Mark Hughes appointed new Stoke City manager

dahat

Palacios,8 million,well fook me!! Had totally forgotten they have signed Butland as well,how must he feel now

ahnowbrowncow

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Really??? :eek:

No he hasn't, pulis hasn't even spent half of what ferguson spent in the last 5 years.

He means net transfer spend.

Dempsey

Relegation Fodder next season I think because trying to change the philosophy at the club will be chaotic. Their choice of manager and who he buys/sells will be crucial. Change too much and they'll go the way of QPR

The criticism of Pulis is harsh tbh, he achieved alot with Stoke. This idea that you have to pass the ball around to play football is abit of nonsense tbh, its what ever works that matters. His failure has been in his attempt to tweak how his team play the game through investments in the likes of Adam, Crouch, Palacios, Owen, Woodgate, Pennant has failed miserably and deserves to go based on that.

Chagan

Sensible decision. Stoke weren't going any higher under Pulis and his sh*t on a stick football wasn't particularly fun to watch. Swansea have achieved as much in two seasons as Stoke did in five while playing a better style of football. When Charlie Adam is considered a creative force in your team, there is something wrong.

Apparently the board are looking to change their style. If so, they may have to accept relegation because any manager going in there wanting to develop beyond the long ball approach is facing one hell of a challenge.

He's not done a terrible job. But for £90m pounds you'd expect something a little better than what they have. I'm just glad I don't have to look at that bloody baseball cap ever again.

RayCon

dahat

Chagan wrote: »

He's not done a terrible job. But for £90m pounds you'd expect something a little better than what they have. I'm just glad I don't have to look at that bloody baseball cap ever again.

He gave them European football plus established top flight football,his methods are not the modern way and at the top level those methods get exposed,he did a good job there just stayed too long for his own sake.

Gorilla Rising

Dempsey wrote: »

The criticism of Pulis is harsh tbh, he achieved alot with Stoke. This idea that you have to pass the ball around to play football is abit of nonsense tbh, its what ever works that matters. His failure has been in his attempt to tweak how his team play the game through investments in the likes of Adam, Crouch, Palacios, Owen, Woodgate, Pennant has failed miserably and deserves to go based on that.

Now, I'm not a fan of the way they play, but yeah, they played to their strengths.

He's left them in a decent position all things considered and he's left at the right time.

I wonder who they can get to replace him...

They've got some decent enough players. A good manager should keep them up.

Paully D

Last five years spending, according to Transfer League:

Anyone

This man has been seen in tears at the Sky Sports Centre as he faces another daunting trip to Stoke and another meeting with their fans.

death1234567

The chairman probably saw the list of Tony's transfer targets and thought better of it and sacked him instead. Nightmare job to take over though, has another 'Charlton' written all over it. The new manager would need at least £30m to stand a chance next year.

Gorilla Rising

Gorilla Rising wrote: »

Now, I'm not a fan of the way they play, but yeah, they played to their strengths.

He's left them in a decent position all things considered and he's left at the right time.

I wonder who they can get to replace him...

They've got some decent enough players. A good manager should keep them up.

hmmmmm

No. Position Player
1 GK Asmir Begović
2 DF Geoff Cameron
4 DF Robert Huth
6 MF Glenn Whelan
7 MF Jermaine Pennant
8 MF Wilson Palacios
9 FW Kenwyne Jones
11 FW Mamady Sidibé
12 DF Marc Wilson
13 MF Maurice Edu
14 MF Jamie Ness
15 MF Steven N'Zonzi
16 MF Charlie Adam
17 DF Ryan Shawcross (captain)
18 MF Dean Whitehead
19 FW Jonathan Walters
20 DF Matthew Upson
21 MF Michael Kightly
22 MF Brek Shea
24 MF Rory Delap
25 FW Peter Crouch
26 MF Matthew Etherington
27 GK Carlo Nash
28 DF Andy Wilkinson
29 GK Thomas Sørensen
30 DF Ryan Shotton
33 FW Cameron Jerome
36 MF Matthew Lund
38 MF Florent Cuvelier
–– GK Jack Butland

How many would make more than 3 other Premiership (12/13) starting XI?

