|
Post by stokelad84 on Feb 3, 2011 22:44:42 GMT
Where are Wolves again bunny? Looks like they are on the way down.
Bolton are doing slightly better than us, despite having 8 years advantage at this level.
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Feb 3, 2011 22:47:31 GMT
There's a lot of pre menstrual or pre pubescent mardarses on this board. Lose away to Liverpool and its "sack the manager!" If we force Pulis out of this club we will be the most mocked fans in the country. Great idea to get rid of our most succesful manager in 35 years. You lot can be summed up by one post "I'm thinking of going to watch Crewe" - written by SCFC Loyalist. Loyal - my arse. Can you imagine his reaction if he'd chosen Northampton away for his first game ;D 6-2.............and one of the two was a late consolation. Still, I'm sure he'd have gone home entertained because they knocked it around a bit................not! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif) Seriously, though, to the original question: We're doing fine for me, thanks. In fact, better than I ever expected us to do again in my lifetime, on and off the pitch, so I've far from had enough, yet, thanks! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif)
|
|
|
Post by fixpc4u on Feb 4, 2011 1:05:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by staffordstokie999 on Feb 4, 2011 1:24:56 GMT
i've had enough of some so called supporters, Sunderland fans or anyone else reading this board must be pissing themselves laughing at how deluded we must look. I don't want to be associated with them.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 4, 2011 9:25:33 GMT
A manager should be like any player. The club should be constantly keeping an eye on the market. When they see a manager who they think could significantly improve on the work of the current manager, without completely disrupting the rest of the organisation they should make the change. So the time to change is dictated by who's available. Personally I'd have taken Mark Hughes after Man City sacked him, now I'd take Martin O'Neil. Waiting until you need to make the change is actually a lot more risky for the longer term success and stability of the club.
|
|
|
Post by The Red and White Baron on Feb 4, 2011 9:38:15 GMT
I'm beginning to get a little concerned at posters on here. I knew it was only a matter of time until some people forgot what Pulis has done for the club but after only 3 years is a concern. The way Pulis has turned us into an established Premier League club in 3 seasons means that the only way we could be relegated is if our own fans started putting pressure on him and then force him out ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cj7bsBj2jOTuEAUVaPt5.gif) My opinion anyway is that people are not really bored with Pulis, but with the Premier League. The magic of the first season where every week seemed more exciting than the last has long gone now. That was of course not going to be the same the season after and the one after that ect.
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Feb 4, 2011 9:39:37 GMT
A manager should be like any player. The club should be constantly keeping an eye on the market. When they see a manager who they think could significantly improve on the work of the current manager, without completely disrupting the rest of the organisation they should make the change. So the time to change is dictated by who's available. Personally I'd have taken Mark Hughes after Man City sacked him, now I'd take Martin O'Neil. Waiting until you need to make the change is actually a lot more risky for the longer term success and stability of the club. Alster You seriously think that the route to success and stability at a club is to regularly change the manager ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/7TTgAtwUz19SBi0cvrCX.gif) Just take a look at the clubs who regularly change managers and see what happened to them. That is a recipe for disaster
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Feb 4, 2011 9:39:59 GMT
Fed up with this shit.....mark hughes????? matin o'neill????? What do they offer that Pulis doesn't???? Oh yeah....they're both mercenary pricks who would see a job at Stoke as a stepping stone to a better job. That sounds like a step up from a manager who truly loves the club, people and area. A man who buried his mother and drove straight back to work. Some of the dicks on here are so deluded it's laughable. I think some of you need to stop playing football manager on the pc, stop listening to the hype and shite peddaled by sky, motd etc and grow a pair. We are Stoke....we do it our way....Pulis is Pulis and he does it his way. Grow up and wake up or f-ck off and support a "real" club like united or arsenal where they play "proper" football. Sack Pulis????? Give me a f-cking break.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Feb 4, 2011 9:42:04 GMT
A manager should be like any player. The club should be constantly keeping an eye on the market. When they see a manager who they think could significantly improve on the work of the current manager, without completely disrupting the rest of the organisation they should make the change. So the time to change is dictated by who's available. Personally I'd have taken Mark Hughes after Man City sacked him, now I'd take Martin O'Neil. Waiting until you need to make the change is actually a lot more risky for the longer term success and stability of the club. I disagree with that mate. A manager manages the entire team and he is best placed to assess the impact a new player would have on the existing team. The board of directors have very little, if any, actual idea of relationships and goings on at the player/coach level of the club and as such making a managerial change carries a much larger risk in terms of disrupting the team than simply changing a player. Also, a poor performing player can be subbed/dropped from the team at which point he will have no influence on results. A manager cannot be dropped and will always have the largest influence on results in terms of tactics, strategy, team selection, etc.
