|
Post by elystokie on Oct 9, 2019 18:43:52 GMT
Either you or me has missed the point of potterlogs post. I'm betting on you. Judging by potterlogs explanation I haven't missed the point at all and my comment remains my opinion. The good spell under Hughes wasn't worth the subsequent weakening he, amongst others, brought upon the club, as far as I'm concerned. I've just read the post by eyeonebob that Potterlog was replying to. In his reply he mentions the Liverpool hammering and then, 7 seasons of Pulisball, the inference for me (and evidently Potterlog) was that, *despite* what happened, and what happened had already been listed by eyeonebob, he's glad, overall, that what happened did, when compared with a possible alternative. You then replied, telling us again, just in different words, what eyeonebob (amongst countless others) had already said and what Potterlog had already replied to.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Oct 9, 2019 18:52:05 GMT
Judging by potterlogs explanation I haven't missed the point at all and my comment remains my opinion. The good spell under Hughes wasn't worth the subsequent weakening he, amongst others, brought upon the club, as far as I'm concerned. So we're back to the beginning again - if it wasn't worth it, what would you have replaced Hughes' good spell with in exchange for better management and maintaining bottom-half Premier League status? By definition it has to be something worse - I gave the example of TP's last season, but take Leslie's penultimate season if you prefer. Both finishing comfortably clear of relegation but characterised by turgid games devoid of creative spark, ground-out wins against poor opposition, early cup exits, various spankings and a next-to-nothing return against the big teams. You'd take six straight seasons of that in exchange for Liverpool 6-1, ManC 2-1, frequent wins against Chelsea and ManU, and the best of Shaq, Zonz, Arnie and Bojan (plus support) etc etc etc..........? Sorry but we are not back at the beginning at all, I made my response to your position yesterday and my last comment was a direct answer to someone else's pointless commentary stating I didn't understand what you meant, which clearly I did. In answer to what you're saying, I'd take a more sustainable approach to the funds that were made available. I simply do not think it was a choice of Hughes or grinding boredom, so I don't think it's 'by definition' something worse as the only feasible option, at all.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Oct 9, 2019 18:53:46 GMT
Judging by potterlogs explanation I haven't missed the point at all and my comment remains my opinion. The good spell under Hughes wasn't worth the subsequent weakening he, amongst others, brought upon the club, as far as I'm concerned. I've just read the post by eyeonebob that Potterlog was replying to. In his reply he mentions the Liverpool hammering and then, 7 seasons of Pulisball, the inference for me (and evidently Potterlog) was that, *despite* what happened, and what happened had already been listed by eyeonebob, he's glad, overall, that what happened did, when compared with a possible alternative. You then replied, telling us again, just in different words, what eyeonebob (amongst countless others) had already said and what Potterlog had already replied to. Yes I get that but I still wanted to make the point I wanted to make in the way I chose to make it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2019 18:55:46 GMT
Judging by potterlogs explanation I haven't missed the point at all and my comment remains my opinion. The good spell under Hughes wasn't worth the subsequent weakening he, amongst others, brought upon the club, as far as I'm concerned. So we're back to the beginning again - if it wasn't worth it, what would you have replaced Hughes' good spell with in exchange for better overall management and maintaining bottom-half Premier League status? By definition it has to be something worse - I gave the example of TP's last season, but take Leslie's penultimate season if you prefer. Both finishing comfortably clear of relegation but characterised by turgid games devoid of creative spark, ground-out wins against poor opposition, early cup exits, various spankings and a next-to-nothing return against the big teams. You'd take six straight seasons of that in exchange for Liverpool 6-1, ManC 2-0, frequent wins against Chelsea and ManU, and the best of Shaq, Zonz, Arnie and Bojan (plus support) etc etc etc..........? "Frequent Wins" is pushing it somewhat. We beat both sides twice during Hughes' reign which is not to be scoffed at but frequent is a bit over the top.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Oct 9, 2019 19:01:32 GMT
My favourite times as a Stoke fan are under Pulis. I was too young to appreciate Macari.
