|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 3, 2021 1:18:24 GMT
Said at the time history would be kind to Hughes as Stoke manager and so it’s proved candidly I’d have him ans has CIA chin tens back tomorrow the difference Between them and all that followed is he genuinely believed he could fight on the same terms as the big guys that how’s he’s always been bought up . Lest anyone forget on seven people on the planet have won more premier league Matches . In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again To be fair, typos aside, that’s an interesting point about LMH truly believing we could mix it with the best. He always set us up to go out and win against ManU, or Liverpool, or Chelsea or Arsenal, and we frequently did. Obviously there are significant contextual differences but compare that to MON’s shit scaredness about playing fukin Brentford. The last manager to successfully instil that kind of self-belief in our team was probably Lou. Or maybe Bossie 😉
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 3, 2021 6:23:19 GMT
Last time I saw him on tv he was mentioned with Stoke and said “yea, thanks for bringing that up/thanks for reminding me” or words to that effect. Needless to say he doesn’t enjoy talking about us I don’t think It was nothing like that. Dan Walker was talking about Prem clubs being knocked out of the FA Cup by lower division clubs and joked with Hughes that wasn’t this how he lost his job to which Hughes responded “thanks for bringing that up”. He was not remotely trying to avoid talking about his time with us and has done so on many occasions since he left It was something like that then, pretty much quoting what I said. I forget the full context but my quote was pretty much accurate
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Mar 3, 2021 7:22:12 GMT
It was nothing like that. Dan Walker was talking about Prem clubs being knocked out of the FA Cup by lower division clubs and joked with Hughes that wasn’t this how he lost his job to which Hughes responded “thanks for bringing that up”. He was not remotely trying to avoid talking about his time with us and has done so on many occasions since he left It was something like that then, pretty much quoting what I said. I forget the full context but my quote was pretty much accurate Accurate but misleading, without the context outlined by oslostokie1. Similarly, it is probably accurate to say that watching Mrs Brown's Boys is preferable to being buried alive in a coffin with spikes on the inside. But it would tell you very little about how enjoyable watching Mrs Brown's Boys would actually be.
|
|
|
Post by mickstupp on Mar 3, 2021 9:57:10 GMT
Said at the time history would be kind to Hughes as Stoke manager and so it’s proved candidly I’d have him ans has CIA chin tens back tomorrow the difference Between them and all that followed is he genuinely believed he could fight on the same terms as the big guys that how’s he’s always been bought up . Lest anyone forget on seven people on the planet have won more premier league Matches . Incredible foresight. Back to the present now though, and the burning question is what’s your points prediction for March?
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Mar 3, 2021 14:00:13 GMT
In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again To be fair, typos aside, that’s an interesting point about LMH truly believing we could mix it with the best. He always set us up to go out and win against ManU, or Liverpool, or Chelsea or Arsenal, and we frequently did. Obviously there are significant contextual differences but compare that to MON’s shit scaredness about playing fukin Brentford. The last manager to successfully instil that kind of self-belief in our team was probably Lou. Or maybe Bossie 😉 Can’t stand scared football or setting up not to lose as opposed to setting up to win but such a large proportion of our fans seem to lap it up.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Mar 3, 2021 19:58:22 GMT
Said at the time history would be kind to Hughes as Stoke manager and so it’s proved candidly I’d have him ans has CIA chin tens back tomorrow the difference Between them and all that followed is he genuinely believed he could fight on the same terms as the big guys that how’s he’s always been bought up . Lest anyone forget on seven people on the planet have won more premier league Matches . Incredible foresight. Back to the present now though, and the burning question is what’s your points prediction for March? Same as it was in August 55 For the season March in isolation of guess at 4
|
|
|
Post by southernish on Mar 15, 2021 18:20:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cns on Mar 15, 2021 18:31:03 GMT
He should've gone a year n half before he did but I'm on the fence as to whether he could've got us over the line in relegation season.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Mar 15, 2021 19:57:27 GMT
He should've gone a year n half before he did but I'm on the fence as to whether he could've got us over the line in relegation season. Pretty sure he would have won more games and points than Lambert but I also agree he needed replacing sooner and more competently ie replacement lined up before he was sacked. Made many glaring errors in the market as all managers do but the fatal one was not spending the Arnie fee on an adequate replacement. Blew the majority of it on a really wank centre half we didn't even need.
