|
Post by st3mark on Sept 28, 2023 19:06:13 GMT
We played with a target man in the 70s as well didn't we? And didnt we play with a target man (iwelumo) during promotion in 2002. And the next promotion with TP. And Boskamp in between used sidibe. I feel that kind of football has taken up a lot of the last 50 years. Waddo was before my time but weren't we a passing team known as 'the thinking man's team' in the 70s? With a quality midfield? Not sure we had a reputation as a long ball side then? Boskamp wasn't a long ball merchant either. Boskamp wasn't a long ball merchant that's true but sidibe being in the side meant there was always going to be a direct approach at some periods of the match. In my time supporting stoke we've always been direct, then TP took it beyond direct to long ball. Then Hughes changed it for the better and it worked wonderfully when he combined the flair with the steel we already had. But sadly the further we got away from our DNA the further we declined. I'd say those 3 9th placed finishes with Hughes were the best football we've played, but other than that I can't think of many teams we've had that weren't direct.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 28, 2023 19:09:50 GMT
Waddo was before my time but weren't we a passing team known as 'the thinking man's team' in the 70s? With a quality midfield? Not sure we had a reputation as a long ball side then? Boskamp wasn't a long ball merchant either. Boskamp wasn't a long ball merchant that's true but sidibe being in the side meant there was always going to be a direct approach at some periods of the match. In my time supporting stoke we've always been direct, then TP took it beyond direct to long ball. Then Hughes changed it for the better and it worked wonderfully when he combined the flair with the steel we already had. But sadly the further we got away from our DNA the further we declined. I'd say those 3 9th placed finishes with Hughes were the best football we've played, but other than that I can't think of many teams we've had that weren't direct. I don't think we declined because we got away from any 'DNA', (I don't think that's a thing) we declined because we recruited poorly, then appointed a succession of clowns.
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Sept 28, 2023 19:18:58 GMT
Boskamp wasn't a long ball merchant that's true but sidibe being in the side meant there was always going to be a direct approach at some periods of the match. In my time supporting stoke we've always been direct, then TP took it beyond direct to long ball. Then Hughes changed it for the better and it worked wonderfully when he combined the flair with the steel we already had. But sadly the further we got away from our DNA the further we declined. I'd say those 3 9th placed finishes with Hughes were the best football we've played, but other than that I can't think of many teams we've had that weren't direct. I don't think we declined because we got away from any 'DNA', (I don't think that's a thing) we declined because we recruited poorly, then appointed a succession of clowns. True about the clowns. Havent all the clowns tried to play a similar brand of football though?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 28, 2023 19:29:06 GMT
I don't think we declined because we got away from any 'DNA', (I don't think that's a thing) we declined because we recruited poorly, then appointed a succession of clowns. True about the clowns. Havent all the clowns tried to play a similar brand of football though? Not at all, no.
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Sept 28, 2023 21:56:50 GMT
True about the clowns. Havent all the clowns tried to play a similar brand of football though? Not at all, no. How do you work that out? Hughes changed from a winning strategy to 5 at the back, attempting to build up from the back with ball playing defenders. Lambert played 5 at the back and built up slowly from the back. Rowett played possession football building up slowly from the back. Jones played a diamond for 5 minutes before playing 5 at the back and building up slowly from the back. MON played a variety of formations all possession football building up slowly from the back. There's only Neil who has mixed it up Regularly.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 28, 2023 22:14:32 GMT
How do you work that out? Hughes changed from a winning strategy to 5 at the back, attempting to build up from the back with ball playing defenders. Lambert played 5 at the back and built up slowly from the back. Rowett played possession football building up slowly from the back. Jones played a diamond for 5 minutes before playing 5 at the back and building up slowly from the back. MON played a variety of formations all possession football building up slowly from the back. There's only Neil who has mixed it up Regularly. Lambert played numerous formations. Rowett was a 4-3-3 man and set up like we were Barrow away at Man City irrespective of who we were playing. Jones tried to play the diamond despite recruiting badly to it then tried to throw various things at the wall to see what stuck. He was far more attack minded than Rowett, he was just shit at it. MON tried to build a possession based side based around a back three predominantly, a system neither Jones nor Rowett favoured. God knows what Neil’s plan is supposed to be. A big part of the problem has been constantly replacing managers with someone radically different, meaning we have to rip everything up and start from scratch every time.
|
|
flash
Spectator
Posts: 45
|
Post by flash on Sept 28, 2023 22:27:17 GMT
At present - no shots on target.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Sept 29, 2023 0:36:12 GMT
Monday, Thursday and Friday we are a front-foot, high-pressing, total football kind of side.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Saturday we are a useless rabble of cunts with no idea.
