Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Summer Transfer Window 2018.


Recommended Posts

Pulis really isn't anywhere near as bad as some portray him to be. He plays negative football, absolutely, but the way he gets spoken about you'd wonder how on earth he has earned himself as one of the most respected Premier League managers of the past decade. Considering the resources available to Pulis coming into our poor position after Monk left, I think he done well to turn us around to getting into 5th spot. Our squad wasn't going anywhere until he found a pragmatic system for our team that was severely lacking creativity. If I could be bothered I'd have found the Premier League finishing positions of Pulis at Stoke, Crystal Palace and West Brom. That will be far more measure of his success than the list of his 25 most expensive transfers, of which only 12 (if I counted them properly with my quick scan) are named, so it is hardly a fair portrayal of his ability in the transfer market.

 

A large section of the fans of Stoke and West Brom may hate him but he had them consistently punching above their weight in the Premier League. Their fans wanted change and more expansive football, and they got themselves relegated seeking that. A lesson that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

Sparky Hughes was at Stoke for 5 years and had them finishing in 9th position in 3 of the seasons he was in charge, so hardly a club on a downward spiral after Pulis left.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 13.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pulis really isn't anywhere near as bad as some portray him to be. He plays negative football, absolutely, but the way he gets spoken about you'd wonder how on earth he has earned himself as one of the most respected Premier League managers of the past decade. Considering the resources available to Pulis coming into our poor position after Monk left, I think he done well to turn us around to getting into 5th spot. Our squad wasn't going anywhere until he found a pragmatic system for our team that was severely lacking creativity. If I could be bothered I'd have found the Premier League finishing positions of Pulis at Stoke, Crystal Palace and West Brom. That will be far more measure of his success than the list of his 25 most expensive transfers, of which only 12 (if I counted them properly with my quick scan) are named, so it is hardly a fair portrayal of his ability in the transfer market.

 

A large section of the fans of Stoke and West Brom may hate him but he had them consistently punching above their weight in the Premier League. Their fans wanted change and more expansive football, and they got themselves relegated seeking that. A lesson that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

 

I'd also make the point  that we've scored more goals per game with him in charge than any of our other recent managers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the resources available to Pulis coming into our poor position after Monk left, I think he done well to turn us around to getting into 5th spot. Our squad wasn't going anywhere until he found a pragmatic system for our team that was severely lacking creativity. 

 

What poor position?  After the win against Bolton on Boxing Day we were in 7th position.  We were ahead of both Aston Villa and Fulham in the table and we were 9 points from 2nd position and 3 points behind 6th.  We ended up finishing behind Fulham and Aston Villa, we were 14 points short of 2nd position and we were 3 points ahead of being outside the play offs.  We moved up two places under him, two fairly valuable places certainly (albeit they weren't in the end) but I'm not sure that your summary there is an accurate reflection of the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulis really isn't anywhere near as bad as some portray him to be. He plays negative football, absolutely, but the way he gets spoken about you'd wonder how on earth he has earned himself as one of the most respected Premier League managers of the past decade. Considering the resources available to Pulis coming into our poor position after Monk left, I think he done well to turn us around to getting into 5th spot. Our squad wasn't going anywhere until he found a pragmatic system for our team that was severely lacking creativity. If I could be bothered I'd have found the Premier League finishing positions of Pulis at Stoke, Crystal Palace and West Brom. That will be far more measure of his success than the list of his 25 most expensive transfers, of which only 12 (if I counted them properly with my quick scan) are named, so it is hardly a fair portrayal of his ability in the transfer market.

 

A large section of the fans of Stoke and West Brom may hate him but he had them consistently punching above their weight in the Premier League. Their fans wanted change and more expansive football, and they got themselves relegated seeking that. A lesson that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

 

I'd also make the point  that we've scored more goals per game with him in charge than any of our other recent managers

Pulis's teams are set up to play defensive football, that's how its always been with him, the Hull Baggie fan summed it up, if your happy with that style of football that's fair enough, I'm not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulis really isn't anywhere near as bad as some portray him to be. He plays negative football, absolutely, but the way he gets spoken about you'd wonder how on earth he has earned himself as one of the most respected Premier League managers of the past decade. Considering the resources available to Pulis coming into our poor position after Monk left, I think he done well to turn us around to getting into 5th spot. Our squad wasn't going anywhere until he found a pragmatic system for our team that was severely lacking creativity. If I could be bothered I'd have found the Premier League finishing positions of Pulis at Stoke, Crystal Palace and West Brom. That will be far more measure of his success than the list of his 25 most expensive transfers, of which only 12 (if I counted them properly with my quick scan) are named, so it is hardly a fair portrayal of his ability in the transfer market.

