Can't knock his record - made Stoke horrible to play against + got results even against some of the best teams. If we stay up playing a Stoke - style it wouldn't be ideal, but no one would complain. Hope Stoke go down next season though
I'd much rather go back down than watch that **** all season. No thanks. I go to football to be entertained.
I don't get what some people want. This (add name of team's) "style" or "way" is always cropping up with the pundits and managers now and fans are swallowing it. Some people whinge at how Barcelona and Spain play, and say it's dull, then they whinge at how Stoke play to their strengths with them playing the odd long ball up to a big forward and occasionally roughing a team up. How would you want City to play? I don't want us to play well and lose. I don't care about the praise for our players being able to pass the ball about. It's usually false praise anyway. I'd rather just win. The points are what keep you up/ or how you get promoted/ be successful. Not how you pass the ball about. Surely as long as it's effective and get's us points it shouldn't matter.
Lloydy, I'd be happy to play hoofball if it got us six years in the top-flight, a cup final and European football. That doesn't mean he's not a complete **** though
Yes it should. Swansea, West Brom, Southampton and Wigan(ahead of this season) have shown that you can play decent football and prosper and that's what all teams should aspire to do. I'd far rather yo-yo playing decent football, like West Brom, than be a club like Stoke, that everybody can't wait to see the back of.
I'd rather lose every week with football that gets me out of my seat once or twice than tear my hair out watching us scrape by a handful of games by kicking and rugby tackling opposition and watching the ball go ping pong. I cannot stand watching that dirty horrible ****. Like I said football is a form of entertainment, what's the point if its not even remotely entertaining?
Compare Stoke's net spend since they've been in the Premier League to Arsenal's in the same time and you can see Pulis hasn't done quite as well as some like to believe.
I am with you on this one, of cause we all like to see good football but at the end of the day it is the result on a Saturday evening that makes you enjoy your Saturday night rather than having watched a good game and lost. Personally whether you like Pulis or not, he has done a good job at Stoke, and if he has been pushed out the door, Stoke might regret it, as Wolves have.
People say "Stoke play to their strengths, so fair play to them", like they don't have a choice in the matter. But they buy certain people who have those particular strengths. It's not like Pulis just landed this job mid-season and is stuck with a certain set of players. They choose to play that way. And it can be dull to watch. 21 goals in 19 home games But at the end of the day, it's all about being there. Would you rather be Wigan, who play this "lovely" football, or Stoke?
Would you rather be promoted, stay up for 6 years (?) and counting playing "effective" football or be relegated playing "passing" football?
For anyone not aware of this little stat, while Tony Pulis has been at Stoke, he has a net spend £120m higher than that of Arsene Wenger.
We'd all rather be Wigan than Stoke. Plus, having never seen us spend more than three years in the same division in my time as a City fan, I find the idea of playing the same teams year-in, year-out quite boring. If you offered me the chance to see us win a cup next season but it meant finishing bottom on 10 points, I'd snap your bloody hand off. I'd rather go to Yeovil and Bournemouth than Man United and Liverpool anyway
I'd rather watch successful football than having to spend each season getting beat every week. If that means playing a more direct style then so be it.