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Mar 15, 2021 20:18:02 GMT
17 points from his last 20 league games in charge Hughes returned.
Over a 38 game Premiership season that tally would have returned 32.3 points.
Fodder
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 15, 2021 20:39:21 GMT
17 points from his last 20 league games in charge Hughes returned. Over a 38 game Premiership season that tally would have returned 32.3 points. Fodder The longest we went without winning under LMH that season was four games. Lambert came in and immediately took us on a 13-game winless run.
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Mar 15, 2021 20:51:44 GMT
17 points from his last 20 league games in charge Hughes returned. Over a 38 game Premiership season that tally would have returned 32.3 points. Fodder The longest we went without winning under LMH that season was four games. Lambert came in and immediately took us on a 13-game winless run. Maybe that was was the case but his last twenty games still returned just seventeen points, losing to a poor Coventry team with a strong squad was not confidence filling. Where do you go from there, I think we would have struggled, he looked a beaten man
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 15, 2021 20:54:48 GMT
The longest we went without winning under LMH that season was four games. Lambert came in and immediately took us on a 13-game winless run. Maybe that was was the case but his last twenty games still returned just seventeen points, losing to a poor Coventry team with a strong squad was not confidence filling. Where do you go from there, I think we would have struggled, he looked a beaten man Oh we'd definitely have struggled. But I think with Hughes we'd have had a marginally better chance of turning one or two of those 13 games into wins. edit: and the 20 game thing is a bit disingenuous, that's basically the whole season but conveniently leaving out the win against Arsenal in our first home game
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Mar 15, 2021 21:49:23 GMT
Maybe that was was the case but his last twenty games still returned just seventeen points, losing to a poor Coventry team with a strong squad was not confidence filling. Where do you go from there, I think we would have struggled, he looked a beaten man Oh we'd definitely have struggled. But I think with Hughes we'd have had a marginally better chance of turning one or two of those 13 games into wins. edit: and the 20 game thing is a bit disingenuous, that's basically the whole season but conveniently leaving out the win against Arsenal in our first home game Only said 20 games because O'Neil's last twenty games return is a hot topic. O'Neil has 16 from 20 so there is only a point difference between them, we had taken a few spanking though leading upto Hughes' sacking. The thing is with O'Neil you get the feeling we are 3 or 4 players away from a good team and turning a fair proportion of our draws to wins. Hughes was stinking the place out for a long time
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Mar 16, 2021 9:21:04 GMT
Oh we'd definitely have struggled. But I think with Hughes we'd have had a marginally better chance of turning one or two of those 13 games into wins. edit: and the 20 game thing is a bit disingenuous, that's basically the whole season but conveniently leaving out the win against Arsenal in our first home game Only said 20 games because O'Neil's last twenty games return is a hot topic. O'Neil has 16 from 20 so there is only a point difference between them, we had taken a few spanking though leading upto Hughes' sacking. The thing is with O'Neil you get the feeling we are 3 or 4 players away from a good team and turning a fair proportion of our draws to wins. Hughes was stinking the place out for a long time There’s no doubt Hughes had been in a malaise for at least 18 months. He lost confidence in what he had been successful at and seemingly decided he wanted to out Pulis, Pulis. He was not good at it. That said in came Lambert who followed and even more negative path. All we needed to do was win a few games but he just set up not to lose. It’s a recurring nightmare that seems to afflict Stoke managers. We see the majority of teams who do well whatever the standard are attacking free scoring teams but we seem to be in a time warp of holding what we have and trying to nick games by the odd goal, it’s not a very successful formula in modern football and hasn’t been for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Mar 16, 2021 9:34:55 GMT
