|
|
Post by Flaming Jebend on Jan 16, 2009 20:05:00 GMT
if only we could sow the two together quality touch and hard working still no goals though
|
|
|
|
Post by poohpoohdisco on Jan 16, 2009 20:07:25 GMT
Cresswell was poor against West Ham and if he starts tomorrow Kitson must be thinking of jumping ship as he will be lucky to make the bench when Fuller & Big Mama are back. But could be worse if Beattie hadn't signed Pulis would have gone for Cresswell & Pericard  |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jan 16, 2009 20:08:39 GMT
I don't think there are many people who are saying that Cresswell is a better player than Kitson or that the manager has wasted 5 million. I'm just of the opinion that Kitson away at Chelsea will be not much more than a spectator. If we were away at say Sunderland or Hull then i'm sure nearly everyone would be in agreement that Kitson should start over Cresswell but away at Chelsea just isn't the same kettle of fish and Cresswell becomes a much more viable option. Still not sure i would start with Cresswell either but i can see the thinking behind it and i'm not going to spit my dummy over it like some have if he does start.
|
|
|
|
Post by fromafar07 on Jan 16, 2009 20:10:27 GMT
TrumptonPotter
CRESSWELL IS A SPECTATOR IN EVERY GAME !!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Flaming Jebend on Jan 16, 2009 20:12:34 GMT
i wasnt much of a cresswell fan last season and defo not this but i thought he had a good game against liverpool won every header
|
|
|
|
Post by crashbandicoot on Jan 16, 2009 20:16:07 GMT
i wasnt much of a cresswell fan last season and defo not this but i thought he had a good game against liverpool won every header Every header!!?? Hyypia was Liverpools best player last week think you will find he won almost every header. IMO Cress wasnt even in the game last week! |
|
|
|
Post by fromafar07 on Jan 16, 2009 20:16:48 GMT
trouble is, every header he won went back towards his own goal !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jan 16, 2009 20:19:00 GMT
TrumptonPotter CRESSWELL IS A SPECTATOR IN EVERY GAME !!!!!!!!!!! While Kitson has had a blinder in every game has he fromafar? Please try and be a little more constructive with your arguments as you're soon quick to criticise others for their flippent comments. IMO Cresswell will run, chase, harry defenders and midfielders and restrict the time they have on the ball. Kitson is just too slow, lightweight and hasn't got the engine to do this. He's a goal poacher and finisher but at Chelsea we can't expect to create these chances for him so he'll be invisible as he has been most of the season. I'm delighted Ethers and Lawrence will probably soon help him out and we'll start to see the 'real' Kitson but i just don't see that happening against Chelsea. We'll be camped in our own half trying to keep a clean sheet and with that tactic Cresswell is the better option. Kitson will come much more into his own come from February onwards .... but then he'll have Fuller, Sidibe, Dindane, Fred & Camara to worry about aswell |
|
|
|
Post by fromafar07 on Jan 16, 2009 20:26:24 GMT
since i dislike Cresswell so much, i make a point of watching him closer, listening to commentarors on TV and radio and reading commentarty in the papers so i know what im talking about. All i see hear and read is "that was poor from Cresswell" . in my own opinion from the 9 or 10 times ive watched him, he is total Crap, I dont give a damn if he runs a hundred miles a game, he does nothing with the ball when he is running, is very easily disposessed, trips over himself and really adds absolutely nothing to Stoke, besides a bigger cleaning bill for washing his kit after every game !! If Richard Cresswell is a better option to anyone on any team in the premier league, god help the other person that he is that option to !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jan 16, 2009 20:30:49 GMT
Not his biggest fan as a player either fromafar but tomorrow it's a straight choice between him and Kitson. Kitson has done nothing with the ball either, is also very easily dispossessed, falls over too easily and has added nothing to Stoke this season so far either. I can understand you don't want Cresswell playing and neither do I but away at Chelsea the running around bit you dislike so much is what strikers need to do and Kitson can't do it like Cresswell can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gunslinger on Jan 16, 2009 20:43:27 GMT
;D Had to laugh despite the possibility of having Cresswell on he pitch on Saturday.
