Quite a comment but may I offer you a little comfort here....Norwich City are fast becoming the worst side in the PL to watch, certainly at away games and it is down to the very same reason - we have a manager who thinks of nothing more than his precious 40 points no matter how they are achieved. We will, at some point, be labelled as the Stoke City of the south, of that I am fairly sure if performances remain as they are now and to think that our game at the Britannia was poor last season, sheesh it could be a real stinker this time round! Like Stoke, we are capable of playing some good stuff, occasionally bordering on awesome but it is becoming increasingly rare and we can only hope that once survival has been ensured the pressure is taken off and the manager and players will not be so rigid in what they are currently doing.
Thai Sorry but when you look at the money spent by Clueliss in relation to Norwich City?? Nah, I won't be buying another S/Ticket until Clueliss is out the door, even better as far away from our ground as is humanly possible.
I watch Stoke as much as any other premier league team, except my trusty Toon, and that's quite a bit, thanks. They do not play the least attractive football in my opinion. To me the top 5 goes, in order of poorness- 1. QPR 2. Norwich (sorry canaries!) 3. Newcastle 4. Hammers 5. Villa I don't understand the quibbling over financial resources, when spending millions is practically tantamount to staying still in this division... Even Everton have to spend money. You may have spent a fortune acquiring a squad, but what, you think that money could have brought in world class players instead? No way. They go to the top teams as always, or are at best a fleeting fancy in the mid-table shirt. I think the wage table might suitably rectify judgments on spending, as well as running costs and training expenses, but that invariably doesn't happen on a football forum. We just get a totting up of "reported" transfer dealings. E.g. I hardly think we spent £3 million maximum to get Sissoko. His contract and all the cheating and stealing will have a cost too. It tends to go in cycles, fan expectation. "We want attractive football", we cry as we watch a boring 1-0 win... Then the manager is sacked and sexy football god gets beat 8 games on the bounce... "We want effective football, not this rubbish attractive stuff"... Then back to "we want attractive football, this is boring"... Is there such thing as a happy balance? I'm not sure. I think it requires the perfect personnel, both manager and playing staff wise, and also enough finances. Not many clubs actually have that, and more bankrupt themselves in the search than find success. I fully anticipate being doomed to repeat this cycle forever, as a Newcastle fan. I don't think Pulis is perfect, but it seems he isn't getting enough credit for what he has given, and that's more stability than the vast majority of the league's managers have given their employers. He doesn't play the sexiest brand of football, but which manager's actually do? Especially ones with a similar sized fanbase and club history... Being a reliable and regular premier league club is raising this profile all the time, you'd think. If they end goal you want is for Stoke to be a top club, consolidation and small-steps are required. A complete change in philosophy now is a big gamble, and I think it requires more justification than calling the manager clueless, personally.
Your missing the point. No one is suggesting that we should be competing with top clubs, some fans just feel that we as capable of more and when we have to watch players that the championship won't buy who play ahead of players who can offer so much more - it's criminal. In addition I think you will be hard pressed to find a manager who has the backing (both financial and lacknof pressure) that TP has had to date - this has to be taken into consideration when making a judgement. Your judgement on style etc... Is an opinion and hence is subjective - I would have a different top 5! You make an interesting point about wages etc... And I do agree with you on this. However there is a flip side which we as fans don't always consider. Example: Crouch used to be on significantly more than his current 40k ish we pay him now. Why would he except this? Simple, every deal we structure pays a lump sum on the transfer to cancel out lower wages, which is why we payed 10 million plus for Crouch yet Harry offered 5 million - a more reflective valuation. We can hide behind or wage structure being better than most, but we are just giving it away at the other end and unless they see their full contract out he deal is more expensive than what it appears on paper. I view Newcastle as an excellent club who have always played an attactve brand of football, but I wouldn't attempt to go into detail about YOUR team for which you have far better knowledge than I. I also make you a wager now, I bet you Newcastle finish above us and if we end up 16/15th from where we are that will be a failure"
That's silly. A neutral's perspective is a worthy one when considering any matter, I find. As a fanatic myself and having watched all our games, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you which one of our players I thought were ****e, which ones were the reason we weren't playing well, and where our manager was failing. Doesn't make me right. Fans become so introspective and tend to cling to one another and ultimately a shared opinion. However, if someone comes in and has a different viewpoint, even if they haven't the same amount of experience, it doesn't make them ineffectual or worthless. An eye cast from a distance is useful, if only to be debated with. You could say, taking Newcastle out of the equation, my "subjective" analysis of your team as an aesthetic outfit is better than yours, because I'm less biased with my focus. I have nothing to do with or against QPR, Norwich (I like Chrissy Hughton, yet his team are in there), West Ham, at least. However, you make some valid points, but I think it's testimony to the management position being no-win, unless you're Sir Alex. Do we know who behind the scenes is forced upon our managers, how much say they have in transfers and how much interest they have in scouting or investment? Not usually, and these are things we rarely thing about as fans. Newcastle is pretty obviously different at present, because Pardew slotted into an existing set-up and has made no backroom changes, and the chairman's puppet is pretty explicit in the system of negotiations, and the fact Pardew's input is limited at best. Hypothetically, if you take transfers out of the equation, I think most would agree Pulis has been objectively successful. If