Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Making Plans

Palace

Recommended Posts

[quote user="ron obvious"]Didn''t Pulis get chucked out at Stoke because the fans were fed up with his negative, boring football?[/quote]

 

I am most certainly not a Pulis fan. But, both Stoke and Palace fans are very happy this morning. Both will play Premier League football next year. Stoke based on Pulis'' foundation, Palace because he has a tactical nous and has motivated players.

 

I would swap with either in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve got no doubt that Pulis is employing slightly "negative" tactics in that they will be getting men behind the ball and hitting teams on the break especially away from home.

That is a perfectly valid tactic away from home. One of the big problems I always had with Hughton is that i think he tried to employ the same sort of tactics but did not buy/select the personel to do it effectively. If you are going to play 4-2-3-1 (or any team set up with 2 holding midfielders) and play on the break then you need pace and you also need a midfielder who breaks forward and gets ahead of the strikers from time to time. Aside from Redmond - who is not actually that quick over long distances and who didn''t get picked by Hughton - and the Murphy kids) we haven''t got any wingers who do this and the one midfielder who can (Howson) has spent much of his time shackled and having to play DM. We have therefore set up in a shape suited to counter attacking football but generally with completely the wrong personal and thus relatively easy for opposition teams to cope with because they know the game is going to be played in front of them and at a pace that enables them to get men behind the ball. The signing of Gutierez for me illustrated his ineptitude more than anything in this respect because it made us even more slow and ponderous.

Jerome, Puncheon and Bolasie are no better as players than Hooper, Snodgrass and Redmond/Pilkington. In fact if anything they are not as good. But what they are are players who are quick and direct and who suit perfectly the system and roles they are being asked to play. Pulis has done a great job but really he is just a decent, competent manager. I personally would not have wanted him at Norwich based on how his Stoke side used to play but i have repeatedly expressed the view that if we had a reasonable, competent manager we would be doing much better with the players we have. I think Pulis''s success with palace backs up that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hats off to Palace. Written off as no hopers before and very early on in the season. Pulis brought in and basically considered to be on a hiding to nothing, their relegation wasnt even questioned. Good for them (even thought theyve been accused of cheating)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"One of the big problems I always had with Hughton is that i think he tried to employ the same sort of tactics but did not buy/select the personel to do it effectively."

Bang on Jim. the main difference between a successful Pulis side, and a failing Hughton one, boils down to concentration at the back and an ability ( or inability ) to take chances. Too often mistakes have been made by the back 4 away from home, and when you''re not putting chances away, or when the chances you get aren''t in positions to make the keeper make a save, the mistakes cost you matches. Ironically we are one of the safest teams at home, so it makes you wonder what was different in the approach away from home to create such a different result.

No matter, we''ve got Adams now, and he is picking players that will throw themselves at the ball to keep us up, regardless of whether they are technically the best players. When you''ve got 4 lottery tickets left and only need to win once, that''s a pretty good strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jim Smith"]I''ve got no doubt that Pulis is employing slightly "negative" tactics in that they will be getting men behind the ball and hitting teams on the break especially away from home.

That is a perfectly valid tactic away from home. One of the big problems I always had with Hughton is that i think he tried to employ the same sort of tactics but did not buy/select the personel to do it effectively. If you are going to play 4-2-3-1 (or any team set up with 2 holding midfielders) and play on the break then you need pace and you also need a midfielder who breaks forward and gets ahead of the strikers from time to time. Aside from Redmond - who is not actually that quick over long distances and who didn''t get picked by Hughton - and the Murphy kids) we haven''t got any wingers who do this and the one midfielder who can (Howson) has spent much of his time shackled and having to play DM. We have therefore set up in a shape suited to counter attacking football but generally with completely the wrong personal and thus relatively easy for opposition teams to cope with because they know the game is going to be played in front of them and at a pace that enables them to get men behind the ball. The signing of Gutierez for me illustrated his ineptitude more than anything in this respect because it made us even more slow and ponderous.

