|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 30, 2014 11:27:57 GMT
It's great to reward a decent performance, but what does he do on Saturday? Is Muni in possession of the shirt now? (Assuming it was a number 3 left back shirt, which still belongs to Micky Pejic!)
On a slightly different note, at this moment in time I still can't get by with "Sparky". Nothing to do with the man who is doing a brilliant job, just the nickname. It's just a little bit too Manchester United for me. Minor point, and it's not a problem for other people to give him his traditional moniker, but somehow it sticks in my throat and doesn't come easily to me.
Maybe I'll come round to it over time, but at the moment for me he is Hughesy.
Is it just me or does anybody else have a similar problem?
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 24, 2014 15:54:21 GMT
Same team as Saturday for me. Maybe Muniesa for Pieters at a push. Think I'm with you, Chief. No need to make wholesale changes to a winning team.
Ireland still short of fitness, Arnie's not quite right yet and Ossie looks better off the bench to me.
He might reward Muni and the only other debate is the 3rd midfielder. Charlie for me - we've struggled to threaten at home without him.
Both Crouch and Diouf have to start.
Just hope they fly out of the traps. If we can score first, we're going to hammer one of these teams that has to open up a bit and come out.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 24, 2014 15:32:48 GMT
Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea are still in it too. I wouldn't back against one of the big clubs winning it.
Looking at that list of the last 5 years, Man Utd, Liverpool and Man City have all won it, and Arsenal blew it in the final.
Unfortunately, romance in football is all but dead.
Still, not sure too many will want to draw us out of the hat.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 24, 2014 15:27:08 GMT
Steve Bould was a bit of a liability at right back, but became a top class centre half, and from a similar era, Carl Saunders was converted from a right back (?) to a striker who went on an incredible scoring run.
Like the Ray Kennedy example, I saw Mark Lawrenson play left wing for Brighton at the Vic, and he went on to become a brilliant centre half. Didn't John Wark also move from a second striker to a more defensive midfielder at Liverpool?
I've often said we all get too hung up on positions and systems. Good players are adaptable.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 24, 2014 9:50:00 GMT
It's interesting that 2 players who have taken so much stick on this board are now nailed on starters.
Crouch and Whelan are 2 top professionals who have the intelligence, discipline and skill to make our team tick.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 18, 2014 10:35:37 GMT
That's tough for the Vale. I thought Adams and The Vale were quite a good fit.
Sounds like he'd resigned, which is quite an honourable thing to do. He could have waited for the bullet.
I think Vale might as well take a chance on somebody. Someone impressing lower down the pyramid or maybe Hockaday if they could afford him.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 12, 2014 15:26:38 GMT
I am old fashioned, sentimental and a little philosophical about this. Surely supporting your local football club is more than just about money. I also appreciate that we are where we are mainly because of Peter Coates' investment, and I'm really grateful for that. We have all benefited from his commitment and generosity.
This comes back to the concept, not of legal ownership, but of who the club "belongs" to. In my opinion, the club belongs to the supporters and community, the chairman/"owner" is only a temporary custodian.
It's hard to stop watching your football club - Cardiff City supporters probably still go, but are more disenfranchised than they were previously. Maybe they are less in love with their club.
I don't know all the circumstances surrounding Hull City, but Mick has it right, the Chairman has only "funded" the club. At some point he would probably like his money back. Maybe he's now just had enough, and wants to sell and get some of his money back rather than pouring it into a bottomless pit that is a football club. Maybe the council's stance and the opposition to the name change has made him think he doesn't need the hassle.
There is every chance that the future will be similar for us. At some point, we won't have the support and backing of our number 1 supporter, and future "custodians" may not be as willing to plough millions of pounds into the club to develop it.
Steak and chips? We've never had it so good? Stoke City or Stoke Potters, enjoy it now because it probably won't last forever. So if I had a choice, I'd prefer to stick with Stoke City.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 12, 2014 13:51:27 GMT
I can see HullCityStan's point. This appears to be less about a marketing opportunity, and more about a powerful businessman who is used to doing things his way getting frustrated with the City council. The battle seems to be over the word "City" and therefore the council, and less about selling more shirts in Asia.
This guy is a self made man with a £350 million(?) fortune. My guess is that he knows that for the Asian TV market, given a choice between buying a replica Manchester United shirt or a Hull City/Hull Tigers shirt, the club name is going to make little difference.
He wants to score a victory over the bureaucrats at the council who have made life difficult for him over the stadium.