Chucky the tree

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

3rd in Net Spend over 5 years is a great headline figure but a bit misleading.
Like there are half a dozen clubs who have been relegated over that period who may have been on target to have a bigger net spend but are now outside the scope of the calcs.
Then there are some clubs currently in the premier league for just 1/2/3 years who may be on target for a bigger net spend over the arbitrary 5 year period.

So effectivley its 3rd in a group of only around 10/12 clubs who qualify for the stat.

Additionally there are some clubs who would traditionally have a bigger net spend but have relatively unusual big sales to disguise their long term trend (e.g., MUFC with Ronaldo).

Then theres the issue that at the time Stoke started their spend (say 2006/07) they would by definition have had less of a completed squad than the likes of 'middling teams' like Aston Villa or Everton. So in order to catch up Stoke would have to notably outspend these sort of teams purely just to get a similar squad together.

I don't like Pulis/Stoke either for whats it worth, but I think this is a false stick to beat him with.

I think his average spent says a lot. Even out of 11-12 clubs it still tells us a lot.

For example per season spending:
Swansea have spent £500k
Norwich £3m
Wigan -£2m
Southampton £4m
West Ham £5m
Sunderland £8m


Those teams have either spent far less or been in the league shorter then Stoke but have still done just as well. Stoke should not be battling for relegation against the likes of southampton who've been in the league for a year after spending £88m for the last 5 and having that chance to build up a squad.

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

Last five years spending, according to Transfer League:

The complete lack of resale value of their entire squad when they joined the premiership is a massive reason here, as Armanijeanss has pointed out.

Gorilla Rising

Deleted User wrote: »

hmmmmm

No. Position Player
1 GK Asmir Begović
2 DF Geoff Cameron
4 DF Robert Huth
6 MF Glenn Whelan
7 MF Jermaine Pennant
8 MF Wilson Palacios
9 FW Kenwyne Jones
11 FW Mamady Sidibé
12 DF Marc Wilson
13 MF Maurice Edu
14 MF Jamie Ness
15 MF Steven N'Zonzi
16 MF Charlie Adam
17 DF Ryan Shawcross (captain)
18 MF Dean Whitehead
19 FW Jonathan Walters
20 DF Matthew Upson
21 MF Michael Kightly
22 MF Brek Shea
24 MF Rory Delap
25 FW Peter Crouch
26 MF Matthew Etherington
27 GK Carlo Nash
28 DF Andy Wilkinson
29 GK Thomas Sørensen
30 DF Ryan Shotton
33 FW Cameron Jerome
36 MF Matthew Lund
38 MF Florent Cuvelier
–– GK Jack Butland

How many would make more than 3 other Premiership (12/13) starting XI?

But are they any worse than say Norwich? I think the problem was the manager this season.

Individually they mightn't flourish in many other PL sides, but as a group I think a good manager can keep them up.

I'm no saying they're going to set the world alight, but I wouldn't write them off until we see what happens over the summer.

Edit: Also, I think at least one of the promoted sides will go down (I think the last time they all stayed up was 01/02).

castletownman

Tony Pulis leaves Stoke in the same week Real Madrid confirm Jose is leaving in the summer.

Coincidence?

Yes.

mike65

@OptaJoe: 13 - Of Stoke's 190 Premier League games since promotion in 2008, they have had >50% possession in only 13. Dominated.

SlickRic

"leaves".

/pedant.

thebaz

dahat wrote: »

Read Paully D post on the first page,they are about 40 million off playing football and that is being conservative,the only ball player they have is Charlie Adam and that says alot....

Probably the worst job to come up this Summer i reckon....

Martinez would get them playing good football for a lot less, similar to what he did for Wigan - I'm one of the few evertonians that want Martinez , but looks like it will be an internal promotion , which will be bad for everton imo

Super-Rush

Rafa to take over and bring some kwality to the Britannia.

keano_afc

Has it been confrimed yet? I can only ice this champagne for so long...

