|
Post by SneydGreenStokie on Jan 18, 2009 22:43:47 GMT
For the majority of the game, our defending beat their attacking. Try telling the tit that started this thread that SGS
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Jan 18, 2009 22:51:40 GMT
I went yesterday and to be honest the gap was no where near what it should have been.
Stoke were brilliant and deserved the win.
Our supporters were fucking head and shoulders above theirs and I am proud of what we did.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2009 23:00:08 GMT
Pugsley it is no shock to me that you agree with the original poster because your anti Pulis views are no shock to anyone on this board and after watching every game this season apart from Cheltenham i think i am quite entitled to my opinion and it should be so called FANS like yourself that should look in the mirror pal.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 18, 2009 23:12:14 GMT
Pugsley it is no shock to me that you agree with the original poster because your anti Pulis views are no shock to anyone on this board and after watching every game this season apart from Cheltenham i think i am quite entitled to my opinion and it should be so called FANS like yourself that should look in the mirror pal. Course you are entitled to an opinion. On this thread you haven't offered one, all you have done is say to the original poster he hasn't a clue. All because you don't agree with what he has said. If you have been to all these matches you would have seen that what he is saying has a ring of truth - we can't pass and keep the ball. If you can't see this then it's pretty obvious who doesn't have a clue.
|
|
ibeech
Academy Starlet
CITY TILL I DIE
Posts: 248
|
Post by ibeech on Jan 18, 2009 23:25:07 GMT
At the end of the day, at the beginning of this month, i thought we'd be lucky with one point (many city). We already had that, and we almost got SOMETHING from that game- i have no complaints. It was worth the cash just for rory's goal though
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Jan 18, 2009 23:27:06 GMT
Pugsley there are the signs that we are starting to get a grip of the problem that you quite rightly highlight. Etherington is a classic example. He is comfortable on the ball and gives us valuable breathing space.
But dont be so critical as this is a transition. as we get better players we will improve.
But dont diss the performance yesterday. They played well and deserved a win. We were that close.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 18, 2009 23:29:57 GMT
Pugsley there are the signs that we are starting to get a grip of the problem that you quite rightly highlight. Etherington is a classic example. He is comfortable on the ball and gives us valuable breathing space. But dont be so critical as this is a transition. as we get better players we will improve. But dont diss the performance yesterday. They played well and deserved a win. We were that close. Can't recall dissing it at all. We deserved something from the game, no doubt. You say we there are signs - fair do's, but with the inevitable return of Sidibe I can't see things changing. We desperately need an away win - it would do wonders for the team.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2009 23:31:36 GMT
I said the original poster hadnt got a clue because of his/her opinion of yesterdays game,how many teams go to Chelsea with an open exspansive game plan?hardly any and especially teams in our position.We had ago at Blackburn and Man City and got hammered and yesterday we were so close to pulling off a fantastic victory so how can the tactics be questioned ?Home form will determine whether or not we stay up and so far it hasnt been to bad although knowing your negative spin on anything Pulis thats probably not satisfactory to you either.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 18, 2009 23:36:47 GMT
The tactics must be questionable - we're second from bottom, second worst GD, haven't won a match away from home all season.
I'll also chuck in £30million spent on players.
|
|
|
Post by ChesterStokie on Jan 18, 2009 23:40:25 GMT
Believe me I am totally gutted with the result and I honestly thought we were going to ride our luck and hold out for an historic win. But the harsh reality is I have to agree with most of what cye is saying there. It is laughable for some to suggest we were unlucky to lose or deserved to win a match where the opposition had 42 goal attempts and we had 4. I'm not sure the heart of the problem is that the full backs can't pass, its the way Pulis sets us up to play the central midfield players are just not primed to look for the ball and do the simple pass and move and keep possession. The whole game plan away from home is based on what we do when we haven't got the ball. For me we haven't got a decent game plan for what we do when we have got it. To be fair I can excuse Pulis for the way we've played at Liverpool, Man Utd and Chelsea. My big fear is that we'll be playing exactly the same way at Sunderland, West Brom, Fulham and Hull.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2009 23:40:28 GMT
So what did you expect this season then Top six?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 18, 2009 23:44:28 GMT
So what did you expect this season then Top six? I expected (and still do) us to stay up. I know it's not the right thing as far as Tony Pulis is concerned, but some fans DO have expectations of the team. ChesterStokie - bang on the money.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2009 23:49:00 GMT
We all should have expectations of the team but a dose of realism wouldnt go amiss.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Jan 18, 2009 23:51:18 GMT
What's so unrealistic about us staying up? You talk about realism - you should open your eyes and try and see why we are in the bottom two and how the fuck can we get out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2009 23:58:27 GMT
I never said we wont stay up,as i said earlier i think our home form will carry us through but the realism comment was about how well imho we have done up to now considering every bookie has us odds on to go down now and at the start of the season.
