Owen and Adam

thebaz

Will the addition of Owen and Adam make Stoke easier on the eye ?

Palios failed to adapt !

TheDoc

The only thing that would make Stoke easier on the eye, Arsenal wrapped up

BlueBaron

someone ban thedoc please!

mike65

Owen is unlikely to feature enough to know, Adam will probably be told to launch one on to Crouchy's bonce.

Paully D

Owen won't make much of a difference as he'll rarely play. He'll probably end up suffering a serious neck injury looking up in at the clouds for the ball. All Adam can do is take the odd good set piece and foul, so he should fit right in.

Not even Ronaldo and Messi could make Stoke more attractive on the eye.

keano_afc

Paully D wrote: »

Owen won't make much of a difference as he'll rarely play. He'll probably end up suffering a serious neck injury looking up in at the clouds for the ball. All Adam can do is take the odd good set piece and foul, so he should fit right in.

Not even Ronaldo and Messi could make Stoke more attractive on the eye.

Spot on. Stoke RFC play to their "strengths", which is to lump the ball high into the box as soon as its close enough to do that, and hack the opposition if they have the cheek to try pass it around. They have a clueless troll of a manager who hasn't a clue how to play the game any other way.

Mikeyt086

In a word? No.

Charlie Adam is the prototypical Stoke player. Loves a meaty challenge, isn't afraid to chop down a star player or two, and has an absolutely beautiful delivery from set-pieces. He will make them better, but not more attractive.

Michael Owen, I would be shocked if he played in 15 games. Even if he does, he is not really a Stoke player the way John Walters is for example, Owen can't get stuck in the way he does.

CSF

keano_afc wrote: »

Spot on. Stoke RFC play to their "strengths", which is to lump the ball high into the box as soon as its close enough to do that, and hack the opposition if they have the cheek to try pass it around. They have a clueless troll of a manager who hasn't a clue how to play the game any other way.

Stoke are alot better than that, and its just a typical Arsenal fan response to sum it up as basic as that. They've come along way in both progression and style under Pulis and are far from the mere hoofmerchants they started out in the Premiership as.

keano_afc

CSF wrote: »

Stoke are alot better than that, and its just a typical Arsenal fan response to sum it up as basic as that. They've come along way in both progression and style under Pulis and are far from the mere hoofmerchants they started out in the Premiership as.

Last season they had the lowest average percentage of possession in the league at 28%. They averaged 2 shots on goal per game. Their fans at the Britannia have to stoop as low as booing a player who nearly had his career ended by a thuggish centre half instead of watching the crap their team serve up.

Its not bias towards my team that has me describing Stoke like this. They are a horrible team and bring nothing to the league.

AdamD

Wouldn't mind them so much if their long ball tactics didn't come with the vicious tackling

ben.schlomo

thebaz wrote: »

Will the addition of Owen and Adam make Stoke easier on the eye ?

Palios failed to adapt !

Whats Palios??

CSF

keano_afc wrote: »

Last season they had the lowest average percentage of possession in the league at 28%. They averaged 2 shots on goal per game. Their fans at the Britannia have to stoop as low as booing a player who nearly had his career ended by a thuggish centre half instead of watching the crap their team serve up.

Its not bias towards my team that has me describing Stoke like this. They are a horrible team and bring nothing to the league.

Was at the match where Ramsey was booed. Didn't think Stoke played particularly horrible football at all. They still are what they are, but they've improved along the way. The percentage possession isn't that strange for a bottom half team who don't keep the ball on the deck the way Swansea/Wigan etc would.

curry-muff

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Whats Palios??

Palacios, I presume.

Fight_Night

Ah Stoke are one of those teams that I love to hate, like a good villain in the WWE or something.

gnolan

Charlie Adam's corners are worth £10m £4m alone.

killwill

keano_afc wrote: »

CSF wrote: »

Stoke are alot better than that, and its just a typical Arsenal fan response to sum it up as basic as that. They've come along way in both progression and style under Pulis and are far from the mere hoofmerchants they started out in the Premiership as.

player who nearly had his career ended by a thuggish centre half

That bit is pure sh1t. Shawcross is not a thug at all. It was an unfortunate challenge. Both went for the ball.

