|
|
Post by luke2u on Apr 22, 2010 16:56:38 GMT
A lot is said here, but no doubt, Pulis is the most stubborn manager we'll ever have at this club. There is no doubt that he treats players bad at times either. All this has been on going since he joined us for the first time.
He freezes out players he doesn't like for some reason, if it's because he hasn't bought them or they've done things he doesn't like.
I don't believe we're ever will change our way of playing, and will never be a team who scores lots of goals. We will never have a more natural talented player than Tuncay, because they don't want to play for Pulis. If Tuncay is sold this summer I think that will stop other talented technical players from signing. Players aren't stupid, and they know what to expect from Pulis.
We're really lucky to have Tuncay, Fuller and Etherington, without them, what a team we would have had then. The only thing we could have done, was to hoof the ball even more than we do now.
Tony Pulis, please make my words wrong and do something I'd never expected from. Keep Tuncay and buy other attacking minded players. And one last thing, don't ever let Mama to start another game outside the Carling cup.
|
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 22, 2010 17:03:04 GMT
A lot is said here, but no doubt, Pulis is the most stubborn manager we'll ever have at this club. There is no doubt that he treats players bad at times either. All this has been on going since he joined us for the first time. He freezes out players he doesn't like for some reason, if it's because he hasn't bought them or they've done things he doesn't like. I don't believe we're ever will change our way of playing, and will never be a team who scores lots of goals. We will never have a more natural talented player than Tuncay, because they don't want to play for Pulis. If Tuncay is sold this summer I think that will stop other talented technical players from signing. Players aren't stupid, and they know what to expect from Pulis. We're really lucky to have Tuncay, Fuller and Etherington, without them, what a team we would have had then. The only thing we could have done, was to hoof the ball even more than we do now. Tony Pulis, please make my words wrong and do something I'd never expected from. Keep Tuncay and buy other attacking minded players. And one last thing, don't ever let Mama to start another game outside the Carling cup. I agree and I too would be so very very pleased for him to prove me wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sufolkstokie on Apr 22, 2010 17:05:16 GMT
alster: Sorry mate, I respect your opinions but I simply disagree. Bolton fans have watched boring, negative, physical, in-your-face football for many years now without the slightest complaint. Why? Because it was successful for them under Fat Sam. They hated Megson simply because they ceased to be successful and not because the football was crap. It had always been crap but it seems so much crapper when you're losing every week. Had they been winning, Megson would have been accepted there just fine. I compaired us with most of the teams from about 10th down in the Premier League which surely you can accept, is a fair comparrison. I agree that drab football doesn't guarantees success (ala BOLTON) but entertaining football doesn't guarantee failure (ala FULHAM). But looking at the clubs aropund and below us it's fair to look at both style of play and what that has done in terms of points/league position and that's all I did. The fact is teams like ourselves/Birmingham/Blackburn have been in little or no danger of relegation this season whilst those who are perceived to play a more open style have struggled and three of them will be relegated. Those are inescapable facts. You might say, well look at those above us and they play better football. Indeed they do but they are (largely) much bigger clubs who can attract much better players and most of them, we are not in direct competition with, becasue they are on a different level to us at this point. Even within their own level, Chelsea haven't be a free flowing football team for two seasons now and Manchester United haven't exactly been terrific entertainment this season. Without Rooney I think they would have struggled to qualify for the Champions League and they have massive resources. Yes they have a more expansive out;look on football than us but that's because they can employ the right players. We are on a totally different planet and we COULD set out to play a more open game but then that's why I pointed out those (on our level) that do. So you cannot simply ignore it and say it's irrelevant, because it clearly isn't. We do what gets us results and brings us success. If and when it doesn't Pulis will be as popular as Megson was at Bolton because football fans want their team to win. I think you will find that Megson performed a minor miracle keeping them up in his first season after taking over from Sammy Lee with them rooted to the bottom but the fans still hated him because his football is boring (incidentally I think he's slightly less negative than Pulis). Big Sam's Bolton whilst still being a physical team had a smattering of flair in the form of Ocotcha, djorkaeff, Gudjohnson (excuse spelling) and that blond Scandanavian midfielder who's name I can't remember. Pulis could actually use that team as a yardstick becuse I think they were about as good as a non top six team can hope to be. I know some Blackburn fans who would totally disagree with you on that. By the way - we outplayed (not hoofed) them at their place and walked it at our place To say Bolton and Blackburn play better or are more adventerous than us crazy - did you see Bolton at our place - they were woeful |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 22, 2010 17:12:24 GMT
