11/01/15 | Arsenal 3-0 Stoke City | Premier League

Re: 11/01/15 | Arsenal 3-0 Stoke City | Premier League

Postby StokeFan » Thu Jan 22, 2015 1:31 pm

By the way, this was in Private Eye today... and you wonder why Stoke City supporters feel there is a media agenda against them.

Image

With all respect, this should infuriate you as much as it angers us. Playing on your prejudices to sell papers.
User avatar
StokeFan
Banned
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:06 pm

Re: 11/01/15 | Arsenal 3-0 Stoke City | Premier League

Postby Zedie » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:16 pm

It's a valiant effort to change hearts and minds, but things like this will never change what's happened tbh.

The bad blood between the 2 clubs is mostly panto nowadays, but it still doesn't change the fact that for a long period, you played overly aggressive football and one of your players broke one of our players leg.

What's done is done and tbh, the pulis years didn't exactly make it difficult for anyone to make a comparison with stoke football and the most basic version of our game.

Your 1st 11 all looked like fullbacks, every throw in was basically a line out, quite a few players ended up hurt when they left the britannia.

We on the other hand have always been sitting ducks for the media.

We were lead by a french man who made a mockery of the saying you don't win anything with kids. He did it on a budget and all over the media's golden kids led by their golden leader.

We are the complete antithesis of the old school english football team. French fancy soft southern fairies too much style don't like it up em blah blah blah. Refs and people used to accept us getting kicked because we had a rep of overacting to getting kicked.

You lot are suffering now image wise because unlike 10 years ago, you have a load of continentals in the game playing, managing, commentating etc.

Pulis ball was easy to laugh at because it was so old school and not trendy.

To think of a regista playing in the britannia under pulis lol. It was more like 4 CBs across the back 2 CB's at DM and a unit playing further forward.

Hughes is trying to shake off that tag for you but media clichés don't disappear over night. It'll be a good few years yet and there will still need to be significant changes to your personnel.
Image
User avatar
Zedie
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 33184
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:09 pm
Location: in the man cave

Re: 11/01/15 | Arsenal 3-0 Stoke City | Premier League

Postby StokeFan » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:08 pm

Zedie wrote:It's a valiant effort to change hearts and minds, but things like this will never change what's happened tbh.

The bad blood between the 2 clubs is mostly panto nowadays, but it still doesn't change the fact that for a long period, you played overly aggressive football and one of your players broke one of our players leg.

What's done is done and tbh, the pulis years didn't exactly make it difficult for anyone to make a comparison with stoke football and the most basic version of our game.

Your 1st 11 all looked like fullbacks, every throw in was basically a line out, quite a few players ended up hurt when they left the britannia.

We on the other hand have always been sitting ducks for the media.

We were lead by a french man who made a mockery of the saying you don't win anything with kids. He did it on a budget and all over the media's golden kids led by their golden leader.

We are the complete antithesis of the old school english football team. French fancy soft southern fairies too much style don't like it up em blah blah blah. Refs and people used to accept us getting kicked because we had a rep of overacting to getting kicked.

You lot are suffering now image wise because unlike 10 years ago, you have a load of continentals in the game playing, managing, commentating etc.

Pulis ball was easy to laugh at because it was so old school and not trendy.

To think of a regista playing in the britannia under pulis lol. It was more like 4 CBs across the back 2 CB's at DM and a unit playing further forward.

Hughes is trying to shake off that tag for you but media clichés don't disappear over night. It'll be a good few years yet and there will still need to be significant changes to your personnel.


