|
Post by nathan on Sept 3, 2009 14:55:21 GMT
It aint always hoof-ball as many many people make it out to be because we can mix it up too and when we do then we play some decent on the ground football with plenty of pace and power. Now to be able to do that in relation to mixing it up then it really is an artform and should be admired and not just simply slagged of at every opportunity. Keep it as it is because not only is it damned well effective but it's entertaining to watch too. Same as Pulis once said 'teams think we're just long ball merchants but that allows us to play it into spaces' or words to that effect. Simply hoofball?........Is it bollocks. No it's not bollocks. Our football is effective but for me it's generally fucking awful to watch apart from the odd bit of magic from the likes of Fuller, Beattie, Lawrence etc. How anybody, apart from the 3 point monkeys, can say that our game is entertaining to watch is beyond me. We still rely on set pieces for a massive majority of our chances and rarely create many open scoring opportunities from open play - and that's just as true for our home tactics as it is away. Tuncay is a fantastic signing but unless Pulis introduces additional openess to our style he could be a complete waste. Why can't some of you just admit that you're doing your best to love an ugly baby? If every team played like Stoke no fucker would watch football. Artform my arse! Bob on. Tazi, me no understand ze point you is makin
|
|
|
Post by DannyStokie on Sept 3, 2009 15:33:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onebollockbarry on Sept 3, 2009 15:59:45 GMT
Hoofball comes from the days when Mamma was playing because we forgot how to pass and lump it up to his head.
Rest of the team members realised on the floor is equally good except Higgy and Wilko who still hit and hope.
All in all we're getting there
|
|
|
Post by headsgoup on Sept 3, 2009 16:22:40 GMT
We still play percentage football where we need Mama to win the ball. It's a bit difficult to do that as he's currently injured, so Kitson or Beattie do Fuller's dirty work for him. It's still hoofball and frankly we play decent football despite Pulis, rather than because of him. The fact that he's signed Tuncay and Arismendi (I was hopeful of a winger who can actually beat a player as well, perhaps I'm being greedy), leads me to hope that our passing will be more accurate and measured, thereby giving the forwards a better chance of scoring. I want to believe he can change, but substituting Kitson for Huth against Sunderland when we were just about to take a CORNER erodes my hope rather rapidly. The substitution was correct, the timing was pathetic. Why do I get the feeling that you're not very happy? To be honest what's wrong with bringing 6' 3" Huth on for a corner? ???
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 3, 2009 21:50:03 GMT
It aint always hoof-ball as many many people make it out to be because we can mix it up too and when we do then we play some decent on the ground football with plenty of pace and power. Now to be able to do that in relation to mixing it up then it really is an artform and should be admired and not just simply slagged of at every opportunity. Keep it as it is because not only is it damned well effective but it's entertaining to watch too. Same as Pulis once said 'teams think we're just long ball merchants but that allows us to play it into spaces' or words to that effect. Simply hoofball?........Is it bollocks. No it's not bollocks. Our football is effective but for me it's generally fucking awful to watch apart from the odd bit of magic from the likes of Fuller, Beattie, Lawrence etc. How anybody, apart from the 3 point monkeys, can say that our game is entertaining to watch is beyond me. We still rely on set pieces for a massive majority of our chances and rarely create many open scoring opportunities from open play - and that's just as true for our home tactics as it is away. Tuncay is a fantastic signing but unless Pulis introduces additional openess to our style he could be a complete waste. Why can't some of you just admit that you're doing your best to love an ugly baby? If every team played like Stoke no fucker would watch football. Artform my arse! The firs tpart of that post is absolute nonsense. You're telling me that you'd rather we played that boring shit that Zola peddles at West Ham? Tip-tap, too terrified to leave their own half, would rather just kill time with the ball on the halfway line. I'd rather see Stoke getting the ball forward at every opportunity, thanks. Much more entertaining. Also more entertaining is our physical style of play. I don't pay my money to see some mediocre tarts like Middlesbrough last season play pseudo-football while taking every opportunity to fall over, have a lie down or have a bit of an argument with the ref. As I've said before, I'd much rather have watched our game against Sunderland last week, which was played in the spirit of the game, than any of the other games that weekend, which were sullied by the attitude of the teams.