transfers stay out of the equation, is it possible to subjectively justify advocating another manager on the basis of aesthetic pleasure? He would, after all, be doing what he has to in order to get the best out of the players pushed on him... In that scenario, it would be the third parties failure. On the basis that everyone seems to suggest Pulis runs the show, perhaps instead of supporting his demise, you could support the implementation of a director of football type? If not, and sacking Pulis is the only solution, which candidates are out there that will play the football you want and are realistic captures? How long are they to be given to change the personnel, and how much money will they require? Will that involve more money and more time than retaining Pulis and letting him evolve his concept, or hiring a director of football? If you look at most of the lower league teams, they more often than not play direct, so you'll have to look abroad. A man with a decent pedigree on a limited budget is Christian Gourcuff, and there's Marco Van Basten as another potential option. They're two I wish were in the premier league, and would love to see them at Newcastle to be honest. However, as seen with the latter, the career of these types are under threat when the beautiful game isn't effective immediately. In that regard, it's unlikely either men will be given as much time as Pulis has been, and if they aren't then you'll be stuck... Who would be next? An effective manager invariably. Then we start the cycle outlined previously... Regarding the amount of time given by fans, I reckon it equates as this; 1. Most time is given to a successful manager who plays attractive football. 2. Next is a successful manager who plays effective football. 3. A manager who plays effective and attractive football. 4. A manager who plays purely effective football. 5. A manager who plays attractive football but is ineffective. 6. A manager who plays ineffective and unattractive football. If Pulis is 4, Van Basten and many of his type are normally 5, because it takes time, restructuring of the club, and money to come good and become a 3 or 1... Or it might be too sexy and completely ineffective as a result, in which case you've wasted time and money on it. Whereas a purely effective manager is dependable and, while unambitious, isn't as risky. If you've got to the point where the risk is worth it, fair enough, but I think with the money on offer for staying in the league, it isn't as yet
Gandalf! When I sad your 1,000 word essay had to be in by midnight, I didn't mean you should go posting on a thread about Pulis!
Gandalf All good raised by yourself but.. We watch every minute of every game at Stoke City. It's **** and just an example here. How much have Swansea spent in relation to Stoke? No where near as much but, would I watch them every week. Yes I would, same with Newcastle Utd. Swansea's squad is way better than the one put together by Prof Clueliss. Pulis has had TIME Gandolf too much feckin time to get it right and he's failed badly. Would Alan Pardew get FIVE years at Newcastle if you don't improve next season? I'll wager he won't last half a season should things do not improve North of the Tyne.
Gandal, that's the best 'objective neutral' post I have ever read on here. And I have posted a few myself!!!!
Gandalf Having read your posts I'm not sure whether we agree or not? All your points are valid and I take onboard your comments in relation to having an outside and unbiased view but in doing so you are not always aware of the facts and fiction that sit behind the scenes. These are generally the issues or points avid club fans tend to dwell on. In relation to some managers being a "puppet" or a "muppet"....... we have discussed how much say TP may or may not have and even I have used it as possible defence. However, there was a recent article reafirming the full control TP has on "all" transfers - both in and out. That would indictae that TP is therefore less of a "puppet". You made an interesting point in relation of adding a technical director of football and one we as fans have discussed. TP has had major problems with working with anyone in relation to the football side of things - we were playing much better football when peter Ried was here and I have inside info on how that turned out, but you could see the body language from the stands! It is rumoured that TP may/will move himself into a technical director of football role and have an influence on the next manager, and in our small city there is generally no smoke without fire! Based on the thread you can see how some fans (and I would argue that it is no longer the minority) would feel a little concern. One final point mate and one that you may or may not be able to verify depending in yoru knowledge of our club. We have some fantastic players (who dont play) and we do play some fantastic football - its not that we dont have the players and need to attract better ones - we can easily compete with the squad we have. It just seems it is made more difficult than it has to be and unless you listen to some of the things TP says to his team on the touch line, it is very difficult to get across how negative and frustrating he is! Ohh... sorry to drag on but there is also the questuon around his attitude and the way he portrays the club in the media. We acknowledge that we will be beaten by better and worse teams (thats football) but the excuses are sometimes disrespectful to the opposition and we have many internal club conduct issues - the famous naked flying headbutt being one.
Smithers - I'm wounded BTW who pinched all me rep points????? All one of them wounded I tell ye, wounded. I feel the faint tremblings of a flounce
like a carousel it goes .... but still reality remains the same and overbord conclusions are silly !!! Pulis in get a grip we r stoke not a top6 side but fighting for better !
Well your entitled to your opinion - that is what the forum is for. As I have said our first couple of seasons were fantastic with very little spend, direct football and a positive atmosphere. No complaints from me for that and an excellent points per spend yield. I personally stuggle to see the argument for post this is as conclusive as you seem to want to dictate to others, simply making a statment does not make it a fact.
Where the heck are we now? Where we're we FIVE years ago. Where we're we two years ago. Which is why there is a forum for (oppinions) Potterpalm Full circle Aka Michael Palin. Pulis OUT at the end of this season. Otherwise Pott's ain't freezin my nuts off to watch the likes of Whitehead, Shotton, Whelan etc. Nicky re the REP pts If I knew what they were I would tell you where they might have gone to, but I don't.
