|
Post by mattythestokie on May 17, 2018 20:34:23 GMT
Lovely footballer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 20:37:47 GMT
Imagine Hudson today trying to keep up with the game after a night on the lash. Never saw him play, but if you’re going to compare conditions from two different eras, let’s look at both sides of the story. He may well have received more protection in the modern game, and had the luxury of immaculate pitches, but from what I’ve heard and read, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the modern game. Ha ha ha! Hudson,even whilst pissed,would have been an absolute superstar. Spot on
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 17, 2018 22:52:54 GMT
Post by spitthedog on May 17, 2018 22:52:54 GMT
Great achievement for Nzonzi this. I'm pleased for him.
That is one bloody good squad with some very fine players missing out.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 17, 2018 23:18:08 GMT
If omly two(or more) of the big six had seen sense and bid for Zonz, we could have got his true worth when we had to sell; that would have been closer to £35M than than the £8M we had to accept.
The best I've seen at Stoke since Hudson. One of the very few fit to lace Hudson's boots.
N'Zonzi would improve every squad in the Premier League. He would be a first choice for most, if not all.
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on May 17, 2018 23:31:03 GMT
Nzonzi was nowhere near the player Hudson was. The two don't bear comparison. Hudson ran the team and the game. Definitely the finest player in a Stoke shirt I have seen in 60 years Let's be clear: Nzonzi was a very good player; Alan Hudson was outstanding, out of this world, for us. The nearest thing this country had to a Franz Beckenbauer type of player. Quite simply the best player we have ever had.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 17, 2018 23:33:31 GMT
Dead right. Imagine Hudson playing on today's pitches and protected by today's referees. Imagine Hudson today trying to keep up with the game after a night on the lash. Never saw him play, but if you’re going to compare conditions from two different eras, let’s look at both sides of the story. He may well have received more protection in the modern game, and had the luxury of immaculate pitches, but from what I’ve heard and read, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the modern game. What you've heard and read is clearly bollocks: for 2years Hudson was the best player in England. You really should have seen him play. We were 17th in January when he signed and finished 5th. We missed out on the title by 4 points the next year despite a run of injuries (3 boken legs and numerous other muscle/ligamnet damage that would have a hurt a squad the size of the current Man City). Alan Hudson (circa 73-75) would have dominated any league in world football today. He was that good.
|
|
|
Post by mattface on May 18, 2018 3:18:36 GMT
If omly two(or more) of the big six had seen sense and bid for Zonz, we could have got his true worth when we had to sell; that would have been closer to £35M than than the £8M we had to accept. The best I've seen at Stoke since Hudson. One of the very few fit to lace Hudson's boots. N'Zonzi would improve every squad in the Premier League. He would be a first choice for most, if not all. On his day yes, but these days didn't come along often enough. Frustratingly inconsistent, but had a great last few months with us leading to a move. Just my view on watching all of his time with us.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on May 18, 2018 4:01:35 GMT
Nzonzi was nowhere near the player Hudson was. The two don't bear comparison. Hudson ran the team and the game. Definitely the finest player in a Stoke shirt I have seen in 60 years Let's be clear: Nzonzi was a very good player; Alan Hudson was outstanding, out of this world, for us. The nearest thing this country had to a Franz Beckenbauer type of player. Quite simply the best player we have ever had. Better than Matthews and Franklin?
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 18, 2018 5:25:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by itsajoytobeapotter on May 18, 2018 5:25:40 GMT
Let's be clear: Nzonzi was a very good player; Alan Hudson was outstanding, out of this world, for us. The nearest thing this country had to a Franz Beckenbauer type of player. Quite simply the best player we have ever had. Better than Matthews and Franklin? Its all subjective but Hudson really was outstanding. Certainly the best playerI have seen in our shirt in the 57 years I have been watching. Delighted for Zonz. He should have been in the French squad years ago.
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 18, 2018 6:07:46 GMT
Post by nott1 on May 18, 2018 6:07:46 GMT
Let's be clear: Nzonzi was a very good player; Alan Hudson was outstanding, out of this world, for us. The nearest thing this country had to a Franz Beckenbauer type of player. Quite simply the best player we have ever had. Better than Matthews and Franklin? Not quite! Sir Stan was special like no other.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2018 7:47:32 GMT
Well done Steven and fully deserved. Simply the best footballer we've had that I've seen. Yes, that means I didn't see the other gents mentioned above.