 

A large section of the fans of Stoke and West Brom may hate him but he had them consistently punching above their weight in the Premier League. Their fans wanted change and more expansive football, and they got themselves relegated seeking that. A lesson that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

 

I'd also make the point  that we've scored more goals per game with him in charge than any of our other recent managers

Pulis's teams are set up to play defensive football, that's how its always been with him, the Hull Baggie fan summed it up, if your happy with that style of football that's fair enough, I'm not.

Even if it brings more goals than Karanka, Mowbray, Strachan, Robson, McClaren etc? Fair enough, if we're scoring goals and winning games I'm happy, but more easily pleased than most it seems!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulis really isn't anywhere near as bad as some portray him to be. He plays negative football, absolutely, but the way he gets spoken about you'd wonder how on earth he has earned himself as one of the most respected Premier League managers of the past decade. Considering the resources available to Pulis coming into our poor position after Monk left, I think he done well to turn us around to getting into 5th spot. Our squad wasn't going anywhere until he found a pragmatic system for our team that was severely lacking creativity. If I could be bothered I'd have found the Premier League finishing positions of Pulis at Stoke, Crystal Palace and West Brom. That will be far more measure of his success than the list of his 25 most expensive transfers, of which only 12 (if I counted them properly with my quick scan) are named, so it is hardly a fair portrayal of his ability in the transfer market.

 

A large section of the fans of Stoke and West Brom may hate him but he had them consistently punching above their weight in the Premier League. Their fans wanted change and more expansive football, and they got themselves relegated seeking that. A lesson that the grass isn't always greener on the other side.

 

I was really only trying to have a look at what to expect in the transfer market, admittedly my feelings toward his management began to come through, but having watched what he's done so far here and looking back into his transfer dealings it's hard not to be pessimistic.

 

Here's the list of his transfer dealings in full, can't imagine there's much that will inspire you on there, the best are probably the ones that I've already mentioned https://www.transfermarkt.com/tony-pulis/spielertransfers/trainer/617

 

I don't really think that he's turned us around as drastically as you've made out, there's been a marginal improvement and his record doesn't really represent a sharp upturn in results. Monks record was P23 W10 D5 L8 PPG 1.52, Pulis P22 W11 D5 L6 PPG 1.73. We were 3 points off the playoffs when Monk was sacked, its not inconceivable that we would have made them and given a better account of ourselves if he had stayed. 

 

 

As for his record elsewhere it's undeniable that he's done a moderately good job at keeping clubs heads' above water, and there will be some who liked his management style (I imagine they watched the games on Ceefax), but he was hounded out of both Stoke and West Brom by the fans. Not only that but the players hated his style too. Some of his Stoke players were threatening to leave the club had he not been sacked, and unused West Brom players were joining in with the Pulis out chants at the Hawthornes. Not to mention him having to apologise to the Stoke squad for head-butting James Beattie in the showers or attempting to defraud Crystal Palace out of £2m (he now owes them just short of £4m, wonder why he upped sticks to the other end of the country without his family?). Lovely bloke eh? Just not someone you want around your football club really, never mind at the top. Again, I've not even started on his playing style, but two shots on target in 180 minutes of football that could put you one game away from the Premier league says it all really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robson's last promotion season we scored more goals per game than under Pulis. Karanka is just as defensive a manager as Pulis so is a fairly pointless comparison. McClaren's entire spell with us was in the Premier League so can't be compared to this season, same goes for most of Robson's time here. Mowbray's squad might not have been terrible but it doesn't compare to what we have now. Strachan doesn't even dignify a response as the football we played under him was utter ***e :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

His style is awful. Plain and simple. And the results were fairly dreadful. Did we even beat anyone above us this season?? As for the goals per game thing, people still moan at Steve McLaren and his style of play (it was at times mind bendingly boring) but when we actually needed goals (Europa league semi finals and final), you know when losing 1-0 and losing 6-0 actually mean the same thing (much like a playoff final) McLaren threw 4 up top. Pulis did bring on a striker.......and took one off at the same time.