Fenian Army

Such a thug he was in tears he was so upset about what happened.

I like watching Stoke, Adam is a great buy for them

Roger Sterling

Love how annoyed and high and mighty everyone gets at Stoke. Their style is crude but it works. If anyyhing its a sad indictment of PL defending in general that they continue to have the success theyve had.

thebaz

curry-muff wrote: »

Palacios, I presume.

cheers - Stoke remind me of the old Crazy gang of Wimbledon - as much as I hate this type of football ,it probably helps make the Premiership more exciting for the viewers, then again I'm glad there usually last on MOTD

AgileMyth

Hopefully Adam can handle the step up.

AgileMyth

keano_afc wrote: »

They have a clueless troll of a manager who hasn't a clue how to play the game any other way.

Why would he play it any other way? It works.

Pulis is a great manager who has gradually turned Stoke into a very good professional outfit over the course of the last few years. Kind of the opposite of what Wenger has been doing.

grenache

Stoke are anti-football. What makes me sick about them is all the promoted teams managers who harp on about Stoke and Pulis being the "model example" that all promoted sides should aspire to. Long balls, crude challenges and general puke football - some aspiration that alright!

Swansea showed how it should be done, and you won't have a sore neck from looking into the clouds watching them.

hefferboi

Paully D wrote: »

Owen won't make much of a difference as he'll rarely play. He'll probably end up suffering a serious neck injury looking up in at the clouds for the ball. All Adam can do is take the odd good set piece and foul, so he should fit right in.

Not even Ronaldo and Messi could make Stoke more attractive on the eye.

gnolan wrote: »

Charlie Adam's corners are worth £10m £4m alone.

He can't even take a good corner anymore.

dfx-

CSF wrote: »

Stoke are alot better than that, and its just a typical Arsenal fan response to sum it up as basic as that. They've come along way in both progression and style under Pulis and are far from the mere hoofmerchants they started out in the Premiership as.

They are really not and it doesn't take bias to see it. And neither have they changed since they first came in.

You can say it works and there's twenty million different ways of playing football etc etc, but let's not kid ourselves about their particular way. Stuart Hall was great in his commentary/post match analysis of the Stoke Wigan game on Sports Report last weekend.

LuckyLloyd

Stoke play football the way it should be played. It is a physical game played by men and therefore it should be approached in a tough, no nonsense fashion. They're good for the league.

MaceFace

grenache wrote: »

Stoke are anti-football. What makes me sick about them is all the promoted teams managers who harp on about Stoke and Pulis being the "model example" that all promoted sides should aspire to. Long balls, crude challenges and general puke football - some aspiration that alright!

Swansea showed how it should be done, and you won't have a sore neck from looking into the clouds watching them.

I never understood how people claim teams are anti-football.
It just stinks of football snobbery.

grenache

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Stoke play football the way it should be played. It is a physical game played by men and therefore it should be approached in a tough, no nonsense fashion. They're good for the league.

If every team adopted Stoke's tactics, then I'd hate to see how PL teams would fare when it comes to Champions League time. Stoke and their ilk are one of the reasons the English national side are in their current state. Unable to keep the ball for longer than 12 seconds, the hit and hope option is used, or these aimless balls down the channels. Pointless and futile. Did you see Stoke in the Europa League? It was cringeworthy.

MaceFace wrote: »

I never understood how people claim teams are anti-football.
It just stinks of football snobbery.

well in that case I'd rather be a snob than subscribe to Stoke's "footballing" mantra any day of the week.

DARK-KNIGHT

grenache wrote: »

Stoke are anti-football. What makes me sick about them is all the promoted teams managers who harp on about Stoke and Pulis being the "model example" that all promoted sides should aspire to. Long balls, crude challenges and general puke football - some aspiration that alright!

Swansea showed how it should be done, and you won't have a sore neck from looking into the clouds watching them.

Puke football?? LMFAO I would like to welcome pat spillane to the forum!!!

grenache

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

grenache wrote: »

Stoke are anti-football. What makes me sick about them is all the promoted teams managers who harp on about Stoke and Pulis being the "model example" that all promoted sides should aspire to. Long balls, crude challenges and general puke football - some aspiration that alright!