I think you will find that Megson performed a minor miracle keeping them up in his first season after taking over from Sammy Lee with them rooted to the bottom but the fans still hated him because his football is boring (incidentally I think he's slightly less negative than Pulis). Big Sam's Bolton whilst still being a physical team had a smattering of flair in the form of Ocotcha, djorkaeff, Gudjohnson (excuse spelling) and that blond Scandanavian midfielder who's name I can't remember. Pulis could actually use that team as a yardstick becuse I think they were about as good as a non top six team can hope to be. I know some Blackburn fans who would totally disagree with you on that. By the way - we outplayed (not hoofed) them at their place and walked it at our place To say Bolton and Blackburn play better or are more adventerous than us crazy - did you see Bolton at our place - they were woeful I'm sure I havent mentioned Blackburn as I have deliberately avoided using them in any comparison becuse I see them as being as bad if not worse to watch than Stoke. Bolton are in transition and are definitely trying to play a more attractive brand of football under Coyle ask any Bolton fan they'll tell you this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 17:21:59 GMT
Just a few points: Tuncay WAS being petulant. He made a dismissive hand gesture in the direction of the bench and was shaking his head every second he was walking off before studiously ignoring the manager and stomping off. Don't give me any of this, "ooh he just wants the bath to himself" queenery. Aston Villa and Chelsea SHOULD play better than us given the resources and name value available to them shouldn't they? And even then Villa are often hugely negative and dire to watch. I wonder if Wigan fans are happy with "playing like Wigan athletic", given that Martinez seems to have split the fans and they'll stay up by the skin of their teeth this season? Exactly who is playing this glorious top flight football outside the top 6 or so clubs? Wigan? Hanging in there. Burnley? Doomed. Would people really rather swap where we are now for a relegation battle for the sake of a few pretty passes here and there? TP has "driven us mad with his football" has he? presumably only if you weren't there for Ball, Jordan, Little, Bates, Kamara and Thordarson. You'd think from the way some of you whinge that we were still in the third tier and that before Pulis came here we were playing like Ajax. I'm struggling to grasp your logic. Villa and Chelsea play with the same/similar formations to us but the the balance of their team is more attacking due to the fact they have more attack minded players on the pitch at anytime than we do. They're not just better players or bigger names they are simply more offensively minded players than those we regularly field. is it that you disagree with this point or just plain don't understand it. Martinez has divided opinion among Wigans few fans. Well what do you think Pulis does with Stoke fans do you think we universally love his brand of football. Sorry to have to inform you but most Premier league teams play a more entertaining brand of football than us. I've supported Stoke through all those managers and more and terrible as they were for other reasons, I don't recall any of them regularly fielding more defensively balanced teams than Pulis does. Spoken like a man who hasn't seen much of Villa this season. Again, teams like Villa can AFFORD to set up more attackingly than we do because of their resources - they're two of the bigger teams in the league. Yet still Villa, away from home, frequently get loads of men behind the ball, hoof it plenty, sit deep and try to nick something on the break. Is your problem that we're defensive or that it's not aesthetically pleasing to watch? Because Jordan and Gudjon were just as defensive (Gudjon would play five at the back at home to the likes of Wycombe for Christ's sake! Jordan played five at the back at home to Bath!) and if you'd rather watch the clueless dross that Little, Bates and Kamara served up rather than watching your team be competitive for 90 minutes then I really can't help you. Wigan have been frequently horrendous this season. They got dicked by Portsmouth in the league among others. On Saturday we totally outfootballed Bolton in the first half so let's not hold them up as any kind of beacon either. The title of the thread is "do we want to be relegated", yet it seems to have mutated into "we'd rather be in a relegation fight and playing sexy football than being a competitive top flight team". Personally, I've really enjoyed the Premier League experience thus far. It's given me tons of great memories which I'll cherish, and it beats the shit out of going to Saltergate on a rainy Tuesday in the LDV. |