Augmerson

mike65 wrote: »

@OptaJoe: 13 - Of Stoke's 190 Premier League games since promotion in 2008, they have had >50% possession in only 13. Dominated.

Played Liverpool off the pitch when they went to Stoke last time, all over us

sReq | uTeK

Good riddance....

sweetie

he made a pig's ear of that job

Not many in Stoke happy about this tbh.

circadian

SlickRic wrote: »

"leaves".

/pedant.

Leafs.












:pac:

SlickRic

sweetie wrote: »

he made a pig's ear of that job

Paully D

Michael Cox, of Zonal Marking, summed it up quite well a few months ago:

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/tacticsandanalysis/id/838?cc=5739

Everything about Stoke City implies lower league underdogs. Their style of attacking is infamously route one, lobbing the ball towards the league's most notorious beanpole, from the goalkeeper, the wingers or long-throw experts. Their tackling is unashamedly tough but occasionally crosses the line into sheer brutality -- just when you start to consider that such a reputation is unreasonable, Glen Whelan sets the record straight by jumping in two-footed on Javi Garcia.

The image is furthered by the appearance of their manager, who prowls up and down the touchline in a tracksuit and baseball cap, barking one-word instructions at his players. The Britannia Stadium, meanwhile, is a modern ground yet boasts an old-fashioned feel. Until relatively recently, non-paying spectators could mount a small hill just outside and glimpse the action, a scene traditionally reserved for FA Cup giant killings at non-league grounds.

The Potters is a typically English, antiquated nickname, and even the sheer geography of Stoke casts them as outsiders -- Staffordshire is hardly the most renowned footballing region in England, more famous for bull terriers than sport. For various reasons, Stoke are viewed as the underdogs. And while their football might not be appreciated across the country, England undeniably loves an underdog.

By casting themselves in that role, Stoke and Pulis get away with an awful lot. Not in terms of their style of play, which has received criticism throughout their five years in the Premier League. (Opinions vary, naturally -- a personal view is that while Stoke's strategy in isolation is limited and frequently horrible to watch, it has effectively established them as a Premier League side. Besides, while few would wish to watch Stoke every week, heterogeneity is vital across a league, to provide different challenges and force opposition managers and players to think and adapt.) Their tackling, too, receives a significant amount of attention.

But here's what Stoke get away with: poor results and performances. In part, Pulis does that by discussing an alleged financial disadvantage. After losing 1-0 at Arsenal on Saturday afternoon, Pulis marched in the press conference room -- standing behind the desk, as always, rather than sitting down like every other manager in the league -- and spelt this out.

“You have to put everything in perspective, and I think sometimes we lose this,” he said after Stoke lost to a deflected Lukas Podolski strike. You have a look at [Arsenal's] resources, what they've got, what they've spent, the players they've got … they spent, was it 12 million pounds? On a left-back … we're not in their league in a lot of respects.”

But wait a minute. While no one would deny Arsenal have a significant financial advantage over Stoke, Pulis' side aren't quite the poor relations Pulis would like to portray. Forgive a brief but telling dive into the frequently tedious world of ‘net spend' (a club's transfer spending, minus their transfer revenue) and the picture becomes clear. In the past five years, Manchester City have been the league's biggest net spenders, while Chelsea are in second place. All roughly as you'd expect. But then Stoke are in third position. They've spent 89 million pounds and received in only 8.5 million pounds. (Arsenal, since Pulis makes the comparison, are actually at the bottom of the transfer net spend table).

This is just one measure of financial muscle -- Arsenal's wage bill is significantly higher than Stoke's, for example. But after a game like Saturday's, when Stoke had just one attempt on target in the 90 minutes, you can't help wondering, where has all that money gone?

Much has been wasted on average players, partly because Pulis continues to play such basic football. Some of the spending has been astonishing; Wilson Palacios was bought for 6 million pounds but is behind the likes of Whelan and Steven N'Zonzi in the pecking order. Upfront, a combined 22 million pounds was spent on Peter Crouch, Cameron Jerome and Kenwyne Jones. With Jon Walters an ever-present for the past two years, only one of that trio starts at once, so Stoke have essentially spent 22 million pounds on one role.