Swansea showed how it should be done, and you won't have a sore neck from looking into the clouds watching them.

Puke football?? LMFAO I would like to welcome pat spillane to the forum!!!

I'll take Spillane over Pulis any day of the week. Spillane has actually won things and is good at what he does.

TheDoc

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Stoke play football the way it should be played. It is a physical game played by men and therefore it should be approached in a tough, no nonsense fashion. They're good for the league.

I'd love to see some expansion on this to be honest.

The biggest folly in the EPL is that Stoke are the most physical team, that is bollox.

And it is this sort of thinking that had England, and the EPL, hit massive periods of being behind, and a generation of young, technically superior players be cast aside for technically inferior, but physically superior players.

Dont agree with this at all. While they are not anti-football, they play the sort of football you would more commonly find in a Sunday league. Its helter skelter. Play down the wings when you can to hit a cross, if a pass isn't 100% safe, hoof up front.

They have zero creativity and zero movement and transition up in the final third, which the modern game has been moving into for quiet a long time.

There is nothing commendable about a team who replace their inept football ability ( although at times slow flashes) with overly exuberant physicality that results in numerous injuries caused.

I'm a big fan of tackling, and like most don't want to see it moved out of the game. But at the same time, I don't enjoy watching overly physical teams. Newly promoted teams are approaching the league in a different way, by playing football and trying to score, unlike Stoke who employed gimmicky long ball tactics and physicality to stay up and become an EPL mainstayer.

It caught up with Bolton, and if Stoke continue this pretty poor developement in identity, they will find themselves relegated soon enough aswell.

Roger Sterling

grenache wrote: »

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

grenache wrote: »

Stoke are anti-football. What makes me sick about them is all the promoted teams managers who harp on about Stoke and Pulis being the "model example" that all promoted sides should aspire to. Long balls, crude challenges and general puke football - some aspiration that alright!

Swansea showed how it should be done, and you won't have a sore neck from looking into the clouds watching them.

Puke football?? LMFAO I would like to welcome pat spillane to the forum!!!

I'll take Spillane over Pulis any day of the week. Spillane has actually won things and is good at what he does.

Spillane is forever extolling the virtues of direct long ball football too!!!

Roger Sterling

TheDoc wrote: »

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Stoke play football the way it should be played. It is a physical game played by men and therefore it should be approached in a tough, no nonsense fashion. They're good for the league.

I'd love to see some expansion on this to be honest.

The biggest folly in the EPL is that Stoke are the most physical team, that is bollox.

And it is this sort of thinking that had England, and the EPL, hit massive periods of being behind, and a generation of young, technically superior players be cast aside for technically inferior, but physically superior players.

Dont agree with this at all. While they are not anti-football, they play the sort of football you would more commonly find in a Sunday league. Its helter skelter. Play down the wings when you can to hit a cross, if a pass isn't 100% safe, hoof up front.

They have zero creativity and zero movement and transition up in the final third, which the modern game has been moving into for quiet a long time.

There is nothing commendable about a team who replace their inept football ability ( although at times slow flashes) with overly exuberant physicality that results in numerous injuries caused.

I'm a big fan of tackling, and like most don't want to see it moved out of the game. But at the same time, I don't enjoy watching overly physical teams. Newly promoted teams are approaching the league in a different way, by playing football and trying to score, unlike Stoke who employed gimmicky long ball tactics and physicality to stay up and become an EPL mainstayer.

It caught up with Bolton, and if Stoke continue this pretty poor developement in identity, they will find themselves relegated soon enough aswell.

Teams that try to pass it about get relegated too.

Stokes tactics work fine. Theyve not really had sny relegation worries since they camr up. Theres no harm in them being in the league. Variety is good.

TheDoc

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Love how annoyed and high and mighty everyone gets at Stoke. Their style is crude but it works. If anyyhing its a sad indictment of PL defending in general that they continue to have the success theyve had.

Really?

Stoke scored the lowest amount of goals in the league last season and where 7th in goals conceded. They scored no goals from their long throws.

Stoke was a shock to the system when they first arrived as people didn't know how to deal with this throwback style, when everyone else was moving into possession football.

I wouldnt call them a success really...