There were awesome times under Hughes though - football and players that would have caught my eye as a teen watching the Premier League when Stoke weren't up there - when my favourite players were Le Tissier, Kinkladze, Yeboah, Wanchope... We only really had Fuller in that class under Pulis, but Hughes brought Bojan, Arnautovic, Shaqiri and Affelay to Stoke. World-class players (on their day) who made others in the team look better. I'll never forget that, but Hughes' final season severely tainted his era. Pulis mettle with the flair Hughes added was pretty much the perfect team. If we hadn't been relegated from the Premier League, Hughes' legacy would be a good one.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Oct 9, 2019 19:04:12 GMT
I've just read the post by eyeonebob that Potterlog was replying to. In his reply he mentions the Liverpool hammering and then, 7 seasons of Pulisball, the inference for me (and evidently Potterlog) was that, *despite* what happened, and what happened had already been listed by eyeonebob, he's glad, overall, that what happened did, when compared with a possible alternative. You then replied, telling us again, just in different words, what eyeonebob (amongst countless others) had already said and what Potterlog had already replied to. Yes I get that but I still wanted to make the point I wanted to make in the way I chose to make it. Fair enough, it was probably the place you chose to make it that led to my confusion I couldn't see why someone would reply to a sarcastic post in a way that just re-iterated the post he'd just answered in the way he did, seemed a bit pointless in that context to me. I sense we're going to start going around in bayern style circles here so I'll bow out and bid you a good evening
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2019 19:05:03 GMT
My favourite times as a Stoke fan are under Pulis. I was too young to appreciate Macari. There were awesome times under Hughes though - football and players that would have caught my eye as a teen watching the Premier League when Stoke weren't up there - when my favourite players were Le Tissier, Kinkladze, Yeboah, Wanchope... We only really had Fuller in that class under Pulis, but Hughes brought Bojan, Arnautovic, Shaqiri and Affelay to Stoke. World-class players (on their day) who made others in the team look better. I'll never forget that, but Hughes' final season severely tainted his era. Pulis mettle with the flair Hughes added was pretty much the perfect team. If we hadn't been relegated from the Premier League, Hughes' legacy would be a good one. You had me until you mentioned Affelay
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Oct 9, 2019 19:12:33 GMT
Yes I get that but I still wanted to make the point I wanted to make in the way I chose to make it. Fair enough, it was probably the place you chose to make it that led to my confusion I couldn't see why someone would reply to a sarcastic post in a way that just re-iterated the post he'd just answered in the way he did, seemed a bit pointless in that context to me. I sense we're going to start going around in bayern style circles here so I'll bow out and bid you a good evening Yep good evening to you too sir I would still assert, though, that I was fleshing out my take on 1eyes point and potters 'sarcastic' answer. This forum would be a quiet place indeed if we only posted when we had new and fresh ideas. Repetition is a strong factor in almost all human interaction unless one is appearing on 'Just a Minute' .. which is pretty boring for all its apparent Unrepetiveness Any onwards and sideways old boy!
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 9, 2019 19:22:54 GMT
So we're back to the beginning again - if it wasn't worth it, what would you have replaced Hughes' good spell with in exchange for better management and maintaining bottom-half Premier League status? By definition it has to be something worse - I gave the example of TP's last season, but take Leslie's penultimate season if you prefer. Both finishing comfortably clear of relegation but characterised by turgid games devoid of creative spark, ground-out wins against poor opposition, early cup exits, various spankings and a next-to-nothing return against the big teams. You'd take six straight seasons of that in exchange for Liverpool 6-1, ManC 2-1, frequent wins against Chelsea and ManU, and the best of Shaq, Zonz, Arnie and Bojan (plus support) etc etc etc..........? Sorry but we are not back at the beginning at all, I made my response to your position yesterday and my last comment was a direct answer to someone else's pointless commentary stating I didn't understand what you meant, which clearly I did. In answer to what you're saying, I'd take a more sustainable approach to the funds that were made available. I simply do not think it was a choice of Hughes or grinding boredom, so I don't think it's 'by definition' something worse as the only feasible option, at all. Sorry to be facetious, but you're really not demonstrating that you do understand the concept of something being "worth it". Of course the alternative is *by definition* worse, that's the whole point of the phrase - is it worth accepting the negatives in order to enjoy the reward. In saying "no", you're explicitly rejecting the reward. You can't say no it's not worth it, but I'll still have the reward without the negatives. That's not how it works. edit- posted before I read the last two most civil responses. Feel a bit silly now
