|
Post by jwhpotter on Nov 27, 2017 22:05:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wingy11 on Nov 27, 2017 22:11:28 GMT
Spot on
|
|
|
Post by jwhpotter on Nov 27, 2017 22:11:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 27, 2017 22:12:25 GMT
That article should get a reaction let's hope. Factual and honest just hope PCs reading it. Of course it's not all MHs fault the Pizza boys need to carry the can too.
|
|
|
Post by wingy11 on Nov 27, 2017 22:13:01 GMT
We need win one of the next 2 fixtures
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Nov 27, 2017 22:15:59 GMT
Absolutely according to some of the Hughes tinted glasses brigade they got the info. from the Oatcake seriously they will come up with any shit to support him, the piece is cock on accurate, finally we are on the press radar.
|
|
|
Post by 1982stokie on Nov 27, 2017 22:21:17 GMT
Seems a fair assessment
|
|
|
Post by theplantpotter on Nov 27, 2017 22:28:01 GMT
Can't argue with any of that.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Nov 27, 2017 22:30:24 GMT
Absolutely according to some of the Hughes tinted glasses brigade they got the info. from the Oatcake seriously they will come up with any shit to support him, the piece is cock on accurate, finally we are on the press radar. If he is a Stoke fan fair enough, but it's hardly the crime of the century to assume that a journalist who may have no affiliation to the club he's writing about would seek the opinions of fans on that club's forum. And what makes you think that supporters who are appreciative of what Hughes has achieved for the club are happy with what he's producing now?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 27, 2017 22:32:19 GMT
Who is Richard Forrester? There is too much passion in that article for it to be the handiwork of a "neutral" journalist.
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Nov 27, 2017 22:33:46 GMT
Sad to say, but it’s spot on.
|
|
|
Post by itsallgonepetetone on Nov 27, 2017 22:35:47 GMT
True and to the point.
|
|
|
Post by jwhpotter on Nov 27, 2017 22:43:23 GMT
Who is Richard Forrester? There is too much passion in that article for it to be the handiwork of a "neutral" journalist. Not sure mate but as others say can’t really argue with it can we
|
|
|
Post by AlanHansen on Nov 27, 2017 23:03:58 GMT
Nail on the head. I could have penned that myself.
|
|
|
Post by johnbutlershair on Nov 27, 2017 23:05:38 GMT
Absolutely according to some of the Hughes tinted glasses brigade they got the info. from the Oatcake seriously they will come up with any shit to support him, the piece is cock on accurate, finally we are on the press radar. If he is a Stoke fan fair enough, but it's hardly the crime of the century to assume that a journalist who may have no affiliation to the club he's writing about would seek the opinions of fans on that club's forum. And what makes you think that supporters who are appreciative of what Hughes has achieved for the club are happy with what he's producing now? According to his Twitter profile he is a Stoke fan
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 27, 2017 23:07:37 GMT
Who is Richard Forrester? There is too much passion in that article for it to be the handiwork of a "neutral" journalist. Not sure mate but as others say can’t really argue with it can we Of course you can argue with it. That article isn't balanced in any way. It is a passionate cry for help. An attempt to get some coverage for little stoke. I'd be amazed if that is the work of someone with no affiliation or fondness for stoke city or a scorned former lover of Hughes himself. It isn't a piece of balanced journalism. It is a rant...which is perfectly fair enough but let's not pretend it's an impartial view on the goings on at stoke city.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 27, 2017 23:08:04 GMT
If he is a Stoke fan fair enough, but it's hardly the crime of the century to assume that a journalist who may have no affiliation to the club he's writing about would seek the opinions of fans on that club's forum. And what makes you think that supporters who are appreciative of what Hughes has achieved for the club are happy with what he's producing now? According to his Twitter profile he is a Stoke fan Exactly as I thought.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 27, 2017 23:09:32 GMT
Who is Richard Forrester? There is too much passion in that article for it to be the handiwork of a "neutral" journalist. Really weird isn't it. It reads much more like a 'fan-boy' article than something suitable for the countries best selling national newspaper. I presume it didn't go out in the paper proper. I mean this sentence "it's time Coates did the same before they are dragged deeper into the relegation dogfight" most of the nation would have no clue who 'Coates' is. Just seen on his Twitter account he describes himself as "Pessimistic Stoke fan. London." so you are right a fan rather than a neutral journalist looking in. Basically he has written what he might have posted on here and just changed the "we's" for "they's", it may not be without merit but journalism it's not.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Nov 27, 2017 23:10:08 GMT
Not sure mate but as others say can’t really argue with it can we Of course you can argue with it. That article isn't balanced in any way. It is a passionate cry for help. An attempt to get some coverage for little stoke. I'd be amazed if that is the work of someone with no affiliation or fondness for stoke city or a scorned former lover of Hughes himself. It isn't a piece of balanced journalism. It is a rant...which is perfectly fair enough but let's not pretend it's an impartial view on the goings on at stoke city. Whether it’s balanced journalism or not it’s bang on the money
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 27, 2017 23:11:06 GMT
I find the fact that he's a Stoke fan more likely that he's picked up pieces from here. The phrasing is identical to the type of stuff you see on here on a daily basis.