I also agree with Stafford and Smudge. I'm less bothered about the league position than the club. I feel lucky to have watched Stoke City away at say, Oldham (who can forget Simon Stainrod's overhead kick to equalise form 2-0 down?).Those days out and memories are as special our recent Premier League days. I actually feel a little sorry for the "plastic" fans of some clubs who have never had those "real" football experiences.
The only slight criticism of St Peter during his second reign would be the red back of the shirt. A name change would be unnecessary for me too. Those ridiculous cricket and rugby league names just sound stupid. What difference has it made to their appeal?
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 9, 2014 15:24:16 GMT
If Glenn is selected for Saturday's match it will be his 200th League appearance for the club.
A bargain signing at £500,000, Glenn has been with us since the second half of our promotion winning season.
Sometimes he divides supporter opinion, and I keep reading about an "upgrade" for one of our longest serving current players, but it seems to me that when Glenn Whelan plays well, Stoke City play well.
He is an excellent professional and an underated footballer. He reminds me a little of John Mahoney in Waddington's team of the 1970's: an unfussy player who gets on with his job while other players grab the limelight.
Well played and congratulations Glenn. You are a credit to Stoke City Football Club.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 5, 2014 9:55:03 GMT
I can agree with you there are cultural differences between certain parts of society, I'm just not sure I'm comfortable if that is a factor in determining employment opportunity.
Society isn't perfect, but that is not a reason not to try and improve it where we can.
As interesting as this debate is, unfortunately I have to try and earn a meagre living.
Grateful for all contributions. Hopefully it has made us all think about this complex issue more than we might have done.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 5, 2014 9:45:49 GMT
Without wishing to go back over old ground, I'm not sure whether that laissez-faire attitude is acceptable in 2014. Your historical cultural observations may be broadly accurate, but I don't think you're suggesting we should simply wait for 30 years and then management opportunities in professional football may become some more acceptable form of a meritocracy?
It's in the interests of our society and national game for everybody with talent and drive to fulfil their maximum potential, regardless of the colour of their skin or ethnic background. The numbers would appear to show that currently, this isn't the case.
I think ************** is just offering an alternative explanation (one that I broadly agree with) to explain why there are so few black managers. I'm certain that nobody would argue that it would be a good thing if nothing changed but I would suggest that if you're looking in the wrong place in the first place, when trying to establish the reason for the disparity in the figures, then you're hardly going to put yourself in a position to facilitate change. As I said right at the beginning, to simply shout racism as the fundamental reason for the figures, is to grossly over simplify the situation and I'll be very surprised if the situation isn't actually far more complex. Something only a detailed study would address, starting with widespread canvassing of the people involved. After a few minutes research...
The PFA says about 18% of players on their coaching courses are black or from other ethnic minorities
This figure is not hugely different to the approximately 25% of non-white professional footballers, but the figures in football management are startlingly different.
Also found an interesting article from Michael Johnson:
Former Notts County, Birmingham and Derby defender Michael Johnson tells an interesting story of how he lost his job in Notts County's youth set-up.
The 39-year-old, who is now coaching at Birmingham, began to take his badges while he was playing. When he hung up his boots in 2009 he spent two years guiding the youth team with some distinction, complete with a Uefa Pro Licence - the highest coaching qualification.
Then the first-team manager, Paul Ince, lost his job and was replaced by Martin Allen. Johnson was told that a new team would be brought in and his services would no longer be required. Fair enough, he thought, this is how football sometimes works.
Johnson told BBC Sport: "I had to accept that decision and I left, only to find to my horror that an under-12s coach who only had a Uefa B Licence moved into my position of youth team manager and I was out of work.
"You look back at the job you've done and the facts. There were youth-team players going into the professional environment, so you've ticked that box. The youth team was successful in the league and the cup, so that box is ticked too, but you carry on looking for a reason as to why you were released.
Allen told BBC Sport that decisions about Notts County's youth team management were not part of his remit when he took over and the call to release Johnson was made by someone else. Notts County declined to comment.
Since then, Johnson estimates that he has applied for between 25 and 30 coaching roles and has had three interviews. One of those was a non-league role, another as an academy manager.
What links this all is a lack of opportunity.