|
|
|
Post by MrMagic on Sept 3, 2009 21:57:51 GMT
We're getting better. If at some point somebody can teach Wilkinson to pass the ball we stand a chance, but seeing as it appears Collins will play LB and the Sunderland fans made up some ironic song about him being Brazillian, i'm guessin ghe isn't Ashley Cole either.I'd rather watch us every week though than some Albion/West Ham hybrid, where they think bonus points are given for pissing around with the ball. If you read the "new signings" post over the last week, irony is lost on a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Sept 3, 2009 22:40:01 GMT
We still play percentage football where we need Mama to win the ball. It's a bit difficult to do that as he's currently injured, so Kitson or Beattie do Fuller's dirty work for him. It's still hoofball and frankly we play decent football despite Pulis, rather than because of him. The fact that he's signed Tuncay and Arismendi (I was hopeful of a winger who can actually beat a player as well, perhaps I'm being greedy), leads me to hope that our passing will be more accurate and measured, thereby giving the forwards a better chance of scoring. I want to believe he can change, but substituting Kitson for Huth against Sunderland when we were just about to take a CORNER erodes my hope rather rapidly. The substitution was correct, the timing was pathetic. Why do I get the feeling that you're not very happy? To be honest what's wrong with bringing 6' 3" Huth on for a corner? ??? Did you actually go to the game? He bought Huth on with 5 minutes to go, taking off the scorer who was having a decent game and winning lots of the ball in the air, at OUR CORNER and played Huth on the half way line, sending NO ONE up to replace Kitson in the area. I understand the logic of the substitution, but the timing showed just how timid he is as a manager. It spoiled an otherwise good day. We weren't perfect, but we did just about deserve the win. Now please think before you comment in future.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 3, 2009 22:45:12 GMT
Why do I get the feeling that you're not very happy? To be honest what's wrong with bringing 6' 3" Huth on for a corner? ??? Did you actually go to the game? He bought Huth on with 5 minutes to go, taking off the scorer who was having a decent game and winning lots of the ball in the air, at OUR CORNER and played Huth on the half way line, sending NO ONE up to replace Kitson in the area. I understand the logic of the substitution, but the timing showed just how timid he is as a manager. It spoiled an otherwise good day. We weren't perfect, but we did just about deserve the win. Now please think before you comment in future. Let's be honest, Kitson was winning a lot in the air, but Sunderland have some very fast forwards and Richardson was speeding around all over the place, it was probably the sensible thing to do. I suppose there was no harm in delaying it until the opportunity from the corner was gone though. After all, you wouldn't make the substitution when defending the corner. Had we been savvy, we could have cheated like Chelsea did when we played them at Stamford Bridge. We could have let Kitson walk off the far side of the pitch and walk around to the dugout, allowing Huth to run into the box completely unmarked. How the referee let one of the simplest laws of the game slide to allow that, I'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Sept 3, 2009 22:52:13 GMT
MD - not sure how that broke the laws of the game. As long as the referee has given permission for one player to leave the pitch and another to enter in his place, and as long as there are not more than 11 players per side on the pitch, then it's perfectly legal.
It might not be within the spirit of the laws, but it didn't actually constitute breaking any.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 3, 2009 23:00:25 GMT
I was under the impression that they are supposed to go directly across the pitch to the bench and cross places with the player coming on. They had a corner and their player was on the far side of the pitch, marked by I think Higginbotham. He walks straight off the pitch on the far side, leaving Higginbotham standing on his own while the player who came on (Belletti?) was free to run straight into the box. If I remember rightly, Belletti then won his header in the box with Higginbotham lagging behind.
Whether it directly convenes the law of the game would be a matter for any referees on here, but I would say that it definitely goes against the spirit of the game. Still, I think events today have shown that Chelsea aren't really above any tricks.