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 19, 2018 13:13:46 GMT
Post by tqstokie on May 19, 2018 13:13:46 GMT
Let's be clear: Nzonzi was a very good player; Alan Hudson was outstanding, out of this world, for us. The nearest thing this country had to a Franz Beckenbauer type of player. Quite simply the best player we have ever had. Better than Matthews and Franklin? From a different era but I would say yes. Difficult to compare Mathews an out and out winger and Franklin an out and out centre back. They were influential players but neither ran a game like Alan Hudson.
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 19, 2018 13:19:43 GMT
via mobile
lordb likes this
Post by trickydicky73 on May 19, 2018 13:19:43 GMT
Imagine Hudson today trying to keep up with the game after a night on the lash. Never saw him play, but if you’re going to compare conditions from two different eras, let’s look at both sides of the story. He may well have received more protection in the modern game, and had the luxury of immaculate pitches, but from what I’ve heard and read, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the modern game. What you've heard and read is clearly bollocks: for 2years Hudson was the best player in England. You really should have seen him play. We were 17th in January when he signed and finished 5th. We missed out on the title by 4 points the next year despite a run of injuries (3 boken legs and numerous other muscle/ligamnet damage that would have a hurt a squad the size of the current Man City). Alan Hudson (circa 73-75) would have dominated any league in world football today. He was that good. A great is a great in any era, in any sport. Will people deride Messi in 40 years? Probably, but they will be wrong, too!
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 19, 2018 13:36:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2018 13:36:10 GMT
Imagine Hudson today trying to keep up with the game after a night on the lash. Never saw him play, but if you’re going to compare conditions from two different eras, let’s look at both sides of the story. He may well have received more protection in the modern game, and had the luxury of immaculate pitches, but from what I’ve heard and read, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the modern game. What you've heard and read is clearly bollocks: for 2years Hudson was the best player in England. You really should have seen him play. We were 17th in January when he signed and finished 5th. We missed out on the title by 4 points the next year despite a run of injuries (3 boken legs and numerous other muscle/ligamnet damage that would have a hurt a squad the size of the current Man City). Alan Hudson (circa 73-75) would have dominated any league in world football today. He was that good. Spot on - Hudson was a fantastic player !
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 19, 2018 13:42:43 GMT
Post by MilanStokie on May 19, 2018 13:42:43 GMT
If omly two(or more) of the big six had seen sense and bid for Zonz, we could have got his true worth when we had to sell; that would have been closer to £35M than than the £8M we had to accept. The best I've seen at Stoke since Hudson. One of the very few fit to lace Hudson's boots. N'Zonzi would improve every squad in the Premier League. He would be a first choice for most, if not all. Well the fees hadn't exploded when we sold N'Zonzi and back then players in their final year of contract were not being sold for ridiculous amounts. The usual pattern was broken about a year later. I agree though, probably would have got more had a bigger, English based club come in for him, but nowhere near £35m, sorry.
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 19, 2018 13:52:57 GMT
via mobile
lordb likes this
Post by Absolution on May 19, 2018 13:52:57 GMT
Imagine Hudson today trying to keep up with the game after a night on the lash. Never saw him play, but if you’re going to compare conditions from two different eras, let’s look at both sides of the story. He may well have received more protection in the modern game, and had the luxury of immaculate pitches, but from what I’ve heard and read, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the modern game. What you've heard and read is clearly bollocks: for 2years Hudson was the best player in England. You really should have seen him play. We were 17th in January when he signed and finished 5th. We missed out on the title by 4 points the next year despite a run of injuries (3 boken legs and numerous other muscle/ligamnet damage that would have a hurt a squad the size of the current Man City). Alan Hudson (circa 73-75) would have dominated any league in world football today. He was that good. He had a similar effect when he came back in 84. He was well past his best but the transformation in the team was beyond comprehension. We were rock bottom at the year end and as doomed as any team could be. From Huddy's first game through to the end of the season our form would have had us 2nd in the league. We escaped relegation on the final day. N'Zonzi was good, but having watched the vast majority of his home games for us, the only time I thought he could be compared to Huddy was his very last game v Liverpool. Other than that, I just don't see a genuine comparison. Keep Huddy away from the beer and he'd have been a sensation in the Premier League on today's pitches. No one would be allowed to tackle him now, but that wouldn't have made a difference. No one could get near him then anyway.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 19, 2018 13:54:30 GMT
Imagine Hudson today trying to keep up with the game after a night on the lash. Never saw him play, but if you’re going to compare conditions from two different eras, let’s look at both sides of the story. He may well have received more protection in the modern game, and had the luxury of immaculate pitches, but from what I’ve heard and read, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the modern game. What you've heard and read is clearly bollocks: for 2years Hudson was the best player in England. You really should have seen him play. We were 17th in January when he signed and finished 5th. We missed out on the title by 4 points the next year despite a run of injuries (3 boken legs and numerous other muscle/ligamnet damage that would have a hurt a squad the size of the current Man City). Alan Hudson (circa 73-75) would have dominated any league in world football today. He was that good. It’s not about how good he was, it’s about how fit he was. The very best players in the world from the 70s wouldn’t get close to even an average top-level team nowadays, the pace of it would kill them. Obviously if Huddy had the benefit of a lifetime of modern fitness training, diet and discipline I’m sure he’d be one of the best today. Edit- or of course he may have jacked it all in when he was about 19 to go out in the lash 😁