Reveal yourself Dickie!
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 27, 2017 23:12:43 GMT
Of course you can argue with it. That article isn't balanced in any way. It is a passionate cry for help. An attempt to get some coverage for little stoke. I'd be amazed if that is the work of someone with no affiliation or fondness for stoke city or a scorned former lover of Hughes himself. It isn't a piece of balanced journalism. It is a rant...which is perfectly fair enough but let's not pretend it's an impartial view on the goings on at stoke city. Whether it’s balanced journalism or not it’s bang on the money In your opinion it's bang on the money. In my opinion it is barely anything more than illiterate rant disguising itself as a piece of journalism.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 27, 2017 23:14:32 GMT
Whether it’s balanced journalism or not it’s bang on the money In your opinion it's bang on the money. In my opinion it is barely anything more than illiterate rant disguising itself as a piece of journalism. What bits do you specifically disagree with, dave?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 27, 2017 23:17:58 GMT
In your opinion it's bang on the money. In my opinion it is barely anything more than illiterate rant disguising itself as a piece of journalism. What bits do you specifically disagree with, dave? Pretty much all of it. Some of the content may have some merit but it has no balance, it doesn't delve into any issues or seek to explain them. It is a rant and a barely coherent one at that. As a piece of journalism, it was as bad as it gets, hence I was immediately able to detect a certain bias to the article.
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Nov 27, 2017 23:19:45 GMT
Cut and paste from off here.
|
|
|
Post by jwhpotter on Nov 27, 2017 23:25:05 GMT
Not sure mate but as others say can’t really argue with it can we Of course you can argue with it. That article isn't balanced in any way. It is a passionate cry for help. An attempt to get some coverage for little stoke. I'd be amazed if that is the work of someone with no affiliation or fondness for stoke city or a scorned former lover of Hughes himself. It isn't a piece of balanced journalism. It is a rant...which is perfectly fair enough but let's not pretend it's an impartial view on the goings on at stoke city. Still can’t hide the fact that we’ve been absolutely awful for months! Don’t even get excited going to games anymore. I’ll always go and support our team but its hard work atm
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 27, 2017 23:30:05 GMT
Of course you can argue with it. That article isn't balanced in any way. It is a passionate cry for help. An attempt to get some coverage for little stoke. I'd be amazed if that is the work of someone with no affiliation or fondness for stoke city or a scorned former lover of Hughes himself. It isn't a piece of balanced journalism. It is a rant...which is perfectly fair enough but let's not pretend it's an impartial view on the goings on at stoke city. Still can’t hide the fact that we’ve been absolutely awful for months! Don’t even get excited going to games anymore. I’ll always go and support our team but its hard work atm I haven't found our performances, certainly the recent ones, awful. Frustrating for sure. Disappointing definitely, but not awful. I've seen much worse in our premier league years though perhaps nothing quite so bloody frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Nov 27, 2017 23:50:19 GMT
If Dick Forrester is a Stoke fan... so be it. Should know better, unless it's clever reverse psychostuff. Meant to galvanise.