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Sept 3, 2009 23:14:11 GMT
I think the "directly to the bench" aspect has been bought in over the years at international events, probably in the interests of player safety, but it's still not a law of the game. Maybe it should be (unless due to injury). I'll vote for it if you do .... . and yes, Chelsea appear to have tarnished their shiny, Kings Road suits somewhat. I do suspect though, that the only difference between them and other "big players" is that they've been caught. I'd still like an explanation as to why Man U and Liverpool haven't been bought to account over the Tevez/Mascherano fiasco.
|
|
|
Post by mumf14 on Sept 3, 2009 23:29:01 GMT
'HOOFBALL' was a word coined by HUDSONGOD in arguments with me.
Whether he is the inventor of it , I wouldn't like to say.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 4, 2009 10:07:30 GMT
I think the "directly to the bench" aspect has been bought in over the years at international events, probably in the interests of player safety, but it's still not a law of the game. Maybe it should be (unless due to injury). I'll vote for it if you do .... . and yes, Chelsea appear to have tarnished their shiny, Kings Road suits somewhat. I do suspect though, that the only difference between them and other "big players" is that they've been caught. I'd still like an explanation as to why Man you and Liverpool haven't been bought to account over the Tevez/Mascherano fiasco. I think Liverpool were in the clear because when they bought him, they bought out his third party contract so that he was no longer owned by that group. I think the problem for West Ham was that Third Party arrangements are not allowed. The difference with Tevez was that he was loaned by Manchester United from this Joorbachian bloke, meaning that he was still owned by a third party. How or why they got away with it, and there was almost certainly some funny business going on in that game against West Ham on the last day of the season that kept West Ham up, is a question for the FA.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Sept 4, 2009 11:10:50 GMT
Give me in your face up and at e'm football any day of the week as opposed to tippy tappy shite that some teams play. It's our style and it's great to watch these masquerading footballing stars/wimps coming unstuck.
Fuck e'm.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2009 11:16:51 GMT
Give me in your face up and at e'm football any day of the week as opposed to tippy tappy shite that some teams play. It's our style and it's great to watch these masquerading footballing stars/wimps coming unstuck. Fuck e'm. Just admit it - when we were halfway up the Championship and playing the same style there were no end of folk on here, probably including yourself, that described our style as long ball defensive shite. Almost every game was 90 minutes of utter unentertaining dross. Now the same long ball defensive shite has seen us promoted to the Premier and kept us up it's suddenly described as being 'up and at 'em', 'honest hard working' or 'direct and exciting'. Your view of what's entertaining is based purely on whether we gain 3 points or not.
|
|
|
Post by ParaPsych on Sept 4, 2009 11:33:14 GMT
Squareball, obviously 3 points help things appear more entertaining, but I personally think Pulis football turned entertaining when we signed Fuller. He can make the style of play a joy to watch at times mainly because when he gets it the crowd get excited because anything can happen.
Without him it would be pretty boring I reckon, but I guess it would also still be in the Chamionship with less wins, so maybe your point still stands.
I guess the excitement generated by a Delap throw helps too.
Hopefully Tuncay can make us more entertaining too?
Edit: I suppose that's the difference between then and now, the players. We didn't have a genius like Fuller up front. We didn't have the long throw. We had Dave Brammer taking corners and free kicks, not Liam Lawrence. We didn't have the likes of Shawcross to head the set pieces in. The better quality players have made it more entertaining for me because I now usually think we'll score. I even enjoyed the draw at Birmingham a bit because I thought we looked like we might score at least. In many of those dull dull games in the past we just never did look like it. Hope = entertainment?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2009 11:40:15 GMT
Totally agree about Fuller. I despair when fans want him dropped or to come on as an influential sub. We look toothless without him.