On Sundays we have a rest.
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Sept 29, 2023 4:03:23 GMT
The answer to the question is simple, our DNA is failure. In our 160 year existence we've won only one major trophy, that was 51 years ago. The tone was set in our first season of the football league, in 1888. We lost the first game of the inaugural season and finished bottom of the league. Of the original 12 founder members we're the only club not to win either the League or the FA Cup. Our only FA cup final appearance ended in defeat. The only occasion we came close to winning the League (1947) we cocked it up and fell at the final hurdle. We seem to accept that we are simply there to make up the numbers, just happy to to take part. Fleeting moments of "success" are followed by long periods of abject failure. Sustained success is not for the likes of us. I have no idea why our DNA is such. There's something about our club that has and continues to dash our hopes of glory. Managers that have previously been relatively successful continually find the Stoke job a poisoned chalice. The same could be said for many players, their form drops alarmingly as soon as they put on the striped shirt. Who knows why? I don't. Never mind though, I'll be at Bristol on Saturday, the stubborn optimist, as ever. We're also the first team ever to be relegated, when a second division was first introduced, it was one up one down, and it was us that went down.
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Sept 29, 2023 7:34:58 GMT
How do you work that out? Hughes changed from a winning strategy to 5 at the back, attempting to build up from the back with ball playing defenders. Lambert played 5 at the back and built up slowly from the back. Rowett played possession football building up slowly from the back. Jones played a diamond for 5 minutes before playing 5 at the back and building up slowly from the back. MON played a variety of formations all possession football building up slowly from the back. There's only Neil who has mixed it up Regularly. Lambert played numerous formations. Rowett was a 4-3-3 man and set up like we were Barrow away at Man City irrespective of who we were playing. Jones tried to play the diamond despite recruiting badly to it then tried to throw various things at the wall to see what stuck. He was far more attack minded than Rowett, he was just shit at it. MON tried to build a possession based side based around a back three predominantly, a system neither Jones nor Rowett favoured. God knows what Neil’s plan is supposed to be. A big part of the problem has been constantly replacing managers with someone radically different, meaning we have to rip everything up and start from scratch every time. Not at all, no.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 29, 2023 7:50:03 GMT
Lambert played numerous formations. Rowett was a 4-3-3 man and set up like we were Barrow away at Man City irrespective of who we were playing. Jones tried to play the diamond despite recruiting badly to it then tried to throw various things at the wall to see what stuck. He was far more attack minded than Rowett, he was just shit at it. MON tried to build a possession based side based around a back three predominantly, a system neither Jones nor Rowett favoured. God knows what Neil’s plan is supposed to be. A big part of the problem has been constantly replacing managers with someone radically different, meaning we have to rip everything up and start from scratch every time. Not at all, no. I mean, I see what you've tried to do there but it doesn't really work given that I didn't ask a question...
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Sept 29, 2023 7:51:43 GMT
As we wallow around trying to find some style that works, lurching ever closer to an inevitable change of manager, leads me to think what is our DNA? Speak to Spurs, Liverpool Man Utd fans they expect high energy, entertaining attacking football, Man City, Arsenal expect a high press, total football solution. Drop down the leagues, Norwich, expect flowing attacking football, Millwall the aggressive high energy in your face style. If we were to identify our DNA and strategic direction that we instil throughout the club what would we go for? For me it’s that stable resilient no nonsense core, based around a keeper, 2 brutal centre half’s, a no nonsense defensive midfielder, 2 hard working wingers that can pick up their defensive duties as well as attack, a maverick centre midfielder to create , a grafting target man and another skilful/ maverick forward, high energy, in your face, aggressive but with the ability to play a bit. at times as well. I hope for the day that we settle on a strategy and recruit for it as opposed to lurching from one managers whim to another I hope we settle on one too but I hope it’s a million miles away from what you are describing which is more or less Pulisball.