Only said 20 games because O'Neil's last twenty games return is a hot topic. O'Neil has 16 from 20 so there is only a point difference between them, we had taken a few spanking though leading upto Hughes' sacking. The thing is with O'Neil you get the feeling we are 3 or 4 players away from a good team and turning a fair proportion of our draws to wins. Hughes was stinking the place out for a long time There’s no doubt Hughes had been in a malaise for at least 18 months. He lost confidence in what he had been successful at and seemingly decided he wanted to out Pulis, Pulis. He was not good at it. That said in came Lambert who followed and even more negative path. All we needed to do was win a few games but he just set up not to lose. It’s a recurring nightmare that seems to afflict Stoke managers. We see the majority of teams who do well whatever the standard are attacking free scoring teams but we seem to be in a time warp of holding what we have and trying to nick games by the odd goal, it’s not a very successful formula in modern football and hasn’t been for a long time. It's just rank bad management from the top isn't it, a workman is only as good as his tools. A club is only as good as their manager, a team is only as good as his signings. The thing that gets me with Stoke is the chances to appoint a next level manager would have been there, we could have sacked an under performing Hughes and appointed Allardyce before he went to Everton who had a history of keeping clubs in the division. After failing to do that we hang on until the last chance saloon and then appoint Paul Lambert, who couldn't even get a Championship job. On relegation instead of going for a manager with a recent track record of promotion with still plenty of money in our pocket, we opt for Gary Rowett, a manager with no track record of promotion, we also give him a King's ransom that he has no record of previously being successful with. Rowett fails so we sign Nathan Jones with no record of promotion from the championship. The failure to make the right decisions when they matter are the reason we are where we are, it's a shambles of a club. However, I think if Campbell was fit we would be in the play-off positions now but people are making noises of having O'Neil sacked, it's baffling. O'Neil leaves I dread to think who would be next in line by our chief bean counter
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 16, 2021 12:11:33 GMT
“For us to go again under Hughes, and play some of the best football in the country, was unbelievable. We finished ninth three years running but I look back now and think we should have done better,” says Shawcross.
“He’s the best manager I’ve ever played under. His tactics were unbelievable. We went from being a so-called long-ball team under Tony Pulis to playing with Bojan as a ‘false nine’ with no striker. Everyone had to change their game.”
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 16, 2021 12:14:00 GMT
“For us to go again under Hughes, and play some of the best football in the country, was unbelievable. We finished ninth three years running but I look back now and think we should have done better,” says Shawcross. “He’s the best manager I’ve ever played under. His tactics were unbelievable. We went from being a so-called long-ball team under Tony Pulis to playing with Bojan as a ‘false nine’ with no striker. Everyone had to change their game.” Grabs the popcorn
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Mar 16, 2021 13:23:49 GMT
Obviously has heat stroke
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 16, 2021 13:29:20 GMT
Obviously has heat stroke He was still in Stoke as of last Friday.
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Mar 16, 2021 13:30:57 GMT
I agree with what Ryan said. Mark Hughes is a better manager than Tony Pulis.
I'm actually quite surprised Ryan said it though!
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 16, 2021 13:31:23 GMT
“For us to go again under Hughes, and play some of the best football in the country, was unbelievable. We finished ninth three years running but I look back now and think we should have done better,” says Shawcross. “He’s the best manager I’ve ever played under. His tactics were unbelievable. We went from being a so-called long-ball team under Tony Pulis to playing with Bojan as a ‘false nine’ with no striker. Everyone had to change their game.” As my grandad used to say, "History will judge him kindly" I think it's still raw for some but I look back at these few seasons with immense joy and pride.......