What is the point of bringing in good (and expensive) players and then play Cresswell!?!? If/when we lose against Chelski it will be held against TP that he used Cresswell and not some of his better options.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 16, 2009 21:08:15 GMT
;D Had to laugh despite the possibility of having Cresswell on he pitch on Saturday. What is the point of bringing in good (and expensive) players and then play Cresswell!?!? If/when we lose against Chelski it will be held against TP that he used Cresswell and not some of his better options. Better options tomorrow - who exactly? Brought in good players - who exactly? Hope your not going to mention Kitson, because tomorrow's game is not going to suit him one bit. Lets be honest, the final score will be Chelsea ? Stoke City 0, irrespective of who plays the Mama role. Last week, I was lambasted for saying Kitson could play the Mama role. That is the job on offer tomorrow and unless people have changed their opinion in 7 days, Kitson is no good as a target man. Our task tomorrow is to make sure Chelsea score the same number of goals as Liverpool last week. I would love us to score, but I just can't see it. We can play gung ho as the Football Manager aficionados would have us do and lose 6-0 or we can employ Plan A with renewed confidence and frustrate them to Hell. Kitson cannot play the Mama role, Kitson has not been a good player for Stoke. Therefore he will not play tomorrow and is struggling to get a start for Stoke when everyone is available. I remember similar discussions last season about Gallagher vs Cresswell. Where is Gallagher now? Gallagher did nothing last season and showed no sign of doing anything. Similar arguments about quality and skill were bandied about on here. He had a great pedigree and according to some he therefore deserved a place in the team. In hindsight, I hope everyone will now agree he was bone idle and his best days were behind him. Twelve months from now when we are discussing the relative merits of Fred vs Cresswell (only joking) we might all be able to admit that Kitson's best days are also behind him. Just because someone has played well for another club, doesn't mean he will do well for us. Football is full of similar stories and usually it is a case of the player failing to settle (they are human beings). We cannot argue, in my opinion, that we are playing in a way that is alien to Kitson. We always play the same way. He and his agent knew this before he signed and he therefore must have felt he could play the Mama role (he was never going to play the lone striker instead of Ric). Kitson's move has not worked out. I'm sure he is a decent lad, but it isn't going to be, so lets move on and concentrate on Ric, Mama, Beattie and Kaka as our forward line. I am not a great fan of Cresswell. I am grateful for what he contributed last season and I appreciate the shift he puts in every game. He lacks the quality needed in the this League and when we have the four main strikers mentioned above he will be lucky to be on the bench. However, in my humble opinion, tomorrow he is not just the best option, he is the only option. |
|
|
|
Post by NE8Stokie on Jan 16, 2009 21:14:17 GMT
Remember that film "White men can't jump" well it was Cresswell's biopic!! He was dreadful at St. James'  |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jan 16, 2009 21:17:52 GMT
Remember that film "White men can't jump" well it was Cresswell's biopic!! He was dreadful at St. James' Unfortunatley Kitson's biopic is "White men can't Jump, Run or often even just Stand Up" |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2009 21:22:36 GMT
"We cannot argue, in my opinion, that we are playing in a way that is alien to Kitson. We always play the same way. He and his agent knew this before he signed and he therefore must have felt he could play the Mama role (he was never going to play the lone striker instead of Ric)."
I beg to differ with you march4 and I will argue that point.
I don't believe for a moment that Pulis brought the lad here with the intention to use him in this way. Pulis isn't THAT stupid, he would have targeted somebody else far more suitable for the role, wouldn't he?
However once the dust had settled after the last transfer window, and Pulis hadn't managed to bring in the players that he wanted (Pennant and Ledley) to provide Kits the service in an alternative formation to Plan A, the manager decided that for the time being at least, Kitson would be played in this withdrawn role because he believed that this formation was going to give us the best chance of accumulating points.
Yes Mama has got 3 (or is it 4?) goals this season, but Mama is well accustomed to playing this position, the position was made FOR HIM.