|
|
|
Post by drippinggoatsnob on Sept 29, 2023 8:14:38 GMT
As we wallow around trying to find some style that works, lurching ever closer to an inevitable change of manager, leads me to think what is our DNA? Speak to Spurs, Liverpool Man Utd fans they expect high energy, entertaining attacking football, Man City, Arsenal expect a high press, total football solution. Drop down the leagues, Norwich, expect flowing attacking football, Millwall the aggressive high energy in your face style. If we were to identify our DNA and strategic direction that we instil throughout the club what would we go for? For me it’s that stable resilient no nonsense core, based around a keeper, 2 brutal centre half’s, a no nonsense defensive midfielder, 2 hard working wingers that can pick up their defensive duties as well as attack, a maverick centre midfielder to create , a grafting target man and another skilful/ maverick forward, high energy, in your face, aggressive but with the ability to play a bit. at times as well. I hope for the day that we settle on a strategy and recruit for it as opposed to lurching from one managers whim to another This is absolutely part of the reason we are struggling. Nail this down and we can move forward. The Prem years and Hughes Stokalona muddied the waters around what we are about (however nice that was at the time). I'm not saying we don't deserve good football (and haven't had it by any stretch of the imagination). Build on the basics, we don't lose a game ala the relegation season under Pulis and that turning point against Forest. Build a core, build momentum and we will do great things.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Sept 29, 2023 8:23:13 GMT
As we wallow around trying to find some style that works, lurching ever closer to an inevitable change of manager, leads me to think what is our DNA? Speak to Spurs, Liverpool Man Utd fans they expect high energy, entertaining attacking football, Man City, Arsenal expect a high press, total football solution. Drop down the leagues, Norwich, expect flowing attacking football, Millwall the aggressive high energy in your face style. If we were to identify our DNA and strategic direction that we instil throughout the club what would we go for? For me it’s that stable resilient no nonsense core, based around a keeper, 2 brutal centre half’s, a no nonsense defensive midfielder, 2 hard working wingers that can pick up their defensive duties as well as attack, a maverick centre midfielder to create , a grafting target man and another skilful/ maverick forward, high energy, in your face, aggressive but with the ability to play a bit. at times as well. I hope for the day that we settle on a strategy and recruit for it as opposed to lurching from one managers whim to another This is absolutely part of the reason we are struggling. Nail this down and we can move forward. The Prem years and Hughes Stokalona muddied the waters around what we are about (however nice that was at the time). I'm not saying we don't deserve good football (and haven't had it by any stretch of the imagination). Build on the basics, we don't lose a game ala the relegation season under Pulis and that turning point against Forest. Build a core, build momentum and we will do great things. Gritty little Stoke how inspiring.
|
|
|
Post by andycooke96 on Sept 29, 2023 8:53:01 GMT
Mediocrity seems to be the ingrained dna within the club, and it has been since 2017. Interesting that people are able to identify the issues that have plagued the club since then, but not willing to point any fingers at the ownership. For the record, I think dna in a footballing sense is a bit of a spurious term, but I’d like stoke to be a side that isn’t afraid to take on the established big sides whilst promoting the best homegrown talent In the area and doing so with a side of pacey, athletic players that excite a crowd (I imagine most fanbases and clubs want this, it’s just a lot of them are much better at it than we are)
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Sept 29, 2023 9:00:59 GMT
As we wallow around trying to find some style that works, lurching ever closer to an inevitable change of manager, leads me to think what is our DNA? Speak to Spurs, Liverpool Man Utd fans they expect high energy, entertaining attacking football, Man City, Arsenal expect a high press, total football solution. Drop down the leagues, Norwich, expect flowing attacking football, Millwall the aggressive high energy in your face style. If we were to identify our DNA and strategic direction that we instil throughout the club what would we go for? For me it’s that stable resilient no nonsense core, based around a keeper, 2 brutal centre half’s, a no nonsense defensive midfielder, 2 hard working wingers that can pick up their defensive duties as well as attack, a maverick centre midfielder to create , a grafting target man and another skilful/ maverick forward, high energy, in your face, aggressive but with the ability to play a bit. at times as well. I hope for the day that we settle on a strategy and recruit for it as opposed to lurching from one managers whim to another This is absolutely part of the reason we are struggling. Nail this down and we can move forward. The Prem years and Hughes Stokalona muddied the waters around what we are about (however nice that was at the time). I'm not saying we don't deserve good football (and haven't had it by any stretch of the imagination). Build on the basics, we don't lose a game ala the relegation season under Pulis and that turning point against Forest. Build a core, build momentum and we will do great things. What do you mean what we're about?