Pulis cites Arsenal's purchase of Nacho Monreal, but the figure has been widely reported as 8 million pounds, and Stoke spent only 1.5 million pounds less, bringing in Jack Butland and Brek Shea. They spent 5 million pounds last summer, 22 million pounds the season before that, 12.5 million pounds the season before that, 21.5 million pounds the season before that, 20 million pounds the summer before that. Only Tuncay (sold for less than he was purchased for the previous summer), Seyi Olofinjana (3 million pounds, the same as he was bought for) and Leon Cort (bought for 1.2 million pounds, sold for 1.5 million pounds) have seen seven-figure sums come into the club.

Stoke's squad is huge. Back-ups are not promising young talents (no one under 24 has played for Stoke this season) but seasoned Premier League players on decent wages. Jerome, Palacios, Jermain Pennant, Matthew Upson, Maurice Edu, Michael Owen, Thomas Sorensen and Rory Delap have managed just three starts between them this season. Some have now left the club, and it's important to point out that Stoke's wage bill isn't particularly high, but it's also fair to question the wisdom on spending (at a reasonable estimate), 100,000 pounds a week on eight players who contribute nothing to the side.

Even Stoke's wealth comes from an old-fashioned source -- a successful local businessman who chose his boyhood football club as the beneficiary of his wealth. Peter Coates' Bet365 company is the largest private employer in the city. If football is going to depend upon huge cash injections, this seems a fairly agreeable manner to do it. But Coates' bankrolling of the club has slipped slightly under the radar, compared to if 80 million pounds had arrived via a Qatari prince or a Russian oligarch. “We could not have achieved our recent success without huge investment,” admits Stoke's financial summary from 2010.

The worrying thing is that Pulis' insistence on casting himself as the underdog is lowering expectations, especially on their travels. At home, Stoke are a formidable side -- they held the longest unbeaten home record until the recent visit of Chelsea, for example. Arsenal have won their just once in five visits to the Britannia, yet Stoke haven't won a single point in the reverse fixtures at the Emirates.

Pulis regards away trips to the big boys as ‘bonus' games. His strategy at the Emirates was defeatist rather than pragmatic -- Arsenal's defence was weakened on the left side (where Crouch and Walters usually attack) with the absences of Thomas Vermaelen and Kieran Gibbs, yet newcomer Monreal was barely tested. Pulis' postgame comments suggested contentment rather than regret.

Pulis' support of his players is reasonable, as is a narrow 1-0 defeat away at Arsenal, but it's tough to accept his complaints about finances. If Stoke remain underdogs, that status persists primarily because they have spent huge sums of money extremely poorly.

citytillidie

circadian wrote: »

Leafs.












:pac:

Nah more a Rugby club the Ice hockey club

P-U-L-I-S

GavRedKing

SlickRic wrote: »

"leaves".

/pedant.

Deleted User wrote: »

P-U-L-I-S

:mad:

Fixed.....ye shower of c..............:pac:

Kiwi_knock

It does say something about Stoke's promotion of youth that this year's young player of the year (N'Zonzi) is 24

Super-Rush

Super-Rush wrote: »

Rafa to take over and bring some kwality to the Britannia.

Sky have mentioned Rafa as a possible successor due to the fact that he worked at Stoke a couple of years ago.

Chancer3001

get big arry in.

wheel and deal.

has crouch already.

sorted

Super-Rush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBsI7RAuvk

vicwatson

Hate Stoke, Hate Pulis

Cheats.

Love to see them relegated next season.

Reekwind

Gorilla Rising wrote: »

He's left them in a decent position...

42 points is hardly a decent position...

Al Capwned

Net spend.
Pointless argument - people using this stat as an indication of management ability drive me batty. Also, those that justify poor buys by saying, ah we have a low net spend - equally batty.

What was the "net spend" in Newcastle when they sold carroll for 35m? Getting in a big fee for one player doesn't make him a good manager, or excuse poor purchases.

/rant

as regards Stoke, the next manager has one hell of a tough job, as others have pointed out.

Martin O Neill would be a good fit at Stoke.

Rekop dog

As ever the reality lies somewhere in between the two extreme viewpoints in this thread on the sacking. Credit has to be given for how quickly he established them as a stable midtable side in the league when they came up, you may cite finishing there was to be expected due to money spent but as seen with examples like QPR it really is not that straight forward.

There does come a point when you do need to kick on and show some shrewdness in the transfer market to find players to take you to the next level and he struggled with this aspect last few years, none of his big signings ever inspired you with much confidence that they could help the club progress and you can't think of many Stoke signings that have had > sell on value than what they were purchased for.

All in all I think he did a decent job up to a point, his teams always had a strong work ethic/good attitude and seemingly close bond which can't just be dismissed, but I'd agree at this juncture the club have made the correct decision to part company with him.

Rikand

Steve Kean be a good one to come in.

Reekwind

Al Capwned wrote: »

Net spend.
Pointless argument - people using this stat as an indication of management ability drive me batty. Also, those that justify poor buys by saying, ah we have a low net spend - equally batty.

What was the "net spend" in Newcastle when they sold carroll for 35m? Getting in a big fee for one player doesn't make him a good manager, or excuse poor purchases.

If ever there was a manager that justified the use of that single statistic then it's Pulis. He has spent a lot of money to very little return

Rekop dog wrote:

All in all I think he did a decent job up to a point, his teams always had a strong work ethic/good attitude and seemingly close bond which can't just be dismissed, but I'd agree at this juncture the club have made the correct decision to part company with him.

It's worth stressing that had this happened 2-3 years ago then opinion would probably be that he'd been hard done by. But Stoke's failure to kick on from those early years has really undermined 'the project's' credibility

Al Capwned

Reekwind wrote: »

If ever there was a manager that justified the use of that single statistic then it's Pulis. He has spent a lot of money to very little return

I agree, but why not say that he's spent 100m then or whatever it is and his team is still muck?

Reekwind

Because the net figure illustrates that not only has he spent a lot of money but that it's been on fairly poor quality players, or at least those with little resale value. It distinguishes between this and the likes of Arsenal, who have spent quite a lot of money but has actually made a profit in the market, or even West Ham, where arrivals are more or less balanced by departures.

You could of course just sum all this up by saying that the quality is still dire but it's a handy quantitative shorthand that shows just how badly Pulis has misspent.

YouTookMyName

No more shíthouse stoke football? Fergie gone and David 'winner' Moyes at United?

I died didn't I? Died and somehow got into heaven......

circadian

Don't forget bankruptcy.

Ferris_Bueller

Must be the only person here who likes Stoke. Obviously their football isn't pretty, but it is different, and it has been relatively effective over the past few seasons. In a time where everyone aspires to play like Barcelona, I think it's interesting to see a team play completely the opposite. I wonder will the new manager attempt to change their style completely, or will they always be a physical team looking to catch teams on the hop.

EdenHazard

Amen Ferris. I think Stoke toned down their play though and became boring but their original tactics were so fresh and something different. Every team aspires to play like Barca now so that style football is just clichéd now and to me teams like Wigan are not interesting(well actually 3 at the back is kinda cool for a weak team) because they just play a **** version of the football Barca play.

Pierce_1991

My moneys on fergie to take over

G.K.

Nowt wrong with different tactics. My only issue with Stoke is when they go over the top and stamp on someone, or elbow them, or launch into a reckless tackle (Other teams' players do this too, but it seems more often with Stoke, probably due to the more physical nature of their games)

Yakult

Stoke played about as far from attractive attacking football as one can and still survived in the league year in, year out. Nothing wrong with that, different stokes for different folks. Hated his interviews if anything, painful to watch!

Couldn't see them going any where further than they had under Pulis tho, so maybe a good move for both.