However, how many goals would Robbie Keane or Michael Owen have scored playing in the Mama role this season?
It's all very well people saying that Kitson hasn't scored yet, but he's hardly been playing in a position that lends itself to scoring, is it?
More to the point how many goals have Stoke scored since Ktitson has not been in the team?
Five in TEN matches (and two of those were scored by a CENTRE BACK)!!
I suppose it's Kitsons fault that we've been managing to score just one goal in two games since his injury is it?
Of course not, but this demonstrates that Stoke have been creating VERY LITTLE in front of goal this season, with or WITHOUT Kitson in the side.
The lad was on the verge of an England call up last season, we had Reading fans coming on here when we signed him, some saying that they thought he was one of the best players that had ever pulled on a Reading shirt.
Yet we have people coming on here slating him to the heavens, their whole argument being based on the fact that currently there is a 0 next to his name in the goals scored column.
Using that as evidence to base your argument upon could be achieved by simpling watching teletext FFS!
Many people thank christ, are able to see beyond this, and are able to take into the account the mitigating circumstances and couple this with what they are SEEING on the pitch.
IE. A skillful and intelligent player, who given the right service and played in the correct position is very likely to prove that Stoke have one of the best English strikers in the country currently on their books!
|
|
|
|
Post by chessyorkshirexile on Jan 16, 2009 21:25:43 GMT
Kitson must play tomorrow, or Pulis may as well sell him on. If he gets a goal, I think he will go on to net 10-12 this season with good quality crosses and passes from matty and lawrence. Beattie should play in the supporting role with kits the main striker.
Go on Pulis, dare to try and win the game!
|
|
|
|
Post by Smudge_SCFC on Jan 16, 2009 21:27:14 GMT
Well it worked - at long last it worked.
We have been brainwashed into thinking that Richard Cresswell is a useful Premier League player.
I truly fucking despair.
I have nothing whatsoever against Richard Cresswell and thank him for everything he did for us last season. One thing he has shown us this season, and shown us TIME AND TIME AGAIN, is that he is not good enouigh for the Premier League.
To be honest I am struggling to think of anything Cresswell has genuinely contributed this season, other than running around. He has no goals, no assists, no dramatic moments and the only times he has been involved in goal-line clearancesa re the two times he has stopped headers from team-mates right in front of the opponents' goal! How many more times does he need to fail for some people to be convinced?
I'll also be the first to admit that Kitson has not set the world alight, but then he has shown glimpses and he most certainly DOES have what it takes to score and succeed in the Premier League.
What is the point of us trying to improve our side with big money signings and then continuing to play someone who has had so many bad games this season, and been so clearly out of his depth that it is, sadly, something of an embarrassment?
I genuinely cannot believe we are going to start with Cresswell tomorrow. I just can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokie4life on Jan 16, 2009 21:56:52 GMT
Cresswell isnt good enough. When is TPgonna realise that. I think that Beattie could be the man to get on the end of Delaps throw against Chelsea. Cresswell was OK in the Championship but this is not the Championship this is Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. Beattie will be up for it as well as it is his first game for us.
Hope Creswell doesnt play but cant wait for tomorrow anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gunslinger on Jan 16, 2009 21:59:52 GMT
Oh, yes. Kitson. He has mayhap not been on the scoresheet yet, but with him on the pitch then there's at least a small posibility of nicking a goal. And with Etheringhton we might have a decent provider as well? Or would you rather have Olifinjana or Buxton (yes, I know he's on loan to Wednesday) out on the flank as well?
If you want to watch Cresswell against Chelski then go ahead. I can see no benefit at all of playing him tomorrow, unless you have a deep fascination of watching headless chickens running around aimlessly for 90+ minutes. I think we should aim a little bit higher than that. Playing Cresswell tomorrow would to me be a footballing death wish of the highest order.
If we play Cresswell tomorrow then we prove that we have TWO people out of their depths: Cresswell and TP.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Jan 16, 2009 22:03:03 GMT
I really do despair at Pulis. I just cannot believe he is considering playing Creswell ahead of Kitson.
