Well no because it's different arguements.Originally Posted by Power_n_Glory
Here we go. Double standards.
If Wenger says we can't compete with City then he's right.
If Pulis says Stoke can't compete with Arsenal then he's right.
But Pulis is saying that because they can't compete with Arsenal they have to play Rugby against us. He's wrong. Swansea can't compete with Arsenal either but they still aim to play good football and survive in the PL doing so.
He knows he doesn't have the players to play us off the park so he goes with the strength of his team to try and take point off us. It's not pretty but it works.
We can't compete with Chelsea and City's resources but we could at least employ tactics that make it hard for them to beat us. Besides, we're not in 6th place because we've played teams with more resources than us all season.
Errrrrrrrrrrrsnal.
I hate Errrrrrrsin Wenger.He wears the club shop!
No complaints from me.
He wears the club shop!
Tony Pulis he wears the club shop!
Also little bit ****.
Anyone know the net spend of Stoke & Arsenal on transfers since Pukeface has joined Stoke RFC?
Also Micheal Own
Society is now one polished horde
Formed by two mighty tribes, the bores and the bored.
"After all, it was the Gunners’ goalkeeper who started the move that culminated in Thomas’ crowning glory. It was Lukic who, in injury time, decided to throw the ball out to Lee Dixon rather than lump it long..."
This ridiculous argument again about City and Chavs resources in a bid to commisserate for Wenger. City and Chavs are not exactly running away with the league, are they? Look at the shitte squad the Mancs have been using to keep pace, even being ahead of them both. Really doesn't augur well for our manager that another manager can use an equally average squad and be so bloody competitive whilst at it, right?
And I'll take the liberty of pre-empting those who will inenvitably say SAF is greatest manager ever, by asking what has changed since the times when he and Wenger used to be considered of the same ilk?
Wish I hadn't quoted Pulis now.
It's a double standard. Our bench is probably worth more than the majority of mid level lower league teams and we have quite a few internationals on the bench as well. We were able to bring to International players off the bench to win the game for us today and had a player making his debut to cover an injury. It's not a level playing field for most of the lower league teams when they face us but we still struggle because we fail to do the basics.
We should be closer to the top teams IMO, regardless of the difference in resources. A lot of the points we drop is due to individual mistakes or tactical failings against sides with much inferior resources. This has nothing to with City or Chelsea's wealth.
His job is to do as well as he can with Stoke, his style isn't passing football but it is effective and keeps them in the PL every year and they get a few scalps every season as well, they're never in the relegation mix.
It's up to him how he does his job but as long as the fans are happy and the club is happy I don't see why he'd change or risk playing passing football and possibly getting relegated.
I wouldn't say we were that entertaining today (or in general either), we don't hoof it but the pass pass football is hard work I have to say.
Fine. But he's saying it's his only option. It isn't. Having less resources doesn't mean you're forced to play hoofball. Swansea don't.
Also, from what I can tell, the Stoke fans are NOT happy and largely want him replaced.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