Tuncay could be signing that changes the way we play and I hope that at some point in the near future Pulis will be brave enough to drop Delap and bring in additional attack minder midfielders.
|
|
|
Post by thepremierbanksy on Sept 4, 2009 11:57:38 GMT
Give me in your face up and at e'm football any day of the week as opposed to tippy tappy shite that some teams play. It's our style and it's great to watch these masquerading footballing stars/wimps coming unstuck. Fuck e'm. Just admit it - when we were halfway up the Championship and playing the same style there were no end of folk on here, probably including yourself, that described our style as long ball defensive shite. Almost every game was 90 minutes of utter unentertaining dross. Now the same long ball defensive shite has seen us promoted to the Premier and kept us up it's suddenly described as being 'up and at 'em', 'honest hard working' or 'direct and exciting'. Your view of what's entertaining is based purely on whether we gain 3 points or not. It's more enjoyable to watch our system work like a well oiled machine than it was when we more of a spluttering old banger chugging along. SHOCKER Do you think that only applies to hoofball though? Did you find watching last season's WBA as entertaining as watching Arsenal?
|
|
|
Post by The Red and White Baron on Sept 4, 2009 12:35:22 GMT
Why does it matter what style of play we use when it workes and keeps us up in the Premier League? Look at West Brom, they tried to play open football and got murdered almost every week but with an occasional 3-0 win when they played a team on an off day. We should be grateful we're in the Prem in the 1st place rather than debating if we should change it.
And for the record I do agree that there is more to Stoke than simple Hoofball, why else would we finish 12th if we used such simplistic tactics?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2009 13:29:54 GMT
I have noticed that it is the fullbacks that kick long down the touchline (not the CBs so much). My assumption was always that we were playing for throws and free kicks further up field.
If you look at our match stats, we never have much more than 35% possession in a game but we do better in terms of territory. Hoofball is not really fair because it sounds so random. We are getting the ball into areas of the field where we can produce set-plays and we are doing it in a way (ie high ball with competition to win possession of the pass) that can give us throws and free kicks in the opposing half, which is where we get the majority of our goals.
Hoofball is a clumsy name for a valid tactic, not a valid name for a clumsy tactic.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 4, 2009 13:31:55 GMT
Totally agree about Fuller. I despair when fans want him dropped or to come on as an influential sub. We look toothless without him. Tuncay could be signing that changes the way we play and I hope that at some point in the near future Pulis will be brave enough to drop Delap and bring in additional attack minder midfielders. Yep, let's hope Pulis drops our best and only creative central midfielder sometime soon. Let's face it, the only reason you want rid of him is that he epitomises the nasty long ball style that uses set pieces to score goals, so you're quite happy to sit in the media fuelled 'Delap is the worst footballer in the country and is only in the team for his long throws' camp. Again, I'll put this one to you: Would you rather watch that boring shit that West Ham play? It's boring, I'm much happier watching Stoke and I was genuinely entertained by our games against Burnley, Birmingham and Sunderland this season.
|
|
|
Post by gibby1409 on Sept 4, 2009 14:18:29 GMT
There is always a balance between "Hoofing" it, and playing through the midfield. We are evolving, there is no doubt about that, and we play more football than we are given credit for, but there are times, when playing it long is the right ball.
Chelsea under Mouriniho were the finished article in terms of a direct Team who could play as well. They certainly wouldn't play 50 passes to make 10 yards like Arsenal.
Manure mix it up too, much as it grieves me to say! It's all about getting the balance right, and we are certainly moving in the right direction.
I remember the Butler Street paddock slating some of the Players in our side from the 70's for "Fannying" about with it! I guess that's the other extreme, and we all want it both ways!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2009 14:44:56 GMT
'Again, I'll put this one to you: Would you rather watch that boring shit that West Ham play?'
Yes - I would.
'I was genuinely entertained by our games against Burnley, Birmingham and Sunderland this season.'
But a 4-0 defeat to Liverpool wasn't entertaining? Many reports on the Burnley and Brum games describe them as scrappy and dour but maybe the simple fact that these results earned points affected your judgement?
Maybe my '3 point monkey' theory is correct after all?
|
|
|
Post by smapples on Sept 4, 2009 15:38:42 GMT
Anyone mentioned the "Huth Ball" yet?
If not, consider it mine.
xxx
|
|