Tony Pulis and Stoke

[The Great Mass Debater 1,202]

Stoke. A nothing town in the middle of a rather insignificant county. I can say that because my Mum''s half of the family is from there. And yet Tony Pulis turned them into an efficient, competitve team. He won promotion, stabilised the club financially, and made them an established Premier League club. But the football was not easy on the eye. The fans became restless, and gradually their gratitude faded, the expectations increased, and the fans demanded more entertainment. The manager changed, and now they have Mark Hughes.

Tony Pulis. Stokes most successful manager in recent times. Was he treated unfairly? The fans were not entertained, but had pretty much guaranteed Premiership football. Were the fans greedy and disloyal? Or does the club move on, and are the fans right to demand more?

Would be interested to hear the opinions on this from both Hughton supporters and detractors, seeing as the style of football and entertainment value under Hughton has been similarly criticised, at yet it could also be argued he has brought a similar level of success.

If you were a Stoke fan - how would you feel about Tony Pulis?

[blahblahblah 2]

Pulises'' methods were always going to get stale once teams worked out how to play against them. He stopped getting the results he used to. Fans will tolerate poor play if you win matches regularly.

Nearly all managers have a sell-by date, it''s whether you get rid before they have chance to achieve their potential.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Not sure all managers have a sell by date. But sometimes the relationship with players goes wrong. At that point it''s cheaper, much cheaper to replace one man. Wengers time''s been up so often but he comes through. Bet they all love him again now. Problem is each time the results aren''t good the fans turn on him quicker and quicker. Arsenal''s board is obviously strong.

 

 

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]Stoke. A nothing town in the middle of a rather insignificant county. I can say that because my Mum''s half of the family is from there. And yet Tony Pulis turned them into an efficient, competitve team. He won promotion, stabilised the club financially, and made them an established Premier League club. But the football was not easy on the eye. The fans became restless, and gradually their gratitude faded, the expectations increased, and the fans demanded more entertainment. The manager changed, and now they have Mark Hughes.

Tony Pulis. Stokes most successful manager in recent times. Was he treated unfairly? The fans were not entertained, but had pretty much guaranteed Premiership football. Were the fans greedy and disloyal? Or does the club move on, and are the fans right to demand more?

Would be interested to hear the opinions on this from both Hughton supporters and detractors, seeing as the style of football and entertainment value under Hughton has been similarly criticised, at yet it could also be argued he has brought a similar level of success.

If you were a Stoke fan - how would you feel about Tony Pulis?[/quote]I quite liked Tony Pulis''s brand of football, to be honest.  But then I enjoy rugby union and rugby league.Anyway, we shouldn''t forget that the comparison isn''t quite "apples with apples" and is rather unfair to Pulis.Pulis got Stoke promoted, stabilised them.  Time will tell if Hughes can build on the foundations Pulis left.Hughton inherited a team punching above its weight, and kept them up thanks largely to a fantastic ten game run, and then two great results in the final two matches of the season after an awful August - mid October and December - late March.  Hardly "stabilising".(I''m not one of those who believes Hughton was tied up, bound and gagged and locked in the dressing room by the players for the last two games of the season, by the way.)

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]Stoke. A nothing town in the middle of a rather insignificant county. I can say that because my Mum''s half of the family is from there. And yet Tony Pulis turned them into an efficient, competitve team. He won promotion, stabilised the club financially, and made them an established Premier League club. But the football was not easy on the eye. The fans became restless, and gradually their gratitude faded, the expectations increased, and the fans demanded more entertainment. The manager changed, and now they have Mark Hughes. Tony Pulis. Stokes most successful manager in recent times. Was he treated unfairly? The fans were not entertained, but had pretty much guaranteed Premiership football. Were the fans greedy and disloyal? Or does the club move on, and are the fans right to demand more? Would be interested to hear the opinions on this from both Hughton supporters and detractors, seeing as the style of football and entertainment value under Hughton has been similarly criticised, at yet it could also be argued he has brought a similar level of success. If you were a Stoke fan - how would you feel about Tony Pulis?[/quote]

I quite liked Tony Pulis''s brand of football, to be honest.  But then I enjoy rugby union and rugby league.

Anyway, we shouldn''t forget that the comparison isn''t quite "apples with apples" and is rather unfair to Pulis.

Pulis got Stoke promoted, stabilised them.  Time will tell if Hughes can build on the foundations Pulis left.

Hughton inherited a team punching above its weight, and kept them up thanks largely to a fantastic ten game run, and then two great results in the final two matches of the season after an awful August - mid October and December - late March.  Hardly "stabilising".

(I''m not one of those who believes Hughton was tied up, bound and gagged and locked in the dressing room by the players for the last two games of the season, by the way.)


[/quote]

Oh? Which room do you think they chose Chops? [:D]