Jerome, Puncheon and Bolasie are no better as players than Hooper, Snodgrass and Redmond/Pilkington. In fact if anything they are not as good. But what they are are players who are quick and direct and who suit perfectly the system and roles they are being asked to play. Pulis has done a great job but really he is just a decent, competent manager. I personally would not have wanted him at Norwich based on how his Stoke side used to play but i have repeatedly expressed the view that if we had a reasonable, competent manager we would be doing much better with the players we have. I think Pulis''s success with palace backs up that view.[/quote]Jim, I am a rank amateur when it comes to tactics but according to Parma Ham, who seemed to know what he was talking about, that actually was how Hughton wanted us to play, and indeed was how we did play.Hughton didn''t want to hit team fast on the counter-attack, because if we lost the ball we would be vulnerable on the counter-counter-attack. The aim was to be slow and ponderous and play in front of the opposition defence, because it was safer that way. So signing Gutierrez was probably part of that strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]I''ve got no doubt that Pulis is employing slightly "negative" tactics in that they will be getting men behind the ball and hitting teams on the break especially away from home.

That is a perfectly valid tactic away from home. One of the big problems I always had with Hughton is that i think he tried to employ the same sort of tactics but did not buy/select the personel to do it effectively. If you are going to play 4-2-3-1 (or any team set up with 2 holding midfielders) and play on the break then you need pace and you also need a midfielder who breaks forward and gets ahead of the strikers from time to time. Aside from Redmond - who is not actually that quick over long distances and who didn''t get picked by Hughton - and the Murphy kids) we haven''t got any wingers who do this and the one midfielder who can (Howson) has spent much of his time shackled and having to play DM. We have therefore set up in a shape suited to counter attacking football but generally with completely the wrong personal and thus relatively easy for opposition teams to cope with because they know the game is going to be played in front of them and at a pace that enables them to get men behind the ball. The signing of Gutierez for me illustrated his ineptitude more than anything in this respect because it made us even more slow and ponderous.

Jerome, Puncheon and Bolasie are no better as players than Hooper, Snodgrass and Redmond/Pilkington. In fact if anything they are not as good. But what they are are players who are quick and direct and who suit perfectly the system and roles they are being asked to play. Pulis has done a great job but really he is just a decent, competent manager. I personally would not have wanted him at Norwich based on how his Stoke side used to play but i have repeatedly expressed the view that if we had a reasonable, competent manager we would be doing much better with the players we have. I think Pulis''s success with palace backs up that view.[/quote]Jim, I am a rank amateur when it comes to tactics but according to Parma Ham, who seemed to know what he was talking about, that actually was how Hughton wanted us to play, and indeed was how we did play.Hughton didn''t want to hit team fast on the counter-attack, because if we lost the ball we would be vulnerable on the counter-counter-attack. The aim was to be slow and ponderous and play in front of the opposition defence, because it was safer that way. So signing Gutierrez was probably part of that strategy.[/quote]

I too am a rank amateur Purple so the above is just my layman''s take on things. If what you say is the case then its even more dubious tactically if you ask me. In several away games we have deliberately sat deep and sat off the opposition. To do that in tandem with carrying no threat on the break seems to me to be tantamount to surrender before a ball has even been kicked!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lake district canary ---- West Bromwich Albion away. 

Yep... One goal on the counter attack in 2 seasons of football. Only on incredibly rare occasions did we even attempt to hit teams on the break.

I will repeat:

"There is nothing I have seen in the last two seasons to give credence to the claim that scoring goals on the counter was any part of Chris Hughton''s tactics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-----------Jim Smith: To do that in tandem with carrying no threat on the break seems to me to be tantamount to surrender before a ball has even been kicked!

Keep things tight, keep hold of the ball and hope you fluke a goal from somewhere. These were the tactics under Chris Hughton.