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 19, 2018 14:14:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by PolPotter on May 19, 2018 14:14:35 GMT
Overrated. I good season as a player rubbing shoulders with average players.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on May 19, 2018 14:58:29 GMT
What you've heard and read is clearly bollocks: for 2years Hudson was the best player in England. You really should have seen him play. We were 17th in January when he signed and finished 5th. We missed out on the title by 4 points the next year despite a run of injuries (3 boken legs and numerous other muscle/ligamnet damage that would have a hurt a squad the size of the current Man City). Alan Hudson (circa 73-75) would have dominated any league in world football today. He was that good. It’s not about how good he was, it’s about how fit he was. The very best players in the world from the 70s wouldn’t get close to even an average top-level team nowadays, the pace of it would kill them. Obviously if Huddy had the benefit of a lifetime of modern fitness training, diet and discipline I’m sure he’d be one of the best today. Edit- or of course he may have jacked it all in when he was about 19 to go out in the lash 😁 Sorry not buying that. Football is quicker now but it's not that much quicker. Speed of thought will always win anyway. Hudson would be utterly sensational now. He also wouldn't be playing for us he would be at Barcelona or Man City.
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 19, 2018 15:13:20 GMT
Post by harryburrows on May 19, 2018 15:13:20 GMT
It’s not about how good he was, it’s about how fit he was. The very best players in the world from the 70s wouldn’t get close to even an average top-level team nowadays, the pace of it would kill them. Obviously if Huddy had the benefit of a lifetime of modern fitness training, diet and discipline I’m sure he’d be one of the best today. Edit- or of course he may have jacked it all in when he was about 19 to go out in the lash 😁 Sorry not buying that. Football is quicker now but it's not that much quicker. Speed of thought will always win anyway. Hudson would be utterly sensational now. He also wouldn't be playing for us he would be at Barcelona or Man City. Well I'd like to see a modern midfielder stroke the ball around in 6" of mud whilst hunter , Harris, bremner , etc try and put their studs into your knee caps .
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on May 19, 2018 15:19:08 GMT
Imagine Hudson today trying to keep up with the game after a night on the lash. Never saw him play, but if you’re going to compare conditions from two different eras, let’s look at both sides of the story. He may well have received more protection in the modern game, and had the luxury of immaculate pitches, but from what I’ve heard and read, there’s a good chance he wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the modern game. What you've heard and read is clearly bollocks: for 2years Hudson was the best player in England. You really should have seen him play. We were 17th in January when he signed and finished 5th. We missed out on the title by 4 points the next year despite a run of injuries (3 boken legs and numerous other muscle/ligamnet damage that would have a hurt a squad the size of the current Man City). Alan Hudson (circa 73-75) would have dominated any league in world football today. He was that good. Agreed. Yes Huddy did turn to drink, but while he was at Stoke and Chelsea he worked extremely hard on his game, he was very fit. he had a bit of attitude and thats where he got into hot water with the establishment. Don Revie was the worst person to be in charge of England at that time. He liked his boys to be good boys or arse lickers like Emlyn Hughes. Hudson was the best footballer to grace a Stoke shirt in the last 60 years. Its difficult to exaggerate just how good he was for 2 seasons. He turned us into genuine title chasers. Such poise and balance. But Nzonzi was excellent and would come a very decent 2nd to Huddy on my all time midfield favourites. One thing they had in common was to dictate the pace of the game and suit it to their own style. A great skill for any player to have. Nzonzi is an excellent passer of the ball and has that rare knack of being able to create space around himself. I'm not having a dig but just look how Allen and Badou often just run themselves into trouble, or unnecessarily get themselves into positions of being hurried on the ball.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 19, 2018 16:01:01 GMT
It’s not about how good he was, it’s about how fit he was. The very best players in the world from the 70s wouldn’t get close to even an average top-level team nowadays, the pace of it would kill them. Obviously if Huddy had the benefit of a lifetime of modern fitness training, diet and discipline I’m sure he’d be one of the best today. Edit- or of course he may have jacked it all in when he was about 19 to go out in the lash 😁 Sorry not buying that. Football is quicker now but it's not that much quicker. Speed of thought will always win anyway. Hudson would be utterly sensational now. He also wouldn't be playing for us he would be at Barcelona or Man City. If speed of thought always won no player would ever have to retire would they. Personally I think if you took 70s Huddy and put him in the starting line up of a Premier League game today he’d have to be substituted before half time. It is that much quicker. There’s a reason world records in sport generally get better and better. But it’s a bit of a pointless debate really, he was the best of his time and that’s fine.
