http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.u...al-media/article-3226466-detail/article.html? THE defeat at Birmingham City, where we were undone by a last-gasp goal, saw the media once again round on us with some fairly scathing reviews of the match. Not too many had kind words to say about the spectacle served up at St Andrew's, with the match described as "dire", "tedious" and "anti-football" in some reports. Unsurprisingly, it was Stoke who copped the lion's share of the blame for the poor state of the game and, just as predictable was the fierce reaction of many Stokies to the criticism. There is an army of easily-offended City supporters out there who will react to the regular criticism that comes our way. And even a few throwaway remarks are likely to result in a barrage of replies. It seems that no matter how much we scoff at any negative press – and pretend that we don't care what anyone thinks – the reality is that we do care about what is said. It does bother us that we can't seem to shake off the tag of not being particularly attractive to watch and not always adhering to the purist's style of play. Some journalists resort to stereotypes and generalisations, while basing many of their opinions on little more than the odd game they catch each season or highlights. It's easier for these people to go with the flow, and to help perpetuate the myth, than to formulate their own opinions. The most ridiculous of these fallacies is the notion that Stoke are a dirty team, when the reality is the opposite. Having said that, though, we do have to accept that we're not always the most exciting team to watch – particularly away from home – and that some of the criticism that comes our way is not entirely without foundation. There's the odd moment here and there, but quite often we don't do free-flowing football. Ours is an approach based on percentages, dead-balls and grinding teams down. It's not a conspiracy that the BBC so often choose to show us last on Match of the Day, nor is it a coincidence that when Sky and ESPN have to give us our allocated number of live matches they choose our home games. Our match against West Brom next week is scheduled to be our eighth live game of the season so far... and it will be the seventh at the Britannia. The TV companies have worked out what they can expect in many of our away games... and are not keen to risk viewing figures. Not that we have to apologise for our approach. We are in a results-driven business and Tony Pulis knows it. He is taking the Alan Durban approach to entertainment in away games and is prepared to be judged at the end of the season, when the final table shows the merits of such a policy. And this is where Stoke supporters need to lighten up a little. We can't, on the one hand, take Durban's "if you want entertainment go and see some clowns" defence to justify our approach and then get all offended when we're pulled up by journalists for being, as they see it, negative. If our final league position is the most important thing in the eyes of supporters, then any criticism about our style of play should be like water off a duck's back. What do we care about other opinions? We cheer when Stoke win and cry when they lose – that's the lot of any football fan. Protesting too much about every last little dig or bleating every time we're last on Match of the Day exposes the chinks in our armour. It suggests that we do care more than we'd like to let on. Of course, there are times when journalists should be taken to task. The Liverpool reporter who was scathing about us after his side's 2-0 defeat at The Brit earlier this season was guilty of nothing more than sour grapes, while the Mail on Sunday's Patrick Collins seems to have vastly differing views to the rest of us. At the weekend he bemoaned our direct approach – especially Rory Delap's long throws – then waxed lyrical about the magical efforts of Barcelona trio Xavi Hernandez, Andres Iniesta and Lionel Messi. Yeah, we know that's how we would all like to see the game played. But what's the point in listing three of the best players in the world, playing for quite probably the best team in the world, and then using them to highlight how sad it is that we approach the game in the way we do? Most of Europe's biggest and best clubs look poor compared to Barcelona and their array of stars, so what's the use in holding up Stoke to be exposed in the glare of their brilliance? Is Collins's next piece going to say how Crawley simply couldn't compete against Manchester United in this weekend's FA Cup games, and how it exposes the poor state of non-league football in England today? I can't wait! Back to the bigger picture now. Supporters react angrily to criticism of our team because, deep down, we all want to be loved. We all want to see everyone saying nice things about Stoke City. However, with TP sticking to his guns and making no apologies or allowances for the way he sends out his teams, we'd better get a bit more thick-skinned and stop being so easily offended. Which is advice I'm going to be taking myself... just as soon as I've sent my latest 8,000-word email to Mick Dennis at the Daily Express...
Brilliant article, well written and well thought out. Happy face win Sad face lose, Just ask the wife!
