|
Post by wakefieldstokie on May 14, 2024 19:29:08 GMT
You just know he’ll be first choice by default. Fine as back up, but we need better, much better, not players we’ve just stayed up with.
|
|
|
Post by bolders on May 14, 2024 20:40:47 GMT
If keeping him helps save a couple of quid to put towards a better number 1 LB then it’s a no brainer really, plus too many new players didn’t help last season
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 15, 2024 5:42:32 GMT
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. Teams finishing in the top 6 having conceded 50+ and even 60+ are a regular event and certainly not outliers it happens a lot more frequently than teams getting into the top 6 having scored less than 60 goals they’re the real outliers it’s happened a handful of times in the last 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on May 15, 2024 6:22:59 GMT
I don’t mind this.
Key points are:
We were noticeably better when he played v he didn’t.
Experienced pro who’s been there and done it.
Doubt he’s on massive wages
Knows his legs can’t handle 46 games so won’t mind being a rotation option/ back up
One less player we have to churn and integrate into the squad
|
|
|
Post by chell_rosey on May 15, 2024 6:43:27 GMT
I don’t mind this. Key points are: We were noticeably better when he played v he didn’t. Experienced pro who’s been there and done it. Doubt he’s on massive wages Knows his legs can’t handle 46 games so won’t mind being a rotation option/ back up One less player we have to churn and integrate into the squad Absolutely this. I don't understand the fuss, tbh. With his experience and influence another 12 months is a no brainer, imo of course.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 15, 2024 7:01:58 GMT
I don’t mind this. Key points are: We were noticeably better when he played v he didn’t. Experienced pro who’s been there and done it. Doubt he’s on massive wages Knows his legs can’t handle 46 games so won’t mind being a rotation option/ back up One less player we have to churn and integrate into the squad Absolutely this. I don't understand the fuss, tbh. With his experience and influence another 12 months is a no brainer, imo of course. Some people are naturally more comfortable with older players than others. Imo we don’t need them we have plenty of 20 somethings with loads of experience and shouldn’t need players who are on a downward curve. It’s just personal preference, I personally don’t favour them as I can’t see any upside and plenty of downside.
|
|
|
Post by wilcopotter on May 15, 2024 8:13:18 GMT
Absolutely this. I don't understand the fuss, tbh. With his experience and influence another 12 months is a no brainer, imo of course. Some people are naturally more comfortable with older players than others. Imo we don’t need them we have plenty of 20 somethings with loads of experience and shouldn’t need players who are on a downward curve. It’s just personal preference, I personally don’t favour them as I can’t see any upside and plenty of downside. Agree, in some ways, not others. Pros- Very good player at this level, we do seem to have been better when he plays (albeit the last few games as his contract is running out), linked up well with Cundle (if we can get him back) and Junho, good experience to assist development of younger players around him. Seems a good pro. 12 months low risk. Cons- on the decline, injury prone over recent seasons. A good signing, depends on what the aspirations of the Management Team are (ie Play oof push, mid table mediocrity or survival) and whether he is first choice LB or not. Does this first signing fit the athletic, front footed, attacking football model being spouted again. This could truly turn out to be a good Tony Dorigo type signing or a meh Stephen Ward type signing imo. Time will be the judge.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 15, 2024 8:23:15 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. You keep banging on about the majority on here being obsessed with defending and therefore being against attacking football. The majority of people are not against attacking football - they just recognise that defending is just as important as attacking and that if you ignore or downplay the importance of defending you will get picked off by the opposition and all the good work on the attacking side will get undone by your weaknesses at the back. There may be a handful of people who long for the return of Pulisball but they certainly aren't the majority. It's your gung ho vision of "modern" football that is way off the mark. In the real world the very top coaches put as much into getting the defensive side right as the attack - in fact the best attacking sides have to have the best defences because they are going to get exposed more. These are the defence stats for this year's Premier League; www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/premier-league/best-defence.htmlThe top and bottom three have the best and worst defensive record. And this is the attacking stats: www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/premier-league/best-attack.htmlThe best teams have the best attack AND the best defence - they don't become the best teams by focusing on attack and neglecting the defence. The only anomaly in the top and bottom three is Luton who went for it and got demoted because of their dodgy defensive record. If you were right about "modern" football those stats would look completely different with teams with dodgy defences and a good attack bunched at the top. You are confusing how you want the game to be played with how it is actually played. You are perfectly entitled to have your opinion on how it should be played but when it comes to you view on how it's actually played you are just plain wrong.