Zedie - A little history lesson for you... not that long ago, a great time known as the 70's, where the best music was recorded and some of the best looking cars were made, Stoke were considered one of the best 'footballing' teams in Division 1. Our first team was littered with talented flair players, the likes of of Alan Hudson, Jimmy Greenhoff, John Ritchie, Geoff Hurst, Mike Pejic, Terry Conroy, George Eastham etc. We played a swift passing game and our two strikers were quick direct players who relied on their feet rather than their heads... i.e. nothing like Peter Crouch. Around the same time, Arsenal were well-known for their physical aggressive style of play. Not necessarily long ball, but Arsenal played a physical aggressive style of football. Nobody encapsulated this style of play more than Arsenal legend, Peter Storey who you could say was a bit like your very own Vinnie Jones. In fact, if you stray onto a Stoke forum sometime, many recount memories of Peter Storey's infamous assault on our player John Mahoney (a skilful central midfielder) where he ran over and kicked him in the spine while he was on the deck. Storey was sent off and I believe Mahoney was injured.

With all due respect, you played this aggressive style of football significantly longer than we played ours, if we want to get pedantic. It was only really in the 90s where the arse dropped out of our club, the little money we had was pissed away on building a stadium we didn't need and we ended up signing washed up overweight ex-Premier League donkeys like Paul Stewart and Disco Dancing Bryan Small that we resorted to long ball and it's fair to say, it bloody worked and I'm proud of where our club stands today. For an Arsenal fan, you've only ever experienced success, and before you start saying "we've only won one FA Cup in 10 years", try seeing the club you love fall into the Second Division, be minutes away from administration, become a shadow of the club it once was, all thanks to Jez Moxey and his cronies. We were the Wolves of the 90s.

Tony Pulis second reign over Stoke lasted 7 years and we owe an FA Cup Final to him, Premiership stability, a Europa League challenge and some terrific signings. I won't apologize for the work Tony Pulis did because he deserves nothing but credit for taking a low'ish Championship team, and taking them into the Premiership in the space of a few years... and doing what so many failed to do and that's build on that success. You might not like it, but we really are a template for teams getting promoted and it's no surprise that Leicester and Burnley failing this season just like Norwich, Blackpool and others failed in the past. The football we played was effective, but it was honest and it was within our means. You won't see any FFP issues on our part.

Your 1st 11 all looked like fullbacks, every throw in was basically a line out, quite a few players ended up hurt when they left the britannia.

Pretty ignorant, but I'll take your point on face value. Players like Ricardo Fuller were skilful on the ball. They certainly weren't full backs or donkeys as I guess you're trying to insinuate. Throw in Etherington, Lawrence, Pennant, N'Zonzi and you see we had some pretty skilful players under Pulis, but we had to compensate by making up for our deficiencies elsewhere, that's why we had strong big midfielders like Olofinjana. Delap was a long throw specialist and with all due respect, you would use them if you had someone with a similar technique. You might not like this, but being able to throw the ball with the power, direction and pace is a skill in itself. It's a different kind of skill, but it's something that requires training and excellent technique. It's probably just as hard to learn how to throw a ball like Rory Delap as it is to learn the kind of terrific ball control some of the most skilful players possess.

We were lead by a french man who made a mockery of the saying you don't win anything with kids. He did it on a budget and all over the media's golden kids led by their golden leader.

I really have no idea what you're saying. He made a mockery of the saying "you don't win anything with kids". Are you saying he did win something with kids or not? Let's not beat around the bush here, most of Arsenal's recent domestic success came with a team primarily made up of experienced internationals like Adams, Gilberto, Vieira, Campbell, Henry, Lehmann etc etc. Are you telling me your 'Invincibles' team was made up of kids? The average age of the Invincibles was 28. I know that because it was a point made when talking about Wenger's desire to 'win with kids' while his greatest achievement was with a team very much at their peak.

You lot are suffering now image wise because unlike 10 years ago, you have a load of continentals in the game playing, managing, commentating etc.

This is an interesting point. I have a feeling though the main reason we suffer now is because the media and worse so, social media, dictate neutrals opinions. It's unfashionable, to even 'respect' a club like Stoke... because the media says so and as we all know the national media are influenced by social media and it's a vicious circle because Arsenal fans have a surprisingly strong hold on Twitter and all that. Look at what I posted above with that muppet from the Telegraph. His only aim was to wind people up on Twitter and on the Telegraph's online edition.

