|
Post by Gary Hackett on May 13, 2024 18:01:58 GMT
Good news in many ways though we definately a young LB like the lad at Crewe who can be completion for the spot. When he’s played he’s made us look a better side. Adebisi? Not bad but don't think he's up to the level we should be aspiring to. Would have gladly taken Harry Pickering a couple of years ago Adebisi is nowhere near the level Pickering was at when he left Crewe.
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on May 13, 2024 18:03:14 GMT
Wouldn't mind Norrington_Davies back on a permanent deal!
|
|
|
Post by stokecitytalke on May 14, 2024 5:45:48 GMT
Benji - have you found The Light?? 🥳 Either that or a dictionary. .... And a spell checker.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 6:03:30 GMT
Disappointed with this. Too old, wages too high, availability too low and really not that great and will only get worse. We need better and should spend our money/wages on the first choice with a cheaper back up not the back up being a high earner.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 14, 2024 6:35:15 GMT
Disappointed with this. Too old, wages too high, availability too low and really not that great and will only get worse. We need better and should spend our money/wages on the first choice with a cheaper back up not the back up being a high earner. As it stands he isn't backup - he's the current first choice. We improved significantly when ĥe came back into the side and its up to any other player coming in to prove they are better. I get the for utility players but ideally all specialist players should be competing for a place in the first team, not have automatic starters and backup. On his day Stevens is a very decent left back at this level and would keep any incoming player on their toes. As to his salary he was on £8.3k per week which him makes him the twelfth highest earner so hardly a massive issue when we have Johnson on £15k and Pearson on £28k.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 6:55:26 GMT
Disappointed with this. Too old, wages too high, availability too low and really not that great and will only get worse. We need better and should spend our money/wages on the first choice with a cheaper back up not the back up being a high earner. As it stands he isn't backup - he's the current first choice. We improved significantly when ĥe came back into the side and its up to any other player coming in to prove they are better. I get the for utility players but ideally all specialist players should be competing for a place in the first team, not have automatic starters and backup. On his day Stevens is a very decent left back at this level and would keep any incoming player on their toes. As to his salary he was on £8.3k per week which him makes him the twelfth highest earner so hardly a massive issue when we have Johnson on £15k and Pearson on £28k. It’s not an argument for utility players, personally I think we already have one too many of those in Thompson, Leris, Gooch who are very unlikely to be the best option in any position. I’d want to get rid of Leris or Gooch because they’re both the same thing right sided and neither good enough to be a long term solution at RB or RM. There are different reports of Enda’s wages but even at your rate it’s still close to being in the 11th top pay for what needs to be a back up LB. If he’s still first choice LB at the end of the Summer window that won’t be a positive sign of our Summer recruitment and he’s also highly likely to be missing for large chunks of the season as he has been the past few. Johnson obviously we’ll be hoping to shift, it would be wise to move Pearson on as well if the HC’s main plan is to deploy 1 deeplying midfielder. These are things that are not wholly in our control the Stevens situation was and we’ve opted for a likely repeat of the season just gone with him, personally I think that was daft. Even when he’s available he’s old, slow and produces virtually no output from the FB position. I’d want younger, quicker, more attacking. Some are in favour of signing or resigning older players many aren’t. I wouldn’t be in favour of signing anyone over 24 or renewing anyone over 30 but I’m sure you’ll have a reason why that’s wrong and you’re right you always do.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on May 14, 2024 7:17:46 GMT
Disappointed with this. Too old, wages too high, availability too low and really not that great and will only get worse. We need better and should spend our money/wages on the first choice with a cheaper back up not the back up being a high earner. Like any player, you don't know what his wages are
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 14, 2024 8:17:20 GMT
As it stands he isn't backup - he's the current first choice. We improved significantly when ĥe came back into the side and its up to any other player coming in to prove they are better. I get the for utility players but ideally all specialist players should be competing for a place in the first team, not have automatic starters and backup. On his day Stevens is a very decent left back at this level and would keep any incoming player on their toes. As to his salary he was on £8.3k per week which him makes him the twelfth highest earner so hardly a massive issue when we have Johnson on £15k and Pearson on £28k. It’s not an argument for utility players, personally I think we already have one too many of those in Thompson, Leris, Gooch who are very unlikely to be the best option in any position. I’d want to get rid of Leris or Gooch because they’re both the same thing right sided and neither good enough to be a long term solution at RB or RM. There are different reports of Enda’s wages but even at your rate it’s still close to being in the 11th top pay for what needs to be a back up LB. If he’s still first choice LB at the end of the Summer window that won’t be a positive sign of our Summer recruitment and he’s also highly likely to be missing for large chunks of the season as he has been the past few. Johnson obviously we’ll be hoping to shift, it would be wise to move Pearson on as well if the HC’s main plan is to deploy 1 deeplying midfielder. These are things that are not wholly in our control the Stevens situation was and we’ve opted for a likely repeat of the season just gone with him, personally I think that was daft. Even when he’s available he’s old, slow and produces virtually no output from the FB position. I’d want younger, quicker, more attacking. Some are in favour of signing or resigning older players many aren’t. I wouldn’t be in favour of signing anyone over 24 or renewing anyone over 30 but I’m sure you’ll have a reason why that’s wrong and you’re right you always do. He's not that old and he certainly isn't that slow. He is a primarily a defender who is prepared to get forward and while he is no where near as attacking as a player like Hoever he does a decent job of getting forward when needed. We scored 8 and conceded 0 in the last three games which shows both the value of having a fullback who can actually defend and that you don't need gung ho defenders to score goals. The point about his injury record is fair but when he was fit his previous injuries didn't seem to be holding him back and you can't guarantee any player is going to stay fit for the whole season regardless of age. Retaining Stevens is only repeating the mistakes of last season if we don't get in another left back and I really can't see that happening and if it does that's just stupid and nothing to do with the value of Stevens as a player. Stevens was very much part of the improvement at the end of the season and I really can't see the problem of having any new left back coming in and having to work hard to displace him and if we do bring in a young left back (which would be great) he could learn a lot from a good pro like Stevens. So yes you are right I do have an answer (which you have every right to disagree with). I must have missed the memo about giving you a free ride on here.
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on May 14, 2024 8:21:46 GMT
As it stands he isn't backup - he's the current first choice. We improved significantly when ĥe came back into the side and its up to any other player coming in to prove they are better. I get the for utility players but ideally all specialist players should be competing for a place in the first team, not have automatic starters and backup. On his day Stevens is a very decent left back at this level and would keep any incoming player on their toes. As to his salary he was on £8.3k per week which him makes him the twelfth highest earner so hardly a massive issue when we have Johnson on £15k and Pearson on £28k. It’s not an argument for utility players, personally I think we already have one too many of those in Thompson, Leris, Gooch who are very unlikely to be the best option in any position. I’d want to get rid of Leris or Gooch because they’re both the same thing right sided and neither good enough to be a long term solution at RB or RM. There are different reports of Enda’s wages but even at your rate it’s still close to being in the 11th top pay for what needs to be a back up LB. If he’s still first choice LB at the end of the Summer window that won’t be a positive sign of our Summer recruitment and he’s also highly likely to be missing for large chunks of the season as he has been the past few. Johnson obviously we’ll be hoping to shift, it would be wise to move Pearson on as well if the HC’s main plan is to deploy 1 deeplying midfielder. These are things that are not wholly in our control the Stevens situation was and we’ve opted for a likely repeat of the season just gone with him, personally I think that was daft. Even when he’s available he’s old, slow and produces virtually no output from the FB position. I’d want younger, quicker, more attacking. Some are in favour of signing or resigning older players many aren’t. I wouldn’t be in favour of signing anyone over 24 or renewing anyone over 30 but I’m sure you’ll have a reason why that’s wrong and you’re right you always do. He was one of if not our best player since he came back in for the Hull game. Put a square peg in a square hole allowed the rest of the team to flourish.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 14:25:43 GMT
It’s not an argument for utility players, personally I think we already have one too many of those in Thompson, Leris, Gooch who are very unlikely to be the best option in any position. I’d want to get rid of Leris or Gooch because they’re both the same thing right sided and neither good enough to be a long term solution at RB or RM. There are different reports of Enda’s wages but even at your rate it’s still close to being in the 11th top pay for what needs to be a back up LB. If he’s still first choice LB at the end of the Summer window that won’t be a positive sign of our Summer recruitment and he’s also highly likely to be missing for large chunks of the season as he has been the past few. Johnson obviously we’ll be hoping to shift, it would be wise to move Pearson on as well if the HC’s main plan is to deploy 1 deeplying midfielder. These are things that are not wholly in our control the Stevens situation was and we’ve opted for a likely repeat of the season just gone with him, personally I think that was daft. Even when he’s available he’s old, slow and produces virtually no output from the FB position. I’d want younger, quicker, more attacking. Some are in favour of signing or resigning older players many aren’t. I wouldn’t be in favour of signing anyone over 24 or renewing anyone over 30 but I’m sure you’ll have a reason why that’s wrong and you’re right you always do. He was one of if not our best player since he came back in for the Hull game. Put a square peg in a square hole allowed the rest of the team to flourish. He really wasn’t one if if not our best player I’ve never heard such garbage. He really doesn’t offer a great deal other than the fact he’s a LB. Don’t know how he’s ever been considered an attacking LB or LWB he offers very little in forward play. If a FB we’re exclusively a defender he’s just about ok but they aren’t.
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on May 14, 2024 14:39:10 GMT
He was one of if not our best player since he came back in for the Hull game. Put a square peg in a square hole allowed the rest of the team to flourish. He really wasn’t one if if not our best player I’ve never heard such garbage. He really doesn’t offer a great deal other than the fact he’s a LB. Don’t know how he’s ever been considered an attacking LB or LWB he offers very little in forward play. If a FB we’re exclusively a defender he’s just about ok but they aren’t. Well, he was whether you want to admit it or not. Not sure what your problem is with admitting a Stoke player was good in the only bright period of an entire season. He got forward plenty and linked well with Bae.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 14:47:14 GMT
He really wasn’t one if if not our best player I’ve never heard such garbage. He really doesn’t offer a great deal other than the fact he’s a LB. Don’t know how he’s ever been considered an attacking LB or LWB he offers very little in forward play. If a FB were exclusively a defender he’s just about ok but they aren’t. Well, he was whether you want to admit it or not. Not sure what your problem is with admitting a Stoke player was good in the only bright period of an entire season. He got forward plenty and linked well with Bae. Sorry that’s like saying Sterling was good going forward despite 2x championship seasons with zero output. I certainly didn’t dislike the player but he was unproductive in forward areas and multiple times better at defending than Enda.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on May 14, 2024 14:52:54 GMT
It’s not an argument for utility players, personally I think we already have one too many of those in Thompson, Leris, Gooch who are very unlikely to be the best option in any position. I’d want to get rid of Leris or Gooch because they’re both the same thing right sided and neither good enough to be a long term solution at RB or RM. There are different reports of Enda’s wages but even at your rate it’s still close to being in the 11th top pay for what needs to be a back up LB. If he’s still first choice LB at the end of the Summer window that won’t be a positive sign of our Summer recruitment and he’s also highly likely to be missing for large chunks of the season as he has been the past few. Johnson obviously we’ll be hoping to shift, it would be wise to move Pearson on as well if the HC’s main plan is to deploy 1 deeplying midfielder. These are things that are not wholly in our control the Stevens situation was and we’ve opted for a likely repeat of the season just gone with him, personally I think that was daft. Even when he’s available he’s old, slow and produces virtually no output from the FB position. I’d want younger, quicker, more attacking. Some are in favour of signing or resigning older players many aren’t. I wouldn’t be in favour of signing anyone over 24 or renewing anyone over 30 but I’m sure you’ll have a reason why that’s wrong and you’re right you always do. He was one of if not our best player since he came back in for the Hull game. Put a square peg in a square hole allowed the rest of the team to flourish. Yep The left back we'd been missing for a long time and fitted in there straight away on his return. We looked better as you say As a few have said, well worth keeping but need another LB also.
|
|
|
Post by threepoints on May 14, 2024 15:46:14 GMT
Signed a one year contract extension.
Given the way Stoke's defence performed last season I wouldn't resign any of them.
I hope that this isn't a sign of things to come.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on May 14, 2024 15:47:39 GMT
Signed a one year contract extension.
Given the way Stoke's defence performed last season I wouldn't resign any of them.
I hope that this isn't a sign of things to come.
We conceded 3 more than Ipswich
|
|
|
Post by threepoints on May 14, 2024 16:05:31 GMT
Signed a one year contract extension.
Given the way Stoke's defence performed last season I wouldn't resign any of them.
I hope that this isn't a sign of things to come.
