|
|
Post by edaboagenawo on Mar 9, 2017 18:11:16 GMT
Piece here from Football365. Raises a lot of interesting points even if I don't agree with 100% of it. A bit of a mood-change from the euphoria of last night. I hope last night (and Boro) are the signs of things to come and something from which to kick on and improve. www.football365.com/news/stoke-stuck-in-the-middle-with-mark-hughesAlways loved the tune and still sing it from time to time. And at the time it was in the charts, Stoke weren't stuck in the middle, they finished the season 15th. Greenhoff top scorer with 20 goals. I liked the article, sums things up pretty accurately. |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Mar 9, 2017 18:20:14 GMT
A few random niggles (although we do seem to be going around in circles).......... "Stuck" on the verge of doing something we haven't managed in our entire history? Is banging up against your glass ceiling every single year a failure? BMI "useful but erratic"? Questions Shawcross' form with no mention of his injury? (he carried on his fabulous Pulis form well into Hughes' tenure) Is a managerial record of 6th, 7th, 8th, 4 9ths and a 10th with small clubs anything but a triumph, rather than the "epitome of average"? Is a poor record v the top 10 a massive disappointment when every club in our mini-league is similarly poor - Stoke 6 points, Southampton 6, West Ham 7, WBA 8 (4 v us) No reference to us losing our best player, N'Zonzi, who was the fulcrum of the team. No reference to Bojan's injury from which he never really recovered. "Diouf 'on the verge of stardom'" Really? "Wollscheid just below top-class to completely useless" Double really? Making out Hughes is an idiot for playing Shaq where he's played his entire club career. Would any of this anti-Hughes narrative even have been a debating point 10/15 years ago? Just seems that things have really changed - and aren't entirely sure why. As if the golden periods at the end of his first season, end of his second and Christmas of hs third can ever be the norm for a club like Stoke? In short....It's a pile of arse. Completely Agree and no informed view of what a realistic better alternative is. I am pretty sure as I have heard them say it that the powers that be at the club see Top 10 as completely acceptable and anything more a bonus. Nothing to take from this article |
|
|
|
Post by Scrotnig on Mar 9, 2017 19:33:01 GMT
That's a pretty decent article and mostly sums things up well.
However, the likes of Sunderland would give their right arm to be in the position we are in. Perhaps we (as fans) have got a bit complacent. I include myself in that.
My feelings, detatched from the high emotions of the aftermath of a game, is that Hughes still does a pretty good job. There have certainly been issues this season, and far, far too many four goal tonkings. However, I get the impression that the 'fix' for all of that, whatever it is, is not something requiring major surgery and Hughes is more than capable of doing it.
We are quite likely to finish 9th. Again. You can call it boring or not progressing if you wish, in the current climate I'd call it an exceptional achievement and one that perhaps we as fans are in danger of losing sight of.
Most of the games we have conceded four in I would have had no problem with losing if we hadn't been so abominably obviously not trying and displaying a 'give up' attitude. That is what grates. Almost as if the players were trying to teach the manager a lesson in some way. That's what I want an end to, if we actually still lose such games then so be it.
But I am definitely 'Hughes IN'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 9, 2017 19:45:22 GMT
Peter Goldstein's not off here though.
He's written loads of stuff recently with just as much detail about other clubs.