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Sept 29, 2023 10:37:25 GMT
I mean, I see what you've tried to do there but it doesn't really work given that I didn't ask a question... Works just fine. Its rude and obnoxious whether a question is asked or not. In relation to the answer you gave it was more about formations and nothing to do with the brand of football. You can play a 4321, 433, 343, 532 and the brand of football can be direct in any of them, it can be possession football in any of them and it can be a slow build up or counter attack etc in any of them. In whichever of those formations the managers have utilised the brand of football has largely remained the same. And its miserable. Aside from very minor tweaks we've eventually produced the same shite brand of football under every manager since Hughes. Apart from Neil who has played with a high press and counter press in an often effective counter attacking system away from home. At home he's often fallen into the same brand as the others. Pointless slow passing, knocking it around the back line with little to no clue what to do past the half way line. More often than not including a keeper who can't pass and two or three centre halves who can't pass. Although I've just about given up on Neil at least he hasn't always stuck to that same ineffective brand of football we have tried for the last 5 or 6 years. Our identity/DNA is to make the game simple. We have always skipped that bollocks out with direct play, got the ball to our effective players as quickly as possible and tried to win games. That doesn't mean it has to be long ball, just more direct. The sooner we get back to who we are and give up trying to copy Pep the sooner we'll start being effective.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 29, 2023 10:54:01 GMT
I mean, I see what you've tried to do there but it doesn't really work given that I didn't ask a question... Works just fine. Its rude and obnoxious whether a question is asked or not. In relation to the answer you gave it was more about formations and nothing to do with the brand of football. You can play a 4321, 433, 343, 532 and the brand of football can be direct in any of them, it can be possession football in any of them and it can be a slow build up or counter attack etc in any of them. In whichever of those formations the managers have utilised the brand of football has largely remained the same. And its miserable. Aside from very minor tweaks we've eventually produced the same shite brand of football under every manager since Hughes. Apart from Neil who has played with a high press and counter press in an often effective counter attacking system away from home. At home he's often fallen into the same brand as the others. Pointless slow passing, knocking it around the back line with little to no clue what to do past the half way line. More often than not including a keeper who can't pass and two or three centre halves who can't pass. Although I've just about given up on Neil at least he hasn't always stuck to that same ineffective brand of football we have tried for the last 5 or 6 years. Our identity/DNA is to make the game simple. We have always skipped that bollocks out with direct play, got the ball to our effective players as quickly as possible and tried to win games. That doesn't mean it has to be long ball, just more direct. The sooner we get back to who we are and give up trying to copy Pep the sooner we'll start being effective. In what way does it work? What were you saying 'no, not at all too'? You asked a question and I answered it. Jones in no way played similar football to Rowett or to O'Neill and he was sandwiched in between them - he actually did want to try and be direct, his teams were just terrible at it. O'Neill's football at is worst was similar to Rowett's but at its best was a lot braver and more positive.
