|
Post by miltonstokienew on Dec 27, 2020 23:37:52 GMT
Just watched an interview with him on YouTube, seems quite an honest guy. He talked a lot about his time with us and the training and drills with Pulis and Peter Reid, sounds like it was dinosaur stuff especially Reid with his 80s drills. It’s sounds like he’s had bad luck with all his clubs apart from Reading and Sheffield Utd, sounds like Pulis had it in for him from day one. I know a lot will disagree but I feel a sorry for him as you don’t become crap over night, especially after his Reading form. Pulis knew how to ruin someone’s career, did it to a few at Stoke. He never wanted come here , he thought he was better than he was. God forbid he had to run. Tosser
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Dec 27, 2020 23:43:45 GMT
My argument stands. A good footballer is a good footballer. It wasn’t Tony Pulis who failed to put the ball in the net on multiple occasions. It was that ginger dildo. James Beattie, a similar player but with a personality and backbone, proved that you could score goals in the Pulis system if you were half decent. Kits on wasn’t half the player he believed himself to be. Actually once Beattie was moved back into the same role Kitson was stuck with, the goals dried up and he was visibly unhappier. It's a bit simplistic to say 'a good player is a good player'. Players will play better in certain positions and certain systems. We didn't play to Kitson's strengths. It's on him to a degree but on us to a degree as well. Kitson was an average player. He wasn’t a good player. He had a purple patch for Reading. He was poor to middling for us. I’ve no real issues with his performances, more his inclination to blame others eg Pulis. If he’d scored a couple of goals we’d have all been happy including Pulis. If only he’d been half as good at finishing as he is at moaning.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 27, 2020 23:51:14 GMT
Actually once Beattie was moved back into the same role Kitson was stuck with, the goals dried up and he was visibly unhappier. It's a bit simplistic to say 'a good player is a good player'. Players will play better in certain positions and certain systems. We didn't play to Kitson's strengths. It's on him to a degree but on us to a degree as well. Kitson was an average player. He wasn’t a good player. He had a purple patch for Reading. He was poor to middling for us. I’ve no real issues with his performances, more his inclination to blame others eg Pulis. If he’d scored a couple of goals we’d have all been happy including Pulis. If only he’d been half as good at finishing as he is at moaning. He wasn't really being played as a striker though. He was in the Mama role. Did anyone score many goals from that position? As soon as he'd started doing it he was dropped. Only Mama really made a success of playing in that position. Even Walters, a significant upgrade IMO on both Kitson and Mama, struggled in it apart from the second half of the cup final season. He was actually a really good player for Reading. If it was just a 'purple patch' you have to ask who thought it was a good idea to break the club's transfer record to sign him and then play him in a role he wasn't accustomed to without the things he'd benefited from there? He clearly does have attitude problems and is a bit of a dick. He wasn't entirely to blame for his failure at Stoke though.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Dec 27, 2020 23:55:46 GMT
Kitson was an average player. He wasn’t a good player. He had a purple patch for Reading. He was poor to middling for us. I’ve no real issues with his performances, more his inclination to blame others eg Pulis. If he’d scored a couple of goals we’d have all been happy including Pulis. If only he’d been half as good at finishing as he is at moaning. He wasn't really being played as a striker though. He was in the Mama role. Did anyone score many goals from that position? As soon as he'd started doing it he was dropped. Only Mama really made a success of playing in that position. Even Walters, a significant upgrade IMO on both Kitson and Mama, struggled in it apart from the second half of the cup final season. He was actually a really good player for Reading. If it was just a 'purple patch' you have to ask who thought it was a good idea to break the club's transfer record to sign him and then play him in a role he wasn't accustomed to without the things he'd benefited from there? He clearly does have attitude problems and is a bit of a dick. He wasn't entirely to blame for his failure at Stoke though. I’m certainly not absolving Pulis of blame. It was a bloody foolish signing and one we were lucky not to suffer more for. Fair point about the Mama role and to be fair he was played out of position but even still he missed most of the chances he was presented with. If he’d scored a few maybe he’d have forced Pulis to play him in a more conventional strikers role.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 28, 2020 0:00:24 GMT