These tactics fell down because a mid table side like ours is always liable to concede a goal. Hughton picked hackers over players who could actually keep the ball. And Hughton put no thought into the attacking play literally hoping things would just come good.

If we lost a game 1-0, Hughton was only interested in why we conceded. The fact we failed to score was of little concern to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes you wonder doesn''t it? How on earth would a manager who relies totally on flukes get a job at any level. Let alone Premiership level. Even more unbelievable is that he could gain more points at this level than a master tactician like Paul Lambert over an identical period. I''m afraid I''m a rank amateur at these things too but even so I can''t help thinking these claims cannot be right.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]I''ve got no doubt that Pulis is employing slightly "negative" tactics in that they will be getting men behind the ball and hitting teams on the break especially away from home.

That is a perfectly valid tactic away from home. One of the big problems I always had with Hughton is that i think he tried to employ the same sort of tactics but did not buy/select the personel to do it effectively. If you are going to play 4-2-3-1 (or any team set up with 2 holding midfielders) and play on the break then you need pace and you also need a midfielder who breaks forward and gets ahead of the strikers from time to time. Aside from Redmond - who is not actually that quick over long distances and who didn''t get picked by Hughton - and the Murphy kids) we haven''t got any wingers who do this and the one midfielder who can (Howson) has spent much of his time shackled and having to play DM. We have therefore set up in a shape suited to counter attacking football but generally with completely the wrong personal and thus relatively easy for opposition teams to cope with because they know the game is going to be played in front of them and at a pace that enables them to get men behind the ball. The signing of Gutierez for me illustrated his ineptitude more than anything in this respect because it made us even more slow and ponderous.

Jerome, Puncheon and Bolasie are no better as players than Hooper, Snodgrass and Redmond/Pilkington. In fact if anything they are not as good. But what they are are players who are quick and direct and who suit perfectly the system and roles they are being asked to play. Pulis has done a great job but really he is just a decent, competent manager. I personally would not have wanted him at Norwich based on how his Stoke side used to play but i have repeatedly expressed the view that if we had a reasonable, competent manager we would be doing much better with the players we have. I think Pulis''s success with palace backs up that view.[/quote]Jim, I am a rank amateur when it comes to tactics but according to Parma Ham, who seemed to know what he was talking about, that actually was how Hughton wanted us to play, and indeed was how we did play.Hughton didn''t want to hit team fast on the counter-attack, because if we lost the ball we would be vulnerable on the counter-counter-attack. The aim was to be slow and ponderous and play in front of the opposition defence, because it was safer that way. So signing Gutierrez was probably part of that strategy.[/quote]

I too am a rank amateur Purple so the above is just my layman''s take on things. If what you say is the case then its even more dubious tactically if you ask me. In several away games we have deliberately sat deep and sat off the opposition. To do that in tandem with carrying no threat on the break seems to me to be tantamount to surrender before a ball has even been kicked![/quote]Jim, I would claim to be even ranker an amateur than you! But this ultra-cautious approach does tie in with the statistic I uncovered a couple of weeks ago, just on the off chance. Namely that under Hughton we were the only team in the bottom half of the table that had not once this season away from home fought back to get a draw, let alone a win, after going behind. Indeed, we had not once even equalised before falling behind again. If we went behind, that was it. Unlike last season, when four times we got a 1-1 draw after conceding.I suspect the directors knew this statistic, or at least had a sense of it, because according to Mick Dennis Smith and Jones and McNally specifically asked Hughton after the West Brom defeat how he was going to approach Fulham away. In other words, would he continue to be ultra-cautious, even if we fell behind. And Hughton presumably indicated he wouldn''t change his strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Even more unbelievable is that he could gain more points at this level

than a master tactician like Paul Lambert over an identical period"
Are you still flogging that argument Nigel? I don''t know if you realise Nutty but we can''t carry over last seasons surplus into this season and we currently sit in 17th with four impossible fixtures, Hughton left us here. Do you really think that this is an appropriate time to tell us all that us getting three more points than Villa last season is going to help in any way whatsoever? If you can''t find a legal loophole which allows us to bring those three points into this seasons league table then shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Juggy"]"Even more unbelievable is that he could gain more points at this level