|
|
|
Post by fromafar07 on Apr 22, 2010 17:29:50 GMT
I'm struggling to grasp your logic. Villa and Chelsea play with the same/similar formations to us but the the balance of their team is more attacking due to the fact they have more attack minded players on the pitch at anytime than we do. They're not just better players or bigger names they are simply more offensively minded players than those we regularly field. is it that you disagree with this point or just plain don't understand it. Martinez has divided opinion among Wigans few fans. Well what do you think Pulis does with Stoke fans do you think we universally love his brand of football. Sorry to have to inform you but most Premier league teams play a more entertaining brand of football than us. I've supported Stoke through all those managers and more and terrible as they were for other reasons, I don't recall any of them regularly fielding more defensively balanced teams than Pulis does. Spoken like a man who hasn't seen much of Villa this season. Again, teams like Villa can AFFORD to set up more attackingly than we do because of their resources - they're two of the bigger teams in the league. Yet still Villa, away from home, frequently get loads of men behind the ball, hoof it plenty, sit deep and try to nick something on the break. Is your problem that we're defensive or that it's not aesthetically pleasing to watch? Because Jordan and Gudjon were just as defensive (Gudjon would play five at the back at home to the likes of Wycombe for Christ's sake! Jordan played five at the back at home to Bath!) and if you'd rather watch the clueless dross that Little, Bates and Kamara served up rather than watching your team be competitive for 90 minutes then I really can't help you. Wigan have been frequently horrendous this season. They got dicked by Portsmouth in the league among others. On Saturday we totally outfootballed Bolton in the first half so let's not hold them up as any kind of beacon either. The title of the thread is "do we want to be relegated", yet it seems to have mutated into "we'd rather be in a relegation fight and playing sexy football than being a competitive top flight team". Personally, I've really enjoyed the Premier League experience thus far. It's given me tons of great memories which I'll cherish, and it beats the shit out of going to Saltergate on a rainy Tuesday in the LDV. yeahhhhh, dont you know van deurzen sees and knows all !! you need to know about a team, any team in the British Isles just ask him !! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 17:32:16 GMT
Spoken like a man who hasn't seen much of Villa this season. Again, teams like Villa can AFFORD to set up more attackingly than we do because of their resources - they're two of the bigger teams in the league. Yet still Villa, away from home, frequently get loads of men behind the ball, hoof it plenty, sit deep and try to nick something on the break. Is your problem that we're defensive or that it's not aesthetically pleasing to watch? Because Jordan and Gudjon were just as defensive (Gudjon would play five at the back at home to the likes of Wycombe for Christ's sake! Jordan played five at the back at home to Bath!) and if you'd rather watch the clueless dross that Little, Bates and Kamara served up rather than watching your team be competitive for 90 minutes then I really can't help you. Wigan have been frequently horrendous this season. They got dicked by Portsmouth in the league among others. On Saturday we totally outfootballed Bolton in the first half so let's not hold them up as any kind of beacon either. The title of the thread is "do we want to be relegated", yet it seems to have mutated into "we'd rather be in a relegation fight and playing sexy football than being a competitive top flight team". Personally, I've really enjoyed the Premier League experience thus far. It's given me tons of great memories which I'll cherish, and it beats the shit out of going to Saltergate on a rainy Tuesday in the LDV. yeahhhhh, dont you know van deurzen sees and knows all !! you need to know about a team, any team in the British Isles just ask him !! It's not too late for us to be friends you know. Come here, give us a cuddle  |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 22, 2010 17:45:43 GMT