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 9, 2019 19:34:33 GMT
So we're back to the beginning again - if it wasn't worth it, what would you have replaced Hughes' good spell with in exchange for better overall management and maintaining bottom-half Premier League status? By definition it has to be something worse - I gave the example of TP's last season, but take Leslie's penultimate season if you prefer. Both finishing comfortably clear of relegation but characterised by turgid games devoid of creative spark, ground-out wins against poor opposition, early cup exits, various spankings and a next-to-nothing return against the big teams. You'd take six straight seasons of that in exchange for Liverpool 6-1, ManC 2-0, frequent wins against Chelsea and ManU, and the best of Shaq, Zonz, Arnie and Bojan (plus support) etc etc etc..........? "Frequent Wins" is pushing it somewhat. We beat both sides twice during Hughes' reign which is not to be scoffed at but frequent is a bit over the top. Five wins in 12 games including cups.. I'm having frequent
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Oct 9, 2019 19:42:05 GMT
Sorry but we are not back at the beginning at all, I made my response to your position yesterday and my last comment was a direct answer to someone else's pointless commentary stating I didn't understand what you meant, which clearly I did. In answer to what you're saying, I'd take a more sustainable approach to the funds that were made available. I simply do not think it was a choice of Hughes or grinding boredom, so I don't think it's 'by definition' something worse as the only feasible option, at all. Sorry to be facetious, but you're really not demonstrating that you do understand the concept of something being "worth it". Of course the alternative is *by definition* worse, that's the whole point of the phrase - is it worth accepting the negatives in order to enjoy the reward. In saying "no", you're explicitly rejecting the reward. You can't say no it's not worth it, but I'll still have the reward without the negatives. That's not how it works. edit- posted before I read the last two most civil responses. Feel a bit silly now My responses are almost invariably civil I have to take issue with your assertion that something being 'worth it' necessitates there being only one alternative ( there are invariably more ) or that all the alternatives ( unknowns which are of course by their very definition 'unknown' ) are in fact worse. The 'real' event is likely to sit somewhere on a line which includes both worse and better possible outcomes. 🤯
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 9, 2019 19:45:04 GMT
Sorry to be facetious, but you're really not demonstrating that you do understand the concept of something being "worth it". Of course the alternative is *by definition* worse, that's the whole point of the phrase - is it worth accepting the negatives in order to enjoy the reward. In saying "no", you're explicitly rejecting the reward. You can't say no it's not worth it, but I'll still have the reward without the negatives. That's not how it works. edit- posted before I read the last two most civil responses. Feel a bit silly now My responses are almost invariably civil I have to take issue with your assertion that something being 'worth it' necessitates there being only one alternative ( there are invariably more ) or that all the alternatives ( unknowns which are of course by their very definition 'unknown' ) are in fact worse. The 'real' event is likely to sit somewhere on a line which includes both worse and better possible outcomes. 🤯 Mine too I'll stop niggling now, it's not worth it............
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Oct 9, 2019 20:07:43 GMT
So did Hughes get a new job?
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Oct 9, 2019 20:39:12 GMT
So did Hughes get a new job? In response to your question and not to you personally......who gives a s**t
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Oct 9, 2019 21:09:39 GMT
So did Hughes get a new job? According to Sky Sports News he wasn't even in the running. So he's probably signing on the dotted line as we speak.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Oct 9, 2019 21:34:57 GMT
So did Hughes get a new job? According to Sky Sports News he wasn't even in the running. So he's probably signing on the dotted line as we speak. (thumbsup)Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 9, 2019 21:48:15 GMT
The question is...... should it have taken 2 years to sort the mess allegedly created by Hughes.
All managers leave some kind of mess at a club when they have had an unsuccessful run. That doesn't mean it should take so long to sort out.
It's very convenient to blame predecessors when taking over a job of a club when its hit a bad patch. Convenient as well because a lot of this supposed mess is invisible to outsiders.