The above was taken from an interview with the BBC. Just one case, but perhaps it highlights the lack of opportunity and the difficulties for some ex players trying to stay within the game in a coaching/managerial role.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 5, 2014 8:59:55 GMT
I actually think it's far more of a cultural thing than a racist thing. I'm pretty sure we live in a UK where if you're good at something you'll be rewarded and recognised, black or white. Obviously, we don't live in a perfect world and racism does exist, but I don't think racism is precluding and determining the numbers of black managers in the EPL. Christ there many British managers of any colour in the Prem. But 30 years ago there weren't many black footballers, i'm sure the figures for black managers will balance up in the same way in the fullness of time. I think Sol Campbell is the only senior England player to speak out on what he believes is institutionalised racism within the FA isn't he? Correct me if i'm wrong. When you look at the history of the British Isles, its clear that we have strong military values within the white element of the populous. White faced Brits have been telling people what to do for hundreds of years. If you want to reclaim land thats under sea level you get the Dutch in. If you're marshalling gangs of workers in construction you call the Brits, it's the same thing. I just don't think our black faced Brits fancy it from a cultural level. And at some point, some bright spark might perceive it as racism and hitting a glass ceilings etc. And maybe Sol does have a point...it's not one that's echoed by many other folks though. I'm sure it will change in time though. Cracking post **************. Without wishing to go back over old ground, I'm not sure whether that laissez-faire attitude is acceptable in 2014. Your historical cultural observations may be broadly accurate, but I don't think you're suggesting we should simply wait for 30 years and then management opportunities in professional football may become some more acceptable form of a meritocracy?
It's in the interests of our society and national game for everybody with talent and drive to fulfil their maximum potential, regardless of the colour of their skin or ethnic background. The numbers would appear to show that currently, this isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 21:24:03 GMT
I agree that racism doesn't necessarily come from Chairman/Owners against non-white candidates. It's the imbalance of opportunity prior to that that is more complex. As a generalisation though, Chairman/owners/executives fit the demographic of white, middle aged plus, affluent males. Not the most open minded of employers.
I also find it odd that the Daily Mail is used as a source to defend the status quo. That paper is hardly the barometer of modern social issues.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 16:45:15 GMT
No I haven't. I've simply asked why there is a disproportionately low number of black managers.
You're right, I haven't taken your argument to its logical conclusion, because it now seems as if there is no logic to it. Despite the facts staring you in the face, (1black manager in 92 league clubs) you can't see a problem and think that by asking black ex-players why these numbers are so low, we may come up with some alternative theory. And I'm embarrassing myself?
Thanks for your advice, but I'm OK with my position on this.
where have i said i can't see a problem then? go on find it! can't can you because i never once said that! you keep going just making things up that people have said and using false logic to decide what THEIR conclusions are eh? are you so arrogant to decide what other's opinions are based on nothing they've actually even said or just too illiterate to realise i haven't once, ever, at any point said the things you're accusing me of? as i said, momo and shart are at least being reasoned, you're just making things up about what people have said and adding nothing to the discussion...leave it to them! It is hard work with you, and I really don't know why I bother.
I don't think I am making things up and I hope that I am being consistent and reasonable. I am struggling to understand what your conclusions are. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your "War and Peace" style posts with your random CAPITALS and colloquialisms yeah?
With the use of the word "problem", I was inferring that you didn't think that the disproportionate number of black managers was associated with attitudes towards race and ethnicity. You also suggest that if we were to really investigate this and survey current and former black footballers, we might come up with a different reason for this.
Just to clarify, is that the crux of your argument over the last 5,000 words? I am genuinely confused as to where you are going with this.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 15:26:10 GMT
How kind of you to give me a piece of your mind when you've obviously got so little to spare.
I was simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion. If that is wrong I apologise.
Please tell me then, why the number of black coaches and managers is disproportionately low compared to the number of black footballers?
If it's not wrapped up in our complicated attitudes to race, and you've got upset when I suggested you thought that black managers must not be as capable as white managers, why are the numbers so low?
i don't know...hence several people saying actually asking the black ex-players may well be the best way to answer it rather than letting a white person like yourself just presume. NO-ONE has said or even inferred that black people aren't as good at the job as white people (find one person who has..go on, i dare you!) and you haven't taken anything i said to it's logical conclusion at all (and if you think you have then you either haven't read my posts or have no idea what the phrase actually means). what you've actually done is ignore what people HAVE said and put your own words into people's mouths even though it's in no sense any kind of logical step. i'd just advise you to let momo and shart handle this one mate, they have a bit more about them to be honest and you're kinda embarrassing their standpoint by agreeing with it No I haven't. I've simply asked why there is a disproportionately low number of black managers.
You're right, I haven't taken your argument to its logical conclusion, because it now seems as if there is no logic to it. Despite the facts staring you in the face, (1black manager in 92 league clubs) you can't see a problem and think that by asking black ex-players why these numbers are so low, we may come up with some alternative theory. And I'm embarrassing myself?