I think there's a lot of mistakes in the article but he'd probably be pretty chuffed to know that people off this message board are accusing him of being one of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 9, 2017 19:47:02 GMT
Well-written but an absolute steaming pile of horseshit all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 9, 2017 19:59:37 GMT
Really? Bearing in mind that even eighth place is "around the middle", and I included the phrase "pretty much"? There could be the odd season where everything clicks and we finish a bit higher, but realistically, we're never going to be, say, a regular top-six team. If we bring in the right manager that brings in the right players we can finish anywhere. There is nothing set in stone that we are a mid table club and always will be, I just don't buy into that. In a world where Leicester can win the Premier League, yes, anything is possible- but what are the chances of us finishing, say, in the top 6? How often has a club outside the usual suspects done that in the past 20 years? The odds, the probablility, the percentages, call it what you will, are pretty fucking low. And this is what you don't seem to understand: what you are continually crapping on about, and beating Hughes over the head for failing to do, is something that every other club wants to do too- West Ham, Southampton, Watford, West Brom etc etc. They're all competing to finish as high as possible too, but how many of them have actually done it and how often? It's extremely rare. However, how many similar sized clubs to us have gone tumbling down the league, or even out of it? Shitloads. The margins between stability and crisis are pretty fucking slim in this league, and you'd willingly ditch a manager who has an amazing track record of guiding mid-sized clubs to top-half finishes, thus sacrificing that stability, in the hope that we can somehow land some absolute managerial genius, who then somehow signs a load of world-class players on a mid-table budget? It's insane. |
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Mar 9, 2017 20:03:57 GMT
That's a pretty decent article and mostly sums things up well. However, the likes of Sunderland would give their right arm to be in the position we are in. Perhaps we (as fans) have got a bit complacent. I include myself in that. My feelings, detatched from the high emotions of the aftermath of a game, is that Hughes still does a pretty good job. There have certainly been issues this season, and far, far too many four goal tonkings. However, I get the impression that the 'fix' for all of that, whatever it is, is not something requiring major surgery and Hughes is more than capable of doing it. We are quite likely to finish 9th. Again. You can call it boring or not progressing if you wish, in the current climate I'd call it an exceptional achievement and one that perhaps we as fans are in danger of losing sight of. Most of the games we have conceded four in I would have had no problem with losing if we hadn't been so abominably obviously not trying and displaying a 'give up' attitude. That is what grates. Almost as if the players were trying to teach the manager a lesson in some way. That's what I want an end to, if we actually still lose such games then so be it. But I am definitely 'Hughes IN'. Been said before mate but I really don't think the players have been trying to teach Hughes owt and I don't think the tonkings were about giving up or players not trying. Crystal Palace and Spurs were both stinkers but again for different reasons. The tonkings need a bit of differentiation and deeper analysis than that. For me there's been a few individual errors and shit finishing that has made the difference, could have been in a more elevated position. Re running the season I reckon our performances warrant at least 6 more points without really fluking owt. We've been good value for our results. In fact the majority of players who've spoken about it are rayt behind Hughes or here to benefit from his wisdom. Good stuff though Scrot. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Mar 9, 2017 22:37:15 GMT
High highs and low lows? We are talking about Mark Hughes and not Alan Pardew, aren't we? We're Stoke City. We're pretty much going to be stuck around the middle under any manager, unless Coates has some kind of breakdown and appoints Tim Sherwood or Owen Coyle. It's almost like the author thought of a snappy title and created an article around it. That's just not true. We might have one glory season where we break 60 points or something but assuming our budget reasons mid table then that's where we will be mostly. Unless of course we appoint a genuine bad manager. Not had one of those this century in my opinion (maybe Cotteril) |
|
|
|
Post by hanibal7 on Mar 10, 2017 1:04:30 GMT
Are the disruntled fans, unhappy in their own lives, mundane jobs, living in Stoke onTrent, poor jobs, etc etc.