|
|
|
Post by monkhousestokie on Feb 4, 2011 9:58:22 GMT
All this negative bollocks have started me thinking whether to knock the Oatie on the head as the board resembles a civil war at the moment.
But at the end of the day it's just a few hundred peoples opinions on a internet forum, so I'm just going to ignore the moaning threads.
Come on Stoke!!!
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 4, 2011 10:07:07 GMT
A manager should be like any player. The club should be constantly keeping an eye on the market. When they see a manager who they think could significantly improve on the work of the current manager, without completely disrupting the rest of the organisation they should make the change. So the time to change is dictated by who's available. Personally I'd have taken Mark Hughes after Man City sacked him, now I'd take Martin O'Neil. Waiting until you need to make the change is actually a lot more risky for the longer term success and stability of the club. Alster You seriously think that the route to success and stability at a club is to regularly change the manager ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/7TTgAtwUz19SBi0cvrCX.gif) Just take a look at the clubs who regularly change managers and see what happened to them. That is a recipe for disaster Thats a mainly British disease and those clubs who change manager frequently perform poorly because they are reactive changes almost always amidst a crisis, often shifting from one style and personality to its complete opposite in one jerk of the knee. I'm talking about proactive change, considered change, this is the sort of change that can be achieved with minimal disruption.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2011 10:39:51 GMT
Erm, you're saying change during a crisis is a bad idea, change when there is no crisis is a good thing?
Not a theory you see regularly in management circles, but hey, maybe you've started a genius new way to run things.
|
|
|
Post by staffordstokie999 on Feb 4, 2011 11:36:35 GMT
Erm, you're saying change during a crisis is a bad idea, change when there is no crisis is a good thing? Not a theory you see regularly in management circles, but hey, maybe you've started a genius new way to run things. what crisis? there isnt a crisis. If 10th in the premier league is a crisis then its shows how far we have come
|
|
|
Post by alster on Feb 4, 2011 11:52:07 GMT
Erm, you're saying change during a crisis is a bad idea, change when there is no crisis is a good thing? Not a theory you see regularly in management circles, but hey, maybe you've started a genius new way to run things. what crisis? there isnt a crisis. If 10th in the premier league is a crisis then its shows how far we have come No you're misunderstanding the debate neither of us were claiming that Stoke are in any sort of a crisis. I was advocating a considered change designed to move the club on to the next level. sifluke prefers the British model where you wait for a crisis, then make a knee jerk reaction and make an ill considered change when you're options are probably at their most limited. The reason I'd go for O'Neil is that I consider he'd be a good fit and ticks a lot of boxes that I don't think Pulis does, not because I think he'd produce the prettiest football I've ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Feb 4, 2011 12:14:27 GMT
I am far from "having enough" and whilst not wanting Pulis out I have to be honest and say that if he left, I wouldn't shed too many tears.
I have no problems with my team being shit. Hell, I have seen a damned site worse teams than the one we have now. I can live with rubbish but what I find very difficult to accept is that our team can be sent on to the pitch with absolutely no intention to win the game in front of them.
Make no mistake, that is what happened on Wednesday and it was unacceptable. It was only ever a matter of time until the scored and it was clear from minute one that when they did, we didn't have a goal in us.
The main problem is that when we were really shit, it would only cost about £ 12 to watch us lose to 9 men at Milwall. Watching that shit on Wednesday cost £ 40 and at that point, it is very difficult to justify.
I don't miss many games, hardly any in fact, but I chose not to go to Chelsea this season and that is the first game that I have actually chosen to miss for as long as I can remember.
I won't be going to Anfield again whilst Pulis is in charge.
Shit I can live with. I have seen lots of it. Sending your team out with the view that they can't win and should defend a 1-0 defeat, then a 2-0 defeat is totally unacceptable.
