|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 19, 2009 15:51:34 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. Spot on, Jezza. Teams routinely get out-shot and out-possessioned pretty spectacularly at the big 4, regardless of the mindset they go in with (although it's pretty rare to see the kind of mindbending stats Chelsea had). The problems will come if, even with people like Etherington and Beattie now in the ranks, we don't see a revised approach in our remaining away games. It hasn't been worth us turning up to some away games this season. |
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Jan 19, 2009 15:53:01 GMT
You have a point about the wigan game, but not saturday just gone.
Personally I think if Higginbotham hadn't been injured then we would have won - we were being murdered down the right by the end, and I think higgy would have coped better than griffin did.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jan 19, 2009 15:57:03 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. Spot on, Jezza. Teams routinely get out-shot and out-possessioned pretty spectacularly at the big 4, regardless of the mindset they go in with (although it's pretty rare to see the kind of mindbending stats Chelsea had). The problems will come if, even with people like Etherington and Beattie now in the ranks, we don't see a revised approach in our remaining away games. It hasn't been worth us turning up to some away games this season. That's exactly right. The thing that really concerns me is that we seem to save our best performances for the big teams, when we're unlikely to get anything even if we do play well. We make really hard work of teams like Hull, Wigan and Fulham, when we should be looking at winning these games. |
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 19, 2009 15:57:57 GMT
yeh, I agree, saturdays tactics were spot on, and those tactics against a top 4 team away are the right way to go about it, unlike the liverpool game we did actually play some good football at times, and had one or two attacks, it's when we go to the wigans of this world and pack the defense is when to be concerned, so far, bar that 2nd half at Newcastle, we've been far to cautious, it so cautious it boarders on suicidal at times, Like grapey says, with the new additions hopefully we can go away from home to non top 4 sides and have a real go at them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stokie on Jan 19, 2009 16:08:35 GMT
I just cannot understand anyone who can honestly say that we didnt deserve 3 points from that game. Sorro was superb as were others but we went ahead at a club with one of the best home records in world football and had a clean sheet against them for 88mins despite losing one of best defenderes (Higgy) very early in the game. The 1st goal was the 1st time we didnt win the header in the box a day and the 2nd goal was just pure luck, the ball could have deflected off Ballack and went anywhere but unfortunately flew into the top corner.
Anyone who says we deserved to lose either didnt see the game, is an attention seeker or hasnt a clue about football
|
|
|
|
Post by dexter97 on Jan 19, 2009 16:25:50 GMT
Anyone who says we deserved to lose either didnt see the game, is an attention seeker or hasnt a clue about football I can think of a couple of posters who fulfill all three of those criteria! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by smirny72 on Jan 19, 2009 16:35:22 GMT
Personally I was proud of Stoke Saturday and right up until the 88th minute I thought we were taking away points. We defended well for most of the game. Would have liked to see Lawrence come on and maybe create some more chances. Think Cresswell is played out of positiion but dont think he is premiership tbh. Etherington and Beattie seem to fit in well and with their starts Im happy and think Pulis has signed 2 good players who will help keep us up. A lot of Chelsea attempts were wide and yes Sorrenson done his job and done it well. Gutted about the cruel way we lost but proud to be a Stoke Fan and let it be known on a train with mostly Chelsea fans. If that makes me a Pulis cheerleader then so be it but I aint wearing one of they short skirts  |
|
|
|
Post by programmeman77 on Jan 19, 2009 16:40:04 GMT
Chessy, What a great account of the match. Anyone who knows football can see Chelsea are a different class when it comes to football in comparison with the Potters but again and again we see Pulis and his 10 men and his dog behind the ball. We need to be realistic and say if Stoke are gonna stay in the premiership then Pulis has got to change his ways! Complete drivel these fans come out with - there happy with losing in the last minute because it was the mighty Chelsea! The same team that nearly went out to Southend because they had a real go! - me it breaks my fucking heart to lose and to lose in last minute is even worse. Yet some fans are fucking exstatic about losing 2 -1.