This is not a criticism of Cresswell, an honest hard working Championship player if ever I saw one.
What's the point in buying in quality like Kitson if we don't play him, when we are desperately short in his position? There'll be enough workhorses in the team tomorrow without Creswell.
What next? Creswell instead of Etherington in the next away game when Fuller's back?
If I was Kitson this would be the final straw and I'd want to be off.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 16, 2009 22:09:35 GMT
I disagree Gunslinger. I don't think we are ready to try and get a goal by any other means than a setpiece at Chelsea. Tomorrow and training in the desert will help Ether's fitness. Lawrence won't be ready yet I'm guessing, so the service from the flanks won't be there yet.
We tried the gung ho approach at Bolton, Blackburn and Man City and they all scored at will against us. Things have to be kept tight for the first hour or so. Cresswell is the best option to do this. If the situation is right, a run out for Kitson could be very interesting in the last 30mins.
Of course, we could all be wrong and Chelsea's tendency to implode every time there is a setpiece in their half could play to our advantage. Lets hope so!
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 16, 2009 22:19:44 GMT
Chelsea's tendency to implode every time there is a setpiece in their half could play to our advantage. Lets hope so! And I think we'd have a far better chance of exploiting that advantage if we had Beattie AND Kitson in the box. If we play with Faye, Diao and Rory in the midfield, with Etherington as the outlet, I don't see why that means we will play 'gung ho'. Why do people assume that if we don't go there to park the bus, then we automatically have to go out all guns blazing. We can keep it tight and still play two Premiership quality strikers at the same time FFS. |
|
|
|
Post by Akinbadbuy on Jan 16, 2009 22:32:34 GMT
march4
You are absolutely spot on mate. At last someone on this board who understands football and more importantly tactics.
Jarhead, no offence mate but you are a clueless clown. You must have been playin too much fifa or football manager games. Are you honestly telling me you'd like to see us go to Chelsea with 2 wingers and 2 strikers? Let me spell it out for you -:
WE WOULD GET MURDERED!!!!
I am not Cresswells biggest fan and I agree that he is not good enough for the premiership overall. However, if we are going to try and sneak a result tomorrow we need to graft and put a shift in. This is a big strength of Cresswells and a big weakness of Kitsons. I have lost count of the amount of times this season where Kitson has totally lost interest away from home and pretty much gave up. This cannot happen tomorrow.
Maybe try what we did with Ric and give Kitson the last half hour to come on fresh and try and work something, but Cressie has to start for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gunslinger on Jan 16, 2009 22:43:06 GMT
I disagree Gunslinger. I don't think we are ready to try and get a goal by any other means than a setpiece at Chelsea. Tomorrow and training in the desert will help Ether's fitness. Lawrence won't be ready yet I'm guessing, so the service from the flanks won't be there yet. We tried the gung ho approach at Bolton, Blackburn and Man City and they all scored at will against us. Things have to be kept tight for the first hour or so. Cresswell is the best option to do this. If the situation is right, a run out for Kitson could be very interesting in the last 30mins. Of course, we could all be wrong and Chelsea's tendency to implode every time there is a setpiece in their half could play to our advantage. Lets hope so! Ther's just no consistency in whar you write and the conclusions you're making. Let's start by looking at the three games you are mentioning: Bolton: Lost 1-3. Both Cresswell and Kitson started. Man City: Lost 0-3. Both came on as subs Blackburn:Lost 0-3. Cresswell started and played the whole match, Kitson didn't play at all How on earth can you say that we will get a better result by playing Cresswell instead of Kitson?!?! Cresswell has done nada - nil - nothing at all to stop the other teams "scoring at will" against us! How can he prevent us getting "murdered" again tomorrow? He was really useful against Blackburn, wasn't he? He REALLY spanked those boys from Ewood Park, did he? He singlehandedly annihilated Bolton? Man City was bulldozed to the ground when we brought good 'ol Cressie on? |
|
|
|
Post by potters 22 on Jan 16, 2009 22:43:58 GMT
Id play cressy tomorra,had a good game against liverpool and never gives less than 110%
Plus whats kitson done to warrant a place that cresswell hasnt?