Other clubs might well have sorted out Hughes' mess in a matter of weeks or months and then we wouldn't be banging on about it still now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2019 21:53:56 GMT
The question is...... should it have taken 2 years to sort the mess allegedly created by Hughes. All managers leave some kind of mess at a club when they have had an unsuccessful run. That doesn't mean it should take so long to sort out. It's very convenient to blame predecessors when taking over a job of a club when its hit a bad patch. Convenient as well because a lot of this supposed mess is invisible to outsiders. Other clubs might well have sorted out Hughes' mess in a matter of weeks or months and then we wouldn't be banging on about it still now. Give it another twenty or so years mate.
|
|
|
Post by okeydokeystokie2 on Oct 10, 2019 10:17:17 GMT
I didn't say that at all. I am simply saying that in those first few glimpses, it looked as though the club had pulled off a master stroke. Anybody who saw Gianelli Imbula play against us for Porto, or saw him hit the ground absolutely running in those first couple of games for us (Chelsea, Watford) would have thought we had a fantastic player on our hands.Please tell me where I "agree" that signing a footballer after watching him once in a pre-season friendly at any price is a good idea? I think you've done it again... Juan Sebastian Veron, Angel di Maria, Fernando Torres, Denis Bergkamp - football is littered with examples of fantastic players who flopped at certain clubs for some reason. As I said, bringing a player into a new club is not an exact science, and a club like Stoke City has to try to find the gems at lower fees and wages than the rich clubs. The point remains, as several others have noted, that to simply to dismiss MH after he gave us arguably the best and most exciting period in over 150 years of league football seems narrow minded. I feel sorry for you that you can't enjoy that golden period in the club's history and recognise Mark Hughes's part in it. I think you need to re-read this thread again and then re-evaluate what you're accusing me of. "Anybody who saw Gianelli Imbula play against us for Porto" That's exactly what Mark Hughes thought when he saw him play and then decided to blow 18 million pounds on him. That's the mindset of an absolute imbecile, not a premier league manager. "and a club like Stoke City has to try to find the gems at lower fees and wages than the rich clubs." Exactly, and that's the reason why Mark Hughes was a failure for us in the end because he couldnt do this, and not only could he not do it, he fucked it up on the grandest of grand scales and set this club back years. You may still fawn over the good times and still hold Mark Hughes in high esteem, and I can understand why people still look back at those times with fond memories because at times we were a joy to watch, but for me it wasn't worth the absolute mess he created and left us in, and I will never be able to forgive the way he completely neglected his duties. I'm not accusing you of anything - I just think you're focusing completely on the negatives. I'm wasting my time with this argument. Do you honestly believe that's how Hughes decided to buy him? If you do, you're either on a wind up or, with as much respect as the phrase can muster, you must be a fool. I don't know how the process works, but I would be fairly certain he would have been watched again and MH would have consulted contacts in the game and at the club. The man is a professional football manager with years of experience in the game. How do you know he hadn't seen him play before and hadn't been monitoring him for some time? And like I said, when we saw him play, his talent was obvious. There was something that didn't work out in the move that we couldn't have predicted. It didn't work out with Imbula, it did with Arnautovic. Anyway, I can see I'm not going to win you over anytime soon. I like watching and supporting Stoke and I guess over my lifetime I've learned to enjoy the ups and accept that, with Stoke City, there will probably be more downs than ups.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 10, 2019 11:09:42 GMT
I think you need to re-read this thread again and then re-evaluate what you're accusing me of. "Anybody who saw Gianelli Imbula play against us for Porto" That's exactly what Mark Hughes thought when he saw him play and then decided to blow 18 million pounds on him. That's the mindset of an absolute imbecile, not a premier league manager. "and a club like Stoke City has to try to find the gems at lower fees and wages than the rich clubs." Exactly, and that's the reason why Mark Hughes was a failure for us in the end because he couldnt do this, and not only could he not do it, he fucked it up on the grandest of grand scales and set this club back years. You may still fawn over the good times and still hold Mark Hughes in high esteem, and I can understand why people still look back at those times with fond memories because at times we were a joy to watch, but for me it wasn't worth the absolute mess he created and left us in, and I will never be able to forgive the way he completely neglected his duties. I'm not accusing you of anything - I just think you're focusing completely on the negatives. I'm wasting my time with this argument. Do you honestly believe that's how Hughes decided to buy him? If you do, you're either