He wasn't really being played as a striker though. He was in the Mama role. Did anyone score many goals from that position? As soon as he'd started doing it he was dropped. Only Mama really made a success of playing in that position. Even Walters, a significant upgrade IMO on both Kitson and Mama, struggled in it apart from the second half of the cup final season. He was actually a really good player for Reading. If it was just a 'purple patch' you have to ask who thought it was a good idea to break the club's transfer record to sign him and then play him in a role he wasn't accustomed to without the things he'd benefited from there? He clearly does have attitude problems and is a bit of a dick. He wasn't entirely to blame for his failure at Stoke though. I’m certainly not absolving Pulis of blame. It was a bloody foolish signing and one we were lucky not to suffer more for. Fair point about the Mama role and to be fair he was played out of position but even still he missed most of the chances he was presented with. If he’d scored a few maybe he’d have forced Pulis to play him in a more conventional strikers role. Maybe. But again, he was scoring and playing well during two different spells in 2009/10 and was dropped for players who weren't.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Dec 28, 2020 0:03:55 GMT
I’m certainly not absolving Pulis of blame. It was a bloody foolish signing and one we were lucky not to suffer more for. Fair point about the Mama role and to be fair he was played out of position but even still he missed most of the chances he was presented with. If he’d scored a few maybe he’d have forced Pulis to play him in a more conventional strikers role. Maybe. But again, he was scoring and playing well during two different spells in 2009/10 and was dropped for players who weren't. Your memory is better than mine to be fair so I’ll give you that one. To be honest I just don’t like him. Never really rated him as a player but the more I read and hear of him the less he appeals as a person.
|
|
|
Post by bgreen13 on Dec 28, 2020 0:07:02 GMT
Is a whiney cock.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 28, 2020 0:11:23 GMT
Awful player with an awful attitude. The only criticism that Pulis should face is buying the useless fecker.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 28, 2020 0:21:30 GMT
Nah he suited Reading well and was a good footballer. But he was bought to play in a long ball side which was just stupid. A good footballer is a good footballer. Us being long ball didn’t stop Ricardo Fuller proving himself to be the fantastic footballer he was again and again. Kitson can make all the excuses he wants but he was a striker who couldn’t score and that was never going to end well. That’s nonsense. He was bought to play the Mama role which was just idiotic. Look at how opposition fans viewed Fuller, generally they saw a big bastard that fitted the Stoke profile. He scored plenty at Reading in a footballing side that played to his strengths. That’s how football tends to work!
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Dec 28, 2020 0:26:24 GMT
A good footballer is a good footballer. Us being long ball didn’t stop Ricardo Fuller proving himself to be the fantastic footballer he was again and again. Kitson can make all the excuses he wants but he was a striker who couldn’t score and that was never going to end well. That’s nonsense. He was bought to play the Mama role which was just idiotic. Look at how opposition fans viewed Fuller, generally they saw a big bastard that fitted the Stoke profile. He scored plenty at Reading in a footballing side that played to his strengths. That’s how football tends to work! Fuller was a big bastard. He was also a gifted footballer who wouldn’t allow himself to be bullied. Kitson was actually quite big too. He was also a gifted footballer. But he was easy to bully and he was also inclined to moan and find excuses rather than adapt and let his ability shine through. And can we now refrain from mentioning Ric and the ginger tosser in the same breath because it’s verging on heresy.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 28, 2020 0:34:19 GMT
That’s nonsense. He was bought to play the Mama role which was just idiotic. Look at how opposition fans viewed Fuller, generally they saw a big bastard that fitted the Stoke profile. He scored plenty at Reading in a footballing side that played to his strengths. That’s how football tends to work! Fuller was a big bastard. He was also a gifted footballer who wouldn’t allow himself to be bullied. Kitson was actually quite big too. He was also a gifted footballer. But he was easy to bully and he was also inclined to moan and find excuses rather than adapt and let his ability shine through. And can we now refrain from mentioning Ric and the ginger tosser in the same breath because it’s verging on heresy. But Kitson wasn’t. He wasn’t a Tony Pulis player. Only an idiot would sign him for the role he bought him for. He scored plenty for Reading, 19 in a season then 18 in a season (both in the Championship) then 2 but only from 13 games in the PL and then 10 in a PL season which matches the best efforts of Ric in the PL for us. He was a good striker but he just wasn’t suited to the game the manager wanted to play.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Dec 28, 2020 0:42:47 GMT
I think it just shows that are several reasons that can contribute to a transfer like this not working out.