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Mar 16, 2021 13:40:49 GMT
There’s no doubt Hughes had been in a malaise for at least 18 months. He lost confidence in what he had been successful at and seemingly decided he wanted to out Pulis, Pulis. He was not good at it. That said in came Lambert who followed and even more negative path. All we needed to do was win a few games but he just set up not to lose. It’s a recurring nightmare that seems to afflict Stoke managers. We see the majority of teams who do well whatever the standard are attacking free scoring teams but we seem to be in a time warp of holding what we have and trying to nick games by the odd goal, it’s not a very successful formula in modern football and hasn’t been for a long time. It's just rank bad management from the top isn't it, a workman is only as good as his tools. A club is only as good as their manager, a team is only as good as his signings. The thing that gets me with Stoke is the chances to appoint a next level manager would have been there, we could have sacked an under performing Hughes and appointed Allardyce before he went to Everton who had a history of keeping clubs in the division. After failing to do that we hang on until the last chance saloon and then appoint Paul Lambert, who couldn't even get a Championship job. On relegation instead of going for a manager with a recent track record of promotion with still plenty of money in our pocket, we opt for Gary Rowett, a manager with no track record of promotion, we also give him a King's ransom that he has no record of previously being successful with. Rowett fails so we sign Nathan Jones with no record of promotion from the championship. The failure to make the right decisions when they matter are the reason we are where we are, it's a shambles of a club. However, I think if Campbell was fit we would be in the play-off positions now but people are making noises of having O'Neil sacked, it's baffling. O'Neil leaves I dread to think who would be next in line by our chief bean counter No I couldn’t disagree more strongly with the idea that a club is only as good as it’s manager or your opinion of what a next level manager would have been. Successful clubs and businesses nowadays are generally not a managers fiefdom. An ethos, vision, direction of travel is set out at executive level, objectives are set and managers are bought in to manage within that framework and their success judged on how they perform in relation to Key Performance Indicators set for them in various areas. Achieving in one area is not excused by failing in others. Our problem is the executive have no football experience and the CEO is decades behind the times in football finance terms too. If you put the right people in executive positions they should be able to change manager/head coach as often as necessary and maintain the course set for the club. We just keep being dragged from pillar to post on the whims of the incumbent manager. When Hughes lost confidence in what had made him a success up to that point he should have been replaced by a progressive manager to continue on the path that he had veered from not revert to a dinosaur who’s claim to fame is being good at not being relegated.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Mar 16, 2021 14:41:20 GMT
17 points from his last 20 league games in charge Hughes returned. Over a 38 game Premiership season that tally would have returned 32.3 points. Fodder The longest we went without winning under LMH that season was four games. Lambert came in and immediately took us on a 13-game winless run. Lambert won his first game against Huddersfield... ...then took us on that run
|
|
|
Post by anchorman on Mar 16, 2021 14:51:14 GMT
I agree with what Ryan said. Mark Hughes is a better manager than Tony Pulis. I'm actually quite surprised Ryan said it though! I love Ryan & rank him as highly as Denis Smith in the Legendary status category. BUT he is so off the mark with his love in for Hughes. And I strongly disagree that he's a better manager than TP in terms of what the two did for Stoke. Hughes added sparkly bits, cherry on the cake stuff to a team/squad/club that was ten years in the making. It was built brick by brick with a strong foundation and a core & a spine of real character, endeavour, and of course no little skill. My point is that Hughes could never start something from scratch, from the depths of the Championship to automatic promotion winners, Premier league survival, comfortable mid table, cup final, European football. That is one hell of an achievement from TP and it is something that Hughes was and never will be capable of achieving. However, as I've said he gave us some great days, fun games when we tore Man C & Man U apart as well as Liverpool of course and that was of course thoroughly enjoyable. However, it was always going to come off the tracks because once the Pulis spine began to falter as in age, Hughes was never going to be able to build his own spine because he simply can't do that.Never has. From where he started, TP achieved far more than Hughes and is joint best manager of all time with Tony Waddington. For Ryan to make statements about Hughes being Stoke's best all time manager is in my opinion disrespectful to both Waddo (who produced Stoke's greatest ever team) and TP who completely overachieved and gave us our best days since the 70's. You're a Legend Ryan but you are so incredibly wrong on this one.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 16, 2021 14:56:12 GMT