Do they need someone to hate, or dislike, to feel powerful, or are they just half empty glass types, who do not understand football. 15 YEARS in Thailand has made my glass half full and very happy so the odd 4-0 thrashing is not the end of the world, staying in premier league is important to me, the odd win or draw against the money teams is worth everything, more importantly beating the other mid to lower teams is far more important, we have done it this season, onwards and upwards, my life is wonderful.
|
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Mar 10, 2017 1:14:46 GMT
We will always be stuck in the middle, if we're lucky.
|
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 10, 2017 1:45:06 GMT
If we bring in the right manager that brings in the right players we can finish anywhere. There is nothing set in stone that we are a mid table club and always will be, I just don't buy into that. In a world where Leicester can win the Premier League, yes, anything is possible- but what are the chances of us finishing, say, in the top 6? How often has a club outside the usual suspects done that in the past 20 years? The odds, the probablility, the percentages, call it what you will, are pretty fucking low. And this is what you don't seem to understand: what you are continually crapping on about, and beating Hughes over the head for failing to do, is something that every other club wants to do too- West Ham, Southampton, Watford, West Brom etc etc. They're all competing to finish as high as possible too, but how many of them have actually done it and how often? It's extremely rare. However, how many similar sized clubs to us have gone tumbling down the league, or even out of it? Shitloads. The margins between stability and crisis are pretty fucking slim in this league, and you'd willingly ditch a manager who has an amazing track record of guiding mid-sized clubs to top-half finishes, thus sacrificing that stability, in the hope that we can somehow land some absolute managerial genius, who then somehow signs a load of world-class players on a mid-table budget? It's insane. -You can sign world class players on a mid table budget. How much was Kante? How much was Mahrez? -I give Hughes crap over many things. Not for failing to reach the top 6???  -If we sack Hughes then it doesn't mean certain relegation. -We don't have to land a managerial genius to play decent football and progress as a team. Let's destroy this stupid myth about small city's can't compete, being a small club, blah blah blah we can only finish mid table. |
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 10, 2017 1:48:42 GMT
We might have one glory season where we break 60 points or something but assuming our budget reasons mid table then that's where we will be mostly. Unless of course we appoint a genuine bad manager. Not had one of those this century in my opinion (maybe Cotteril) You don't have to do it all in one season. |
|
|
|
Post by auntiegeorge on Mar 10, 2017 3:10:01 GMT
Why does every single article about our club end on a rolling current of negativity? It's such an anticlimax. We're consistently better than 11 teams in the PL despite our obvious ups and downs. And let's not forget that the PL is the most open and competitive league in the world. I'd say that was something to shout about and be proud of. Stuck or not.
This was an accurate but boring and predictable article which told me nothing I haven't known for years. I'd hate to read the author's views on Burnley, Watford & Swansea for example. I'd be suicidal.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Mar 10, 2017 3:20:24 GMT
if consistently being in the top ten is a bad thing then fook me what do the fans of sunderland,crystal palace,west brom[except this season] hull,etc think?
the top6 is unattainable so we are 3rd in a league of 14 not too shabby in my eyes
|
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 10, 2017 6:29:07 GMT
If we bring in the right manager that brings in the right players we can finish anywhere. There is nothing set in stone that we are a mid table club and always will be, I just don't buy into that. In a world where Leicester can win the Premier League, yes, anything is possible- but what are the chances of us finishing, say, in the top 6? How often has a club outside the usual suspects done that in the past 20 years? The odds, the probablility, the percentages, call it what you will, are pretty fucking low. And this is what you don't seem to understand: what you are continually crapping on about, and beating Hughes over the head for failing to do, is something that every other club wants to do too- West Ham, Southampton, Watford, West Brom etc etc. They're all competing to finish as high as possible too, but how many of them have actually done it and how often? It's extremely rare. However, how many similar sized clubs to us have gone tumbling down the league, or even out of it? Shitloads. The margins between stability and crisis are pretty fucking slim in this league, and you'd willingly ditch a manager who has an amazing track record of guiding mid-sized clubs to top-half finishes, thus sacrificing that stability, in the hope that we can somehow land some absolute managerial genius, who then somehow signs a load of world-class players on a mid-table budget? It's insane. I always come back to the idea that the problem with some people is they haven't worked out there's a difference between what they do on FIFA and Football Manager and what real people have to do in the real world. |
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Mar 10, 2017 6:55:05 GMT
Chelsea were not an established major force until very recently. They broke into the big league from 1996 onwards, they were little bigger than us before then although they managed one league title in the fifties.