on a wind up or, with as much respect as the phrase can muster, you must be a fool. I don't know how the process works, but I would be fairly certain he would have been watched again and MH would have consulted contacts in the game and at the club. The man is a professional football manager with years of experience in the game. How do you know he hadn't seen him play before and hadn't been monitoring him for some time? And like I said, when we saw him play, his talent was obvious. There was something that didn't work out in the move that we couldn't have predicted. It didn't work out with Imbula, it did with Arnautovic. Anyway, I can see I'm not going to win you over anytime soon. I like watching and supporting Stoke and I guess over my lifetime I've learned to enjoy the ups and accept that, with Stoke City, there will probably be more downs than ups. the amount of people who believe we signed Imbula purely on the basis of one friendly is astonishing
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Oct 10, 2019 11:45:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Oct 10, 2019 14:03:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ceejays on Oct 11, 2019 13:10:17 GMT
It is well known that MH bought imbula on the basis of one friendly match. There’s no disputing the guy had talent and it was only his subsequent attitude that caused his demise at Scfc. Hughes was taking a leaf out of Alex Ferguson book who bought Ronaldo on the basis of one friendly against Man Utd.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 11, 2019 16:36:25 GMT
It is well known that MH bought imbula on the basis of one friendly match. There’s no disputing the guy had talent and it was only his subsequent attitude that caused his demise at Scfc. Hughes was taking a leaf out of Alex Ferguson book who bought Ronaldo on the basis of one friendly against Man Utd. Well known by who? Clearly made up bullshit to suit an agenda against a manager not welcome by a lot of Stoke fans from the get go. Desperate for him to fail. Hey Peter, that Imbula played well against us today, we should sign him... He did indeed, How much do they want Mark? £18million Peter Where do I sign...
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 11, 2019 17:37:53 GMT
I'm not accusing you of anything - I just think you're focusing completely on the negatives. I'm wasting my time with this argument. Do you honestly believe that's how Hughes decided to buy him? If you do, you're either on a wind up or, with as much respect as the phrase can muster, you must be a fool. I don't know how the process works, but I would be fairly certain he would have been watched again and MH would have consulted contacts in the game and at the club. The man is a professional football manager with years of experience in the game. How do you know he hadn't seen him play before and hadn't been monitoring him for some time? And like I said, when we saw him play, his talent was obvious. There was something that didn't work out in the move that we couldn't have predicted. It didn't work out with Imbula, it did with Arnautovic. Anyway, I can see I'm not going to win you over anytime soon. I like watching and supporting Stoke and I guess over my lifetime I've learned to enjoy the ups and accept that, with Stoke City, there will probably be more downs than ups. the amount of people who believe we signed Imbula purely on the basis of one friendly is astonishing I bet me mortgage he wasn't watched the mythical "20" times though
|
|
|
Post by bertiestan on Oct 11, 2019 17:42:02 GMT
It is well known that MH bought imbula on the basis of one friendly match. There’s no disputing the guy had talent and it was only his subsequent attitude that caused his demise at Scfc. Hughes was taking a leaf out of Alex Ferguson book who bought Ronaldo on the basis of one friendly against Man Utd. Well known by who? Clearly made up bullshit to suit an agenda against a manager not welcome by a lot of Stoke fans from the get go. Desperate for him to fail. Hey Peter, that Imbula played well against us today, we should sign him... He did indeed, How much do they want Mark? £18million Peter Where do I sign... Its common knowledge..just cos you dont know pugsley doesn't make it bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by sovietonion on Oct 11, 2019 18:07:53 GMT
the amount of people who believe we signed Imbula purely on the basis of one friendly is astonishing I bet me mortgage he wasn't watched the mythical "20" times though I’ve often thought the ‘watched 20 times’ is a single You Tube clip on loop. Which may actually be defensible in a court of law.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 11, 2019 18:46:21 GMT
the amount of people who believe we signed Imbula purely on the basis of one friendly is astonishing I bet me mortgage he wasn't watched the mythical "20" times though "25 times" was Scholes statement. He was being disengenous though, most of those wouldn't be live they would be via Wyscout.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Oct 11, 2019 18:52:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Oct 11, 2019 19:14:07 GMT
I bet me mortgage he wasn't watched the mythical "20" times though "25 times" was Scholes statement. He was being disengenous though, most of those wouldn't be live they would be via Wyscout. Well the Wimmer case is closed then as he has only ever played about 24 times in his whole career!
|
|