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Sept 29, 2023 12:02:28 GMT
Works just fine. Its rude and obnoxious whether a question is asked or not. In relation to the answer you gave it was more about formations and nothing to do with the brand of football. You can play a 4321, 433, 343, 532 and the brand of football can be direct in any of them, it can be possession football in any of them and it can be a slow build up or counter attack etc in any of them. In whichever of those formations the managers have utilised the brand of football has largely remained the same. And its miserable. Aside from very minor tweaks we've eventually produced the same shite brand of football under every manager since Hughes. Apart from Neil who has played with a high press and counter press in an often effective counter attacking system away from home. At home he's often fallen into the same brand as the others. Pointless slow passing, knocking it around the back line with little to no clue what to do past the half way line. More often than not including a keeper who can't pass and two or three centre halves who can't pass. Although I've just about given up on Neil at least he hasn't always stuck to that same ineffective brand of football we have tried for the last 5 or 6 years. Our identity/DNA is to make the game simple. We have always skipped that bollocks out with direct play, got the ball to our effective players as quickly as possible and tried to win games. That doesn't mean it has to be long ball, just more direct. The sooner we get back to who we are and give up trying to copy Pep the sooner we'll start being effective. In what way does it work? What were you saying 'no, not at all too'? You asked a question and I answered it. Jones in no way played similar football to Rowett or to O'Neill and he was sandwiched in between them - he actually did want to try and be direct, his teams were just terrible at it. O'Neill's football at is worst was similar to Rowett's but at its best was a lot braver and more positive. It works because in conversation you can say "not at all, no." In response to any statement or question that you like. Whether you asked a question or not it still worked in pointing out how obnoxious and condescending you are. And then predictable as ever in the obnoxious and condescending play book manual you start saying "oh that didn't work because I didn't ask a question" as though we're on the forum for some sort of grammar test. Jones stuck to his preferred philosophy so rarely that past his first month in charge it was back to the usual shite because he had no full backs with the attributes to suit his system and his midfielders didn't suit his diamond and Sam vokes didn't suit anything other than a 442. It was back to 5 at the back to try and stop the losing streak, with 100s of ineffective passes mostly across our back 5. Even if you were completely right about Jones, which you aren't, he was here for 10 months. So if he had stuck to his philosophy for that time, which he didn't, that would only amount to 10months out of 6 years where we didn't resort to trying to play the the same brand of slow pointless football. Historically like most teams we're a 442 direct team. In modern times we're a 4231 direct team (adapted beautifully with the right players in the final third by Hughes). That's our DNA. Currently we're a 532 clueless bunch of clowns, thats not our DNA.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 29, 2023 12:27:01 GMT
In what way does it work? What were you saying 'no, not at all too'? You asked a question and I answered it. Jones in no way played similar football to Rowett or to O'Neill and he was sandwiched in between them - he actually did want to try and be direct, his teams were just terrible at it. O'Neill's football at is worst was similar to Rowett's but at its best was a lot braver and more positive. It works because in conversation you can say "not at all, no." In response to any statement or question that you like. Whether you asked a question or not it still worked in pointing out how obnoxious and condescending you are. And then predictable as ever in the obnoxious and condescending play book manual you start saying "oh that didn't work because I didn't ask a question" as though we're on the forum for some sort of grammar test. Jones stuck to his preferred philosophy so rarely that past his first month in charge it was back to the usual shite because he had no full backs with the attributes to suit his system and his midfielders didn't suit his diamond and Sam vokes didn't suit anything other than a 442. It was back to 5 at the back to try and stop the losing streak, with 100s of ineffective passes mostly across our back 5. Even if you were completely right about Jones, which you aren't, he was here for 10 months. So if he had stuck to his philosophy for that time, which he didn't, that would only amount to 10months out of 6 years where we didn't resort to trying to play the the same brand of slow pointless football. Historically like most teams we're a 442 direct team. In modern times we're a 4231 direct team (adapted beautifully with the right players in the final third by Hughes). That's our DNA. Currently we're a 532 clueless bunch of clowns, thats not our DNA. If you want to just go round saying 'no, not at all' at random in any context then by all means you knock yourself out. Jones only really adopted the back five right at the very end of his time here when the shit had really hit the fan. And even then he was still trying to play a faster and more direct approach than Rowett did. Some of those late Jones games - Birmingham, Bristol City, Forest - we actually started well with pace and energy, only to crumble when we conceded. I personally don't believe in 'DNA' in football. There's no historic through-line or inherent legacy that we're 'supposed' to play or suffer for deviating from. I accept you don't see things that way and that we won't agree.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 29, 2023 12:36:01 GMT
There are quite a few vague, and meaningless phrases used in football punditry these days? Why?
Well its because media dedicates a ridiculous amount of time to half literate people, marketed as experts and pundits, rambling on and on about football matches. More time talking about it than playing it.
They basically just repeat re-worked cliches then occasionally come up with a 'new' one, they then overuse for the next 10 years to the point where no-one knows what it really means any more. Or did they even know what they meant in the first place?