I'm struggling to grasp your logic. Villa and Chelsea play with the same/similar formations to us but the the balance of their team is more attacking due to the fact they have more attack minded players on the pitch at anytime than we do. They're not just better players or bigger names they are simply more offensively minded players than those we regularly field. is it that you disagree with this point or just plain don't understand it. Martinez has divided opinion among Wigans few fans. Well what do you think Pulis does with Stoke fans do you think we universally love his brand of football. Sorry to have to inform you but most Premier league teams play a more entertaining brand of football than us. I've supported Stoke through all those managers and more and terrible as they were for other reasons, I don't recall any of them regularly fielding more defensively balanced teams than Pulis does. Spoken like a man who hasn't seen much of Villa this season. Again, teams like Villa can AFFORD to set up more attackingly than we do because of their resources - they're two of the bigger teams in the league. Yet still Villa, away from home, frequently get loads of men behind the ball, hoof it plenty, sit deep and try to nick something on the break. Is your problem that we're defensive or that it's not aesthetically pleasing to watch? Because Jordan and Gudjon were just as defensive (Gudjon would play five at the back at home to the likes of Wycombe for Christ's sake! Jordan played five at the back at home to Bath!) and if you'd rather watch the clueless dross that Little, Bates and Kamara served up rather than watching your team be competitive for 90 minutes then I really can't help you. Wigan have been frequently horrendous this season. They got dicked by Portsmouth in the league among others. On Saturday we totally outfootballed Bolton in the first half so let's not hold them up as any kind of beacon either. The title of the thread is "do we want to be relegated", yet it seems to have mutated into "we'd rather be in a relegation fight and playing sexy football than being a competitive top flight team". Personally, I've really enjoyed the Premier League experience thus far. It's given me tons of great memories which I'll cherish, and it beats the shit out of going to Saltergate on a rainy Tuesday in the LDV. Rob you seem to be advocating the theory that we have to choose between playing rubbish football or relegation, I'm sorry I just can't accept that theory, given the level of funds invested in players at Stoke City. I think the balance of our starting eleven is weighted too heavily on the defensive at the cost of offensive potential. I have no specific problem with direct football as long as its smart direct football not hoofball. I've seen quite a bit of Villa this season and whist they do play it long they play with a lot more attacking potential and play in bursts. Chelsea play quite direct but play intelligent long balls with purpose not hoof it and chase it as we resort to far too often. I too have some good memories from the last two seasons but also seen too many horrendous football matches. |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 22, 2010 17:57:40 GMT
Alster, you are of course right when you say we weight our eleven to be more defensive than offensive. You could say that only the two wingers and the main striker are our offensive players, and sometimes not even both wingers. I think as we've evolved, we've evolved into more get out balls. The get out balls win us set pieces, at which point we can attack the opposition and try to keep the ball in their half. We started with just the target man, now we have the target man and Etherington, it looked for a small while that it would be target man, Etherington and Tuncay. If we got in a midfielder who could take the ball from the edge of his own box and create a chance like Parker, he'd be another. I think that's the path that we're going to take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 17:59:10 GMT
Spoken like a man who hasn't seen much of Villa this season. Again, teams like Villa can AFFORD to set up more attackingly than we do because of their resources - they're two of the bigger teams in the league. Yet still Villa, away from home, frequently get loads of men behind the ball, hoof it plenty, sit deep and try to nick something on the break. Is your problem that we're defensive or that it's not aesthetically pleasing to watch? Because Jordan and Gudjon were just as defensive (Gudjon would play five at the back at home to the likes of Wycombe for Christ's sake! Jordan played five at the back at home to Bath!) and if you'd rather watch the clueless dross that Little, Bates and Kamara served up rather than watching your team be competitive for 90 minutes then I really can't help you. Wigan have been frequently horrendous this season. They got dicked by Portsmouth in the league among others. On Saturday we totally outfootballed Bolton in the first half so let's not hold them up as any kind of beacon either. The title of the thread is "do we want to be relegated", yet it seems to have mutated into "we'd rather be in a relegation fight and playing sexy football than being a competitive top flight team". Personally, I've really enjoyed the Premier League experience thus far. It's given me tons of great memories which I'll cherish, and it beats the shit out of going to Saltergate on a rainy Tuesday in the LDV. Rob you seem to be advocating the theory that we have to choose between playing rubbish football or relegation, I'm sorry I just can't accept that theory, given the level of funds invested in players at Stoke City. I think the balance of our starting eleven is weighted too heavily on the defensive at the cost of offensive potential. I have no specific problem with direct football as long as its smart direct football not hoofball. I've seen quite a bit of Villa this season and whist they do play it long they play with a lot more attacking potential and play