We conceded 3 more than Ipswich
We still gave away a lot of easy goals, Norwich away for example. You can give away goals if they are going in at the other end which they haven't been doing for much of the season.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 16:15:12 GMT
We conceded 3 more than Ipswich
We still gave away a lot of easy goals, Norwich away for example. You can give away goals if they are going in at the other end which they haven't been doing for much of the season.
So your answer to being well below average at scoring goals is to be unrealistically good at the back to mitigate it, not address the actual problem. It’s an interesting theory with no current example. Ability to score a reasonable amount of goals is exclusive with the top 6, ability to concede a lower than average number of goal’s isn’t. If we want to succeed we need to score a lot more goals. Being tighter at the back would just be a pleasant bonus but by no means an impossible obstacle to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on May 14, 2024 16:18:32 GMT
We conceded 3 more than Ipswich
We still gave away a lot of easy goals, Norwich away for example. You can give away goals if they are going in at the other end which they haven't been doing for much of the season.
We did but finished the season well enough playing good football. We can't really judge the whole season as had that arse Neil in charge for a lot of it although we did have our moments after he left at the back but all teams do in this division.
|
|
|
Post by a on May 14, 2024 16:20:01 GMT
We love an ageing LB 😂
|
|
|
Post by threepoints on May 14, 2024 16:26:53 GMT
I think that the defence has been the main problem with us this last season:
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 16:32:25 GMT
I think that the defence has been the main problem with us this last season: 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 14, 2024 16:32:45 GMT
Signed a one year contract extension. Given the way Stoke's defence performed last season I wouldn't resign any of them. I hope that this isn't a sign of things to come.
We conceded 3 more than Ipswich Who conceded the second-most goals ever for a promoted team
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 16:37:32 GMT
We conceded 3 more than Ipswich Who conceded the second-most goals ever for a promoted team We also conceded less than Norwich and not that many more than Southampton. We got promoted to the premier league with the joint lowest points for automatic promotion bus still a lot of our dopey fans think it’s THE blueprint for success at this level. You really couldn’t make it up how obsessed many of our fans are with the defensive side of the game.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 14, 2024 16:41:32 GMT
Who conceded the second-most goals ever for a promoted team We also conceded less than Norwich and not that many more than Southampton. We got promoted to the premier league with the joint lowest points for automatic promotion bus still a lot of our dopey fans think it’s THE blueprint for success at this level. You really couldn’t make it up how obsessed many of our fans are with the defensive side of the game. They all happen to be big outliers though. All those three teams conceded way more than even playoff teams usually do.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 17:51:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on May 14, 2024 18:08:15 GMT
Stevens has done alright and is good enough as back-up.
Also good to keep some of the same faces and not change 20 players every summer.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 14, 2024 18:16:21 GMT
What's that meant to show? You're linking to a table where every top 6 team conceded fewer than Ipswich this season
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 14, 2024 18:45:28 GMT
What's that meant to show? You're linking to a table where every top 6 team conceded fewer than Ipswich this season The link hasn’t worked right for me it was meant to show the 18/19 season when Norwich won the league and Villa went up in the play offs. Top teams conceded a lot of goals. They’re by no means outliers many Stoke fans just live in the past where keeping it tight is the be all and end all, they’re so wrong.
|
|
|
Post by svengaliinplatforms on May 14, 2024 18:57:02 GMT
We conceded 3 more than Ipswich
We still gave away a lot of easy goals, Norwich away for example. You can give away goals if they are going in at the other end which they haven't been doing for much of the season.
Facts are facts. Not enough goals scored was our downfall last season. If we'd scored say, 65 goals, we'd have done something. Instead we averaged roughly a goal-a-game. Tripe. We were stuck with Ennis, Mmaee, Campbell (well, when he was available) and Wesley. Painful.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on May 14, 2024 19:01:55 GMT
What's that meant to show? You're linking to a table where every top 6 team conceded fewer than Ipswich this season The link hasn’t worked right for me it was meant to show the 18/19 season when Norwich won the league and Villa went up in the play offs. Top teams conceded a lot of goals. They’re by no means outliers many Stoke fans just live in the past where keeping it tight is the be all and end all, they’re so wrong. Mate you don't prove a point by going to find the most extreme other season in recent years where a team conceded more. In the last 30 years only one auto promotion team has conceded more than Ipswich this season (Norwich in 2011). They are a full 10 goals over the top 6 average, fifteen over the top two. They conceded an exceptionally high number of goals for a team in their position, so yes, they are outliers.
|
|