I agree with what Ryan said. Mark Hughes is a better manager than Tony Pulis. I'm actually quite surprised Ryan said it though! I love Ryan & rank him as highly as Denis Smith in the Legendary status category. BUT he is so off the mark with his love in for Hughes. And I strongly disagree that he's a better manager than TP in terms of what the two did for Stoke. Hughes added sparkly bits, cherry on the cake stuff to a team/squad/club that was ten years in the making. It was built brick by brick with a strong foundation and a core & a spine of real character, endeavour, and of course no little skill. My point is that Hughes could never start something from scratch, from the depths of the Championship to automatic promotion winners, Premier league survival, comfortable mid table, cup final, European football. That is one hell of an achievement from TP and it is something that Hughes was and never will be capable of achieving. However, as I've said he gave us some great days, fun games when we tore Man C & Man U apart as well as Liverpool of course and that was of course thoroughly enjoyable. However, it was always going to come off the tracks because once the Pulis spine began to falter as in age, Hughes was never going to be able to build his own spine because he simply can't do that.Never has. From where he started, TP achieved far more than Hughes and is joint best manager of all time with Tony Waddington. For Ryan to make statements about Hughes being Stoke's best all time manager is in my opinion disrespectful to both Waddo (who produced Stoke's greatest ever team) and TP who completely overachieved and gave us our best days since the 70's. You're a Legend Ryan but you are so incredibly wrong on this one. I think a lot of that is true but I also think it's unfair to dismiss the job Hughes did as 'cherry on the cake' stuff. The squad he inherited had been playing poorly for months, couldn't score for love nor money and had flirted with a relegation battle until the last handful of games after a long winless run. Hughes breathed new life into it and achieved a higher finish than Pulis - as brilliantly as he did for the most part - was ever able to. I've never understood why people seem to think respecting the achievements of one is somehow a knock on the other.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 16, 2021 15:27:35 GMT
I agree with what Ryan said. Mark Hughes is a better manager than Tony Pulis. I'm actually quite surprised Ryan said it though! I love Ryan & rank him as highly as Denis Smith in the Legendary status category. BUT he is so off the mark with his love in for Hughes. And I strongly disagree that he's a better manager than TP in terms of what the two did for Stoke. Hughes added sparkly bits, cherry on the cake stuff to a team/squad/club that was ten years in the making. It was built brick by brick with a strong foundation and a core & a spine of real character, endeavour, and of course no little skill. My point is that Hughes could never start something from scratch, from the depths of the Championship to automatic promotion winners, Premier league survival, comfortable mid table, cup final, European football. That is one hell of an achievement from TP and it is something that Hughes was and never will be capable of achieving. However, as I've said he gave us some great days, fun games when we tore Man C & Man U apart as well as Liverpool of course and that was of course thoroughly enjoyable. However, it was always going to come off the tracks because once the Pulis spine began to falter as in age, Hughes was never going to be able to build his own spine because he simply can't do that.Never has. From where he started, TP achieved far more than Hughes and is joint best manager of all time with Tony Waddington. For Ryan to make statements about Hughes being Stoke's best all time manager is in my opinion disrespectful to both Waddo (who produced Stoke's greatest ever team) and TP who completely overachieved and gave us our best days since the 70's. You're a Legend Ryan but you are so incredibly wrong on this one. All he said was “he’s the best manager I’ve played under” wasn’t it? He can’t be “wrong” about that, it’s just his personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Mar 16, 2021 16:04:58 GMT