Nothing against half-literates btw, it just find it bizarre why some are given hours of airtime to basically repeat the same old rubbish every week.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Sept 29, 2023 13:03:26 GMT
I would say it’s being proud of what / who we are and tugging our forelock to no other club whatever their supposed status. When we were (relatively) successful we were stacked with players who believed this and just got on with their job. We could always ask for someone like Denis Smith’s GP to see if they could provide us with a bit for cloning!
|
|
|
Post by hoppo96 on Sept 29, 2023 13:28:38 GMT
We don't have a club 'DNA'. We are like other clubs our size, we just look to build as good a team and squad as possible, a competent ownership in place (mmm?) hiring a good manager to oversee the team.
|
|
|
Post by owdgrandadstokie on Sept 29, 2023 17:07:00 GMT
The answer to the question is simple, our DNA is failure. In our 160 year existence we've won only one major trophy, that was 51 years ago. The tone was set in our first season of the football league, in 1888. We lost the first game of the inaugural season and finished bottom of the league. Of the original 12 founder members we're the only club not to win either the League or the FA Cup. Our only FA cup final appearance ended in defeat. The only occasion we came close to winning the League (1947) we cocked it up and fell at the final hurdle. We seem to accept that we are simply there to make up the numbers, just happy to to take part. Fleeting moments of "success" are followed by long periods of abject failure. Sustained success is not for the likes of us. I have no idea why our DNA is such. There's something about our club that has and continues to dash our hopes of glory. Managers that have previously been relatively successful continually find the Stoke job a poisoned chalice. The same could be said for many players, their form drops alarmingly as soon as they put on the striped shirt. Who knows why? I don't. Never mind though, I'll be at Bristol on Saturday, the stubborn optimist, as ever. Not quite the only founder member...but being equal with Accrington in failing to win either League or FA Cup isn't exactly something to shout about...😱
|
|
|
Post by owdgrandadstokie on Sept 29, 2023 17:20:54 GMT
The answer to the question is simple, our DNA is failure. In our 160 year existence we've won only one major trophy, that was 51 years ago. The tone was set in our first season of the football league, in 1888. We lost the first game of the inaugural season and finished bottom of the league. Of the original 12 founder members we're the only club not to win either the League or the FA Cup. Our only FA cup final appearance ended in defeat. The only occasion we came close to winning the League (1947) we cocked it up and fell at the final hurdle. We seem to accept that we are simply there to make up the numbers, just happy to to take part. Fleeting moments of "success" are followed by long periods of abject failure. Sustained success is not for the likes of us. I have no idea why our DNA is such. There's something about our club that has and continues to dash our hopes of glory. Managers that have previously been relatively successful continually find the Stoke job a poisoned chalice. The same could be said for many players, their form drops alarmingly as soon as they put on the striped shirt. Who knows why? I don't. Never mind though, I'll be at Bristol on Saturday, the stubborn optimist, as ever. We're also the first team ever to be relegated, when a second division was first introduced, it was one up one down, and it was us that went down. Not quite true... in the second season of the Football League, after finishing bottom in the first campaign, Stoke finished bottom again but there was no Division Two yet and so we went into a re-election process, which saw Sunderland take our place. We got back in after one season, again via re-election, but, when a Second Division was introduced after the 1892/93 season, Stoke were not relegated to it as we had finished 7th out of 16 teams... one of our best ever seasons! Been mostly downhill ever since... we didn't actually get relegated however until 1906/07 (despite finishing bottom in the top tier in 1897/98 we stayed up via the play-offs in very controversial fashion) then at the end of the 1907/08 season the club went out of business (despite finishing 10th in Div 2) and had to reform and start again in the Birmingham and District League! I remember it like I were a lad!
|
|
|
Post by davethebass on Sept 29, 2023 22:36:56 GMT
We're also the first team ever to be relegated, when a second division was first introduced, it was one up one down, and it was us that went down. Not quite true... in the second season of the Football League, after finishing bottom in the first campaign, Stoke finished bottom again but there was no Division Two yet and so we went into a re-election process, which saw Sunderland take our place. We got back in after one season, again via re-election, but, when a Second Division was introduced after the 1892/93 season, Stoke were not relegated to it as we had finished 7th out of 16 teams... one of our best ever seasons! Been mostly downhill ever since... we didn't actually get relegated however until 1906/07 (despite finishing bottom in the top tier in 1897/98 we stayed up via the play-offs in very controversial fashion) then at the end of the 1907/08 season the club went out of business (despite finishing 10th in Div 2) and had to reform and start again in the Birmingham and District League! I remember it like I were a lad! Ah thanks for the clarification! I'd obviously got my wires crossed there with the being replaced by Sunderland thing. And thanks for all that detail, it fascinates me all that old stuff. Your memory is better than mine!
|
|