Its easy to simplify it and even Kitson is guilty of that to some extent.
It was a bad move from day 1. His family simply did not want to move and didn't want to be here. Then there was his attitude towards training, then position he was asked to play. Coppell had built a team around him at Reading, played to his strengths and that was never going to happen at Stoke There was TP's ego, & there was Kitson's ego He got on the wrong side of TP and we all know what happens from thereon. It all deteriorated quickly. I also think he never quite recovered from the very bad knee injury he got at Reading which kept him put for the best part of a year. Ive seen him acknowledge this in interviews. It seemed to affect his attitude to the game. He was capable of being a decent player but this was the wrong move to the wrong club. It happens. He's probably guilty of a bit of selective memory syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 28, 2020 1:04:49 GMT
His record was awful for the money we paid. He was really poor. One season for Reading the season before we went up aside, a pure lower league player that never got near the heights of his ego.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Dec 28, 2020 1:16:27 GMT
He did have the physical attributes to be the Mama upgrade that Pulis hoped he would be: sadly he had no bollocks, no memtal application and no commitment to anyone but himself.
I bet he regrets the fact that his arrogance, and exagerrated opinion of his own abilty, denied him the chance to play for a Premier League club for at least 4 years of his career.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Dec 28, 2020 1:22:52 GMT
Fuller was a big bastard. He was also a gifted footballer who wouldn’t allow himself to be bullied. Kitson was actually quite big too. He was also a gifted footballer. But he was easy to bully and he was also inclined to moan and find excuses rather than adapt and let his ability shine through. And can we now refrain from mentioning Ric and the ginger tosser in the same breath because it’s verging on heresy. But Kitson wasn’t. He wasn’t a Tony Pulis player. Only an idiot would sign him for the role he bought him for. He scored plenty for Reading, 19 in a season then 18 in a season (both in the Championship) then 2 but only from 13 games in the PL and then 10 in a PL season which matches the best efforts of Ric in the PL for us. He was a good striker but he just wasn’t suited to the game the manager wanted to play. Lots of what you are saying is right, however I cannot accept the notion that Kitson could be compared to Ricardo Fuller: he is not fit to even polish Fuller's boots.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Dec 28, 2020 1:32:26 GMT
His record was awful for the money we paid. He was really poor. One season for Reading the season before we went up aside, a pure lower league player that never got near the heights of his ego. That’s a pretty big thing to set aside. The number of non-top six forwards who get into double figures in the Prem is very small
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 28, 2020 1:35:48 GMT
But Kitson wasn’t. He wasn’t a Tony Pulis player. Only an idiot would sign him for the role he bought him for. He scored plenty for Reading, 19 in a season then 18 in a season (both in the Championship) then 2 but only from 13 games in the PL and then 10 in a PL season which matches the best efforts of Ric in the PL for us. He was a good striker but he just wasn’t suited to the game the manager wanted to play. Lots of what you are saying is right, however I cannot accept the notion that Kitson could be compared to Ricardo Fuller: he is not fit to even polish Fuller's boots. No he can’t and I wasn’t the one doing the comparing to start with but..... Their goalscoring records though aren’t too dissimilar. Ric’s best season in the Champo 17 in 38 Kitson - 19 in 37 PL Kitson 10 in 34 Ric 11 in 34 (Genuinely thought his best was 10 in a season but apparently not). Reading fans would probably laugh at the insinuation Ric is better. We would laugh at them for thinking Kitson was. The truth is he was a good striker. He wasn’t good for us on the whole. But he never really was going to be. He’s clearly a twat too, that there is no doubt but there is middle ground here that actually he was decent. Just not for us.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 28, 2020 1:38:09 GMT
His record was awful for the money we paid. He was really poor. One season for Reading the season before we went up aside, a pure lower league player that never got near the heights of his ego. That’s a pretty big thing to set aside. The number of non-top six forwards who get into double figures in the Prem is very small Ric scores double figures in the PL once in his career. It really does just come down to their status with us really. People clearly don’t like him but his record is good.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2020 1:42:34 GMT
He seemed quite aloof also, he would come into the bar after the game and basically pull a face if a kid wanted him to sign a programme, I think the number wanting his autograph dwindled quite quickly. He just seemed to have attitude with everything and everyone. He knew who he was joining and the style of play and Beattie did fine with us but was a far better all round player and far more committed
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 28, 2020 2:06:16 GMT
His record was awful for the money we paid. He was really poor. One season for Reading the season before we went up aside, a pure lower league player that never got near the heights of his ego. That’s a pretty big thing to set aside. The number of non-top six forwards who get into double figures in the Prem is very small Sam Vokes scored 10 for Burnley in 2016 They're both toss!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 28, 2020 2:08:38 GMT
That’s a pretty big thing to set aside. The number of non-top six forwards who get into double figures in the Prem is very small Sam Vokes scored 10 for Burnley in 2016 They're both toss! Again though he wasn’t. He’s been bloody awful for us but before he came here, he always seemed a decent Championship striker who did ok in the PL. Wouldn’t have signed him for 7/8m or however much it was though.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Dec 28, 2020 2:20:33 GMT
That’s a pretty big thing to set aside. The number of non-top six forwards who get into double figures in the Prem is very small Sam Vokes scored 10 for Burnley in 2016 They're both toss! Sam Vokes is a decent footballer, as I believe we’ve touched on before 😉
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Dec 28, 2020 9:11:25 GMT
It didn’t work out for Kitson because he never worked as hard as he should have done. Everyone knows with TPs teams you need to work your ass off, do as your told, not Moan and whine and buy into the togetherness. Dave did none of this and that’s why he failed
But who was right and who was wrong, TPs methods kept us the premier league while Kitsons career went down the pan. Kitson needs to look at himself and admit he was wrong and Pulis got it right (apart from signing him in the first place if course)
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Dec 28, 2020 10:08:31 GMT
Lots of what you are saying is right, however I cannot accept the notion that Kitson could be compared to Ricardo Fuller: he is not fit to even polish Fuller's boots. No he can’t and I wasn’t the one doing the comparing to start with but..... Their goalscoring records though aren’t too dissimilar. Ric’s best season in the Champo 17 in 38 Kitson - 19 in 37 PL Kitson 10 in 34 Ric 11 in 34 (Genuinely thought his best was 10 in a season but apparently not). Reading fans would probably laugh at the insinuation Ric is better. We would laugh at them for thinking Kitson was. The truth is he was a good striker. He wasn’t good for us on the whole. But he never really was going to be. He’s clearly a twat too, that there is no doubt but there is middle ground here that actually he was decent. Just not for us. Ric and Kitson are about as far apart as footballers as you can get. Ric was a joy to watch, played with a smile and seemed to genuinely love the game. Watching Kitson was invariably dull, often painful, he played with a scowl and looked like he’d been forced to play at gun point.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 28, 2020 10:09:39 GMT
No he can’t and I wasn’t the one doing the comparing to start with but..... Their goalscoring records though aren’t too dissimilar. Ric’s best season in the Champo 17 in 38 Kitson - 19 in 37 PL Kitson 10 in 34 Ric 11 in 34 (Genuinely thought his best was 10 in a season but apparently not). Reading fans would probably laugh at the insinuation Ric is better. We would laugh at them for thinking Kitson was. The truth is he was a good striker. He wasn’t good for us on the whole. But he never really was going to be. He’s clearly a twat too, that there is no doubt but there is middle ground here that actually he was decent. Just not for us. Ric and Kitson are about as far apart as footballers as you can get. Ric was a joy to watch, played with a smile and seemed to genuinely love the game. Watching Kitson was invariably dull, often painful, he played with a scowl and looked like he’d been forced to play at gun point. I can’t disagree but goals wise they’re equally as equally as effective over their careers.
|
|
|
Post by anchorman on Dec 28, 2020 11:19:00 GMT
My argument stands. A good footballer is a good footballer. It wasn’t Tony Pulis who failed to put the ball in the net on multiple occasions. It was that ginger dildo. James Beattie, a similar player but with a personality and backbone, proved that you could score goals in the Pulis system if you were half decent. Kits on wasn’t half the player he believed himself to be. Actually once Beattie was moved back into the same role Kitson was stuck with, the goals dried up and he was visibly unhappier. It's a bit simplistic to say 'a good player is a good player'. Players will play better in certain positions and certain systems. We didn't play to Kitson's strengths. It's on him to a degree but on us to a degree as well. And what exactly were Kitson's strengths?
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Dec 28, 2020 11:43:36 GMT
Actually once Beattie was moved back into the same role Kitson was stuck with, the goals dried up and he was visibly unhappier. It's a bit simplistic to say 'a good player is a good player'. Players will play better in certain positions and certain systems. We didn't play to Kitson's strengths. It's on him to a degree but on us to a degree as well. And what exactly were Kitson's strengths? He was a world class moaner to be fair. And the Global Ginger community owe him a massive debt for the selfless campaigning he did on their behalf. Couldn’t finish a bar of chocolate though.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 28, 2020 12:08:31 GMT
Actually once Beattie was moved back into the same role Kitson was stuck with, the goals dried up and he was visibly unhappier. It's a bit simplistic to say 'a good player is a good player'. Players will play better in certain positions and certain systems. We didn't play to Kitson's strengths. It's on him to a degree but on us to a degree as well. And what exactly were Kitson's strengths? At Reading he thrived with service from wingers, was good with the ball at his feet and was quite an intelligent forward player. He showed that during his rare couple of good spells as a Stoke player too. We asked him to essentially be the selfless foil for the main striker, running himself into the ground and winning all the flick ons. Yes, he could’ve tried harder to adapt but why spend all that money in the first place on someone not suited to that role or try to play to their strengths by playing with wingers and letting him get into the box?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 28, 2020 12:12:42 GMT
And what exactly were Kitson's strengths? He was a world class moaner to be fair. And the Global Ginger community owe him a massive debt for the selfless campaigning he did on their behalf. Couldn’t finish a bar of chocolate though. Was he a bad finisher? I recall a bad miss against Liverpool, what others am I forgetting? I’d always thought the problem was more that he wasn’t getting into good positions or really influencing games, and that Mama was a far better foil for Ric or Beattie.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Dec 28, 2020 12:41:07 GMT
My argument stands. A good footballer is a good footballer. It wasn’t Tony Pulis who failed to put the ball in the net on multiple occasions. It was that ginger dildo. James Beattie, a similar player but with a personality and backbone, proved that you could score goals in the Pulis system if you were half decent. Kits on wasn’t half the player he believed himself to be. Actually once Beattie was moved back into the same role Kitson was stuck with, the goals dried up and he was visibly unhappier. It's a bit simplistic to say 'a good player is a good player'. Players will play better in certain positions and certain systems. We didn't play to Kitson's strengths. It's on him to a degree but on us to a degree as well. As I recall, Beattie played the Mama role quite happily and his visible unhappiness had more to do with a knee injury that he was carrying that made him almost totally immobile.
|
|