|
|
|
|
Post by Smudge_SCFC on Jan 16, 2009 22:47:31 GMT
march4 You are absolutely spot on mate. At last someone on this board who understands football and more importantly tactics. Jarhead, no offence mate but you are a clueless clown. You must have been playin too much fifa or football manager games. Are you honestly telling me you'd like to see us go to Chelsea with 2 wingers and 2 strikers? Let me spell it out for you -: WE WOULD GET MURDERED!!!! Akinbadbuy, We went to Old Trafford to try and shut up shop and we got murdered and when we played Chelsea at home we tried to shut up shop and we got comfortably beaten. You can play 4-4-2 and still keep it tight. Delap is hardly an out and out winger and you could instruct Etherington to keep a firm eye on defensive duties. There is nothing wrong with playing two strikers in any game. It doesn't mean you're going "gung ho". Your expressed superior knowledge of the game seems to suggest that we have to cack our pants every time we play anybody higher than us in the league. It's perhaps one of the reasons why we currently have only THREE points from TEN away games so far this season. I can't believe that a slightly more adventuous approach wouldn't have got us at least one win from those games! If we are not prepared to give Chelsea a game in this current climate, with their problems, and at a time when they have won only four of their ten home games this season then we might as well live in fear forever. |
|
|
|
Post by potters 22 on Jan 16, 2009 22:59:31 GMT
Akinbadbuy,
We went to Old Trafford to try and shut up shop and we got murdered and when we played Chelsea at home we tried to shut up shop and we got comfortably beaten.
You can play 4-4-2 and still keep it tight. Delap is hardly an out and out winger and you could instruct Etherington to keep a firm eye on defensive duties. There is nothing wrong with playing two strikers in any game. It doesn't mean you're going "gung ho".
Your expressed superior knowledge of the game seems to suggest that we have to cack our pants every time we play anybody higher than us in the league. It's perhaps one of the reasons why we currently have only THREE points from TEN away games so far this season.
I can't believe that a slightly more adventuous approach wouldn't have got us at least one win from those games!
If we are not prepared to give Chelsea a game in this current climate, with their problems, and at a time when they have won only four of their ten home games this season then we might as well live in fear forever.[/quote]
If we are not prepared to give chelsea a game in this current climate??
What climate is that then?
The climate where we'd get tonked if we tryed to open up and go for it?
We need to play it tight,yes we cant afford to sit back too much but to play 2 out and out strikers in beattie and kitson with lawrence and ethrington is just suicidal!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 16, 2009 23:09:49 GMT
No Stoke team which I have selected and prepared has ever lost. And I expect TP also thinks he could do my job better than I can. It's easy to be the best manager in the world from where we sit, isn't it ? And this thread demostrates that it's all about opinions, and those vary widely even among those who go to almost every game.
I don't know what TP will do tommorrow - he's nothing if not unpredictable. But I don't know what he should do either. I know what I would do, but I don't know whether it would work and the fact that I've never done his job, and I don't know what he knows about players fitness levels tomorrow, or their mental state and have never analysed Chelsea's play in great detail means that he is better qualified that me to make that call, by some distance.
I have often critisised TP's selections and tactics, as many of us have. But the fact is he got us up, and at the start of the season, and now, nearly all of us would regard keeping us up as success. We'll know at the end of the season.
What would I do ? I'd play Kits and Beattie up front. But if he plays Cressy, I'm not gonna get upset about that - certainly not before a ball has been kicked. And I think some of the comments on here about Cressy are way over the top. I'll cheer any Stoke player who gives 100%, and he certainly does that, but let's not forget that he's been a striker all his career, not a wide player which he's been asked to do here. I don't think he really has Premiership class but he's nothing like as poor a player as some suggest.