in bursts. Chelsea play quite direct but play intelligent long balls with purpose not hoof it and chase it as we resort to far too often. I too have some good memories from the last two seasons but also seen too many horrendous football matches. I've seen infinitely more horrendous matches over the course of the last 20 years than anything we've seen in the past two seasons. Give me that dire 0-0 at Wolves over losing 5-1 away at Oxford. My point is that Chelsea and Villa SHOULD be set up to be more attacking than us because they have advantages that we don't in terms of resources and name value that makes them more attractive. And even then I wouldn't say Villa, considering what they've spent, are good to watch particularly. I agree that we're overly-cautious to the point of frustration at times and we're certainly not good to watch. I'd also disagree that "the rest of the Prem plays loads nicer football than us" because beyond the top 6 or so and Burnley, you'll find plenty of hoofing and caution there too. Even within the Top 6 if you look at Liverpool. I'd like the football to be a bit better too, but it's a minor quibble, looking at the big picture, rather than a raging crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 22, 2010 18:28:23 GMT
Rob you seem to be advocating the theory that we have to choose between playing rubbish football or relegation, I'm sorry I just can't accept that theory, given the level of funds invested in players at Stoke City. I think the balance of our starting eleven is weighted too heavily on the defensive at the cost of offensive potential. I have no specific problem with direct football as long as its smart direct football not hoofball. I've seen quite a bit of Villa this season and whist they do play it long they play with a lot more attacking potential and play in bursts. Chelsea play quite direct but play intelligent long balls with purpose not hoof it and chase it as we resort to far too often. I too have some good memories from the last two seasons but also seen too many horrendous football matches. I've seen infinitely more horrendous matches over the course of the last 20 years than anything we've seen in the past two seasons. Give me that dire 0-0 at Wolves over losing 5-1 away at Oxford. My point is that Chelsea and Villa SHOULD be set up to be more attacking than us because they have advantages that we don't in terms of resources and name value that makes them more attractive. And even then I wouldn't say Villa, considering what they've spent, are good to watch particularly. I agree that we're overly-cautious to the point of frustration at times and we're certainly not good to watch. I'd also disagree that "the rest of the Prem plays loads nicer football than us" because beyond the top 6 or so and Burnley, you'll find plenty of hoofing and caution there too. Even within the Top 6 if you look at Liverpool. I'd like the football to be a bit better too, but it's a minor quibble, looking at the big picture, rather than a raging crisis. Believe me Rob I don't think we 're facing a crisis, I just believe it is probable that given the level of investment in the team we could be around about the same pts and league position playing much more attractive football. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 18:33:55 GMT
I've seen infinitely more horrendous matches over the course of the last 20 years than anything we've seen in the past two seasons. Give me that dire 0-0 at Wolves over losing 5-1 away at Oxford. My point is that Chelsea and Villa SHOULD be set up to be more attacking than us because they have advantages that we don't in terms of resources and name value that makes them more attractive. And even then I wouldn't say Villa, considering what they've spent, are good to watch particularly. I agree that we're overly-cautious to the point of frustration at times and we're certainly not good to watch. I'd also disagree that "the rest of the Prem plays loads nicer football than us" because beyond the top 6 or so and Burnley, you'll find plenty of hoofing and caution there too. Even within the Top 6 if you look at Liverpool. I'd like the football to be a bit better too, but it's a minor quibble, looking at the big picture, rather than a raging crisis. Believe me Rob I don't think we 're facing a crisis, I just believe it is probable that given the level of investment in the team we could be around about the same pts and league position playing much more attractive football. What is your definition of "much more attractive football" Alster? Who is your benchmark for teams being promoted and establishing themselves playing beautiful football? I'm struggling to think of one in the last 15 years or so. We don't score enough goals, for sure, and at times we're horribly one dimensional and yes those could improve. |
|
|
|
Post by soicowboy2 on Apr 22, 2010 18:38:17 GMT
So the conclusion of the Oatcake brains trust and illuminati is that we should try and be more like fucking Wigan Athletic. I really do give up with some people on this site  How many years have we been in the Prem? How many years have Wigan? Is that down to Scholes? |
|
|
|
Post by waitingforwaddo on Apr 22, 2010 18:52:16 GMT
POST OF THE FUCKING YEAR!