This glass ceiling stuff is not real. Of course its difficult as there is stiff competition, but it is not impossible, and accepting our place is mid table will result in exactly that - because if fans can't be convinced there is potential we wont be able to convince better players either.
All we need is money (which we have) a fair deal from referees and the authorities (questionable), luck with injuries (not recently), progressive and stable ownership (better than most), a visionary, brave manager (better than most), and the ability to get players to buy in to Stoke (we are better at this these days), plus passionate, numerous, supporters.
I started watching in 1970, I'm convinced we have the best squad (if not the most settled team) we have ever had in that time. Real success is within reach if things go our way and we keep the faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 10, 2017 6:59:38 GMT
In a world where Leicester can win the Premier League, yes, anything is possible- but what are the chances of us finishing, say, in the top 6? How often has a club outside the usual suspects done that in the past 20 years? The odds, the probablility, the percentages, call it what you will, are pretty fucking low. And this is what you don't seem to understand: what you are continually crapping on about, and beating Hughes over the head for failing to do, is something that every other club wants to do too- West Ham, Southampton, Watford, West Brom etc etc. They're all competing to finish as high as possible too, but how many of them have actually done it and how often? It's extremely rare. However, how many similar sized clubs to us have gone tumbling down the league, or even out of it? Shitloads. The margins between stability and crisis are pretty fucking slim in this league, and you'd willingly ditch a manager who has an amazing track record of guiding mid-sized clubs to top-half finishes, thus sacrificing that stability, in the hope that we can somehow land some absolute managerial genius, who then somehow signs a load of world-class players on a mid-table budget? It's insane. -You can sign world class players on a mid table budget. How much was Kante? How much was Mahrez? -I give Hughes crap over many things. Not for failing to reach the top 6??? -If we sack Hughes then it doesn't mean certain relegation. -We don't have to land a managerial genius to play decent football and progress as a team. Let's destroy this stupid myth about small city's can't compete, being a small club, blah blah blah we can only finish mid table. - Again, exceptions to the rule. How many more in that price backet and above are failures? -If we sack Hughes then it doesn't mean certain relegation. Did I say it did? It's all about probability. The probability, changing manager in our position, is that the most likely way is down the table. -We don't have to land a managerial genius to play decent football and progress as a team. What's progress then? If you're scoffing at the idea of demanding top 6 (see above) but in the same breath saying you want to progress- what does progress mean to you? Finishing 7th, 8th? Playing a bit more attractive football? What you're actualy saying is that you'd risk destabilising the club to finish one place higher in the league. That's beyond lunacy. For a mid-sized club like us, there is probably a narrow gap above us where we can realistically hope to progress to. However, there's a yawning chasm below us that we can fall into- this is something that you seem not to realise. You seem to think that appointing a new manager means he's going to be better than the last bloke. If you were born in 93 (I'm guessing at that from your username- I might be wrong) then that's all you'll have probably seen in your time as a fan: a succession of good managers each better than the last. We've been lucky with that though in the last couple of decades. It only takes one shit manager and 20 years of progress could be undone in one or two seasons. As greyman says- too much Football Manager and FIFA I think. |
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Mar 10, 2017 7:01:30 GMT
Chelsea were not an established major force until very recently. They broke into the big league from 1996 onwards, they were little bigger than us before then although they managed one league title in the fifties. This glass ceiling stuff is not real. Of course its difficult as there is stiff competition, but it is not impossible, and accepting our place is mid table will result in exactly that - because if fans can't be convinced there is potential we wont be able to convince better players either. All we need is money (which we have) a fair deal from referees and the authorities (questionable), luck with injuries (not recently), progressive and stable ownership (better than most), a visionary, brave manager (better than most), and the ability to get players to buy in to Stoke (we are better at this these days), plus passionate, numerous, supporters. I started watching in 1970, I'm convinced we have the best squad (if not the most settled team) we have ever had in that time. Real success is within reach if things go our way and we keep the faith. If we're using Chelsea as a barometer of where we should be then I fucking give up. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Mar 10, 2017 9:10:07 GMT