Thanks for your advice, but I'm OK with my position on this.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 14:57:08 GMT
Bu Carpslayer, how else can we explain the disproportionately low number of managers compared to professional players? Please give me the benefit of your wisdom. I have worked in companies with large numbers of coloured employees, I have never worked for an employer who was not white, why would that be any different or indeed viewed any differently in football, can you explain that one not one of my ex boss's was racist in any way neither were the owners, or are you suggesting otherwise. Sorry, not only can I not see the relevance of that, I can't actually understand it.
Probably my fault, I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 14:52:37 GMT
It is a clear indication that race is a factor in the employment of managers. Compared with the proportion of non-white professional players, the number of non-white coaches and managers is disproportionately low. That's obvious. The issue of race goes right through to our perception of managerial ability, the barriers to those jobs for black men and women, the underlying racial stereotyping of employers. By dismissing the issue, you unfortunately are falling into the classic white, middle class trap of saying "I'm not a racist, but..." In this case, we can only conclude that you've decided that black managers cannot be as good as white managers because there aren't as many. no! you can't decide what to conclude about people's opinions when no-one has said anything of the sort you arrogant, discourteous, presumptious imbecile!!! you also can't say people are dismissing it, if you've actually had the courtesy to read people's posts before slagging them off and insulting them in a petty way then you'd see that NO-ONE has dismissed it at all, they have merely said that very very few black ex-players are actually agreeing with this in the first place and as yet no-one has proved that the number is simply down to race (which you HAVE to do with any allegations i.e. back them up! you can't just sit back say "That's what i've decided is the reason and without anything to back it up i'm right and anyone who says i need to prove it is just wrong". some on here have come up with reasoned and valid comments on both sides...unfortunately you're definitely not one of them though How kind of you to give me a piece of your mind when you've obviously got so little to spare.
I was simply taking your argument to its logical conclusion. If that is wrong I apologise.
Please tell me then, why the number of black coaches and managers is disproportionately low compared to the number of black footballers?
If it's not wrapped up in our complicated attitudes to race, and you've got upset when I suggested you thought that black managers must not be as capable as white managers, why are the numbers so low?
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 14:45:45 GMT
Bu Carpslayer, how else can we explain the disproportionately low number of managers compared to professional players?
Please give me the benefit of your wisdom.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 14:37:05 GMT
It is a clear indication that race is a factor in the employment of managers. Compared with the proportion of non-white professional players, the number of non-white coaches and managers is disproportionately low. That's obvious.
The issue of race goes right through to our perception of managerial ability, the barriers to those jobs for black men and women, the underlying racial stereotyping of employers. By dismissing the issue, you unfortunately are falling into the classic white, middle class trap of saying "I'm not a racist, but..."
In this case, we can only conclude that you've decided that black managers cannot be as good as white managers because there aren't as many.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 14:08:36 GMT
Mick, you keep mentioning that there is of no evidence of race being a factor in this.
Now, as of this week, there is 1 black manager out of 92 football league clubs. How much "evidence" do you want?
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 13:42:00 GMT
Sorry fellas I cannot see how a section of society who add so much to one area of the game and are virtually completely absent from another can be completely free from a race angle? because all you're doing is looking at ONE stat momo i.e. the number of black managers there are and that doesn't explain anything. I'm with Momo and Deadlyshart here. Black managers are under represented so that in itself makes this an issue of race and ethnicity.
There may be some merit in looking as to why that may be in this case, but it is still a fact that we can only think of about 1 or 2 black managers currently working.
There may well be less black ex-footballers taking coaching badges. It would hardly be a surprise: looking at the numbers employed it doesn't look a great career choice.
There is an underlying racism in this country. As you say Mick, "the ONE stat, the low number of black managers" is the key issue here.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 9:28:50 GMT
Ian Painter. Played in a difficult time in our history, worked 'aaard and scored a few goals.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 9:07:50 GMT
Anybody remember the goalie who played for Grimsby Town many years ago? Think he had a pony tail. That bloke must still hear "Gypo, Gypo" every time he drives past junction 15.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 4, 2014 9:03:58 GMT
I've done this 2 or 3 times and never again. Could be the time and the place, but I've always seen Stoke get hammered on these occasions.
Everton v Stoke, it would have been 84/85. Stood in the home paddock and we lost 4-1. Adrian Heath scored twice. To make matters worse, there were about 5 Rangers fans behind me who were absolutely slaughtered and sang Rangers songs for 90 minutes.
Leeds v Stoke, late eighties? Went with a mate and sat in the West Stand. Fairly intimidating atmosphere even in the seats. Lost 4-0.