|
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 22, 2010 18:57:08 GMT
Believe me Rob I don't think we 're facing a crisis, I just believe it is probable that given the level of investment in the team we could be around about the same pts and league position playing much more attractive football. What is your definition of "much more attractive football" Alster? Who is your benchmark for teams being promoted and establishing themselves playing beautiful football? I'm struggling to think of one in the last 15 years or so. We don't score enough goals, for sure, and at times we're horribly one dimensional and yes those could improve. Yes you're right Rob those things could and should improve and would produce much more attractive football. I think your statement shows that you see exactly the same problems I do. You seem to have more faith in our manager making the changes necessary to address them than I do. Pulis is maybe a bit too pragmatic for me I think he does not really mind the frequent horrendous games we see so long as we earn a few points from them. I on the other hand go to football to be entertained I can excuse the odd poor game but when it becomes the reverse and you get the odd decent game I think you're doing something wrong even if your league position is healthy. |
|
|
|
Post by northstokie on Apr 22, 2010 19:02:07 GMT
Pulis Hating Wankstain POST OF THE FUCKING YEAR! as it only has a dozen utter shite points badly made... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 20:47:34 GMT
What is your definition of "much more attractive football" Alster? Who is your benchmark for teams being promoted and establishing themselves playing beautiful football? I'm struggling to think of one in the last 15 years or so. We don't score enough goals, for sure, and at times we're horribly one dimensional and yes those could improve. Yes you're right Rob those things could and should improve and would produce much more attractive football. I think your statement shows that you see exactly the same problems I do. You seem to have more faith in our manager making the changes necessary to address them than I do. Pulis is maybe a bit too pragmatic for me I think he does not really mind the frequent horrendous games we see so long as we earn a few points from them. I on the other hand go to football to be entertained I can excuse the odd poor game but when it becomes the reverse and you get the odd decent game I think you're doing something wrong even if your league position is healthy. Football is, first and foremost, a results business. The football could be better, but I grew up watching some of the most gutless, couldn't-give-a-shit, worthless Stoke City performances. Now we have a side who scraps from the first minute to the last and is in one of the best league of its own, and holding its own to boot. I would argue that the football, while not great, is a country mile better than most of the shite we've seen in the dark days of the last two and a half decades. We're still in the process of establishing ourselves in this league (and again, name me a promoted team who has established themselves in the Prem playing the "beautiful game"?) and so for me, the standard of football is still very much a minor concern, looking at the bigger picture. There are plenty who would swap places with us. |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 22, 2010 21:05:18 GMT
Yes you're right Rob those things could and should improve and would produce much more attractive football. I think your statement shows that you see exactly the same problems I do. You seem to have more faith in our manager making the changes necessary to address them than I do. Pulis is maybe a bit too pragmatic for me I think he does not really mind the frequent horrendous games we see so long as we earn a few points from them. I on the other hand go to football to be entertained I can excuse the odd poor game but when it becomes the reverse and you get the odd decent game I think you're doing something wrong even if your league position is healthy. Football is, first and foremost, a results business. The football could be better, but I grew up watching some of the most gutless, couldn't-give-a-shit, worthless Stoke City performances. Now we have a side who scraps from the first minute to the last and is in one of the best league of its own, and holding its own to boot. I would argue that the football, while not great, is a country mile better than most of the shite we've seen in the dark days of the last two and a half decades. We're still in the process of establishing ourselves in this league (and again, name me a promoted team who has established themselves in the Prem playing the "beautiful game"?) and so for me, the standard of football is still very much a minor concern, looking at the bigger picture. There are plenty who would swap places with us. I'm afraid I can't agree I don't think the standard of football should ever be a minor concern to supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 21:10:42 GMT