Pulis ball was easy to laugh at because it was so old school and not trendy.

You make it sound like we didn't laugh ourselves. We knew that we weren't a fashionable team. We also know that we played better football than perhaps we were given credit but only the most deluded Stoke fan will say we played good football. We played effective football, and that is why we're here today. It's interesting that the same Pulis ball used so effectively at Stoke, yet considered the anti-christ of football is now lauded as the 'get out of jail free card' for teams on the brink of relegation. He kept Crystal Palace up last season and won manager of the year. He will keep West Brom up this year and be praised once again. He kept Stoke City up with a far worse squad and even less money and he got no praise, no admiration, just groans (primarily from North London) that the orcs had actually survived. Funny how the media can drive these things.

It was more like 4 CBs across the back 2 CB's at DM and a unit playing further forward.

Have you been reading the Oatcake? It almost sounds like you have. This is exactly why Pulis eventually lost a lot of the fans support. He DID play 4 centre backs across the back four (Andy Wilkinson started out as a centre back) and this was his aim to get as many big players on the pitch as possible. We played two defensive midfielders who had no intention of ever getting forward. We don't actually argue with this. Is there anything wrong with that though? I don't think so, it was effective it was a very difficult game to play against. We may be a better team now but we're certainly not as strong defensively. Pulis method was fine for season 1, season 2, season 3, in the Premiership but we needed progress and it wasn't coming, which is why we went for Hughes.

Nobody will actually argue with your assertion here, but we still appreciate that it got us to where we are.

Hughes is trying to shake off that tag for you but media clichés don't disappear over night. It'll be a good few years yet and there will still need to be significant changes to your personnel.

Ahh, so you mean we need to kick Ryan Shawcross out of our club before we become some sort of respected media friendly club. I'm afraid that is unlikely to happen. Whether you like it or not, much like Ramsey, Shawcross has become a superb player. Ramsey a terrific ball playing midfielder and Shawcross a terrific defender. Here's a little tip for you, if you really do want Stoke to go down, phone up Wenger, and tell him to sign Ryan Shawcross, 25 million should do it, because most Stoke City fans are fairly comfortable in the knowledge that the day we lose him, will be the day we go down. He is an outstanding centre back and literally does the job of four players. Our good defensive record last season is so deceptive of the truth. Most Stoke fans have no fingernails anymore because we spent the whole of last season watching Marc Wilson try and imitate a centre back. Our full backs are okay but not consistently good enough. Without Shawcross, we look defensively clueless.

I appreciate you now have a problem with Arnautovic after the whole shove thing but Arnie is actually one of our most skilful players. He has terrific ball control and has a fantastic cross on him. He is a petulant maverick and we all know that, but I can't think of our other seriously physical players? Crouch maybe?
User avatar
StokeFan
Banned
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:06 pm

Re: 11/01/15 | Arsenal 3-0 Stoke City | Premier League

Postby jules_w » Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:50 am

StokeFan wrote:
Zedie wrote:It's a valiant effort to change hearts and minds, but things like this will never change what's happened tbh.

The bad blood between the 2 clubs is mostly panto nowadays, but it still doesn't change the fact that for a long period, you played overly aggressive football and one of your players broke one of our players leg.

What's done is done and tbh, the pulis years didn't exactly make it difficult for anyone to make a comparison with stoke football and the most basic version of our game.

Your 1st 11 all looked like fullbacks, every throw in was basically a line out, quite a few players ended up hurt when they left the britannia.

We on the other hand have always been sitting ducks for the media.

We were lead by a french man who made a mockery of the saying you don't win anything with kids. He did it on a budget and all over the media's golden kids led by their golden leader.

We are the complete antithesis of the old school english football team. French fancy soft southern fairies too much style don't like it up em blah blah blah. Refs and people used to accept us getting kicked because we had a rep of overacting to getting kicked.

You lot are suffering now image wise because unlike 10 years ago, you have a load of continentals in the game playing, managing, commentating etc.

