Cheerio Pulis

[Lord Duckhunter]

I hate football snobs, going on about how to play the beautiful game. Fact is, like it or not pulis did a ****ing good job at stoke. FA cup final, Europe and established in the top flight. We had blokes wetting their pants over Adkins back to back promotions, they'd want him knighted if he did what pulis did. We took 3 points out of the 12 available from west ham and stoke, so I don't get the smug attitude towards them.

 

[Beddy]

You guys from Stoke have a point........but so have our guys. Pulis has done well for Stoke although using negative tactics in the main. Going to away grounds and just defending is not really how most fans like to see teams play. You can perhaps understand if you have a lot of injuries or it was perhaps your first season in the premiership. Playing defensively all the time does kind of show a lack of ambition. More likely he got the team to play that way on Sunday so that the end of season prize money was increased a bit by Stokes position in the league. They will actually get about £750000 more than Saints. The case in point being that Lamberts goal actually brought in at least £1.5 million where as if we had lost we would have dropped by that much. So in truth I think it was about bringing in money for the club rather than being ambitious.

 

[fatletiss]

I hate football snobs, going on about how to play the beautiful game. Fact is, like it or not pulis did a ****ing good job at stoke. FA cup final, Europe and established in the top flight. We had blokes wetting their pants over Adkins back to back promotions, they'd want him knighted if he did what pulis did. We took 3 points out of the 12 available from west ham and stoke, so I don't get the smug attitude towards them.

It's simple to understand. Some people don't like that style of football and would hope they go down. It's a choice not a smug attitude. What's not to understand?

 

[Lff]

It's simple to understand. Some people don't like that style of football and would hope they go down. It's a choice not a smug attitude. What's not to understand?

Totally agree. Thats not saying that Pullis didn't do a great job on the resources he had to work with. Stoke would probably have struggled playing any other way.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

It's simple to understand. Some people don't like that style of football and would hope they go down. It's a choice not a smug attitude. What's not to understand?

All this "we play on the floor" nonsense sung about West Ham and Stoke is a smug attitude. Footballs all about results, that's why we keep score. It's not some sort of Harlem Globetrotters exhibition league. Fact is Stoke and West Ham both finished above us and we failed to beat either. That makes them better sides than us, yet some of our supporters want to slag Pulis and Fat Sam. Who do you want them to play like, Wigan?

 

[saintgreg10]

Pulis' departure had nothing to do with his tactics or the way in which Stoke play. It's to do with the fact that a significant amount of money has been invested in the squad over the last three seasons with a view to be pushing towards a top 8 finish and all they've achieved is 13th, 14th and 13th again. The board have given him plenty of time to progress and they've yet to see any results - they now feel it's the right time for Pulis to move on, as difficult a decision it may have been, it's a wise one in my opinion.

 

[Beddy]

All this "we play on the floor" nonsense sung about West Ham and Stoke is a smug attitude. Footballs all about results, that's why we keep score. It's not some sort of Harlem Globetrotters exhibition league. Fact is Stoke and West Ham both finished above us and we failed to beat either. That makes them better sides than us, yet some of our supporters want to slag Pulis and Fat Sam. Who do you want them to play like, Wigan?

LD not sure of your argument to be honest........It is true both Stoke and West Ham have more points than us.......that doesn't prove that there style of football is any more pleasing on the eye. In West Hams case with the money spent on their squad it is not unreasonable to expect them to be a bit higher than us. They were not higher than Liverpool, West Brom, Swansea etc who choose not to play hoof ball. I get the impression what our guys are saying is that they want to see a style of football other than the current Stoke or West Ham's style that is all. Nothing smug about that........We beat both M-city and Liverpool as well as a few others "with Saints brand of football". I get the impression that you would prefer the style played by these clubs as you seem to want to defend them. Saints have a reputation for playing a positive style and that is the way the majority prefer it seemingly.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

LD not sure of your argument to be honest........It is true both Stoke and West Ham have more points than us.......that doesn't prove that there style of football is any more pleasing on the eye. In West Hams case with the money spent on their squad it is not unreasonable to expect them to be a bit higher than us. They were not higher than Liverpool, West Brom, Swansea etc who choose not to play hoof ball. I get the impression what our guys are saying is that they want to see a style of football other than the current Stoke or West Ham's style that is all. Nothing smug about that........We beat both M-city and Liverpool as well as a few others "with Saints brand of football". I get the impression that you would prefer the style played by these clubs as you seem to want to defend them. Saints have a reputation for playing a positive style and that is the way the majority prefer it seemingly.

Seems you're talking about the much trumpeted "West Ham way" there Beddy!