(22-05-2017, 15:44)Slick_Footwork Wrote: I think the fact we are disliked by neutrals is a myth.

I work around the country and most fans of other sides say they've seen us 'play some decent stuff' and are shocked when they hear our fans calling for Pulis' head on talksport.

I also think it's a myth that our football is the worst in the league. While I agree, it is very negative, is it really any worse than any of these?

Middlesborough
Sunderland
Burnley
Watford
West Ham
Palace
Stoke

I don't think so...

IMO Stoke haven't come on at all since Pulis left - despite Hughes spending millions on creative players like Shaquiri, Bojan et al. IMO they're just as boring as ever.

I detest watching all of the sides of TV...

Southampton play a lot of tippy tappy possession, but they've even scored less than us this season!

The fact is, negative football is a 'norm' in the modern game. Especially in England.

Playing backs to the wall stuff is pretty much the norm for anyone outside of the top 6. In fact, I've seen Mourinho dish up our style numerous times over the past 10 years even with the best clubs! Did anyone watch Man Utd play City a couple of weeks ago? Mourinho set up for a 0-0 - managing a side with the most expensive player in the world!

Let's not even get into him 'parking the bus' against Liverpool a couple of years back...

Get used to it. If Pulis goes, we'll play negative stuff again... Even if we hire a foreign coach, young Brit or whoever else...

Why? Because the Premier League is money driven and negative.

Marco Silva is the exception to the norm with sides at the bottom, he tried to play possession based stuff, but his Hull side just lost 7-1 to Spurs at home... Hell, that result could cost him his next job. Is it any wonder managers are 'scared' to play expansive in this league?

Since Mowbray, Pepe Mel is the only manager who has tried to play football IMO.

Mel tried to play high pressure stuff and the players revolted. They preferred us sitting back like we did under Uncle Roy...

Di Matteo was negative as they come and got promoted by default with Mowbray's team. Irvine's football was absolutely dyer even in comparison to Pulis' - but his self proclamation that he was a 'football purist' seemed to make him immune of criticism for the dyer football.

Hodgson and Clarke were similar to Pulis, but had better personnel in Odem and Lukaku. Rondon is a willing runner, but doesn't have anywhere near the ability to create something out of nothing that these guys had. We're often impotent on the break because Rondon either can't trap a ball or pass it to someone in the same colour shirt...

Pulis gets more stick from West Brom and Stoke fans because of the stigma, but I don't think other clubs fans dislike us.

I personally dislike Pulis' style of play and wish some of our players could actually pass the ball!

But this is the nature of English football. With the exception of the top 5 or 6, nobody plays against decent. There's a plethora of foreign managers serving up the same negative dross too!

Until there's less money involved, we're not going to see good football in England regardless who manages. Managers set up their team with a 'rather not lose' attitude because of fear. The Tony Mowbray style is the exception to the norm and look where that got us... The plus side of Pulis is, at least we'll be watching the best players next season rather than Millwall, Burton Albion et al - like the Sunderland and Boro fans will - despite playing terrible football too.

(22-05-2017, 17:51)drewks Wrote: The one I'd not agree with is regarding RDM - I never thought of his teams as negative......is that just me?!