|
|
|
Post by larstoke on May 15, 2024 9:49:45 GMT
Enda the Extenda
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on May 15, 2024 10:07:04 GMT
I don’t mind this. Key points are: We were noticeably better when he played v he didn’t. Experienced pro who’s been there and done it. Doubt he’s on massive wages Knows his legs can’t handle 46 games so won’t mind being a rotation option/ back up One less player we have to churn and integrate into the squad Absolutely this. I don't understand the fuss, tbh. With his experience and influence another 12 months is a no brainer, imo of course. i can understand the fuss , he’s injury prone , so saying he’s only backup you still need a backup who’s fit
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 15, 2024 13:40:39 GMT
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. You keep banging on about the majority on here being obsessed with defending and therefore being against attacking football. The majority of people are not against attacking football - they just recognise that defending is just as important as attacking and that if you ignore or downplay the importance of defending you will get picked off by the opposition and all the good work on the attacking side will get undone by your weaknesses at the back. There may be a handful of people who long for the return of Pulisball but they certainly aren't the majority. It's your gung ho vision of "modern" football that is way off the mark. In the real world the very top coaches put as much into getting the defensive side right as the attack - in fact the best attacking sides have to have the best defences because they are going to get exposed more. These are the defence stats for this year's Premier League; www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/premier-league/best-defence.htmlThe top and bottom three have the best and worst defensive record. And this is the attacking stats: www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/premier-league/best-attack.htmlThe best teams have the best attack AND the best defence - they don't become the best teams by focusing on attack and neglecting the defence. The only anomaly in the top and bottom three is Luton who went for it and got demoted because of their dodgy defensive record. If you were right about "modern" football those stats would look completely different with teams with dodgy defences and a good attack bunched at the top. You are confusing how you want the game to be played with how it is actually played. You are perfectly entitled to have your opinion on how it should be played but when it comes to you view on how it's actually played you are just plain wrong. So being as we’re talking about the championship how come you don’t use the championship table to make your point I wonder(no I don’t). I checked the last 10 years before I made my post. Team after team after team have finished in the top six conceding 50+ and 60+ goals, ie not much better and quite a few worse including a team topping the league. Yet according to some our defence is the worst they ever saw and what has been letting us down. It’s simply not true. Try as I might I couldn’t find a team that featured that scored only 49 goals and only a handful of outliers that scored less than 60 goals. You swear you’re right but the evidence suggests that teams that have finished in the top six are a damn sight better at scoring goals and often only marginally better or no better at all at defending. Whilst I’d like us to concede less goals, scoring them has been our biggest problem and therefore top priority to address. Any idea that we can somehow mitigate the rate at which we score goals is quite foolish.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on May 15, 2024 13:56:36 GMT
I bought one of those on Lovehoney.com
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 16, 2024 12:20:23 GMT
You keep banging on about the majority on here being obsessed with defending and therefore being against attacking football. The majority of people are not against attacking football - they just recognise that defending is just as important as attacking and that if you ignore or downplay the importance of defending you will get picked off by the opposition and all the good work on the attacking side will get undone by your weaknesses at the back. There may be a handful of people who long for the return of Pulisball but they certainly aren't the majority. It's your gung ho vision of "modern" football that is way off the mark. In the real world the very top coaches put as much into getting the defensive side right as the attack - in fact the best attacking sides have to have the best defences because they are going to get exposed more. These are the defence stats for this year's Premier League; www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/premier-league/best-defence.htmlThe top and bottom three have the best and worst defensive record. And this is the attacking stats: www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/premier-league/best-attack.htmlThe best teams have the best attack AND the best defence - they don't become the best teams by focusing on attack and neglecting the defence. The only anomaly in the top and bottom three is Luton who went for it and got demoted because of their dodgy defensive record. If you were right about "modern" football those stats would look completely different with teams with dodgy defences and a good attack bunched at the top. You are confusing how you want the game to be played with how it is actually played. You are perfectly entitled to have your opinion on how it should be played but when it comes to you view on how it's actually played you are just plain wrong. So being as we’re talking about the championship how come you don’t use the championship table to make your point I wonder(no I don’t). I checked the last 10 years before I made my post. Team after team after team have finished in the top six conceding 50+ and 60+ goals, ie not much better and quite a few worse including a team topping the league. Yet according to some our defence is the worst they ever saw and what has been letting us down. It’s simply not true. Try as I might I couldn’t find a team that featured that scored only 49 goals and only a handful of outliers that scored less than 60 goals. You swear you’re right but the evidence suggests that teams that have finished in the top six are a damn sight better at scoring goals and often only marginally better or no better at all at defending. Whilst I’d like us to concede less goals, scoring them has been our biggest problem and therefore top priority to address. Any idea that we can somehow mitigate the rate at which we score goals is quite foolish. What you keep failing to understand is that strengthening your defence somehow stops you from also improving your ability to score goals - you keep presenting the problem as EITHER you strengthen your defence OR you strengthen your attack - it's called a false dichotomy. There isn't a dichotomy - you can strengthen your defence AND strengthen your attack. In fact if you do that you will do far better than just focusing on the attack and hoping for the best at the back. You also seem to think that paying attention to the defence means you set up to play defensive football. That also isn't true - you can have a good defence and still setup to play attacking football - Arsenal and Man City have the best defences in the Premier League AND yet somehow manage to play some of the most attractive. attacking football. If you do that you will do far better than if you just go gung ho.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on May 16, 2024 12:47:48 GMT
So being as we’re talking about the championship how come you don’t use the championship table to make your point I wonder(no I don’t). I checked the last 10 years before I made my post. Team after team after team have finished in the top six conceding 50+ and 60+ goals, ie not much better and quite a few worse including a team topping the league. Yet according to some our defence is the worst they ever saw and what has been letting us down. It’s simply not true. Try as I might I couldn’t find a team that featured that scored only 49 goals and only a handful of outliers that scored less than 60 goals. You swear you’re right but the evidence suggests that teams that have finished in the top six are a damn sight better at scoring goals and often only marginally better or no better at all at defending. Whilst I’d like us to concede less goals, scoring them has been our biggest problem and therefore top priority to address. Any idea that we can somehow mitigate the rate at which we score goals is quite foolish. What you keep failing to understand is that strengthening your defence somehow stops you from also improving your ability to score goals - you keep presenting the problem as EITHER you strengthen your defence OR you strengthen your attack - it's called a false dichotomy. There isn't a dichotomy - you can strengthen your defence AND strengthen your attack. In fact if you do that you will do far better than just focusing on the attack and hoping for the best at the back. You also seem to think that paying attention to the defence means you set up to play defensive football. That also isn't true - you can have a good defence and still setup to play attacking football - Arsenal and Man City have the best defences in the Premier League AND yet somehow manage to play some of the most attractive. attacking football. If you do that you will do far better than if you just go gung ho. And that’s why you keep coming back to elite clubs who don’t have to prioritise their resources so much. They can indeed address all their needs and most of their wants. Very few championship clubs have that luxury they have to prioritise the issues that are hurting them the most. Just like you don’t understand that managers don’t get the time to follow the old adage of sort the defence out first. You literally just keep making a case to suit your backward looking view. The reality as the tables of the not to distant past will tell you score plenty of goals and keep them out the other end as best you can. Plenty of examples of teams with poor defensive records finishing in the top six very few examples of teams who struggle to score finishing in the top six. You could get promoted conceding the number of goals we did last season there are numerous precedents. There are no precedents of teams scoring the number of goals we scored finishing in the top six never mind getting promoted. Try to drag yourself out of the 1980’s and stop with the gung ho crap our HC is far more gung ho than I’ll ever be.
|
|