Fuck me when are people gonna realise time is running out! There in the relegation zone and yet fans are still happy! This year the premiership is shite - nothing between any team from the bottom to 8th place and it will be the managers who have got bollocks that keep their teams up. Unfortunatly that wont include TP and his band of merry men! Im just waiting for the happy Stokies with there crap replies now because they are happy with losing!!
Well said Chessy I agree 100%
|
|
|
|
Post by adamsson on Jan 19, 2009 16:43:10 GMT
Can anyone honestly say that if we had held on to win on Saturday we would have had a deserved win?
We were very lucky to keep a clean sheet until half time.
We were very lucky to score from our only shot on target.
We were very lucky to keep Chelsea out until the 87 min.
We were slightly unlucky to concede in the last minute of injury time.
However if we had scored against Liverpool it would have been a deserved win, and we were slightly unlucky we didn't!
The team CAN compete against top 4 sides but they have to try! We must defend higher up the pitch, we must learn to keep possession and we must at least TRY to win away from home!
|
|
|
|
Post by smirny72 on Jan 19, 2009 16:49:12 GMT
I dont think any fan is 'happy' about losing or relegation. Most are just saying they thought Stoke played well and deserved more. I am behind Pulis, yes he makes some decisions that seem odd to me but he also makes some good buys and he did help get us promotion. Its not over yet and I believe if we play like we did on Sat and with Lawrence and Fuller in the mix we will stay up and we can all moan next year when we have to play these teams all over again.  |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Jan 19, 2009 16:59:58 GMT
Chessy if you couldn't see the class that Chelsea had and how hard they found it to break us down then I would try watching another sport mate.
In the first game at the Brit they were at their most dangerous when we got a corner and sent men forward. I remember commenting at the time that Chelsea should given away more corners and they would probably have beaten us by a wider margin.
I don't think it would have been any different at their place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cityfullergoals on Jan 19, 2009 17:31:40 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
Spurs play a very direct game, relying on pace (Lennon and Defoe), and will probably stretch us more than Chelsea (who tend to play a probing, passing game, and waiting for the openings)
However, they are also vulnerable at the back, and concede goals with regularity.
Beattie will start for sure, and I think Fuller will be on the bench
Cresswell or Kitson, I dont really know to be honest. Cressie hasnt got the class, but certrainly makes up for it with his work rate (something needed more away from home than at the Brit)
Hopefully Diao will be fit, in which case I think he is certain to start, but cant see Lenny getting much of the action. Since Hartlepool, he hasnt set foot on the pitch ??? |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jan 19, 2009 17:49:30 GMT
I don't think it was anything to do with being unlucky but it was still galling to see us lose right at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by A-teen_six_T3 on Jan 19, 2009 17:52:08 GMT
If we lost 5 nil. (they ahd enought chances to make it 5 nil, then i wouldnt have been as gutted as i feel now. We were unlucky the way the result panned out, not the result!
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Jan 19, 2009 17:54:31 GMT
Talking of luck, how fucking lucky have the Braggies and West Scam been recently???
We could do with a bit of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Jan 19, 2009 17:55:58 GMT
The team CAN compete against top 4 sides but they have to try! We must defend higher up the pitch, we must learn to keep possession and we must at least TRY to win away from home! You cannot be for real. |
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Jan 19, 2009 18:50:36 GMT
I don't think we'll see a change in tactics, nor should we, IMHO. We need to be as tight as possible at the back and try and get something on the break or from set pieces. In Etherington, Beattie, a returning Fuller and (hopefully) Lawrence, we now have better tools to do this.
Another 6-7 points away from home would be a more than useful amount to the total and we're only one or two wins, or one win and a few draws, away from achieving that.
If we were to defend further up the pitch at Spuds, Defoe, Lennon and Bent would absolutely murder us with their pace.
I don't think we were unlucky to lose on Saturday, just a bit unfortunate for not quite being able to hold out for something having got to the 88th minute ahead. It was always likely that Chelsea would beat us, but it was a forkin good effort from the team all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 19, 2009 18:59:42 GMT
I think that's a fair way of looking at it.