If we don't get a result tomorrow, we'll all know at 4.45 what TP should have done. We always do. That's the joy of being a supporter and what we pay our money for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 16, 2009 23:11:54 GMT
No Stoke team which I have selected and prepared has ever lost. And I expect TP also thinks he could do my job better than I can. It's easy to be the best manager in the world from where we sit, isn't it ? And this thread demostrates that it's all about opinions, and those vary widely even among those who go to almost every game.
I don't know what TP will do tommorrow - he's nothing if not unpredictable. But I don't know what he should do either. I know what I would do, but I don't know whether it would work and the fact that I've never done his job, and I don't know what he knows about players fitness levels tomorrow, or their mental state and have never analysed Chelsea's play in great detail means that he is better qualified that me to make that call, by some distance.
I have often critisised TP's selections and tactics, as many of us have. But the fact is he got us up, and at the start of the season, and now, nearly all of us would regard keeping us up as success. We'll know at the end of the season.
What would I do ? I'd play Kits and Beattie up front. But if he plays Cressy, I'm not gonna get upset about that - certainly not before a ball has been kicked. And I think some of the comments on here about Cressy are way over the top. I'll cheer any Stoke player who gives 100%, and he certainly does that, but let's not forget that he's been a striker all his career, not a wide player which he's been asked to do here. I don't think he really has Premiership class but he's nothing like as poor a player as some suggest.
If we don't get a result tomorrow, we'll all know at 4.45 what TP should have done. We always do. That's the joy of being a supporter and what we pay our money for.
|
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Jan 16, 2009 23:12:25 GMT
I disagree Gunslinger. I don't think we are ready to try and get a goal by any other means than a setpiece at Chelsea. Tomorrow and training in the desert will help Ether's fitness. Lawrence won't be ready yet I'm guessing, so the service from the flanks won't be there yet. We tried the gung ho approach at Bolton, Blackburn and Man City and they all scored at will against us. Things have to be kept tight for the first hour or so. Cresswell is the best option to do this. If the situation is right, a run out for Kitson could be very interesting in the last 30mins. Of course, we could all be wrong and Chelsea's tendency to implode every time there is a setpiece in their half could play to our advantage. Lets hope so! Ther's just no consistency in whar you write and the conclusions you're making. Let's start by looking at the three games you are mentioning: Bolton: Lost 1-3. Both Cresswell and Kitson started. Man City: Lost 0-3. Both came on as subs Blackburn:Lost 0-3. Cresswell started and played the whole match, Kitson didn't play at all How on earth can you say that we will get a better result by playing Cresswell instead of Kitson?!?! Cresswell has done nada - nil - nothing at all to stop the other teams "scoring at will" against us! How can he prevent us getting "murdered" again tomorrow? He was really useful against Blackburn, wasn't he? He REALLY spanked those boys from Ewood Park, did he? He singlehandedly annihilated Bolton? Man City was bulldozed to the ground when we brought good 'ol Cressie on? Thats some impressive research Gunslinger. I think we might be at slightly cross purposes here, because I wouldn't have Cresswell or Kitson anywhere near the team when everyone is available Difference tomorrow is the position thats giving us the problem. There is no one really suitable for the Mama position. I think Cresswell played on the left in the games you mentioned (if I'm wrong about that please correct me). I've not met a supporter who thinks there is much mileage in playing Cresswell there. Tomorrow is slightly different then because we need a partner for Beattie. I actually thought Beattie would play the Mama role and in that case, Kitson would be the only valid choice for the lone striker. However, Beattie is going to be the striker meaning that someone else is left to do the donkey work. Plan A only functions when the Mama player throws himself about for 90 minutes. Even if Kitson was on fire, this isn't his role. There are only two experienced players at the club left to play there tomorrow and one of them is Pericard!!. This is what I mean when I say there is no choice but to play Cresswell tomorrow once it has been established that Beattie is playing up top. We can speculate about 442, 433, 4111111 or even 901, but we all know it will be Plan A. Cresswell will run around for 90 mins, he will challenge for every ball, he will try to knock the ball on. He won't get any shots and won't get near the penalty area unless it is a setpiece. Without Mama we are in big trouble, just like last year when he went away.  |
|