Pulis ball was easy to laugh at because it was so old school and not trendy.

To think of a regista playing in the britannia under pulis lol. It was more like 4 CBs across the back 2 CB's at DM and a unit playing further forward.

Hughes is trying to shake off that tag for you but media clichés don't disappear over night. It'll be a good few years yet and there will still need to be significant changes to your personnel.


Zedie - A little history lesson for you... not that long ago, a great time known as the 70's, where the best music was recorded and some of the best looking cars were made, Stoke were considered one of the best 'footballing' teams in Division 1. Our first team was littered with talented flair players, the likes of of Alan Hudson, Jimmy Greenhoff, John Ritchie, Geoff Hurst, Mike Pejic, Terry Conroy, George Eastham etc. We played a swift passing game and our two strikers were quick direct players who relied on their feet rather than their heads... i.e. nothing like Peter Crouch. Around the same time, Arsenal were well-known for their physical aggressive style of play. Not necessarily long ball, but Arsenal played a physical aggressive style of football. Nobody encapsulated this style of play more than Arsenal legend, Peter Storey who you could say was a bit like your very own Vinnie Jones. In fact, if you stray onto a Stoke forum sometime, many recount memories of Peter Storey's infamous assault on our player John Mahoney (a skilful central midfielder) where he ran over and kicked him in the spine while he was on the deck. Storey was sent off and I believe Mahoney was injured.

With all due respect, you played this aggressive style of football significantly longer than we played ours, if we want to get pedantic. It was only really in the 90s where the arse dropped out of our club, the little money we had was pissed away on building a stadium we didn't need and we ended up signing washed up overweight ex-Premier League donkeys like Paul Stewart and Disco Dancing Bryan Small that we resorted to long ball and it's fair to say, it bloody worked and I'm proud of where our club stands today. For an Arsenal fan, you've only ever experienced success, and before you start saying "we've only won one FA Cup in 10 years", try seeing the club you love fall into the Second Division, be minutes away from administration, become a shadow of the club it once was, all thanks to Jez Moxey and his cronies. We were the Wolves of the 90s.

Tony Pulis second reign over Stoke lasted 7 years and we owe an FA Cup Final to him, Premiership stability, a Europa League challenge and some terrific signings. I won't apologize for the work Tony Pulis did because he deserves nothing but credit for taking a low'ish Championship team, and taking them into the Premiership in the space of a few years... and doing what so many failed to do and that's build on that success. You might not like it, but we really are a template for teams getting promoted and it's no surprise that Leicester and Burnley failing this season just like Norwich, Blackpool and others failed in the past. The football we played was effective, but it was honest and it was within our means. You won't see any FFP issues on our part.

Your 1st 11 all looked like fullbacks, every throw in was basically a line out, quite a few players ended up hurt when they left the britannia.

Pretty ignorant, but I'll take your point on face value. Players like Ricardo Fuller were skilful on the ball. They certainly weren't full backs or donkeys as I guess you're trying to insinuate. Throw in Etherington, Lawrence, Pennant, N'Zonzi and you see we had some pretty skilful players under Pulis, but we had to compensate by making up for our deficiencies elsewhere, that's why we had strong big midfielders like Olofinjana. Delap was a long throw specialist and with all due respect, you would use them if you had someone with a similar technique. You might not like this, but being able to throw the ball with the power, direction and pace is a skill in itself. It's a different kind of skill, but it's something that requires training and excellent technique. It's probably just as hard to learn how to throw a ball like Rory Delap as it is to learn the kind of terrific ball control some of the most skilful players possess.

We were lead by a french man who made a mockery of the saying you don't win anything with kids. He did it on a budget and all over the media's golden kids led by their golden leader.

I really have no idea what you're saying. He made a mockery of the saying "you don't win anything with kids". Are you saying he did win something with kids or not? Let's not beat around the bush here, most of Arsenal's recent domestic success came with a team primarily made up of experienced internationals like Adams, Gilberto, Vieira, Campbell, Henry, Lehmann etc etc. Are you telling me your 'Invincibles' team was made up of kids? The average age of the Invincibles was 28. I know that because it was a point made when talking about Wenger's desire to 'win with kids' while his greatest achievement was with a team very much at their peak.