Football is, first and foremost, a results business. The football could be better, but I grew up watching some of the most gutless, couldn't-give-a-shit, worthless Stoke City performances. Now we have a side who scraps from the first minute to the last and is in one of the best league of its own, and holding its own to boot. I would argue that the football, while not great, is a country mile better than most of the shite we've seen in the dark days of the last two and a half decades. We're still in the process of establishing ourselves in this league (and again, name me a promoted team who has established themselves in the Prem playing the "beautiful game"?) and so for me, the standard of football is still very much a minor concern, looking at the bigger picture. There are plenty who would swap places with us. I'm afraid I can't agree I don't think the standard of football should ever be a minor concern to supporters. I think things have to be judged on their context. In the context of everything we've been through in the last 20 years, I think having a successful, competitive football team is of far more importance at the present time. |
|
|
|
Post by fentonstokie1 on Apr 22, 2010 21:15:25 GMT
yeah we really have struggled the past 2 seasons havnt we We've struggled scoring goals - that's why we're the lowest scorers in the league. Stoke 33 Wigan 33 Hull 32 Portsmouth 29 Wolves 28 Not quite. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 22, 2010 21:22:59 GMT
I'm afraid I can't agree I don't think the standard of football should ever be a minor concern to supporters. I think things have to be judged on their context. In the context of everything we've been through in the last 20 years, I think having a successful, competitive football team is of far more importance at the present time. Don't get me wrong Rob I agree things are going well and its great considering some of the black periods in our recent history but I do think if we as supporters are willing to sweep the issue of entertainment value of the football aside so readily where does the pressure on Pulis to address the issue come from. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeyb99 on Apr 22, 2010 21:31:46 GMT
... we'd rather be in a relegation fight and playing sexy football than being a competitive top flight team The false choice rears its head again. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 21:34:58 GMT
... we'd rather be in a relegation fight and playing sexy football than being a competitive top flight team The false choice rears its head again. I was referring to Alster's bemoaning of "why can't we play like Wigan", which seemed very much to suggest that to do what they're doing (ie, pass it a bit more whilst being considerably worse than us) was something to aspire to. I wasn't saying the only way to stay up is by playing as we do. Then again, I'll ask again the question nobody has answered yet - name me a team who has been promoted and established themselves as a Prem side playing pretty football in the last 15 years or so? Who in the Prem is playing this mythical gorgeous football outside the top 6 or so and possibly Burnley? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 21:36:57 GMT
I think things have to be judged on their context. In the context of everything we've been through in the last 20 years, I think having a successful, competitive football team is of far more importance at the present time. Don't get me wrong Rob I agree things are going well and its great considering some of the black periods in our recent history but I do think if we as supporters are willing to sweep the issue of entertainment value of the football aside so readily where does the pressure on Pulis to address the issue come from. I think it's something that isn't as pressing a concern as continuing to establish ourselves at this level, for now. Hopefully we'll evolve, and that is the odd sign that we are doing so (not a particularly strong one I'll admit), but we shouldn't smash the playbook overnight either. |
|
|
|
Post by fortressbritannia on Apr 22, 2010 21:39:37 GMT
If you look at the core set of players this season
Tommy
Wilko,Huth, Ryan, Abdy, Higgy (maybe collins)
Delap Whitehead,Whelan, Etherington
Tuncay,Mama,Fuller, Kitson
The Team down the middle of the pitch is very strong and is more then captable of been the foundations of a top 10 team and Europa league back bone. The fact is we have never for a good few seasons had 2 good natural wingers on both wings
Delap/ Whitehead 2 seasons
Cresswell 1 season
Lee Hendrie ! season
The fact is for the past 4 seasons we have had either loan signings or out of position players filling in, who have all done a decent job (espically Cresswell). This has lead us becoming a bit predictable in open play as we always go through Etherington - which has lead to set play becoming a major part of our play which IMO in not a bad thing so far.
