[Zinman]

Can't understand the hate for TP on this thread, infact its a joke. He has all but guaranteed survival in less than 3 months after we looked doomed to relegation under clueless Irvine, also I don't get where this idea of him signing centre backs in every position and only signing giants comes from - McManaman is 5'9" and Fletcher is 6'0". Yes the away performances have been pretty boring but at home we have been excellent.

Would people rather we had Irvine back, got relegated and spent years in the championship missing out on the TV money and the chance to grow our club? Because that is what would have happened.

What "hate"? From my own perspective Pulis has been effective and played some good football -at home. Away, we've been dreadfully negative and yes, he has a habit of playing central defenders as full backs and surely even his most fervent supporters can see that Lescott is not effective at full back. My complaint is that why he can't see that our form and results have been excellent at home, so why not try to replicate it away where our results adopting his approach have been poor? I now understand why my Stoke supporting colleagues at work liked him so much and I didn't - simply they watched Stoke at home while I just endured his away performances

[Foxman_WBA]

Here’s the team I think will play;

Boaz
Daws – Gmac – Lescott – Baird
Fletch-Gardner
Sess – Mozza
Bera-Bobby

Im going for 2-0 City with this one. After last week can see them having something to prove with this one.

[drewks]

Can't understand the hate for TP on this thread, infact its a joke. He has all but guaranteed survival in less than 3 months after we looked doomed to relegation under clueless Irvine, also I don't get where this idea of him signing centre backs in every position and only signing giants comes from - McManaman is 5'9" and Fletcher is 6'0". Yes the away performances have been pretty boring but at home we have been excellent.

Would people rather we had Irvine back, got relegated and spent years in the championship missing out on the TV money and the chance to grow our club? Because that is what would have happened.

What "hate"? From my own perspective Pulis has been effective and played some good football -at home. Away, we've been dreadfully negative and yes, he has a habit of playing central defenders as full backs and surely even his most fervent supporters can see that Lescott is not effective at full back. My complaint is that why he can't see that our form and results have been excellent at home, so why not try to replicate it away where our results adopting his approach have been poor? I now understand why my Stoke supporting colleagues at work liked him so much and I didn't - simply they watched Stoke at home while I just endured his away performances

Good post Zinman 
I agree with your sentiments 1996 but also agree that the word 'hate' is a bit strong. The simple fact is that TP has turned us round very quickly from nose diving into the Championship to very likely surviving with a little to spare (God willing).
Of that I'm sure we're all very grateful, but that doesn't make TP immune from any criticism.....actually even THAT word is a bit strong IMO. 'Questioning some selections' is maybe nearer the mark - which we are surely entitled to do (particularly when he plays our best CB at LB where his lack of pace is obviously going to be targetted).

Also, the fact that AI was SOOOO out of his depth means that any comparison with TP must be done very carefully - you could say that AI had the players but didn't/couldn't use them at all effectively; the fact that TP is generally doing this doesn't disguise the fact that he IS still apparently putting square pegs in round holes.

I'm a huge TP fan, by the way, but can still see why some are questioning his selections!

[wba_1996]

Can't understand the hate for TP on this thread, infact its a joke. He has all but guaranteed survival in less than 3 months after we looked doomed to relegation under clueless Irvine, also I don't get where this idea of him signing centre backs in every position and only signing giants comes from - McManaman is 5'9" and Fletcher is 6'0". Yes the away performances have been pretty boring but at home we have been excellent.

Would people rather we had Irvine back, got relegated and spent years in the championship missing out on the TV money and the chance to grow our club? Because that is what would have happened.

What "hate"? From my own perspective Pulis has been effective and played some good football -at home. Away, we've been dreadfully negative and yes, he has a habit of playing central defenders as full backs and surely even his most fervent supporters can see that Lescott is not effective at full back. My complaint is that why he can't see that our form and results have been excellent at home, so why not try to replicate it away where our results adopting his approach have been poor? I now understand why my Stoke supporting colleagues at work liked him so much and I didn't - simply they watched Stoke at home while I just endured his away performances

Sorry, Zinman. Its just your first post and certainly BaggieMan's seemed overly negative to me. I agree 100% with your post above though, and I'm not Pulis' greatest fan or anything I just don't see how people can be so displeased after what we endured in the 18 months prior to him coming in.

---

Can't understand the hate for TP on this thread, infact its a joke. He has all but guaranteed survival in less than 3 months after we looked doomed to relegation under clueless Irvine, also I don't get where this idea of him signing centre backs in every position and only signing giants comes from - McManaman is 5'9" and Fletcher is 6'0". Yes the away performances have been pretty boring but at home we have been excellent.

Would people rather we had Irvine back, got relegated and spent years in the championship missing out on the TV money and the chance to grow our club? Because that is what would have happened.

