14-12-2015, 22:32
I'm open to logical debate about Pulis (and football in general) so I'll try to answer these questions with balance.
1. Arrogant in your place know it all.
I disagree with this and find Pulis actually quite likable. I think he's very honest in his interviews and happy to critisise his own players when they've done wrong (McManaman dive earlier in the season) while simultaneously protecting them where required. He does a lot of work for charity and if you Youtube the hoax call to Pulis (By Neil Lennon impersonator) you'll see what a decent bloke he is.
2. Hates any defender under 6ft.
Does he though? I seem to remember Andy Griffin being his full back at Stoke for a long time and he was 5 foot nothing. Wilkinson who came after him at Stoke wasn't too tall either. He tried to sign both Neil Taylor and Martin Olsson for us last season, neither of which are the biggest.
From what I can see, he likes defenders who can defend and for us, our best defenders happen to be the big blokes. That said, I think Dawson actually looks better at right back than he ever did at centre half. Gamboa never convinced me on the rare occasions he did play while Pocognoli looked okay, but reckless. Maybe he's actually using the best we've got rather than just tall blokes?
3. Refuses to play attacking full backs unless he`s got no other choice.
I'd agree that he picks players who defend and follow orders first and foremost. However, Brunty is traditionally a midfield player, so I'm not sure how playing him at full back can be deemed negative?
4. Waste`s money like its going of fashion.
I'd agree with this at Stoke and with us so far. But I think TP also knows the strength of a good squad in this league. So while we're not really big enough to be spending £8m on squad players (Chester) at least we do have quality in reserve for us.
5. Refuses to play attacking wingers unless they track back.
TP Definitely likes blokes who track back and demands that first and foremost from all his players. Do I personally agree with this style? No, but it's a common trend with Premier League managers. Tony is hardly an anomaly.
6. Rarely plays for a win away from home.
TP tries to win at home and draw away, that's for sure. Looking at the results though, our away style seems to have worked so far.
7. Isnt brave enough with team selections which is why he`ll never get a team in the top 10.
'Never get a team in the top 10' is a bold statement given the teams he has managed. He inherited a Stoke team who were at the bottom of the Championship and took them to 11th in the Premier League. He finished just south of mid table with both Palace and us, he inherited both sides deep in the doldrums. There's no doubt he failed to kick on when given money with Stoke, but do I think he'd finish in the top 10 if he inherited a decent side? Quite possibly.
8. Hates natural goal scorers and tends to prefer big tall cart horses who work aard.
Pulis clearly likes a target man, but he's signed some handy strikers too. I'd hardly call Ricardo Fuller or Tuncay cart horses. I saw a fair share of Rondon at Malaga and while he's big, he can play a bit. He's looked like he's settling in last few games and given time, I think he'll prove to be a good buy.
9. Very rarely can he take an average player and turn him into something even better.
This is something I'd strongly disagree with. I'd say getting the best out of average players is one of his strengths which he's proven by inheriting poor teams and steering them away from relegation.
10. Pulis will always keep teams in the Premier League but for just how long will fans put up with the negative style?
crowds are already starting to dwindle which is worrying.
Personally, I think Pulis is getting singled out for his 'negative' style because of his Stoke days. At home, we're far more entertaining now than we were under Irvine; while Di Matteo or Hodgson were hardly expansive. I said it before but the Newcastle and Everton games at home last season under Irvine were the most spineless home performances I've ever seen from us. At least under Pulis at home we always show some pride at home, even when we lose.
Overall, Pulis' style of play could be better - but are you looking at this through rose tinted glasses? Do you really think the squad he inherited that just above stayed up by default under Clarke and Mel were that good?
Pulis has wasted some money, but we look much more of a 'Premiership' side under him than the Previous managers. At least we give every side a game now, home and away. With a few more energetic players, we could actually pose more of a threat on the break.
1. Arrogant in your place know it all.
I disagree with this and find Pulis actually quite likable. I think he's very honest in his interviews and happy to critisise his own players when they've done wrong (McManaman dive earlier in the season) while simultaneously protecting them where required. He does a lot of work for charity and if you Youtube the hoax call to Pulis (By Neil Lennon impersonator) you'll see what a decent bloke he is.
2. Hates any defender under 6ft.
Does he though? I seem to remember Andy Griffin being his full back at Stoke for a long time and he was 5 foot nothing. Wilkinson who came after him at Stoke wasn't too tall either. He tried to sign both Neil Taylor and Martin Olsson for us last season, neither of which are the biggest.
From what I can see, he likes defenders who can defend and for us, our best defenders happen to be the big blokes. That said, I think Dawson actually looks better at right back than he ever did at centre half. Gamboa never convinced me on the rare occasions he did play while Pocognoli looked okay, but reckless. Maybe he's actually using the best we've got rather than just tall blokes?
3. Refuses to play attacking full backs unless he`s got no other choice.
I'd agree that he picks players who defend and follow orders first and foremost. However, Brunty is traditionally a midfield player, so I'm not sure how playing him at full back can be deemed negative?
4. Waste`s money like its going of fashion.
I'd agree with this at Stoke and with us so far. But I think TP also knows the strength of a good squad in this league. So while we're not really big enough to be spending £8m on squad players (Chester) at least we do have quality in reserve for us.
5. Refuses to play attacking wingers unless they track back.
TP Definitely likes blokes who track back and demands that first and foremost from all his players. Do I personally agree with this style? No, but it's a common trend with Premier League managers. Tony is hardly an anomaly.
6. Rarely plays for a win away from home.
TP tries to win at home and draw away, that's for sure. Looking at the results though, our away style seems to have worked so far.
7. Isnt brave enough with team selections which is why he`ll never get a team in the top 10.
'Never get a team in the top 10' is a bold statement given the teams he has managed. He inherited a Stoke team who were at the bottom of the Championship and took them to 11th in the Premier League. He finished just south of mid table with both Palace and us, he inherited both sides deep in the doldrums. There's no doubt he failed to kick on when given money with Stoke, but do I think he'd finish in the top 10 if he inherited a decent side? Quite possibly.
8. Hates natural goal scorers and tends to prefer big tall cart horses who work aard.
Pulis clearly likes a target man, but he's signed some handy strikers too. I'd hardly call Ricardo Fuller or Tuncay cart horses. I saw a fair share of Rondon at Malaga and while he's big, he can play a bit. He's looked like he's settling in last few games and given time, I think he'll prove to be a good buy.
9. Very rarely can he take an average player and turn him into something even better.
This is something I'd strongly disagree with. I'd say getting the best out of average players is one of his strengths which he's proven by inheriting poor teams and steering them away from relegation.
10. Pulis will always keep teams in the Premier League but for just how long will fans put up with the negative style?
crowds are already starting to dwindle which is worrying.
Personally, I think Pulis is getting singled out for his 'negative' style because of his Stoke days. At home, we're far more entertaining now than we were under Irvine; while Di Matteo or Hodgson were hardly expansive. I said it before but the Newcastle and Everton games at home last season under Irvine were the most spineless home performances I've ever seen from us. At least under Pulis at home we always show some pride at home, even when we lose.
Overall, Pulis' style of play could be better - but are you looking at this through rose tinted glasses? Do you really think the squad he inherited that just above stayed up by default under Clarke and Mel were that good?
Pulis has wasted some money, but we look much more of a 'Premiership' side under him than the Previous managers. At least we give every side a game now, home and away. With a few more energetic players, we could actually pose more of a threat on the break.