|
Post by musik on Dec 1, 2008 12:38:52 GMT
???
Btw, when is this game? Tuesday or Wednesday?
And when do we play in the FA Cup?
;D
//:musik
|
|
|
Post by broadwayroundabout on Dec 1, 2008 12:47:55 GMT
Why isn't Stoke vs Derby on TV?? cos we're all going tuesday, i think its jan 12th but could be wrong sorry, 3rd jan
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2008 13:01:35 GMT
its not on because we want to win
|
|
|
Post by tqstokie on Dec 1, 2008 13:24:27 GMT
I would guess it is because it is not an attractive prospect. I only watch Stoke on TV nowadays and I have to say what I see is not nice to watch. Stoke back in the 60's and 70's were known as a footballing side who played it from the back with the ball being rolled out to the fullbacks and played through midfield. Mick Dennis in the Daily Express this morning says that Stoke are truly woeful and during the course of Saturdays match, could hardly string a few passes together. I know all about playing to your strengths and probably with the current personnel we are doing as well as we can. However, it is not an attractive prospect and does not constitute value for money. Playing tippy tappy sideways and back football is not effective either. We should look at the top four and try to model the way we play on their blueprint. I am not saying that it would make us successful as them but would be a step in the right direction. We need more footballers in the side to my way of thinking. We are not given large TV coverage for good reason!
|
|
|
Post by truckerged on Dec 1, 2008 13:35:41 GMT
torquay potter i think we will start to play football like the top4 when we have access to the funds that they have!! it takes two teams to make an entertaining game neither brazil or dull had any intentions of doing so thus we are left with the worst two games we will see all season. musik its araenal v burnly on tv its not too hard to work out why. you sound like that unwashed lot up the road who were demanding that they should be on tv if they got past macc lol[fridays sentinel ]
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Dec 1, 2008 13:49:29 GMT
I would guess it is because it is not an attractive prospect. I only watch Stoke on TV nowadays and I have to say what I see is not nice to watch. Stoke back in the 60's and 70's were known as a footballing side who played it from the back with the ball being rolled out to the fullbacks and played through midfield. Mick Dennis in the Daily Express this morning says that Stoke are truly woeful and during the course of Saturdays match, could hardly string a few passes together. I know all about playing to your strengths and probably with the current personnel we are doing as well as we can. However, it is not an attractive prospect and does not constitute value for money. Playing tippy tappy sideways and back football is not effective either. We should look at the top four and try to model the way we play on their blueprint. I am not saying that it would make us successful as them but would be a step in the right direction. We need more footballers in the side to my way of thinking. We are not given large TV coverage for good reason! Mick Dennis is a know nothing know it all.
|
|
|
Post by torquaypotter on Dec 1, 2008 14:19:09 GMT
truckerjed IM torquaypotter ok lol where do you live in torquay tqstokie??
|
|
|
Post by Denis Smiths fow staith on Dec 1, 2008 14:34:41 GMT
To a lot of outsiders Stoke are not, in their opinion, attractive to watch. However, as a Stoke fan taking in the full match experience, i.e. pre-match drinks, soaking up the atmosphere, especially at home, banter between each other and the opposition fans puts a different perspective on it, and the bonus to all this is if Stoke win. How they do it is, to a certain extent, immaterial.
|
|
|
Post by tqstokie on Dec 1, 2008 15:40:08 GMT
Torquay potter,
I live in St Marychurch Road near to Hatfield Cross. I bet I have seen you many times in the Lansdowne.
To truckerged,
Having funds to buy excellent players obviously helps but we managed to be effective in the 70s without spending mega bucks. I think that team with Hudson, Greenhoff, Ritchie etc would be just as effective today. Therefore I think it is an attitude of mind rather than loads of money.
|
|