 

Each to their own though...if you like his style then fair enough. However I hate it, and have serious worries that a season with him may ultimately end with us following Portsmouth's route into league 1 in the next few years

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have a squad full of superstars who are all very technically gifted then it's going to be difficult to play the attacking style of football some are wanting to see, we simply don't have those players and we certainly don't have the pull to get those sorts of players here, I think people need to remember who we are, we're middlesbrough, not man city, we have to be realistic, we're not overloaded with technical attacking players so why people expect us to play that way is beyond me. We have to adopt a playing style where we can be in with a shout of winning games, and if they is defensive football then that is fine by me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a squad full of superstars to play entertaining football. It seems as soon as attacking or entertaining football gets mentioned some people react by saying, we're not Man City, Barcelona etc. I don't think anyone thinks we are, or thinks that we're going to start playing Guardiola tiki-taka or Cruyff's total football. So we're not overloaded with attacking players at the moment, we signed 13 players this season, what's stopping us from going out and buying attacking, creative flair players who are effective at this level? They are out there, we've just not bought any for a number of years. Cairney at Fulham, Helder Costa and Ivan Cavaleiro at Wolves, James Maddison and Josh Murphy at Norwich were all brought in for significantly less than some of the players we've signed this season.

 

Why does an attacking style not give you a chance a chance of winning games? Surely having an attacking style is just as, if not more effective at winning games than a defensive style? after all, the essence of the game is that you have to score a goal to win a game, not conceding on its own can only draw you a game.

 

We've been down the defensive route, it worked brilliantly for a while under Karanka, but then it imploded spectacularly and we've ended up back at square one. Why not try and go down a different route, try and emulate Bournemouth, Wolves or Fulham. It would breath some life into the club instead of having it gradually squeezed out by a bore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you have a squad full of superstars who are all very technically gifted then it's going to be difficult to play the attacking style of football some are wanting to see, we simply don't have those players and we certainly don't have the pull to get those sorts of players here, I think people need to remember who we are, we're middlesbrough, not man city, we have to be realistic, we're not overloaded with technical attacking players so why people expect us to play that way is beyond me. We have to adopt a playing style where we can be in with a shout of winning games, and if they is defensive football then that is fine by me.

 

 

Can't disagree more. There's a least half a dozen or more teams in this league that play perfectly attractive football with half the budget we have barring Wolves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a squad full of superstars to play entertaining football. It seems as soon as attacking or entertaining football gets mentioned some people react by saying, we're not Man City, Barcelona etc. I don't think anyone thinks we are, or thinks that we're going to start playing Guardiola tiki-taka or Cruyff's total football. So we're not overloaded with attacking players at the moment, we signed 13 players this season, what's stopping us from going out and buying attacking, creative flair players who are effective at this level? They are out there, we've just not bought any for a number of years. Cairney at Fulham, Helder Costa and Ivan Cavaleiro at Wolves, James Maddison and Josh Murphy at Norwich were all brought in for significantly less than some of the players we've signed this season.

 

Why does an attacking style not give you a chance a chance of winning games? Surely having an attacking style is just as, if not more effective at winning games than a defensive style? after all, the essence of the game is that you have to score a goal to win a game, not conceding on its own can only draw you a game.

 

We've been down the defensive route, it worked brilliantly for a while under Karanka, but then it imploded spectacularly and we've ended up back at square one. Why not try and go down a different route, try and emulate Bournemouth, Wolves or Fulham. It would breath some life into the club instead of having it gradually squeezed out by a bore.

we tried with Monk..... lasted untill xmas, then we went back to defensive

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a squad full of superstars to play entertaining football. It seems as soon as attacking or entertaining football gets mentioned some people react by saying, we're not Man City, Barcelona etc. I don't think anyone thinks we are, or thinks that we're going to start playing Guardiola tiki-taka or Cruyff's total football. So we're not overloaded with attacking players at the moment, we signed 13 players this season, what's stopping us from going out and buying attacking, creative flair players who are effective at this level? They are out there, we've just not bought any for a number of years. Cairney at Fulham, Helder Costa and Ivan Cavaleiro at Wolves, James Maddison and Josh Murphy at Norwich were all brought in for significantly less than some of the players we've signed this season.