It was an ok read but the author has based it on this asylum of a messageboard, what did you expect?  |
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 10, 2017 9:51:08 GMT
It reads like many oatcake posts because its an opinion shared by quite a few people. Its balanced with all the positives and reasons why any dissatisfaction could be puzzling to a casual observer. I think its a fair piece I'm not sure why those who are satisfied feel the need to pretend any dissatisfaction simply doesn't exist or is limited to a slack handful of lunatics on a message board. Smacks of some sort of insecurity. You seem a bit touchy this afternoon, alster? I didn't say the article was unbalanced or unfair, just that the person who wrote it could have simply used Oatcake as their source of reference. The article equates the Pulis and Hughes years as stuck in the middle. I don't; I think the later has improved the team/squad, generally, although I concede we have not had so many "high points". To repeat myself, I take the more positive view that we are now stuck in the top half of the Prem. My "satisfied" position is that stuck in 9th place is a good place to be, not a cause for frustration. Given a settled team, without injuries to key players, and a better start to a season, I believe 9th is a good place to improve upon and Hughes and his assistants, who have consistently achieved top half season positions with clubs, are the best people to deliver. I have never pretended dissatisfaction doesn't exist with some fans and never questioned anyone's sanity, just their rationale. I simply take a contrary view to those who are dissatisfied to the point of wanting to replace the manager, which I think would be foolhardy. I don't think Hughes is an "average manager", in fact Stoke City has been blessed with two successive managers who have been better than the average and only clubs with much, much bigger budgets have done consistently better than Stoke over the last 8 seasons. This is not to say that I think everything in the garden is rosy. I have been bitterly disappointed at the lack of a cup run this season, and am concerned at the aging squad, and lack of product from the academy. Buying players for a lot of money who fail to make the grade, I can live with. That is football and as for wasting money, we could take lessons off ManU, ManC, Liverpool, and Arsenal. I can understand young fans wanting faster progress, I was young once - a long time ago, but after over half a century supporting Stoke I am able to be patient and still enjoy our current exalted position in the league. (Didn't understand the insecurity comment.) It wasn't really aimed at yourself. You more tend to express your own opinion and accept that people have differing ones. Some posters simply won't accept there are a significant sector of dissatisfied fans in our supporter base. As I've acknowledged its a difficult situation to solve because we're now dissatisfied for reasons that are polar opposites. Its different to the Pulis demise when the gripes were all virtually about the same sort of thing. Now theres a range of conflicting issues dividing the discontents into differing groups that I've done my best to outline. People complaining about 4 goal hammerings and people complaining about lack of free flowing football and entertainment its going to be very difficult to please both, if you play free flowing attacking football and don't win you often get dicked see Barcelona vs PSG. Personally I want us to win more, score more, draw less but that comes at a price unless you're totally dominant in the league which is not likely, you're going to also lose more and concede more its virtually inevitable. Some fans can't handle that they prefer a safety first approach which people like me hate. |
|
|
|
Post by edaboagenawo on Mar 10, 2017 10:10:34 GMT
Chelsea were not an established major force until very recently. They broke into the big league from 1996 onwards, they were little bigger than us before then although they managed one league title in the fifties. This glass ceiling stuff is not real. Of course its difficult as there is stiff competition, but it is not impossible, and accepting our place is mid table will result in exactly that - because if fans can't be convinced there is potential we wont be able to convince better players either. All we need is money (which we have) a fair deal from referees and the authorities (questionable), luck with injuries (not recently), progressive and stable ownership (better than most), a visionary, brave manager (better than most), and the ability to get players to buy in to Stoke (we are better at this these days), plus passionate, numerous, supporters. I started watching in 1970, I'm convinced we have the best squad (if not the most settled team) we have ever had in that time. Real success is within reach if things go our way and we keep the faith. Best squad since 1970 ? How much would Stoke have to pay for a Banks, a Shilton, Greenhoff, Hudson, Conroy and even the home grown great players we had back then ? Not that all or most of them would be playing for Stoke in the modern era. They'd all be with top clubs. |