|
|
|
Post by swampySCFC on Jan 19, 2009 0:00:52 GMT
Believe me I am totally gutted with the result and I honestly thought we were going to ride our luck and hold out for an historic win. But the harsh reality is I have to agree with most of what cye is saying there. It is laughable for some to suggest we were unlucky to lose or deserved to win a match where the opposition had 42 goal attempts and we had 4. I'm not sure the heart of the problem is that the full backs can't pass, its the way Pulis sets us up to play the central midfield players are just not primed to look for the ball and do the simple pass and move and keep possession. The whole game plan away from home is based on what we do when we haven't got the ball. For me we haven't got a decent game plan for what we do when we have got it. To be fair I can excuse Pulis for the way we've played at Liverpool, Man Utd and Chelsea. My big fear is that we'll be playing exactly the same way at Sunderland, West Brom, Fulham and Hull. Thats a real fucking joke. Whilst we've been fucking about with Plymouth, Barnsley Wycombe and Blackpool we've seen Liverpool, Chelsea, Manure etc winning cup after cup and beating Europes best teams. And suddenly we are supposed to be beating them. Beating them we are not but challenging them we are. we were fucking unlucky yesterday so give them some credit FFS
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jan 19, 2009 0:17:57 GMT
It could be argued we deserved 6 points from our last two games however on reflection 2 points might have been fairer (if you're going on Stats then what we got - one - is probably fairer still but football isn't about stats) The main thing too take from the last two games is how we've played and if we play like that from now till the end of the season we'll be safe by a long way. A bit of luck along the way wouldn't go a miss either though
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 19, 2009 0:52:30 GMT
All those people that have criticised the original poster on this thread and believe that Pulis had no alternative but to approach the Chelsea game in the manner that he did, would you mind discussing the following questions:
Do you think that Pulis should be more adventurous at White Hart Lane or should he line us up in pretty much the same way that he did at Stamford Bridge?
Should he play 4-4-1-1 again or start with a 4-4-2?
Should he start with Cresswell again to protect the midfield, bringing Fuller on as an impact sub later in the game?
Or should he start with Beattie and Fuller?
Should he start with both Etherington AND Lawrence if Lenny is completely match fit?
I would be genuinely interested to hear you views.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by The Occasional Man on Jan 19, 2009 2:49:56 GMT
Lets just get this they had 42 shots thing straight.
The fact is only about 4 or maybe 5 of them caused anything more than a routine gathering of the ball by Sorensen. They had an untold amount of hit and hopes from 20+ yards out all going high, wide and handsome.
So let just get some reality here. The reality is we SHOULD have held on BUT the 1st goal was very bad defending not only did Shawcross and Griff both lose out (got in each other way?) on the header back across the box but Whelan left Colletti have a free run to head the goal totally unchallenged.
If we hadn't of conceded that goal I am certain we would have won as after that goal we just panicked and they threw everyone forward knowing it.
I fully expect us to beat Spurs and I think Beattie and Fuller will be used - as down as everyone is the reality of the league is couple of wins as the table stands and we'll climb up the table.
All I hope is TP recognises following the Chelsea game that Danny Pugh can do a far better job in the centre of midfield than any one else we currently have the club! Hopefully Diao will be fit and we'll start with a midfield of:
Etherington Diao Pugh Delap
Lawrence is going to be several games before fully fit and when he is I think unfortunately Pugh will be dropped Delap will be in the centre and Lawrence on the right. I wouldn't be fully surprised if this midfield doesn't make an appearance in the Spurs game. TP sometimes has these rushes of blood and throws someone who isn't fully fit in from the start!
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Jan 19, 2009 4:33:19 GMT
42 v 4 may give the wrong impression but Chelsea had numerous gilt edged chances. Compare this with the Liverpool game where they (Liverpool) were generally restricted to long range shots. Chelsea got behind us so many times on Saturday. Their movement was much better than Liverpool's at Anfield. We are not the best defensively (despite TP's alleged reputation). We can all admire the effort and backs to the wall attitude but to say that we defended well is equally as misleading as the 42 v 4 figure. I am immensely proud of their efforts on Saturday and am confident that we can stay up. However, I do not think we will stay up on effort alone. It has allowed us to remain in contention at this stage but we need to step up now. I am firmly of the belief that TP needs to change his tactics away from home if we are to survive. It does not have to be anything too drastic - an emphasis on maintaining possession is one such small change & a willingness to get men forward to support the forwards is another.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jan 19, 2009 7:42:34 GMT
All those people that have criticised the original poster on this thread and believe that Pulis had no alternative but to approach the Chelsea game in the manner that he did, would you mind discussing the following questions:Not at all, Paul. Do you think that Pulis should be more adventurous at White Hart Lane or should he line us up in pretty much the same way that he did at Stamford Bridge?I think he should be more adventurous but I very much doubt he will. Should he play 4-4-1-1 again or start with a 4-4-2?He will start 4-4-1-1. It's what he does. His tried and trusted method. Should he start with Cresswell again to protect the midfield, bringing Fuller on as an impact sub later in the game?He will start with Cresswell. He will bring on Ric as an impact sub later in the game. Or should he start with Beattie and Fuller?Yes he should, but he won't. Should he start with both Etherington AND Lawrence if Lenny is completely match fit?Yes he should, but he won't. I would be genuinely interested to hear you views.Not a problem mate. BTW, you have a PM. Mick.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 19, 2009 7:58:31 GMT
Pulis is bringing better players to the club IMHO. Yes, some of the players brought in haven't worked out but we have seen many good acquisitions that will help.