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 19, 2018 16:04:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by lordb on May 19, 2018 16:04:14 GMT
Sorry not buying that. Football is quicker now but it's not that much quicker. Speed of thought will always win anyway. Hudson would be utterly sensational now. He also wouldn't be playing for us he would be at Barcelona or Man City. If speed of thought always won no player would ever have to retire would they. Personally I think if you took 70s Huddy and put him in the starting line up of a Premier League game today he’d have to be substituted before half time. It is that much quicker. There’s a reason world records in sport generally get better and better. But it’s a bit of a pointless debate really, he was the best of his time and that’s fine. It's not that much quicker.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on May 19, 2018 16:26:58 GMT
If speed of thought always won no player would ever have to retire would they. Personally I think if you took 70s Huddy and put him in the starting line up of a Premier League game today he’d have to be substituted before half time. It is that much quicker. There’s a reason world records in sport generally get better and better. But it’s a bit of a pointless debate really, he was the best of his time and that’s fine. It's not that much quicker. This whole debate about whether or not players from that era would hack it today is pointless . Hudson would just train up to the standard required today , as would any good pro . The one area that says it all are , the strikers . Would greaves , hurst , law , best , dalgleash , osgood hack it today ? Absolutely
|
|
|
Post by MilanStokie on May 19, 2018 17:02:02 GMT
As it happens it's Nzonzi vs bojan right now!
Sevilla v Alaves
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 19, 2018 17:52:25 GMT
It's not that much quicker. This whole debate about whether or not players from that era would hack it today is pointless . Hudson would just train up to the standard required today , as would any good pro . The one area that says it all are , the strikers . Would greaves , hurst , law , best , dalgleash , osgood hack it today ? Absolutely Point taken but I’m not quite sure the answer is “absolutely”.. would Best or Huddy really have exhibited the discipline necessary to maintain a career at the top nowadays? You basically have to be a robot.. I dunno
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on May 19, 2018 18:19:40 GMT
This whole debate about whether or not players from that era would hack it today is pointless . Hudson would just train up to the standard required today , as would any good pro . The one area that says it all are , the strikers . Would greaves , hurst , law , best , dalgleash , osgood hack it today ? Absolutely Point taken but I’m not quite sure the answer is “absolutely”.. would Best or Huddy really have exhibited the discipline necessary to maintain a career at the top nowadays? You basically have to be a robot.. I dunno Huddy and best were flawed individuals that's for sure . Who knows if they would have acted in a more professional manner today . The culture is certainly different within the sport
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 20, 2018 12:36:29 GMT
Post by TrentValePotter96 on May 20, 2018 12:36:29 GMT
A few thoughts:
1. Nzonzi is a fantastic footballer, and him getting into such a talented French squad proves it. The best footballer we've had in decades.
2. It also proves that the moaning about him was unjustified and just a little pathetic.
3. Many fans have never seen Hudson play, including me. It's hard to compare the two when you've only seen one play.
|
|
|
Post by TrentValePotter96 on May 20, 2018 12:44:03 GMT
Yet you’ve got nothing to counter it with... I've countered it many times. Some posters on here lavish him like he was some kind of god whilst he was here, and that was clearly not true. He was a good player, but we've had many of those over the past 10 years. He's done ok for himself, granted. He plays for a decent (not great) Spanish side, and that somehow makes people rewrite history that he was somehow some kind of "walks on water" genius when he was at our club. That isn't true. He had a couple of decent years followed by a really good one, which got him his move. That's it. He wasn't an outstanding player for us. And he isn't an outstanding player that will ever go onto to play for one of the big European teams. That Spanish side has won the Europa League and were Quarter Finalists of the Champions League this season. Better than most of the top English sides. And he was our best player these last 10 years. Only Arnautovic comes close.
|
|
|
Nzonzi
May 20, 2018 12:45:47 GMT
Post by TrentValePotter96 on May 20, 2018 12:45:47 GMT
Overrated. I good season as a player rubbing shoulders with average players. Are you talking about Nzonzi? Surely not.
|
|