Absolutely mate. It's a shame as I actually like Pulis as a bloke, always (or atleast I think) been respectful and full of praise for Spurs and you can't deny what he's done for Stoke has been nothing short of brilliant, but the way his team actually play is just, in my opinion, not how a football team should play, let alone a team in the top tier of our country. But then they're not the only team to play like that in fairness.
Yes they had the better of the first half. We struggled with their brand of football. We responded well and then were denied by some truly shocking decisions by the officials. Its called the Premier Leauge yet teams like Stoke feature and the ref's are inept even if adjudged by Sunday League standards
I'm glad you've seen the light ASC, Stoke have been a disgrace to football for years, and continue to be so. Both their football and their fans behaviour (continually whistling when we are trying to play football, a concept alien to them) is a stain on the game.
Stoke were certainly better in the first half but I think that was combined with our poor play. We couldn't get our passing rhythm going, that wasn't really down to Stoke closing us down, we were just playing poorly and making sloppy passes and in fairness, excluding the fact Crouch hand balled into the lead up to the first goal, we deserved to go in at the break a goal or two down, no Spurs fan will deny that. Though I think being played off the pitch is a bit OTT, that statement could refer to the second half when Barca raised the game against Madrid on Saturday. Iniesta, I've said to friends for a while now, is the best midfielder in the world, utterly mesmorising. It makes you realise just how good Barca can be when in full flow, devastatingly good and an absolute joy to watch and that was when Messi wasn't even at his best!
I can understand that you guys are disappointed, and clearly you had two decisions go against you, which were Adebayor's goal (at the time I thought that it was miles offside, but claerly I was wrong), and Kaboul's sending off - with 11 men, Spurs may have got the equaliser. Regarding the penalty incidents - in my opinion, Modric was caught by Whelan, so it's a penalty. To claim the Shawcross elbow, when he is actually facing his own goal , as deliberate hand ball is stretching the point - the Kaboul / Shawcross incident was a more legitamate shout for a Spurs penalty, but then again Kaboul was all over Walters in the build up for Stoke's opening goal (which Crouch handled - a little bit similar to VDV versus Arsenal this year, don't you think?) - so should Stoke have had a penalty, rather than the goal? I am a bit annoyed by these anti - football types though? You guys had an excellent following at the Brit yesterday, and in the second half played some fabulous football - but if it had'nt been for Friedel you would have been 3 down at half time, and even Spurs would struggle to come back from that - in that first half you managed 1 shot? You did'nt have the breaks yesterday, but get over it - you know as well as I do, that there have been decisions that have gone your way this season, and I expect that you have been happy to take them? There are 9 or 10 spurs fans from my town in Stoke On Trent, who attended the game yesterday, one of whom is a publican. Funnily enough none of those Spurs fans in the Pub afterwards had anything deragatory to say about Stoke's style of play, but had plenty of criticism of the standard of officialdom. If you travelled to the game from North London, I imagine that you were scratching your heads on the way back, thinking "how did we lose?", but if you sat in front of your TV and now have to trot out this "anti-football" jibe, try something new - after all in 8 games including this year's LC game it's now Spurs 4, Stoke 4!
I have no problem with Stoke - they play as they play and it works for them. They hardly have the players to play like Barcelona! Blackpool came up, played football and look what happened to them! My only issue is the amount of game time that is wasted taking throw ins - I think if someone added up the time spent wiping the ball with a towel throughout a match it would add up to a substantial amount!
The article is about Modric being a cheat, not Stoke,as he dived without question,and if you analyse the footage closely you will realise he wasnt even touched,he was looking to dive b4 the collision, but Whelan pulled his leg away with NO contact.The 2nd pen incident wasnt a pen the 2nd one was, penalty Karma
What game were you watching?, we started badly, first 25 mins looked like strangers agreed, but then we got hold of it for the last part of the half, and they only time ventured into ours..they scored a second. Played off the park...no.
Did anyone else notice that Stoke had narrowed their playing field? Not only did this allow their "throwers" to take longer run-ups to launch the ball onto Crouchie's head (who always stood immediately in front of our goalie), but it also meant that we were not able to exploit our wingers and pace. Isn't that cheating? Strictly speaking, no, because there is no FA regulation prescribing a standard size of pitch, but it certainly is not within the spirit of the game. Of course, when they come to the Lane, we'll run rings round them. Bale and Lennon might well have been restricted for space at their cruddy stadium, but there are acres and acres of space for our pacey boys to run into, at the Lane.
Stoke always use that pitch size in the CL. It has to be larger for the Europa League - hence the other markings.
As I've already pointed out - it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell from 'analysing the footage' as ordinary TV cameras operate on a frame basis and the contact would most likely occur betwen frames (as the relative movement is a few inches between frames). If there was no contact then how was it a 'collision'? Also even there being no contact is not proof it was a dive - Whelan at the very least came very close to kicking his shin and Modric might well have tried to avoid the kick and lost balance. Under the current rules that would make it a careless tackle ie a foul and a penalty. On balance the ref got it right I think (one of the few decisions he did get right actually) and calling Modric a cheat on such flimsy evdience is way out of order.
happy to sing about other players yet when Modric clearly dives it was a foul. Dive all day, Unfortunately for Modric he feigned impact onhis left peg just before he putit down on the turf instead of when he was supposedly kicked, dive dive dive, Berba style dive Well done again for the win.
Both teams played on that pitch, spirit of te game?? Chelsea and the sand UNited waterlogging the pitch at half time, what? clubs using a home advantage against a quality opponent? Fair play, once they are within the regulations it is within the spirit of the game and fair. Keeping people under survailance is not what a football club should be doing. As for being assured you'll tonk them at the lane, at leaest UNited fans support a club that keeps winning which explains their attitude, but spurs 1 term in the CL and playing well for 10 out of 14 games this season, pull n the reigns there neddy
It's reins not reigns, and as I said before when you made this erroneous claime against us in another thread 'Wrong, we played well in all 12 of our games since the window closed and we got in Parker and Adebayor. We've been the best team to watch, playing delightful, attacking football. However, we are not set up to deal with aerial onslaughts and so are not title contenders, and I, for one, have never said we were. Had we beaten Stoke we would have been, but we didn't and so we aren't.'
Without Vidic, neither are Man Utd, whilst Arsenal are hopeless against aerial onslaughts - yet when they drop points/lose to Stoke, there isn't the attitude of "Told you they were a flash in the pan", even when it happens to Arsenal three or four times a season, like there has been after our half mugging, half 'mare, three quarters shafting.
The difference is HBIC that Man U and Arsenal have been multiple Prem champions, we've never even been contenders during the Prem era. Therefore, unsurprisingly they have a lot of credibility to their aspirations, particularly Utd. Arsenal have fallen off in recent seasons, and for me they aren't contenders this season. Utd are, because of their standing in the game and their proven ability to dig out results. To me the title race is confined to Manchester now, with City as huge favourites.
Arsenal may not be contenders, but when their next defeat comes around the reports won't be heavily implying it's about time somebody reminded them of their palce in the grand scheme of things - the Grauniad's report neglected to mention Foy's utter **** up of a game, even though that was more important to the final result than Stoke's 2-0 lead. As for Man Utd, when they lose the pundits all agree on one thing - the next team they play will get a right stuffing, as if the opposition will just roll over and conceed four without much fight (oh, wait, that describes the Wolves game, doesn't it?)
Fair comments re the media's take on things HBIC However, I'm afraid their judgement we're not title contenders is the correct one.