than a master tactician like Paul Lambert over an identical period"Are you still flogging that argument Nigel? I don''t know if you realise Nutty but we can''t carry over last seasons surplus into this season and we currently sit in 17th with four impossible fixtures, Hughton left us here. Do you really think that this is an appropriate time to tell us all that us getting three more points than Villa last season is going to help in any way whatsoever? If you can''t find a legal loophole which allows us to bring those three points into this seasons league table then shut up. [/quote]

 

To be fair I think you''re tuppence short buddy. If you want to debate that I''ll cite your posting history[:O] I''m not trying to bring any argument about Chris Hughton apart from one that says it beggars belief that a manager who totally relies on flukes could get a job at any level let alone PL. Can you make a case for it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don''t believe that flukes exist, neither ''luck'' or ''bad luck''. So no.I''d still like to know why you felt the need to compare Hughton with Lambert for the thousandth time though to illustrate your point, what does Lambert have to do with it?Just another opportunity for you to tell us, for the thousandth time, about how Hughton did a bit better than Lambert in 2012/13.... if we ignore their FA Cup semi-final, and our failure to beat them once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I reckon you must see what you want to.

Poyet has had 26 games and lost half of them. They haven''t won a game since February 1st. His win% is 23.1 - that is unacceptable for a Premier League manager, wouldn''t you say?

--------------------

He played 26 won 6 drew 7 and lost 13. 25pts. Using his current ppg ratio he would finish a whole season on 36 points. I''d love that ATM. Unbeaten in half his games? Is it that bad?

His record including cup is 34.29. Looking at the overall picture of the job he''s done, reads pretty well. There''s no denying that they have had two fantastic cup runs and a trip to Wembley that the fans will never forget.

Has the cup affected them? Course it has. Did di canio affect sunderlands season? Of course. He had 2 months with a fragile squad, turned them around and they still stand an outside chance of staying up. It''s no coincidence that Sunderland fans love him, regardless of his %''s.

People that look at the black and white of the league position are a bit narrow minded. After all......we finished 11th last yr and that was deemed as progress [:0]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nutty nigel--- I''m not trying to bring any argument about Chris Hughton apart from one that says it beggars belief that a manager who totally relies on flukes could get a job at any level let alone PL.

Chris Hughton''s tactics for us were just ultra negative, rigid and cautious. Since any attacking flair left over from the Lambert days has gone from the side we are now incapable of scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve never known a manager as negative as Chris Hughton, for any club anywhere. Even Wimbledon would at least pump the ball into the opposition box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don''t know why people think route one is negative. It maybe unpopular. But getting the ball into the opponents penalty box ASAP could hardly be negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"But getting the ball into the opponents penalty box ASAP could hardly

be negative"
That surely isn''t your description of Hughtons tactics is it Nigel? If he was route one then I am route 66. Hughton played Route Zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I don''t know why people think route one is negative. It maybe unpopular. But getting the ball into the opponents penalty box ASAP could hardly be negative.

[/quote]

Agree nige.

Pullis plays to the strength of the players at his disposal. Hughton didn''t.

I''ve said it a million times. He completely dismissed the foundations left to him and went the opposite. We only needed a few tweaks. Not an overhaul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Juggy"]"But getting the ball into the opponents penalty box ASAP could hardly

be negative"That surely isn''t your description of Hughtons tactics is it Nigel? If he was route one then I am route 66. Hughton played Route Zero. [/quote]

 

No. It was in reply to your ridiculous comparison with Wimbledon.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nutty nigel: I don''t know why people think route one is negative. It maybe unpopular. But getting the ball into the opponents penalty box ASAP could hardly be negative.

It is certainly not a tactic we used under Chris Hughton. Hughton never really diverted from his original game-plan, no matter what was happening during the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...