Manchester Utd v Stoke, 08/09. Went with Man Utd supporting season ticket holder. Lost 5-0. Fortunately too drunk to remember too much about the game, except that Tommy was a bit of a rabbit in the headlights. Later on, 4 of us "asked to leave" Bar 67 on Piccadilly by about 30 GMP in riot gear (!), and missed the last train back to Stoke. Had to get home from Crewe. Not a good day.
Was also lucky enough to be in the prawn sandwich seats twice at The Hawthorns. Saw us lose against The Baggies (Statistically, how unlucky is that?) when John Eustace got sent off after about 5 minutes, but also saw that famous first away Premier League victory. I was the only one in the stand jumping around after 2 minutes when Ricardo muscled through and fired one under Scott Carson.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 2, 2014 12:33:12 GMT
Your first half 4-2-3-1 with Diouf higher up than Ireland sounds very close to 4-4-1-1. I suppose this is my point about systems - it's fluid and variable with and without the ball we maybe get too hung upon it.
Interesting though - no idea what he'll do against Leicester. Presumably they'll play the in form Ulloa upfront, and try to get Vardy breaking from a packed midfield. Powell is an interesting signing for them too.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 2, 2014 12:16:25 GMT
You're probably right Rob, and I bow down to your reading of the game. You see it with a good analytical eye. System or gameplan? Or are they the same thing? The point I was making is that we tend to pigeon hole players into a certain role. If you get top level intelligent footballers, they should be adaptable. Crouch is a good example of this. Still don't think I read anybody on here that would have started Diouf, Crouch and Walters. Saturday's system looks to have been as close to Tone's favourite 4-4-1-1 as MH has been. It was 4-2-3-1 in the first half and Walters wasn't great. Hughes switched it to 4-4-2 in the second half and rightfully subbed Walters for Odemwingie who was infinitely more effective on the right. There was a number of people advocating playing two up front before the game actually but nobody was expecting Hughes to go with it. Interesting this, and I know you and Rob are good at it. As I said, I've only seen highlights so impossible to tell really, but I got the impression that Diouf was dropping back into midfield a fair bit, and Crouch at times was an auxiliary centre half! Maybe just for set pieces? Presumably we weren't playing with 2 out and out strikers second half?
Also, did Crouch play ahead of Diouf? In a two you would have expected Crouch to come deeper and knock it into the channels for Diouf and the wide players to run onto.
I remember debating this and there seemed to be few precedents for MH playing 4-4-2, or 4-4-1-1 with one dropping back into midfield. I think this is the way forward - one of Diouf, Bojan or even Ireland behind Crouch.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 2, 2014 7:55:46 GMT
You're probably right Rob, and I bow down to your reading of the game. You see it with a good analytical eye.
System or gameplan? Or are they the same thing? The point I was making is that we tend to pigeon hole players into a certain role. If you get top level intelligent footballers, they should be adaptable. Crouch is a good example of this. Still don't think I read anybody on here that would have started Diouf, Crouch and Walters.
Saturday's system looks to have been as close to Tone's favourite 4-4-1-1 as MH has been.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Sept 1, 2014 9:50:49 GMT
Just did not see that coming. Fantastic performance, fantastic result.
Haven't seen the whole game, but looks as though it was a real team effort.
It's another one in the eye for systems and the amateur tacticians on here, myself included.
Who would have had Diouf, Crouch and Walters in the starting 11?
We've all argued about Crouch, but yet again he has shown himself to be an intelligent, skilful footballer who can adapt to different situations. Systems, shmystems! Diouf looked a different player.
Simple game. Stick together, work hard and do your jobs to keep them out - take your chances when they arrive, and enjoy a bit of luck.
If we can learn to break teams down from open play, we could have a brilliant season.
Superb management from Hughes. He's the boss: Walters and Crouch rewarded, no star treatment for Arnie and Bojan.
Leicester City will be a different test. They'll try to do to us what we did to Manchester City. Stoke fans will have to be patient at home this season.
Edit: Another excellent review btw - very much part of my weekly post match ritual. Please keep them coming even if some people are sometimes a bit negative.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Aug 29, 2014 15:34:41 GMT
Suspect Joe was referring to the 25 pass goal he finished for Argentina in the World Cup.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Aug 29, 2014 15:28:33 GMT
Good read and sadly probably accurate.
Eyes still watering at the prospect of the prostrate exam by Jennings.
Going by the old adage of never to marry a woman with big hands, presumably he would make everything else look small as well...
|
|