It's just rank bad management from the top isn't it, a workman is only as good as his tools. A club is only as good as their manager, a team is only as good as his signings. The thing that gets me with Stoke is the chances to appoint a next level manager would have been there, we could have sacked an under performing Hughes and appointed Allardyce before he went to Everton who had a history of keeping clubs in the division. After failing to do that we hang on until the last chance saloon and then appoint Paul Lambert, who couldn't even get a Championship job. On relegation instead of going for a manager with a recent track record of promotion with still plenty of money in our pocket, we opt for Gary Rowett, a manager with no track record of promotion, we also give him a King's ransom that he has no record of previously being successful with. Rowett fails so we sign Nathan Jones with no record of promotion from the championship. The failure to make the right decisions when they matter are the reason we are where we are, it's a shambles of a club. However, I think if Campbell was fit we would be in the play-off positions now but people are making noises of having O'Neil sacked, it's baffling. O'Neil leaves I dread to think who would be next in line by our chief bean counter No I couldn’t disagree more strongly with the idea that a club is only as good as it’s manager or your opinion of what a next level manager would have been. Successful clubs and businesses nowadays are generally not a managers fiefdom. An ethos, vision, direction of travel is set out at executive level, objectives are set and managers are bought in to manage within that framework and their success judged on how they perform in relation to Key Performance Indicators set for them in various areas. Achieving in one area is not excused by failing in others. Our problem is the executive have no football experience and the CEO is decades behind the times in football finance terms too. If you put the right people in executive positions they should be able to change manager/head coach as often as necessary and maintain the course set for the club. We just keep being dragged from pillar to post on the whims of the incumbent manager. When Hughes lost confidence in what had made him a success up to that point he should have been replaced by a progressive manager to continue on the path that he had veered from not revert to a dinosaur who’s claim to fame is being good at not being relegated. What you are suggesting is we haven't got the nouse to move thd club forward, I agree with that and their should be somebody upstairs that does know, who has a football brain, a football director. I think I will have to disagree on the manager part though, a good manager changes things for the better. Stoke always have gone for the cheap option, more than happy to spend on players but not managers, it doesn't make sense, there must be a reason for it
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 16, 2021 16:10:30 GMT
No I couldn’t disagree more strongly with the idea that a club is only as good as it’s manager or your opinion of what a next level manager would have been. Successful clubs and businesses nowadays are generally not a managers fiefdom. An ethos, vision, direction of travel is set out at executive level, objectives are set and managers are bought in to manage within that framework and their success judged on how they perform in relation to Key Performance Indicators set for them in various areas. Achieving in one area is not excused by failing in others. Our problem is the executive have no football experience and the CEO is decades behind the times in football finance terms too. If you put the right people in executive positions they should be able to change manager/head coach as often as necessary and maintain the course set for the club. We just keep being dragged from pillar to post on the whims of the incumbent manager. When Hughes lost confidence in what had made him a success up to that point he should have been replaced by a progressive manager to continue on the path that he had veered from not revert to a dinosaur who’s claim to fame is being good at not being relegated. What you are suggesting is we haven't got the nouse to move thd club forward, I agree with that and their should be somebody upstairs that does know, who has a football brain, a football director. I think I will have to disagree on the manager part though, a good manager changes things for the better. Stoke always have gone for the cheap option, more than happy to spend on players but not managers, it doesn't make sense, there must be a reason for it I dread to think what the bill is for managers these past 3 years!
|
|
|
Post by yyy on Mar 16, 2021 16:15:59 GMT
What you are suggesting is we haven't got the nouse to move thd club forward, I agree with that and their should be somebody upstairs that does know, who has a football brain, a football director. I think I will have to disagree on the manager part though, a good manager changes things for the better. Stoke always have gone for the cheap option, more than happy to spend on players but not managers, it doesn't make sense, there must be a reason for it I dread to think what the bill is for managers these past 3 years! The old saying buy cheap buy twice comes to mind
|
|