Who would you play in the hole at Spurs bogus?
|
|
|
|
Post by alansuddick on Jan 19, 2009 19:02:45 GMT
i agree with the original post.forget the crap about 2nd best team in europe.chelsea at the minute arent in the top ten. we also play the same way no matter who we play,and when we do take it to the other team,ie man city,blackburn,we get stuffed.0-0 is best we can hope for,but its not good to watch its dire.
|
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Jan 19, 2009 19:10:51 GMT
I think that's a fair way of looking at it. Who would you play in the hole at Spurs bogus? If Fuller's attitude is right now, and I'll leave that to the Manager to judge, then I would go for Beattie as I am sure he is more than capable of playing this role and still offering a goal threat (he has a decent shot from distance for a start). If not, then I would probably still go for tricky dicky, in the continued absence of Sidibe. I don't think Kitson is athletic enough, or even fit enough, to play this role. And a point I missed from your questions, Paul. I don't see how Lawrence can possibly be "Match Fit" by the time the tottenham game comes around. Now for some food |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 19, 2009 19:23:23 GMT
If Fuller's attitude is right now, and I'll leave that to the Manager to judge, then I would go for Beattie as I am sure he is more than capable of playing this role and still offering a goal threat (he has a decent shot from distance for a start). If not, then I would probably still go for tricky dicky, in the continued absence of Sidibe. I don't think Kitson is athletic enough, or even fit enough, to play this role. Bogus I think it would be a mistake to play with a man in the hole at Spurs. I know why Pulis went with Cresswell at Chelsea and I understand his reasoning behind it, but I'm not sure it was the right decision. Cresswell ran his socks off and you simply cannot fault the shift that the lad put in, but to tell you the truth I don't think the withdrawn role he was playing in was particularly effective at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea came back at us so fast that his role became virtually redundant, we were (especially in the first half) almost immediately defending on the edge of our own box. I didn't really see him acting as the first line of defence at all. On the other hand, Beattie (who had a great debut) looked isolated at times, when we got the ball into Chelsea's final third. The one and only time he actually had somebody in support (Rory) to play the ball to, we scored! To be perfectly honest Kitson wouldn't have faired any better doing the same job, it just seemed that the role itself (IMHO) didn't work on Saturday. This against a team who do indeed like to pass it out from the back. Spurs on the other hand are much more direct, relying on pace as a big part of their game. If Saturday is anything to go by, then playing Cresswell in the same position would be even more a waste of a position. Tottenham don't have anything like the defensive capabilities of Chelsea and when we get the ball into the final third we need to maximise our opportunities. I don't see why we can't keep it just as tight as we did on Saturday using Etherington as the outlet, but actually having two strikers playing in a 4-4-2 to put Spurs under real pressure when we are the offensive. |
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Jan 19, 2009 20:18:46 GMT
If Fuller's attitude is right now, and I'll leave that to the Manager to judge, then I would go for Beattie as I am sure he is more than capable of playing this role and still offering a goal threat (he has a decent shot from distance for a start). If not, then I would probably still go for tricky dicky, in the continued absence of Sidibe. I don't think Kitson is athletic enough, or even fit enough, to play this role. Bogus I think it would be a mistake to play with a man in the hole at Spurs. I know why Pulis went with Cresswell at Chelsea and I understand his reasoning behind it, but I'm not sure it was the right decision. Cresswell ran his socks off and you simply cannot fault the shift that the lad put in, but to tell you the truth I don't think the withdrawn role he was playing in was particularly effective at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea came back at us so fast that his role became virtually redundant, we were (especially in the first half) almost immediately defending on the edge of our own box. I didn't really see him acting as the first line of defence at all. On the other hand, Beattie (who had a great debut) looked isolated at times, when we got the ball into Chelsea's final third. The one and only time he actually had somebody in support (Rory) to play the ball to, we scored! To be perfectly honest Kitson wouldn't have faired any better doing the same job, it just seemed that the role itself (IMHO) didn't work on Saturday. This against a team who do indeed like to pass it out from