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 10, 2017 14:41:40 GMT
-You can sign world class players on a mid table budget. How much was Kante? How much was Mahrez? -I give Hughes crap over many things. Not for failing to reach the top 6??? -If we sack Hughes then it doesn't mean certain relegation. -We don't have to land a managerial genius to play decent football and progress as a team. Let's destroy this stupid myth about small city's can't compete, being a small club, blah blah blah we can only finish mid table. - Again, exceptions to the rule. How many more in that price backet and above are failures? -If we sack Hughes then it doesn't mean certain relegation. Did I say it did? It's all about probability. The probability, changing manager in our position, is that the most likely way is down the table. -We don't have to land a managerial genius to play decent football and progress as a team. What's progress then? If you're scoffing at the idea of demanding top 6 (see above) but in the same breath saying you want to progress- what does progress mean to you? Finishing 7th, 8th? Playing a bit more attractive football? What you're actualy saying is that you'd risk destabilising the club to finish one place higher in the league. That's beyond lunacy. For a mid-sized club like us, there is probably a narrow gap above us where we can realistically hope to progress to. However, there's a yawning chasm below us that we can fall into- this is something that you seem not to realise. You seem to think that appointing a new manager means he's going to be better than the last bloke. If you were born in 93 (I'm guessing at that from your username- I might be wrong) then that's all you'll have probably seen in your time as a fan: a succession of good managers each better than the last. We've been lucky with that though in the last couple of decades. It only takes one shit manager and 20 years of progress could be undone in one or two seasons. As greyman says- too much Football Manager and FIFA I think. It's really ignorant to keep bringing up FIFA and Football Manager. I thought the football we played under Pulis was dire and I don't think it's really much better under Hughes. I don't enjoy us watching it lumping it up to Crouch. I don't enjoy having injury prone full-backs that can't cross a ball. I don't enjoy watching players like Allen as a No.10. I don't enjoy playing poor for the start of every season and I don't enjoy watching my team get tonked 4-0 consistently. To me that is not progression. I don't know what fucking video games have got to do with it, but it just makes you look like a bellend. |
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 10, 2017 14:47:18 GMT
In a world where Leicester can win the Premier League, yes, anything is possible- but what are the chances of us finishing, say, in the top 6? How often has a club outside the usual suspects done that in the past 20 years? The odds, the probablility, the percentages, call it what you will, are pretty fucking low. And this is what you don't seem to understand: what you are continually crapping on about, and beating Hughes over the head for failing to do, is something that every other club wants to do too- West Ham, Southampton, Watford, West Brom etc etc. They're all competing to finish as high as possible too, but how many of them have actually done it and how often? It's extremely rare. However, how many similar sized clubs to us have gone tumbling down the league, or even out of it? Shitloads. The margins between stability and crisis are pretty fucking slim in this league, and you'd willingly ditch a manager who has an amazing track record of guiding mid-sized clubs to top-half finishes, thus sacrificing that stability, in the hope that we can somehow land some absolute managerial genius, who then somehow signs a load of world-class players on a mid-table budget? It's insane. and what real people have to do in the real world. So everyone who shares the same opinion just plays FIFA and Football Manager? |
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Mar 10, 2017 14:48:32 GMT