 

Why does an attacking style not give you a chance a chance of winning games? Surely having an attacking style is just as, if not more effective at winning games than a defensive style? after all, the essence of the game is that you have to score a goal to win a game, not conceding on its own can only draw you a game.

 

We've been down the defensive route, it worked brilliantly for a while under Karanka, but then it imploded spectacularly and we've ended up back at square one. Why not try and go down a different route, try and emulate Bournemouth, Wolves or Fulham. It would breath some life into the club instead of having it gradually squeezed out by a bore.

we tried with Monk..... lasted untill xmas, then we went back to defensive

 

He might have bought 4 strikers or whatever, but I watched it, it wasn't attacking football. I remember looking at the time, Monk's side was behind Karanka's on attacking stats from both the 14/15 and 15/16 seasons. I also saw Borostats say on twitter today that Monk actually played more long balls per game than Pulis has, including 100 in his game against Barnsley. It was a defensive style, I don't know why anyone expected anything different, he hadn't played an attacking style at Leeds and the Swansea fans hated his style there too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Latest Posts

    • @Blanco that tbf if a good question.   Maybe back up is the wrong term. Maybe the correct term is one of them 3 along with someone who can be interchanged. I just dont feel them 3 as your main striker are gonna have you pushing you promotion.   But them plus another sharing the burden could work because as you said, there probably is not a target man who can get you the 15 goals plus alone you need. So might need to rely on two strikers who can both hit double figures. I know Diedhiou not everyones cuppa of tea but bar this season he got double figures in each of his season at Bristol. If he wants to be sensible with his wages of course If he and say collins came, both on a free, I would be confident both with the right service could get between 10-13 goals each. 
    • If you ignore everything in terms of the debt and selling the stadium to themselves etc. Thinking of infrastructure they've got a good training ground complex, which has planning permission for improvements/expansion. Plus their stadium is almost a like for like of ours. Both of which are also slightly newer than ours.  They have a good academy set-up which has and does still produce players of a good level. I think last season they gave more minutes to academy players than any other club in the Championship.  Then first team I suppose they are like every other championship club, got a few good players and a lot of ok players. Their wage bill is too high (looking at the 2018 accounts) for what they earn. They definitely have room for growth and improvement. But as you say there isn't really much difference between them and a lot of other championship clubs (ignoring all the other stuff). I'd say their academy is probably better than most and they've got a good infrastructure, with an underwhelming first team picture (in terms of performance and players).  But I suppose as an investor you'd be looking at the potential payout of reaching the PL, which may tempt you into taking a loss on them for a 3 year spell or so. But considering all the other stuff, I think your investors with that way of thinking are being put off, due to the initial potential outlay, which will massively impact your payouts.
    • What standard of target man are you expecting @TLF10 if you think that they would only be back up?
    • I know we need 2-3 strikers this summer but I'd like to see us looking at our first choice strikers right now and, in fact, I'm quite worried that we already are. Those names, Collins, Smith, Wyke, none of them sound to me like they'll make such a significant impact on this team that we will be battling at the very top end of the division. These are all strikers entering or are in their prime age and as far as I can tell, no other team with those kind of ambitions next season are looking at these guys and thinking they're ready for that. I could be wrong about them, if they sign I'll 100% give them the chance to prove me wrong as I would any player. But hesitant isn't a strong enough word to explain how I feel about giving them a 2-3 year deal here. I wouldn't expect them to hit the ground running or fire us to promotion and though it's still very early days in the window, I would not be at all shocked to see either of them being given the #9 shirt and be Warnock's main man going into next season.
    • Sorry! Back on topic. I think hob nobs are a gift from God himself.

×
×
  • Create New...