However we need to take some of the pressure of Matty and why we need to sign Pennant to allow our strikers to get into the 6 yard box rather then been dragged into the channels.
Allow to say that we'll go down without lawrence Beattie ect is a bit extreme to be fair
FB
|
|
|
|
Post by alster on Apr 22, 2010 21:49:47 GMT
The false choice rears its head again. I was referring to Alster's bemoaning of "why can't we play like Wigan", which seemed very much to suggest that to do what they're doing (ie, pass it a bit more whilst being considerably worse than us) was something to aspire to. I wasn't saying the only way to stay up is by playing as we do. Then again, I'll ask again the question nobody has answered yet - name me a team who has been promoted and established themselves as a Prem side playing pretty football in the last 15 years or so? Who in the Prem is playing this mythical gorgeous football outside the top 6 or so and possibly Burnley? Don't suppose theres the slightest possibility we could merge the mentality that Martinez is trying to put in place at Wigan and their willingness to attempt to play a bit more football with our solid organised defence and actually come out of it with a more entertaining experience on a Saturday afternoon without any major differential in our league position. People keep banging on about European qualification, we'll I'd much sooner we address our one dimentional style than qualify for the Europa league. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2010 21:58:09 GMT
I was referring to Alster's bemoaning of "why can't we play like Wigan", which seemed very much to suggest that to do what they're doing (ie, pass it a bit more whilst being considerably worse than us) was something to aspire to. I wasn't saying the only way to stay up is by playing as we do. Then again, I'll ask again the question nobody has answered yet - name me a team who has been promoted and established themselves as a Prem side playing pretty football in the last 15 years or so? Who in the Prem is playing this mythical gorgeous football outside the top 6 or so and possibly Burnley? Don't suppose theres the slightest possibility we could merge the mentality that Martinez is trying to put in place at Wigan and their willingness to attempt to play a bit more football with our solid organised defence and actually come out of it with a more entertaining experience on a Saturday afternoon without any major differential in our league position. People keep banging on about European qualification, we'll I'd much sooner we address our one dimentional style than qualify for the Europa league. And how would you go about doing that then Alster? What is the secret of Martinez's "success" (the one that's seeing him finish lower down the league than his predecessor)? What's the secret to his kind of football that makes them so good to watch? Wigan have played well at times this season and they've been fucking awful at times as well - more so than as, as the table clearly indicates. |
|
|
|
Post by Stokester on Apr 22, 2010 22:04:26 GMT
Tuncay is quality. If he goes I would see it as a step backwards.
Beattie has no future at Stoke, Kitson can come good.
|
|
|
|
Post by kidsgrove4 on Apr 22, 2010 23:24:10 GMT
thankyou Joe.. you have just adequately summed up how much I seethe at the Tuncay negativity. He's a breath of fresh air and we haven't seen technical skill and innovation like his at the brit before! his play making against bolton, spacial awareness and touch on the ball was quality.. and then people are ready to demonise him because he HIT THE FOOKING POST! OH DEAR! we woulda been lucky if Mama had hit that same ball and kept it in the stadium! nice one pal! Well said mate. People were loving it when we signed him in the summer. He's a great player to watch and because he takes responsibility for his fitness, people are giving him abuse. The chorus of booing was disgraceful against Bolton - some people really do have to have a long hard think about whether they want Stoke to remain in the premier league because booing your best players ins't going to help acheive that. That's bullshit. I was a Stoke fan before him, I'll be one after him, and he is a spoilt little brat who has no place in a Stoke shirt carrying on the wat he does. I'm not a 'booer' , but the sooner we see the back of Tuncay the better. |
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 22, 2010 23:26:59 GMT
Winning is all that matters.
As Durban said 'if you want entertainment get off to the circus' with the other clowns.
|
|