the back. Spurs on the other hand are much more direct, relying on pace as a big part of their game. If Saturday is anything to go by, then playing Cresswell in the same position would be even more a waste of a position. Tottenham don't have anything like the defensive capabilities of Chelsea and when we get the ball into the final third we need to maximise our opportunities. I don't see why we can't keep it just as tight as we did on Saturday using Etherington as the outlet, but actually having two strikers playing in a 4-4-2 to put Spurs under real pressure when we are the offensive. Paul, I just think the man in the whole is essential to the way we play. With two deep sitting central midfielders, along with two wide players who are expected to bomb on and support where possible, but also expected to provide full back cover, he not only provides the link and flick ons for the man up top, but is also supposed to hold the ball and bring the two wide players into play, giving them far more chance to make up the ground and join in. Without this, I really think our front two would be totally isolated and we really would be in the realms of extreme Hoof. At least that is my understanding/take of things. For the record, I've never been the biggest fan of the manager's system, we'd all like to see "the beatiful game", wouldn't we? But I've tried to understand what exactly he is trying to achieve by his methods. He's been quite successful for us so far and, this year in particular, when we are obviously going to struggle, I think he is probably quite right to take this approach to games and he has my full support. The hope for me will be that better players will eventually provide better football, which is something I've heard him mention quite often in the past, particularly in reference to his mate 'Arry. |
|
|
|
Post by Cityfullergoals on Jan 19, 2009 20:21:23 GMT
If Fuller's attitude is right now, and I'll leave that to the Manager to judge, then I would go for Beattie as I am sure he is more than capable of playing this role and still offering a goal threat (he has a decent shot from distance for a start). If not, then I would probably still go for tricky dicky, in the continued absence of Sidibe. I don't think Kitson is athletic enough, or even fit enough, to play this role. Bogus I think it would be a mistake to play with a man in the hole at Spurs. I know why Pulis went with Cresswell at Chelsea and I understand his reasoning behind it, but I'm not sure it was the right decision. Cresswell ran his socks off and you simply cannot fault the shift that the lad put in, but to tell you the truth I don't think the withdrawn role he was playing in was particularly effective at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea came back at us so fast that his role became virtually redundant, we were (especially in the first half) almost immediately defending on the edge of our own box. I didn't really see him acting as the first line of defence at all. On the other hand, Beattie (who had a great debut) looked isolated at times, when we got the ball into Chelsea's final third. The one and only time he actually had somebody in support (Rory) to play the ball to, we scored! To be perfectly honest Kitson wouldn't have faired any better doing the same job, it just seemed that the role itself (IMHO) didn't work on Saturday. This against a team who do indeed like to pass it out from the back. Spurs on the other hand are much more direct, relying on pace as a big part of their game. If Saturday is anything to go by, then playing Cresswell in the same position would be even more a waste of a position. Tottenham don't have anything like the defensive capabilities of Chelsea and when we get the ball into the final third we need to maximise our opportunities. I don't see why we can't keep it just as tight as we did on Saturday using Etherington as the outlet, but actually having two strikers playing in a 4-4-2 to put Spurs under real pressure when we are the offensive.
Spurs are a side I think we can get at, and the first goal will be vital
If we can silence the Lane, they will be on the players backs - they have scored once in five home games (yesterday), but are a side capable of winning four or five if on song.
Very crucial game, and I would take a point now, but think we are capable of winning it, especially as Ledley King is likely to be out injured |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 19, 2009 20:31:00 GMT
I take on board your point bogus.
However I actually don't think (as much as we would like him to) that Cresswell is able to play this role successfully, and the position becomes redundant when he is asked to.
I don't know if Beattie can play this role any better than Dave Kitson, but in the current absence of Mama, I'm not entirely sure that we actually are playing to the strengths of the players available to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by buxtop on Jan 19, 2009 20:39:01 GMT
|
|