My money either road is it's a speculative freelance punt to The Sun. Woooo Stoke let it slip again, is there a story, an angle. Loads of Pot puns, 'Back or Sack' and that kind of craic. {But they usually cover up tits now don't they?} Let's have a peak at what the webfans are saying... The content and the pulse taken off here, directly. Not chewy enough for the rag, but ok to wave on the net.
A bit disappointing all round really. Hoping for a SunStoke pullout as part of the build up for the midweek match, in the paper paper. Fishtanks, Wags, recipes and vouchers for oatcakes and that. Dang.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 23:59:33 GMT
As a piece of journalism I wasn't overly excited. It reads more like a shopping list of grievances.
What it lacks for me is any sort of coherent plan to cure the problems. Sacking Hughes is only the top of the shopping list in my book.
Can't argue with the list though it pretty much is a statement of how it is and how it has been in recent times.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 28, 2017 0:00:49 GMT
The article reads like a rant from an irate Oatcake poster, just a cut and paste job of selected posts, but that is the standard of Sun journalism.
You cannot argue with facts, but many of the facts are irrelevant and some of the comments are misleading and relate to last season and not this season. There is also a total absence of any of the good points whilst ranting on the bad points. Quality journalism is supposed to be balanced.
Irrelevant facts: What happened last season or the lack of wins over 30 - 66 matches is irrelevant. Hughes started a clear out of players in the summer, those he didn't want that he couldn't sell, he has loaned. The season started with a very different squad. So it is only the performance over the last 13 matches that matters. The fact that we only beat lowly teams last season and failed against top 6 sides is irrelevant, all that matters is this season's performance.
Absence of good points: Stoke are the current 9th highest scorers in the Prem and scored more goals against the top 2 teams than any other team. When they lost heavily to Chelsea they were hampered by injuries. The high number of goals against is primarily trying to take on ManC and scoring twice at the Etihad. No mention is made of beating Arsenal, or stopping Man United's run of opening wins and scoring the first goals they have conceded this season.
Lack of Balance: No reference to the difficulty of the opening fixture programme, injuries to key players like Shawcross, Shaq, Butland and (IMO) Cameron, and no comments from supporting fans like me. The article says losing at Palace "leaves them deep in the mire of a relegation battle" ....... "3 points above the drop zone", but not 3 points below the top half of the table, or the fact that losing didn't change the position in the table. Nor is there any mention of the fact that Stoke have played more games away from home that at home, and have only played twice at home against teams in the bottom half of the table.
A totally one sided rant, aimed at selling copy.
|
|
|
Post by shaunyboy88 on Nov 28, 2017 0:04:06 GMT
The article reads like a rant from an irate Oatcake poster, just a cut and paste job of selected posts, but that is the standard of Sun journalism. You cannot argue with facts, but many of the facts are irrelevant and some of the comments are misleading and relate to last season and not this season. There is also a total absence of any of the good points whilst ranting on the bad points. Quality journalism is supposed to be balanced. Irrelevant facts: What happened last season or the lack of wins over 30 - 66 matches is irrelevant. Hughes started a clear out of players in the summer, those he didn't want that he couldn't sell, he has loaned. The season started with a very different squad. So it is only the performance over the last 13 matches that matters. The fact that we only beat lowly teams last season and failed against top 6 sides is irrelevant, all that matters is this season's performance. Absence of good points: Stoke are the current 9th highest scorers in the Prem and scored more goals against the top 2 teams than any other team. When they lost heavily to Chelsea they were hampered by injuries. The high number of goals against is primarily trying to take on ManC and scoring twice at the Etihad. No mention is made of beating Arsenal, or stopping Man United's run of opening wins and scoring the first goals they have conceded this season. Lack of Balance: No reference to the difficulty of the opening fixture programme, injuries to key players like Shawcross, Shaq, Butland and (IMO) Cameron, and no comments from supporting fans like me. The article says losing at Palace "leaves them deep in the mire of a relegation battle" ....... "3 points above the drop zone", but not 3 points below the top half of the table, or the fact that losing didn't change the position in the table. Nor is there any mention of the fact that Stoke have played more games away from home that at home, and have only played twice at home against teams in the bottom half of the table. A totally one sided rant, aimed at selling copy. Great post... positivity breads positivity
|
|