Owen and Adam

Richard Hillman

Winston Payne wrote: »

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.

Its called Gaelic Football

I agree with you, i like different styles. I used to like Stoke play (apart from the roughing up part) when Delap was in his full pomp a few years ago. The throw ins were brilliant entertainment. I watched them against Arsenal last week and it was awful to watch. Bring back Delap

Eirebear

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 this is why people are becoming frustrated with the EPL.

Never mind Stoke's style of football.
Finishing 3rd, and gaining CL Football is what's deemed a success for most clubs nowadays.
Never mind that Arsenal havn't one a single thing since 2005 (After a horribly dull 0-0 draw i might add) as long as the finish in the top 4 - right?

Cienciano

Eirebear wrote: »

And this is why people are becoming frustrated with the EPL.

Never mind Stoke's style of football.
Finishing 3rd, and gaining CL Football is what's deemed a success for most clubs nowadays.
Never mind that Arsenal havn't one a single thing since 2005 (After a horribly dull 0-0 draw i might add) as long as the finish in the top 4 - right?

Completely outplayed too as far as I remember.

KaiserGunner

AgileMyth wrote: »

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.

This doesnt make any sense. So basically you are saying that Wenger is turning Arsenal into a very poor unprofessional outfit?

Roger Sterling

grenache wrote: »

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.

I wasnt really being serious.

dfx-

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.

Stoke play football the way teams who can't play football play the game. Loads of teams do it and there's no problem with it, but I don't see why people take objection to Stoke being called on it.

They're caught in limbo now as they've most likely reached as high as they can go.

JPA

While Stoke originally were making the best of what they had, nowadays they are spending fairly serious cash especially on wages.
They don't need to play like this but the chairman is probably frightened to change a successful formula.

eagle eye

I watched Stoke a fair bit last season and they played a decent brand of football. There was high ball stuff but it was mixed in with keeping it on the floor and moving forward at pace.

These people who make the comments about them playing defensive hoofball probably only see them play City/United/Arsenal/Chelsea and none of the teams of their own level.

Of course they are going to play hoofball against the top teams. You hardly expect them to try and play and expansive game against a team with a much higher wage bill? Might as well just roll over and let them win if they do that.

geeky

dfx- wrote: »

Stoke play football the way teams who can't play football play the game. Loads of teams do it and there's no problem with it, but I don't see why people take objection to Stoke being called on it.

They're caught in limbo now as they've most likely reached as high as they can go.

I think people take exception to it because criticism is always couched in superior language.

Stoke don't have bloody Messi, or even anyone of great technical ability. They've decent wingers, big forwards, and a bunch of other professionals who are happy to put a shift in. They maximise these relatively modest assets, and frequently nick points off teams with much better players.

When fans of these teams (not just Arsenal fans) start pouring the scorn on Stoke after dropping points, it comes across as sour grapes. Also, slagging off Stoke's style after dropping points to them is an easy out for managers who've watched their tactics fail or their players underperform. It's those two factors (and the apparently prevailing view what long, direct balls and a strategy based on crosses/set pieces is inherently inferior) that make Stoke's detractors tiresome. A lot of the critics come across as sneering, whining, prissy and entitled, and I say that as someone who finds Stoke very boring to watch right now.

To answer the actual thread, I reckon Adam will be a useful acquisition. He's more creative in open play than their present CM options, and does deliver a good set piece if all else fails. Owen is more of a gamble, though if he is in fact on a pay-as-you-play deal, could prove a savvy one. When he was fit for Man U, he seemed quite effective IMO.

Tony Pulis has always been saying that he wants to evolve Stoke's style as the club establishes itself in the EPL. Spending real money on Crouch was a signal of that IMO, and these two signings might also feed into that process.

Dempsey

Anyone complaining about Stoke playing "puke football/anti-football" or whatever label is being used for their style of play obviously hasn't watched how Ireland play football under Trappatoni!

eagle eye

Dempsey wrote: »

Anyone complaining about Stoke playing "puke football/anti-football" or whatever label is being used for their style of play obviously hasn't watched how Ireland play football under Trappatoni!

What has that got to do with the price of Brazilian coffee beans?

geeky

eagle eye wrote: »

What has that got to do with the price of Brazilian coffee beans?

Presumably there are a few posters on this thread who've spouted a lot of vitriol about Stoke's style of play but would object to the same language being used to describe the boys in green.

From personal experience, I got serious stick for describing Ireland as the Stoke of international football. Oddly enough, I meant it as a kind of compliment.

Dempsey

eagle eye wrote: »

What has that got to do with the price of Brazilian coffee beans?

People holding up Stoke as an example of puke/anti football havent seen what puke/anti football is imo

eagle eye

Dempsey wrote: »

People holding up Stoke as an example of puke/anti football havent seen what puke/anti football is imo

Well comaring them to Holland or Ireland and the way they play is not on imo. International football is completely different. You cannot just buy the players to suit your system.

I'm not against Stoke as you probably know.

Dempsey

eagle eye wrote: »

Well comaring them to Holland or Ireland and the way they play is not on imo. International football is completely different. You cannot just buy the players to suit your system.

I'm not against Stoke as you probably know.

Whether you are playing the hand you are dealt or your buying to suit a style you want to implement is irrelevant to what I'm saying tbh.

eagle eye

Dempsey wrote: »

Whether you are playing the hand you are dealt or your buying to suit a style you want to implement is irrelevant to what I'm saying tbh.

People were talking about Premier League football and you brought up International football.

tony1kenobi

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.

That is a Shawcross leg breaker that isn't on Aaron Ramsey.

grenache

eagle eye wrote: »

I watched Stoke a fair bit last season and they played a decent brand of football. There was high ball stuff but it was mixed in with keeping it on the floor and moving forward at pace.

These people who make the comments about them playing defensive hoofball probably only see them play City/United/Arsenal/Chelsea and none of the teams of their own level.

Of course they are going to play hoofball against the top teams. You hardly expect them to try and play and expansive game against a team with a much higher wage bill? Might as well just roll over and let them win if they do that.

I challenge you to watch two games from last season - Arsenal v Norwich and Liverpool v Swansea.

monkey9

Ardent wrote: »

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

And that's the beauty of Stoke. If everyone played like Barca, nobody would watch that either!

That's why i love the way Stoke bring something different to the table!!

Dempsey

eagle eye wrote: »

Dempsey wrote: »

Whether you are playing the hand you are dealt or your buying to suit a style you want to implement is irrelevant to what I'm saying tbh.

People were talking about Premier League football and you brought up International football.

neither, i was talking about style of play

event

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.

http://www.telly.com/3BCE0?fromtwitvid=1

this is the adebayor one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JImCLHKXTOs

this is another random one.

he's not that type of player though

inforfun

I dont like the way Stoke play their football.
But i also look for another game to watch when Barcelona is playing, 3 or 4-0 up with 30 minutes to go in order not to risk falling into a coma.

If every team in every league would play the same kind of football, be it hoofball or tiki-taka i probably would rather watch bowls on the bbc 7 nights a week.

It is what makes football interesting, clashes of different styles.

TheDoc

Dempsey wrote: »

Anyone complaining about Stoke playing "puke football/anti-football" or whatever label is being used for their style of play obviously hasn't watched how Ireland play football under Trappatoni!

I have.....and I've been more then vocal on how poor our national team is, how poor we attempt to play football, and have been very vocal about not providing support for Trap since his installment from day one..

Whats your point?

Pro. F

I think it improves a league to have a mix of styles, so in that regard I've got no problem with Stoke. But because of their fans booing Ramsey I would be very happy to see them fall down the leagues.

These two signings are being talked about as an indication that Pulis might move to a more creative style. I'd say them widening their pitch beyond the league minimum would be more of an indication of that happening. Does anybody know have they done that this season?

geeky wrote: »

They've decent wingers, big forwards, and a bunch of other professionals who are happy to put a shift in. They maximise these relatively modest assets, and frequently nick points off teams with much better players.

Over the last few years they have been one of the biggest spenders in the EPL. The reason they have so many technically limited players is because they bought them to suit their style. Don't believe the hype - they play direct football because they want to not because it's the best use of their funds.

Dempsey

TheDoc wrote: »

Dempsey wrote: »

Anyone complaining about Stoke playing "puke football/anti-football" or whatever label is being used for their style of play obviously hasn't watched how Ireland play football under Trappatoni!

I have.....and I've been more then vocal on how poor our national team is, how poor we attempt to play football, and have been very vocal about not providing support for Trap since his installment from day one..

Whats your point?

the point is that stoke are far better to watch than ireland. ireland cant even look good playing andorra!

LuckyLloyd

@ Pro F, one standardised pitch size for all teams this season...

MaceFace

And here was I thinking that the purpose of football was to win games by putting the ball in the opposition net more times than they put it in yours.

But no, I was wrong. Apparently, you have to play neat little passes that are easy on the eye with the occasional 30 yard screamers into the top corner and when you don't have the ball, you have to win it back with a perfectly timed challenge that leaves the opposing player bruised only in ego.
I just can't seem to find this in the rule book though....


Maybe all those who criticise how other teams play should support a club that has not won anything in 50 years where you go in every season hoping you don't get relegated. Maybe then you will realise where their priorities lie.

ricero

sad to think how big a player owen was and how he played for liverpool, madrid and utd and how he ended up a stoke city player and not one former club supporters liked him

wandatowell

Eirebear wrote: »

as long as the finish in the top 4 - right?

Top four is always great, To be within any chance of "competing" with the big spenders you need the income from Champs football. But personally what I see as a success (apart from a trophy of course) is that I like to see my team finish with more points than it did the previous year. Progress is the name of the game my friend, though some seasons that obviously hasnt worked out well. Also goals scored/goals conceeded is always a stat I look at very closely at the end of a season. Think Arsenal conceeded 49 league goals last season. If they can keep it below 35 they will be do well this year (barring anymore 8-2 beatings at Old Trafford)

wonderfullife

Comparing Stoke to The Crazy Gang is a bit unfair!! Wimbledon especially in their winning F.A. Cup run had a bit of romance about them and a lot of personality on and off the pitch. Also i don't think you can directly compare "direct"/"long ball tactics" between the 2 eras. Some of the pitches in the mid-1980s resembled a cow patch, getting it down and playing with the ball is much easier on the carpet-style pitches now. Anyway there's more 'personality' in a bar of soap than Pulis and the current Stoke set-up.