Chelsea were not an established major force until very recently. They broke into the big league from 1996 onwards, they were little bigger than us before then although they managed one league title in the fifties. This glass ceiling stuff is not real. Of course its difficult as there is stiff competition, but it is not impossible, and accepting our place is mid table will result in exactly that - because if fans can't be convinced there is potential we wont be able to convince better players either. All we need is money (which we have) a fair deal from referees and the authorities (questionable), luck with injuries (not recently), progressive and stable ownership (better than most), a visionary, brave manager (better than most), and the ability to get players to buy in to Stoke (we are better at this these days), plus passionate, numerous, supporters. I started watching in 1970, I'm convinced we have the best squad (if not the most settled team) we have ever had in that time. Real success is within reach if things go our way and we keep the faith. Best squad since 1970 ? How much would Stoke have to pay for a Banks, a Shilton, Greenhoff, Hudson, Conroy and even the home grown great players we had back then ? Not that all or most of them would be playing for Stoke in the modern era. They'd all be with top clubs. There's a tendency on here to look back at those players in awe, yes they were great, but in fact we only won one trophy back then, and we were short on depth, and in any case I believe we have comparable players now and at least 15 of them, and we don't have to sell to balance the books. |
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Mar 10, 2017 14:51:13 GMT
Chelsea were not an established major force until very recently. They broke into the big league from 1996 onwards, they were little bigger than us before then although they managed one league title in the fifties. This glass ceiling stuff is not real. Of course its difficult as there is stiff competition, but it is not impossible, and accepting our place is mid table will result in exactly that - because if fans can't be convinced there is potential we wont be able to convince better players either. All we need is money (which we have) a fair deal from referees and the authorities (questionable), luck with injuries (not recently), progressive and stable ownership (better than most), a visionary, brave manager (better than most), and the ability to get players to buy in to Stoke (we are better at this these days), plus passionate, numerous, supporters. I started watching in 1970, I'm convinced we have the best squad (if not the most settled team) we have ever had in that time. Real success is within reach if things go our way and we keep the faith. If we're using Chelsea as a barometer of where we should be then I fucking give up. Not like you to be negative  our position looks comparable to what theirs was back then to me. Although I agree its a bit tricky to attract people to hanley rather than the kings road... |
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 10, 2017 14:54:01 GMT
I'm sure Trouserdog is an older bloke and I'm sure that's why his opinion is wrong because he's clearly losing his marbles.  |
|
|
|
Post by terrorofturfmoor on Mar 10, 2017 15:05:47 GMT
Hmmmm!!! 🤔
I'm a Hughes fan (but beginning to use that term gingerly), but it's hard to argue against most of that I'm afraid!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Mar 10, 2017 16:00:53 GMT
If we're using Chelsea as a barometer of where we should be then I fucking give up. Not like you to be negative our position looks comparable to what theirs was back then to me. Although I agree its a bit tricky to attract people to hanley rather than the kings road... You actually are being serious.  You do realise how much money Roman Abramovich pumped into Chelsea in the 10 years after he took over the club? If you can find someone with a spare £1billion lying around (actually you will probably need to make that £5billion because of the transfer and wage inflation since 2003) good luck. You may also recall that the football authorities have changed the rules to prevent anyone else doing what Abramovitch has done in the future. In the meantime back on Planet Earth, Stoke remain a well run, mid-table Premier League club who may move up a place or 2 every now and then, hopefully will have a potshot at a cup every now and then, but are always going to be one bad season away from relegation. |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 10, 2017 17:22:52 GMT
I always come back to the idea that the problem with some people is they haven't worked out there's a difference between what they do on FIFA and Football Manager and what real people have to do in the real world. So everyone who shares the same opinion just plays FIFA and Football Manager? No. But they might be wrong for another reason. |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Mar 10, 2017 17:26:51 GMT
So everyone who shares the same opinion just plays FIFA and Football Manager? No. But they might be wrong for another reason. Yep...they are HHWs!! |
|
our position looks comparable to what theirs was back then to me. Although I agree its a bit tricky to attract people to hanley rather than the kings road...
