgaryPotter said:

I said a couple of months back that the third season we got lucky and I got shot down.
It was a shit league & we should have bettered past years. Weve been in decline since.

Whether you think we for lucky or not is irrelevant, because in football things CAN always get worse so those people advocating Hughes sacking after the West Ham game, during the 2016/17 or last summer have absolutely no idea where the team could be now.

What is clear though is that the powers that be in their quest for self sufficiency haven’t kept up with the investment necessary in the mad world of the Premier League and that invariably leads to one thing.


Unless we know where Hughes’ recent acquisitions came in his wish list of players it’s hard to make a judgement, he wanted the likes of Soares, Maguire, Redmond etc and the people responsible were unable to secure them. So instead of shopping in Waitrose we end up in Tesco paying over the odds. That said through arrogance, frustration, stubbornness or whatever it was we imploded in those last 8-10 weeks and we are where we are.

But the scouting, recruitment and transfer policy as a whole need to be looked at whoever the manager is or nowt will change going forward......

[tachyon]

Feb 11, 2018 21:43:55 GMT generationex said:

How is that calculated Tachyon?

Goals are relatively rare in football, ~2.5 per game, so instead clubs measure themselves based on the quality of the chances they create and allow.

If you concede a penalty, that's "worth" 0.8 of a goal because penalties are converted around 8 times out of 10.

If you take a shot from long range, that's worth 0.03 of a goal because long range efforts are converted around 3 times out of 100.

If you are allowing more chances than you are creating once the quality has been accounted for you'll end up with a negative expected goal difference (that's what I've plotted) and that's where we have been gradually heading since 2014/15.

In short, it's a measure of your side's process, rather than their outcome. And while the outcome might outstrip you process in the short term (you finish 9th, but only had a process that deserved 13th), your actual results tend to eventually reflect the quality of you process.

One fallacy in football is that "luck" and randomness evens out over a season and you get what you deserve. That's not the case, a season needs to be at least four times as long for that to start to apply.

Lee Grant had a purple patch when he replaced Butland and that papered over our declining process for a while.

There are lots of other examples of this.

Newcastle finishing 5th in 2011/12, but with a poor process (16th next season)

Swansea 8th under Monk, poor process, Monk sacked three months later.(Variance boosts you up and then variances takes away)

Reading 3rd in the Championship last season, terrible process, currently 18th.

Palace no goals, no points after 5 games, decent process, now 15th.

Cardiff and Bristol City, bottom half finish in 2016/17, but both had good attacking and defensive processes, both currently in the playoff positions.

We always had a solid process under Pulis, much less so under Hughes.

I can't speak for Stoke, but many Premier League teams use this methodology to check on their own well being and use it to strengthen in vulnerable areas, even if the actual results aren't currently reflecting any weaknesses.

There was a one day event for clubs in London last week where these topics are discussed, virtually every Premier League club was represented (Liverpool sent half a dozen) + Barca, PSG, MLS, many Championship teams, Derby for example................There was at least one Stoke supporter there ;-)

[The Toxic Avenger]

Feb 12, 2018 8:05:31 GMT tachyon said:

Feb 11, 2018 21:43:55 GMT generationex said:

How is that calculated Tachyon?

Goals are relatively rare in football, ~2.5 per game, so instead clubs measure themselves based on the quality of the chances they create and allow.

If you concede a penalty, that's "worth" 0.8 of a goal because penalties are converted around 8 times out of 10.

If you take a shot from long range, that's worth 0.03 of a goal because long range efforts are converted around 3 times out of 100.

If you are allowing more chances than you are creating once the quality has been accounted for you'll end up with a negative expected goal difference (that's what I've plotted) and that's where we have been gradually heading since 2014/15.

In short, it's a measure of your side's process, rather than their outcome. And while the outcome might outstrip you process in the short term (you finish 9th, but only had a process that deserved 13th), your actual results tend to eventually reflect the quality of you process.

One fallacy in football is that "luck" and randomness evens out over a season and you get what you deserve. That's not the case, a season needs to be at least four times as long for that to start to apply.

Lee Grant had a purple patch when he replaced Butland and that papered over our declining process for a while.

There are lots of other examples of this.

Newcastle finishing 5th in 2011/12, but with a poor process (16th next season)

Swansea 8th under Monk, poor process, Monk sacked three months later.(Variance boosts you up and then variances takes away)

Reading 3rd in the Championship last season, terrible process, currently 18th.

Palace no goals, no points after 5 games, decent process, now 15th.

Cardiff and Bristol City, bottom half finish in 2016/17, but both had good attacking and defensive processes, both currently in the playoff positions.

We always had a solid process under Pulis, much less so under Hughes.

I can't speak for Stoke, but many Premier League teams use this methodology to check on their own well being and use it to strengthen in vulnerable areas, even if the actual results aren't currently reflecting any weaknesses.

There was a one day event for clubs in London last week where these topics are discussed, virtually every Premier League club was represented (Liverpool sent half a dozen) + Barca, PSG, MLS, many Championship teams, Derby for example................There was at least one Stoke supporter there ;-)

Was that our 'solid attacking process' under Pulis that saw us finish 92nd and 91st respectively for goals scored in the entire pyramid in his last two seasons?

[tachyon]

[/quote]Was that our 'solid attacking process' under Pulis that saw us finish 92nd and 91st respectively for goals scored in the entire pyramid in his last two seasons?
[/quote]

Don't recall saying "solid attacking process", just "solid process", the combination of attacking and defensive actions. Pulis always made enough from niche attacking strategies (Rory, set plays,) but always has majored on the defensive side of the ball.

[The Toxic Avenger]

Feb 12, 2018 8:20:45 GMT tachyon said:

Was that our 'solid attacking process' under Pulis that saw us finish 92nd and 91st respectively for goals scored in the entire pyramid in his last two seasons?
[/quote]

Don't recall saying "solid attacking process", just "solid process", the combination of attacking and defensive actions. Pulis always made enough from niche attacking strategies (Rory, set plays,) but always has majored on the defensive side of the ball. [/quote]

I wouldn't say relying almost exclusively on set pieces and scoring increasingly rarely, which is what happened by the end, was 'solid'. The fact the team went backwards in that time hardly suggests that either.

[tachyon]

Feb 12, 2018 8:26:25 GMT The Toxic Avenger said:

Feb 12, 2018 8:20:45 GMT tachyon said:

Was that our 'solid attacking process' under Pulis that saw us finish 92nd and 91st respectively for goals scored in the entire pyramid in his last two seasons?

If you are unable or unwilling to attract big money attackers (min £35 million) you have to rely on a solid defensive process and eek every last drop out of attacking strategies that require the least amount of skill. Which means set plays. Pulis' genius was that he managed to produce the occasional high quality opportunity (in terms of likelihood of scoring, rather than quality of build up).

Seyi's double chest trap from two yards from a Rory flick on against Arsenal, for example. Aesthetically, not great, but a high chance of being converted.

Pulis at Stoke, Palace and WBA managed to keep the the defensive process around 1.2/1.3 goals per game in matches where points were likely. Even if your attacking process was only around 1 goal per game, you had a chance. A solid process.

Hughes was much more prone to playing a poor man's version of the game played by the wealthier clubs, but without the expensive talent to implement it. Much easier for opponents to defend and much easier for them to beat us if our defensive process is neglected, which it has been.

1.8 expected goals per game allowed is where we're at this season and where we've been heading under Hughes.

Survival is really, really difficult with those kind of numbers on the defensive side of the ledger and a variety of mid price misfits fueling you attacking process.

Overall, a poor process and relegation shouldn't be a surprising outcome.