Kiwi_knock

Their tactics have been a success so far so I do not see why they should change just because they are not pleasant on the eye. However I think if Stoke do want to progress beyond mid table status they will have to adopt new tactics and possibly even a new manager. They have spent a fair bit of money so they have to start moving up the table and challenging for Europe on a regular basis.

Roger Sterling

TheDoc wrote: »

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Love how annoyed and high and mighty everyone gets at Stoke. Their style is crude but it works. If anyyhing its a sad indictment of PL defending in general that they continue to have the success theyve had.

Really?

Stoke scored the lowest amount of goals in the league last season and where 7th in goals conceded. They scored no goals from their long throws.

Stoke was a shock to the system when they first arrived as people didn't know how to deal with this throwback style, when everyone else was moving into possession football.

It is a lot easier to deal with aerial balls then rapid, interchanging movement.

All this proves is that they must be developing their game somewhat. They survived comfirtably again last year.

whatawaster

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Stoke play football the way it should be played. It is a physical game played by men and therefore it should be approached in a tough, no nonsense fashion. They're good for the league.

No wonder we rarely seem to agree anymore. I can’t imagine an outlook on football less aligned with my own.

I see football as a game of skill, albeit with a physical element. As with almost every pursuit in life I think we should encourage creativity, flair and expression.

Football isn’t a game just played by men. It’s played by men, women and children, under common rules. If I had a son or daughter I know which way I’d like them to learn the game. “No-nonsense” certainly wouldn’t be it.

It’s this kind of thinking imo that has British and Irish football lagging behind the rest of Europe. In truth, football in these parts has barely evolved since the 19th century.

Stoke are grand, they deserve what success they get, but, to paraphrase the great man, If they were playing in my back garden I’d draw the curtains.

Roger Sterling

TheDoc wrote: »

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Love how annoyed and high and mighty everyone gets at Stoke. Their style is crude but it works. If anyyhing its a sad indictment of PL defending in general that they continue to have the success theyve had.

Really?

Stoke scored the lowest amount of goals in the league last season and where 7th in goals conceded. They scored no goals from their long throws.

Stoke was a shock to the system when they first arrived as people didn't know how to deal with this throwback style, when everyone else was moving into possession football.

I wouldnt call them a success really...

Finishing mid table consistently and the odd good long cup run is definitely success for a club with Stoke's recent history.

TheDoc

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Teams that try to pass it about get relegated too.

Stokes tactics work fine. Theyve not really had sny relegation worries since they camr up. Theres no harm in them being in the league. Variety is good.

Just playing devils advocate.

I remember I used to always consider Stoke and Bolton potential banana skins whenever we travelled to each respectively. Not anymore, I think the quality just prevails in the end. Added to the fact I think their physicality is at times over exagerated.

Roger Sterling

TheDoc wrote: »

Roger Sterling wrote: »

Teams that try to pass it about get relegated too.

Stokes tactics work fine. Theyve not really had sny relegation worries since they camr up. Theres no harm in them being in the league. Variety is good.

Just playing devils advocate.

I remember I used to always consider Stoke and Bolton potential banana skins whenever we travelled to each respectively. Not anymore, I think the quality just prevails in the end. Added to the fact I think their physicality is at times over exagerated.

Its also worth noting Bolton only went down when they lost Sam and changed their style to a more passing game. Not saying thats why they went down but it does make your point about their direct style being found out a bit LOL. They were never really in any danger under Sam.

keano_afc

killwill wrote: »

That bit is pure sh1t. Shawcross is not a thug at all. It was an unfortunate challenge. Both went for the ball.

Have you seen his tackles on Francis Jeffers and Adebayor? Check out the one on Adebayor, it was actually committed OFF the pitch. He's a thug.

Stoke are actually going backwards, they have spent huge money with very little return on average players. A lot of teams have worked them out and their overly physical approach is not nearly as effective as it was. And because they have no footballing ability, they are sliding down the league.

killwill

keano_afc wrote: »

Have you seen his tackles on Francis Jeffers and Adebayor? Check out the one on Adebayor, it was actually committed OFF the pitch. He's a thug.

No I have not, nor have I ever heard anyone mention those tackles. Maybe you should link them? My point still stands either way. The tackle on ramsey was a fair tackle.
Arsenal fans are also the only fans really to brand him a thug.

keano_afc

killwill wrote: »

No I have not, nor have I ever heard anyone mention those tackles. Maybe you should link them? My point still stands either way. The tackle on ramsey was a fair tackle.
Arsenal fans are also the only fans really to brand him a thug.

Write up here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/mar/06/aaron-ramsey-broken-leg-ryan-shawcross

Cant search properly for vids as I'm in work, I'll try link to one later.

klose

I'll admit I missed charlies blackpool days but lately his set pieces are stink. Corners rearely beat the first man and his frees outside the box end up in row z since our pre season in America. Nice left leg though...

geeky

keano_afc wrote: »

Write up here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/mar/06/aaron-ramsey-broken-leg-ryan-shawcross

Cant search properly for vids as I'm in work, I'll try link to one later.

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but Daire O'Briain is a massive arsenal fan.

wandatowell

AgileMyth wrote: »

Kind of the opposite of what Wenger has been doing.

Ya Wenger doesnt know what he's doin' :rolleyes:


Arsenal "only" finished 3rd last season and have had Champions League footbsll for the past 16 years or so.

And as for the Ramsey/Shawcross thing I dont believe for a second that He meant to break Ramsey's leg. It was just a sh1t challange thats all. Worse tackles have caused lesser injuries. It was just unfortunate

Ardent

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Stoke play football the way it should be played. It is a physical game played by men and therefore it should be approached in a tough, no nonsense fashion. They're good for the league.

If every team played like Stoke, no-one would watch football. Except you apparently.

Ardent

Stoke's style of play is a big blister on the arse of the Premiership. I celebrate every time they get beat and I find myself hoping they relegated every season.

They remind me of The Crazy Dons back in the early late 80s/early 90s. They Dons were universally derided for their style of play back then too. No one likes to see that sh*te in The Beautiful Game.

TheDoc

geeky wrote: »

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but Daire O'Briain is a massive arsenal fan.

Yeah agreed, but it had some pretty interesting points of note aswell

grenache

Roger Sterling wrote: »

grenache wrote: »

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

grenache wrote: »

Stoke are anti-football. What makes me sick about them is all the promoted teams managers who harp on about Stoke and Pulis being the "model example" that all promoted sides should aspire to. Long balls, crude challenges and general puke football - some aspiration that alright!

Swansea showed how it should be done, and you won't have a sore neck from looking into the clouds watching them.

Puke football?? LMFAO I would like to welcome pat spillane to the forum!!!

I'll take Spillane over Pulis any day of the week. Spillane has actually won things and is good at what he does.

Spillane is forever extolling the virtues of direct long ball football too!!!

But that is the Gaelic football equivalent of neat passing in soccer.

Richard Hillman

wandatowell wrote: »

Ya Wenger doesnt know what he's doin' :rolleyes:


Arsenal "only" finished 3rd last season and have had Champions League footbsll for the past 16 years or so.

And as for the Ramsey/Shawcross thing I dont believe for a second that He meant to break Ramsey's leg. It was just a sh1t challange thats all. Worse tackles have caused lesser injuries. It was just unfortunate

Maybe not, maybe he didnt go in to purposely break his leg but we all know full well there was a stage over about 3 years where it was clear that teams were told to go out and rough Arsenal up, get in their faces, continually foul them, if you take a booking make sure you hurt them etc etc. If that match was not against Arsenal and he didnt have manager baying for blood on the sidelines, would Shawcross had gone in so hard and recklessly?

Personally from watching other games, i think Shawcross is a nasty player and he does intentionally go in harder to hurt players.

Winston Payne

What if every team played like Stoke? Does that seem a likely prospect? Literally every team in the entire world deigning to play in that fashion? Not something to worry about in my view. There's far more examples of positive examples counter to their style, like Wigan, Swansea and Norwich (more mixed than the other two but they certainly play it on the deck primarily) for that not to be an issue. Having said all that, I enjoy Stoke. They're so ridiculous, so old-fashioned, such a rawboned, red in tooth and claw throwback that they're fantastic entertainment against the bigger sides.