Pulis should be rightly criticised for this fact regardless of his achievements to date.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Feb 4, 2011 12:22:41 GMT
That's pretty much how I feel about it Dave.
This season will see me missing more away games than I've done in twenty-odd years. I missed Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool (though probably would've done both of those games had they been Saturday matches and provided a weekend out) and I won't be going to Arsenal.
Supporting your club isn't a cock measuring context, and you don't get any medals for it. I've seen more Stoke matches than I care to remember and been through the shit of Ball, Little, Kamara et al, yet still get stick by fellow supporters for what they consider my stance on our manager to be.
This is the Premier League and the fact is that every now and then we're going to beaten heavily. I can handle that, it's not a big deal. I don't like to see us playing badly and I'll have my say when we do, like we did at Fulham. What I can't stand to see is my team not even giving it a go, like we saw at Anfield the other night.
While the likes of Wolves and Blackpool can go there without shitting their pants, then there's no excuse for us to do so.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 4, 2011 12:27:02 GMT
I posted on another thread that i dreamed of Stoke being in The Premier League and watching us go the above places.....but sorry Tony unless you have a change in mindset i wont be going to em again....you have ruined the occasion
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 4, 2011 12:27:10 GMT
We don't shit our pants...we just choose not to give it a go in preference for other games.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 4, 2011 12:29:16 GMT
We don't shit our pants...we just choose not to give it a go in preference for other games. Chelsea and Man Utd away at end of last season Merk
|
|
|
Post by sirpineapple89 on Feb 4, 2011 12:29:09 GMT
Dave and Dave have summed up it up for me. Bob on. There are simply no excuses for the way we go in to many of our matches when you see how other teams often go into games and get something. If you're going to lose, at least have a frigging go.
Oh, and I've not had enough. Not by a long way. I just see that there are things that can be improved on and will question the manager when I see fit. I understand the viewpoint of "look at where we've come from" but Pulis has the same flaws now that he had back then, with no real signs of changing.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 4, 2011 12:33:43 GMT
That's the problem though werrington
We all dreamed of going to the 'Big 4' when in truth, it's those games that matter the least.
I went to Man Utd and had a great time - got to see us score and we put up a decent fist of it - I never really believed we would win the game though.
Our side isn't really built to be playing the big teams away from home on big wide open spaces.
At home, narrow, we can hassle all day long with less ground to cover..it's a more realistic prospect and that is why we have beaten the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal at home when things haven't been going swimmingly for them.
I may not like it but I understand it and can't really fault the manager for it. He wants to amass as many points as possible and he believes this is the best way to go about it.
|
|
|
Post by MrMagic on Feb 4, 2011 12:38:03 GMT
I find this whole concept of "what Pulis had done for us" a little irritating.
He has undoutedly done a great deal for Stoke, but that does not give him the divine right to manage us for as long as he sees fit, and it does not give him the right to field appalling sides and not be questioned by the supporters.
Many of stokes fan base were supporters before Tony Pulis came along, and many will still be supporters after he has gone. Stoke City are far far bigger than Tony Pulis.
In terms of whether I have had enough, no, because I still go. However, the joy of attending matches has been completely strangled out of me. I never look forward to games any more. Attending matches has become something that I just do.
I'd love to be one of those people who take satisfaction just from being at the top table, but I want something more than that. I want some joy, some beauty. I want to be amazed by a bit of skill, or by seeing a player do something that raises my excitement. I just don't get that from watching us keep it tight and hope for the odd set piece.
We looked like we were moving forward, but the train has come well and truely off the rails.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 4, 2011 12:38:41 GMT
Boxy
All teams change it around at times.
Funny that davef picks out at wolves and blackpool as the ideal teams when those 2 are the fuckers that got fined for fielding weaker teams at other places.
I wouldn't swap teams/squads or positions for those teams either.
Some of you need to wake about a bit and realise that all managers do the same and they do it for good reason (they certaintly don't do it to annoy all of their fans)
|
|
|
Post by Titan Uranus on Feb 4, 2011 12:39:57 GMT
I find this whole concept of "what Pulis had done for us" a little irritating. He has undoutedly done a great deal for Stoke, but that does not give him the divine right to manage us for as long as he sees fit, and it does not give him the right to field appalling sides and not be questioned by the supporters. Many of stokes fan base were supporters before Tony Pulis came along, and many will still be supporters after he has gone. Stoke City are far far bigger than Tony Pulis. In terms of whether I have had enough, no, because I still go. However, the joy of attending matches has been completely strangled out of me. I never look forward to games any more. Attending matches has become something that I just do. I'd love to be one of those people who take satisfaction just from being at the top table, but I want something more than that. I want some joy, some beauty. I want to be amazed by a bit of skill, or by seeing a player do something that raises my excitement. I just don't get that from watching us keep it tight and hope for the odd set piece. We looked like we were moving forward, but the train has come well and truely off the rails. Top post.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 4, 2011 12:40:31 GMT
Mr Magic
Are you sure?
Statisitcs would tell you that TP has found an extra 10,000 fans that weren't there before.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Feb 4, 2011 12:41:04 GMT
That's the problem though werrington We all dreamed of going to the 'Big 4' when in truth, it's those games that matter the least. I went to Man Utd and had a great time - got to see us score and we put up a decent fist of it - I never really believed we would win the game though. Our side isn't really built to be playing the big teams away from home on big wide open spaces. At home, narrow, we can hassle all day long with less ground to cover..it's a more realistic prospect and that is why we have beaten the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal at home when things haven't been going swimmingly for them. I may not like it but I understand it and can't really fault the manager for it. He wants to amass as many points as possible and he believes this is the best way to go about it. I think 36 points will be enough Merk and we will pass that with no problems......There is cautious mate and there is cautious?...we were always going to lose that game as it was just a matter of time before they scored and they were just billy average.....Fulham are not any of those teams yet we had a similar mindset that day...all the players who can create end offer something different were either unused subs or taken off the pitch?
|
|
|
Post by MrMagic on Feb 4, 2011 12:41:10 GMT
That's the problem though werrington We all dreamed of going to the 'Big 4' when in truth, it's those games that matter the least. I went to Man Utd and had a great time - got to see us score and we put up a decent fist of it - I never really believed we would win the game though. Our side isn't really built to be playing the big teams away from home on big wide open spaces. At home, narrow, we can hassle all day long with less ground to cover..it's a more realistic prospect and that is why we have beaten the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal at home when things haven't been going swimmingly for them. I may not like it but I understand it and can't really fault the manager for it. He wants to amass as many points as possible and he believes this is the best way to go about it. mcf - I understand the manager identiying the games that he thinks he can win, and the games that he is less concerned about. I don't have any issue with that. What I do have an issue with is handing the opposition the game on a plate. If he knows he hasn't factored the points at Anfield into his wider plan then why not just play our normal game and see what happens?
|
|
|
Post by geriatricoatcake on Feb 4, 2011 12:42:29 GMT
I think it is fair to say those who have endured the 23 years out of the Premier/First Division have probably a higher pain threshold and appreciation of what Pulis has done for this club in recent years. My eldest son is 25 and I genuinely never expected us to see a Premiership game together in my lifetime. I say better the Devil you know with stability being very important at this point in time.
|
|
|
Post by sirpineapple89 on Feb 4, 2011 12:43:17 GMT
That's the problem though werrington We all dreamed of going to the 'Big 4' when in truth, it's those games that matter the least. I went to Man Utd and had a great time - got to see us score and we put up a decent fist of it - I never really believed we would win the game though. Our side isn't really built to be playing the big teams away from home on big wide open spaces. At home, narrow, we can hassle all day long with less ground to cover..it's a more realistic prospect and that is why we have beaten the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal at home when things haven't been going swimmingly for them. I may not like it but I understand it and can't really fault the manager for it. He wants to amass as many points as possible and he believes this is the best way to go about it. mcf - I understand the manager identiying the games that he thinks he can win, and the games that he is less concerned about. I don't have any issue with that. What I do have an issue with is handing the opposition the game on a plate. If he knows he hasn't factored the points at Anfield into his wider plan then why not just play our normal game and see what happens? Exactamundo. If he's not targeted that game as winnable, then why not have a go anyway?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 4, 2011 12:44:36 GMT
How was it not our normal game?
It's exactly what you would expect but just a case of which personnel and he wanted to save certains players for the weekend.
|
|