The most pleasing aspect of the season is that we are competitive and that we can give any team a game in this division at home. With only 1 'Big 4' away game left, and plenty of winnable home games (none will be easy) then we have given ourselves a chance.
I don't buy this 'negative' tactic at all - any team worth their salt would play behind the ball when playing a better team away from home - anything else is suicide. What is bizarre is that in numerous away games we have committed players forward at the wrong times.
In just 20 or so games, I think the squad has come along way.
I thought there was a chance that we could be some way behind after this run of tough games but we are still within touching distance.
It is far from over.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jan 19, 2009 14:23:13 GMT
Merk, you have a PM.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by fromafar07 on Jan 19, 2009 14:38:53 GMT
dont agree !!! Sorenson didnt "save our skin again and again" he did his job, and he did it very well !! Last time i checked, he is being paid by Stoke City Football Club to be their goalkeeper, in other words, to stop the ball from going into the net when kicked or headed by the opposong team !!! However, i must agree with the sitting back part. i dont agree with it, if that is TP's intention, why not put on 2 more defenders and take the 2 forwards off the pitch ?? I think an inkling of attack by Stoke would have at least kept Chelsea (and other teams) somewhat on their heels for fear of conceding another goal !!
|
|
|
Post by knowles on Jan 19, 2009 14:43:44 GMT
chessyorkshirexile- I can't believe you've wasted ten minutes of your life writing that.
As mentioned, what do you think Sorensen's job is? Leave the ball? We got lucky at Anfield when, on another day, Liverpool would have scored a bagful but that's what football is about.
If we went and pressed for a second goal (which we could have scored anyway) then we would have been so exposed at the back that Chelsea would have murdered us.
In reality, we shouldn't even be anywhere near competing with Chelsea. The fact that we held the lead for almost half an hour is remarkable and testament to the side that Tony has built.
Unlucky Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Rottweiler on Jan 19, 2009 14:53:42 GMT
I understand what you're saying Chessy and I agree. Some folk here will be happy if we're playing in League One in a few seasons as long as we've done it "the Stoke way" and any observations about how important it is to try to win games will be lost in a mire of "fuck off you complaining wanker" type bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by goodjobson on Jan 19, 2009 15:03:07 GMT
Chessy I agree with you.
It doesn't matter who we were playing and its short sighted to knock a constructive post like this. There is no doom and gloom just facts.
We sat too deep for too long and without doubt with a different style we could have opened out a little and even if they equalised we could have stood on the ball by the corner flag it their half like most do to kill a game off.
We haven't got that option because we just sit deep sit deep sit deep.
Unless there is a plan B when we take the lead or if we are infront like Saturday with minutes left, we will always concede late goals in this league and probably won't win a game away all season.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jan 19, 2009 15:15:05 GMT
OS Seen it mate. I'm sure I will get a pass to attend...I might even bring her along
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Jan 19, 2009 15:39:09 GMT
Chessy, sort of the right sentiment, but the wrong week to roll it out, I think.
Our away form is dire, and if it stays the same and we do not change how we play away from home, it could well lead to us going down. However, I do not think it is in the games away at the top 4 that we need to change tactics, as the gulf in class is there for all to see and is to be expected this season as a newly promoted team. Most of us expected, hand on hearts, four defeats from these games before the season began, with any points a bonus, and to have to play backs to the wall football.
What we do need to change is the way we play at the lower table teams. We simply have to get 2/3 away wins to give us a good chance of staying up. If we approach the games at Spurs, Sunderland, WBA, Fulham and Hull as we have done all other away games so far this season, I fear the worst.
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on Jan 19, 2009 15:47:13 GMT
I'm not saying that we deserved to win, but neither did Chelsea.
Saved by Sorrenson? Of course. He is one of our team, isn't he, and I'm proud of him ?
They fired many wide, so we were lucky? No they were hopelessly off song and off target. Their problem.
We lost because of defensive errors, ultimately commited by very tired, heroic players, as did Bolton, at the week-end. That doesn't make the opposition good.
When Man Utd amd West Ham Utd beat us recently, we deserved not to win, because Wilko and Fuller were fools. But that surely was the opposition's luck and I merely want some of it!
WHU won yesterday because of two absolute - and out of character - pearlers, by Fulham, not by their being a good team. I want some of that, too. We aint had much, to date and that is inarguable.
Does this make sense?
|
|