You lot are suffering now image wise because unlike 10 years ago, you have a load of continentals in the game playing, managing, commentating etc.

This is an interesting point. I have a feeling though the main reason we suffer now is because the media and worse so, social media, dictate neutrals opinions. It's unfashionable, to even 'respect' a club like Stoke... because the media says so and as we all know the national media are influenced by social media and it's a vicious circle because Arsenal fans have a surprisingly strong hold on Twitter and all that. Look at what I posted above with that muppet from the Telegraph. His only aim was to wind people up on Twitter and on the Telegraph's online edition.

Pulis ball was easy to laugh at because it was so old school and not trendy.

You make it sound like we didn't laugh ourselves. We knew that we weren't a fashionable team. We also know that we played better football than perhaps we were given credit but only the most deluded Stoke fan will say we played good football. We played effective football, and that is why we're here today. It's interesting that the same Pulis ball used so effectively at Stoke, yet considered the anti-christ of football is now lauded as the 'get out of jail free card' for teams on the brink of relegation. He kept Crystal Palace up last season and won manager of the year. He will keep West Brom up this year and be praised once again. He kept Stoke City up with a far worse squad and even less money and he got no praise, no admiration, just groans (primarily from North London) that the orcs had actually survived. Funny how the media can drive these things.

It was more like 4 CBs across the back 2 CB's at DM and a unit playing further forward.

Have you been reading the Oatcake? It almost sounds like you have. This is exactly why Pulis eventually lost a lot of the fans support. He DID play 4 centre backs across the back four (Andy Wilkinson started out as a centre back) and this was his aim to get as many big players on the pitch as possible. We played two defensive midfielders who had no intention of ever getting forward. We don't actually argue with this. Is there anything wrong with that though? I don't think so, it was effective it was a very difficult game to play against. We may be a better team now but we're certainly not as strong defensively. Pulis method was fine for season 1, season 2, season 3, in the Premiership but we needed progress and it wasn't coming, which is why we went for Hughes.

Nobody will actually argue with your assertion here, but we still appreciate that it got us to where we are.

Hughes is trying to shake off that tag for you but media clichés don't disappear over night. It'll be a good few years yet and there will still need to be significant changes to your personnel.

Ahh, so you mean we need to kick Ryan Shawcross out of our club before we become some sort of respected media friendly club. I'm afraid that is unlikely to happen. Whether you like it or not, much like Ramsey, Shawcross has become a superb player. Ramsey a terrific ball playing midfielder and Shawcross a terrific defender. Here's a little tip for you, if you really do want Stoke to go down, phone up Wenger, and tell him to sign Ryan Shawcross, 25 million should do it, because most Stoke City fans are fairly comfortable in the knowledge that the day we lose him, will be the day we go down. He is an outstanding centre back and literally does the job of four players. Our good defensive record last season is so deceptive of the truth. Most Stoke fans have no fingernails anymore because we spent the whole of last season watching Marc Wilson try and imitate a centre back. Our full backs are okay but not consistently good enough. Without Shawcross, we look defensively clueless.

I appreciate you now have a problem with Arnautovic after the whole shove thing but Arnie is actually one of our most skilful players. He has terrific ball control and has a fantastic cross on him. He is a petulant maverick and we all know that, but I can't think of our other seriously physical players? Crouch maybe?


Stopped reading at 'a little history lesson'
User avatar
jules_w
Ian Wright
Ian Wright
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: 11/01/15 | Arsenal 3-0 Stoke City | Premier League

Postby Va-Va-Voom » Sun Feb 01, 2015 3:11 am

LOL
User avatar
Va-Va-Voom
Member of the Year 2015
Member of the Year 2015
 
Posts: 22641
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:01 am

Previous

Return to Matchday Chat 2014-15

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests