|
Post by Pricey on Apr 21, 2012 3:50:08 GMT
'inexcusable' really? He tried something and it didn't work. Pulis has tried many things, and most have paid off. Give the guy a break. I'm with you there. We can criticise all we like but Pulis is man doing the job and keeping us safe year-in-year-out. Everyone makes mistakes and he doesn't make very many.
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Apr 21, 2012 8:06:34 GMT
Just takes him ten games to admit what everyone else can see after two. But then he's been 'proving people wrong all my life, Nige' so it's hard for us fans to argue really...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Apr 21, 2012 8:07:31 GMT
Ah yes, was looking at his minutes played per game and assumed if he played over 50 mins that he'd have started - looking back we had a few injuries early on in those games (Shawcross v Castle and Wilson at Swansea) so I think you're right. Still, hardly a third of a season like you said earlier. I said he was relegated to the bench or at best he was played at full back for the first third of the season, which is correct. Isn't it? Surely not Betty being blown out of the water again then disappearing? Who would have thunk it? H
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Apr 21, 2012 8:22:53 GMT
The idea that Pulis solely signed Woodgate because of his name is so ridiculous. Admittedly I don't think big names and headlines are a bad thing for a club our size but there is a bit more to it than that. Woodgate has been a good centre back who is comfortable on the ball in a long career. His big downside is his injury record and seemingly that was factored into his contract. The biggest fuck up was not signing him or showing some faith in him, it was not putting him in the Euro squad. Idiocy. If Pulis just signs people for their names then there are plenty of crocks around begging for clubs we could have got instead of Walters. Unbelievable. I don't agree with Pulis dropping Huth to right back or Europe at the time but the idea that it was because he had boner for Woodgates hairband is mindless.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Apr 21, 2012 8:34:10 GMT
I said he was relegated to the bench or at best he was played at full back for the first third of the season, which is correct. Isn't it? Surely not Betty being blown out of the water again then disappearing? Who would have thunk it? H he'd just be fitting into standard oatcake procedure then
|
|
|
Post by yogibear78 on Apr 21, 2012 8:49:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Apr 21, 2012 9:22:33 GMT
Absolutely Joe. Woodgate wasn't signed for cover and he wasn't signed to make us a better footballing side form the back, he was signed because TP couldn't resist signing Jonathon Woodgate - period. The moment he could prove his fitness he was always going to be the first name on the team sheet, regardless of what the knock effect was throughout the rest of the team. Paul, you make some excellent points and you are clearly very knowledgable about both the game and Stoke City...... .....but..... other than TP nobody really knows why Woodgate was signed, why Huth was messed around etc etc. We can all infer, guess and suggest different theories but ultimately only one man really knows why he made those decisions. Period!!!
|
|
|
Post by Paddypotter on Apr 21, 2012 9:45:38 GMT
I'm a bit baffled with the point raised about bringing in Woodgate to enhence the football being played out of defence, to whom? our midfield, bursting with creativity there aren't we? The thinking may have changed since I was playing but a fullback had different attributes to a centrehalf, the centrehalf was generally tall, for the headers, strong in the tackle and could read the game well. The fullback was there to combat a pacey winger, he would need to be fast and able to turn quickly, it didn't matter if he could head it well. For me playing Huth at right back would be like letting a plasterer do the electrical wiring because he's good on a building site. On the first day on our return to the premiership TP on TV was asked had he learnt anything. His reply was"You can't put square pegs in round holes in the prem" yet he has done this in the majority of games played since.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 21, 2012 9:49:21 GMT
Absolutely Joe. Woodgate wasn't signed for cover and he wasn't signed to make us a better footballing side form the back, he was signed because TP couldn't resist signing Jonathon Woodgate - period. The moment he could prove his fitness he was always going to be the first name on the team sheet, regardless of what the knock effect was throughout the rest of the team. Paul, you make some excellent points and you are clearly very knowledgable about both the game and Stoke City...... .....but..... other than TP nobody really knows why Woodgate was signed, why Huth was messed around etc etc. We can all infer, guess and suggest different theories but ultimately only one man really knows why he made those decisions. Period!!! Absolutely Foxy, that's what makes this message board so great - it provides an opportunity for like minded individuals to infer, guess and suggest lots of different theories and exchange ideas. It was (I think) Colonel Mustard who provided a link where Tone said he'd learnt from Harry Redknapp, that if you get an opportunity to sign a good player then you don't turn it down. I suspect that at times Tone takes this philosophy to the nth degree and the analogy of a woman buying shoes that she doesn't actually need made by onionman earlier works for me on this occasion.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Apr 21, 2012 10:11:58 GMT
Absolutely Joe. Woodgate wasn't signed for cover and he wasn't signed to make us a better footballing side form the back, he was signed because TP couldn't resist signing Jonathon Woodgate - period. The moment he could prove his fitness he was always going to be the first name on the team sheet, regardless of what the knock effect was throughout the rest of the team. Paul, you make some excellent points and you are clearly very knowledgable about both the game and Stoke City...... .....but..... other than TP nobody really knows why Woodgate was signed, why Huth was messed around etc etc. We can all infer, guess and suggest different theories but ultimately only one man really knows why he made those decisions. Period!!! Regardless of whether TP is the only man who 'KNOWS PERIOD' I doubt he makes those decisions independently and I'm sure he would have to justify to at least Coates who he will be paying wages to and why. I suggest that some of the posts on here are bang on the money why he signed Woodgate and dropped Huth regardless of whether we know ultimately or not. H
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Apr 21, 2012 10:47:50 GMT
Paul, you make some excellent points and you are clearly very knowledgable about both the game and Stoke City...... .....but..... other than TP nobody really knows why Woodgate was signed, why Huth was messed around etc etc. We can all infer, guess and suggest different theories but ultimately only one man really knows why he made those decisions. Period!!! Absolutely Foxy, that's what makes this message board so great - it provides an opportunity for like minded individuals to infer, guess and suggest lots of different theories and exchange ideas. It was (I think) Colonel Mustard who provided a link where Tone said he'd learnt from Harry Redknapp, that if you get an opportunity to sign a good player then you don't turn it down. I suspect that at times Tone takes this philosophy to the nth degree and the analogy of a woman buying shoes that she doesn't actually need made by onionman earlier works for me on this occasion. It was me Paul, he's repeated a few something like he learnt "it's all about good players" from Harry. Bit of a truism really. I think more pertinent in this case was the experience of Huth and Danny getting injured while Abdy had fallen from grace made Pulis sign two quality defenders. That he went for ones that are a bit comfy on the ball should indicate a desire to improve that aspect rather than sign back up but we didn't have any real injuries anyway. I think these issues of keeping too many good players happy are important. I don't think the signings are/ were the problem, it's the rotation I think he struggles with. In fact it's proabably my biggest gripe with TP. Woodie should have been eligible for Europe for starters. Mind you, there is also the aspect that Huth's few rests will stand him in good stead at this end of the season. He got injured at this stage last year. Ryan could have had a couple more rests imo. edit - I do agree with your gist that he does sign what he considers to be good players first and worry about adjustments later, but just not on name alone. Within certain criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 21, 2012 10:54:25 GMT
I never said it was a flawless plan, or a well thought through one. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of him becoming available, TP deciding that he wanted a player of Woodgate's (former) calibre and then thinking, 'hey, if I get him then yeah, we could x, y and z' without thinking it through at all ajd then trying to make it stick.Like I say, when he's signed players on reputation only before and not had much idea of what to do with them, they've never gone straight into the team. To be fair MD that's not really much of a rebuttal to the point(s) I was making mate. To be honest, I don't think I'm in total disagreement with you. I'm sure his reputation and calibre played a large part in us signing him, but I just can't see that being the only reason at all.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Apr 21, 2012 11:18:04 GMT
Paul, you make some excellent points and you are clearly very knowledgable about both the game and Stoke City...... .....but..... other than TP nobody really knows why Woodgate was signed, why Huth was messed around etc etc. We can all infer, guess and suggest different theories but ultimately only one man really knows why he made those decisions. Period!!! Absolutely Foxy, that's what makes this message board so great - it provides an opportunity for like minded individuals to infer, guess and suggest lots of different theories and exchange ideas. It was (I think) Colonel Mustard who provided a link where Tone said he'd learnt from Harry Redknapp, that if you get an opportunity to sign a good player then you don't turn it down. I suspect that at times Tone takes this philosophy to the nth degree and the analogy of a woman buying shoes that she doesn't actually need made by onionman earlier works for me on this occasion. io I agree that at times TP can't resist an available player of a certain type irrespective of whether we need him or not. And unfortunately they are invariably centre backs. However, for me, the idea that maybe he wanted to try a more footballing approach also may have some truth in it. Very misguided and poorly executed but possible.
|
|
|
Post by complimentaryx on Apr 21, 2012 11:49:26 GMT
Jeeze...calm down.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 21, 2012 12:21:45 GMT
Absolutely Foxy, that's what makes this message board so great - it provides an opportunity for like minded individuals to infer, guess and suggest lots of different theories and exchange ideas. It was (I think) Colonel Mustard who provided a link where Tone said he'd learnt from Harry Redknapp, that if you get an opportunity to sign a good player then you don't turn it down. I suspect that at times Tone takes this philosophy to the nth degree and the analogy of a woman buying shoes that she doesn't actually need made by onionman earlier works for me on this occasion. It was me Paul, he's repeated a few something like he learnt "it's all about good players" from Harry. Bit of a truism really. I think more pertinent in this case was the experience of Huth and Danny getting injured while Abdy had fallen from grace made Pulis sign two quality defenders. That he went for ones that are a bit comfy on the ball should indicate a desire to improve that aspect rather than sign back up but we didn't have any real injuries anyway. I think these issues of keeping too many good players happy are important. I don't think the signings are/ were the problem, it's the rotation I think he struggles with. In fact it's proabably my biggest gripe with TP. Woodie should have been eligible for Europe for starters. Mind you, there is also the aspect that Huth's few rests will stand him in good stead at this end of the season. He got injured at this stage last year. Ryan could have had a couple more rests imo. edit - I do agree with your gist that he does sign what he considers to be good players first and worry about adjustments later, but just not on name alone. Within certain criteria. I agree and disagree with you Colonel ... Absolutely I think the issue of keeping too many good players happy is important but I don't believe rotation (for centre backs) is the answer. I said at the time that we would cause problems for ourselves by tring to keep Huth, Ryan, Woody and Upson ALL happy and we would be better off signing a young quality centre back from the championship (I suggested Matt Mills - boy did I get that one wrong! ;D) who would understand his place in the pecking order and make for a worthwhile understudy and cover when required. Manu, Chelsea, Man City etc. will always go with their first choice centre back pairing (if they're available) for both Premiership AND European games, the same can be said for all the top teams on the continent too. There's no need to rotate centre backs just for the sake of it and indeed most top managers don't do so.
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Apr 21, 2012 12:33:44 GMT
It was me Paul, he's repeated a few something like he learnt "it's all about good players" from Harry. Bit of a truism really. I think more pertinent in this case was the experience of Huth and Danny getting injured while Abdy had fallen from grace made Pulis sign two quality defenders. That he went for ones that are a bit comfy on the ball should indicate a desire to improve that aspect rather than sign back up but we didn't have any real injuries anyway. I think these issues of keeping too many good players happy are important. I don't think the signings are/ were the problem, it's the rotation I think he struggles with. In fact it's proabably my biggest gripe with TP. Woodie should have been eligible for Europe for starters. Mind you, there is also the aspect that Huth's few rests will stand him in good stead at this end of the season. He got injured at this stage last year. Ryan could have had a couple more rests imo. edit - I do agree with your gist that he does sign what he considers to be good players first and worry about adjustments later, but just not on name alone. Within certain criteria. I agree and disagree with you Colonel ... Absolutely I think the issue of keeping too many good players happy is important but I don't believe rotation (for centre backs) is the answer. I said at the time that we would cause problems for ourselves by tring to keep Huth, Ryan, Woody and Upson ALL happy and we would be better off signing a young quality centre back from the championship (I suggested Matt Mills - boy did I get that one wrong! ;D) who would understand his place in the pecking order and make for a worthwhile understudy and cover when required. Manu, Chelsea, Man City etc. will always go with their first choice centre back pairing (if they're available) for both Premiership AND European games, the same can be said for all the top teams on the continent too. There's no need to rotate centre backs just for the sake of it and indeed most top managers don't do so. I understand that it's not the current wisdom to rotate centre backs but the clubs that play in Europe seem to have more than their fair share of centre back injuries. I've obviously not done a study because I odn't care enough but it seems to be that way to me. To Pulis wisdom of the signings, he might have been worried about losing Ryan or Huth to a big offer and if not keen for them to learn a thing or two too. I don't know. I thought they were good signings and understandable too.
|
|
|
Post by wickerman on Apr 21, 2012 12:38:20 GMT
Come on you unbelievers. If you had Upson, just back from England Duty, Woodgate who if fit and in form was probably one of the finest central defenders in England, why not try out different combinations. We know Shawcross and Huth's distribution is abysmal. The smart thing was to try out different combinations to try and improve "Hoof Ball". He could not persist and we ended up with Huth & Shawcross from a pure defensive point of view but as for playing football forget it. I understand Pulis's reasoning. You maon at Hoof Ball and when he tries to chnage things you are on his back. Do you know what you know anything about football and how the changes have to take place? Unfortunately you have never played football and really don't deserve to speak in the same language. Trust me I know how this unfolded[/quote ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Upson had just had a rank World Cup and there was very little interest in him from other PL clubs .At what point in his career has Upson demonstrated that he is better ball playing CB than Shawcross and Huth ? Woodgate was an excellent defender but the those days were many years ago ( and many injuries).... since he has been at Stoke I have seen nothing to suggest his distribution is any better then Shawcross and Huth . You know how this unfolded really , please share ?
|
|
|
Post by onionman on Apr 21, 2012 15:12:17 GMT
Paul, you make some excellent points and you are clearly very knowledgable about both the game and Stoke City...... .....but..... other than TP nobody really knows why Woodgate was signed, why Huth was messed around etc etc. We can all infer, guess and suggest different theories but ultimately only one man really knows why he made those decisions. Period!!! Absolutely Foxy, that's what makes this message board so great - it provides an opportunity for like minded individuals to infer, guess and suggest lots of different theories and exchange ideas. It was (I think) Colonel Mustard who provided a link where Tone said he'd learnt from Harry Redknapp, that if you get an opportunity to sign a good player then you don't turn it down. I suspect that at times Tone takes this philosophy to the nth degree and the analogy of a woman buying shoes that she doesn't actually need made by onionman earlier works for me on this occasion. This approach by Pulis is not necessarily a bad thing for us at this moment in time though. It means he should be willing to do the same thing with our forward line this summer by signing whichever top drawer striker is available regardless of whether he seems to fit our system. Be it Defoe, Bent, Bellamy or whoever is willing to come to Stoke this season. Then we could finally the team shape to accommodate whoever it is. A year ago the thought of dropping Huth to find room for a new centre-back seemed unthinkable, just as right now it seems Pulis will never ever drop Walters.
|
|