What "hate"? From my own perspective Pulis has been effective and played some good football -at home. Away, we've been dreadfully negative and yes, he has a habit of playing central defenders as full backs and surely even his most fervent supporters can see that Lescott is not effective at full back. My complaint is that why he can't see that our form and results have been excellent at home, so why not try to replicate it away where our results adopting his approach have been poor? I now understand why my Stoke supporting colleagues at work liked him so much and I didn't - simply they watched Stoke at home while I just endured his away performances

I agree with your sentiments 1996 but also agree that the word 'hate' is a bit strong. The simple fact is that TP has turned us round very quickly from nose diving into the Championship to very likely surviving with a little to spare (God willing).
Of that I'm sure we're all very grateful, but that doesn't make TP immune from any criticism.....actually even THAT word is a bit strong IMO. 'Questioning some selections' is maybe nearer the mark - which we are surely entitled to do (particularly when he plays our best CB at LB where his lack of pace is obviously going to be targetted).

Yeah 'hate' probably wasn't the best choice of word but it was the first that came to mind. Some of these quotes are a bit more than 'Questioning some selections' though wouldn't you agree:

"We may dream of a team of Tony Browns but TP dreams of a team of centre halves and Saturday gives him a chance to move closer to his dream."

"In summer we will see an influx of 6ft 6in skinhead thugs in the same mould as Ryan Shawcross and Charlie Adam.  Zzzzzzzzz...."

[Zinman]

My comment about "a team of centre halves" was said as a joking reference to the "team of Tony Browns" sung at the Hawthorns. Having said that we will probably have 4 centre halves on the pitch on Saturday (and unlike in our previous away matches, against Man City I will not complain about us parking the bus) and who knows what on the bench. It says a lot when last week we had a complete bench of defenders or defensive midfielders and brought on a centre half to play up front.
This shouldn't be a surprise. I'm surrounded by Stokies at work and their only real criticisms of Pulis were his preference for playing central defenders at full back and his reluctance to give younger players a chance - we 're already seeing both traits.

[Slick_Footwork]

What would people prefer to see, 4 centre halfs and us keeping clean sheets or 2
centre halfs with 2 bog standard full backs, conceeding more goals, more likely
to conceed off a corner and less likely to score from one of our own?

Granted, I think we'll lose this week regardless of who he picks at the back, but
I can't understand why people moan about more than 2 centre halfs playing.

One of those centre backs, Dawson, has actually done better at right back than
he ever did at centre half IMO. We could drop him simply because he's a big lad
who's been a centre half in the past or we could persist with him, a formula that
has enabled us to keep more clean sheets in this league than we've had before in
my lifetime. Not only that, but he's come up with some good assists both in the
air and from open play and is probably our best crosser of the ball.

I do think Lescott is a wasted at left back, but TP has only played him there a couple
of times IMO against sides he's identified as weak in the air for extra firepower.

We may see it again this week because Brunt is out, because the others aren't really
that good. Pocognoli is fast but has no composure, particularly tackling in his own box,
while Baird is very limited going forward. I suspect we might see Baird this week
as we'll probably be defending our 18 yard box. But he could use Lescott again, especially
as City aren't great in the air and set plays could be our best chance of scoring.

While I agree we can be a bit boring away from home, at least logic can be made
with Pulis' selections, unlike some of the other numpties we've had in charge recently.

[BC Baggie]

Can't understand the hate for TP on this thread, infact its a joke. He has all but guaranteed survival in less than 3 months after we looked doomed to relegation under clueless Irvine, also I don't get where this idea of him signing centre backs in every position and only signing giants comes from - McManaman is 5'9" and Fletcher is 6'0". Yes the away performances have been pretty boring but at home we have been excellent.

Would people rather we had Irvine back, got relegated and spent years in the championship missing out on the TV money and the chance to grow our club? Because that is what would have happened.

Absolutely spot on mate, completely agree.

[Zinman]

So how many clean sheets have we kept with Lescott at left back? How many goals have we scored with Lescott at left back? And I'm not knocking out best central defender.

[Squirrel Regis]

If TP wants to dress as a chicken and do a big poo pre match on the centre spot then for keeping us up when we were nose diving towards relegation then crack on Tony.

[Slick_Footwork]

So how many clean sheets have we kept with Lescott at left back? How many goals have we scored with Lescott at left back? And I'm not knocking out best central defender.

TP can only work what we've got...

Lescott isn't TP's first choice left back, he's only played there a couple of times. I'm sure if
we had someone TP rated, he wouldn't use him there.

We were strongly linked with Taylor from Swansea and Olsson from Norwich in January, both
natural left backs and neither giants. Unfortunately we didn't get either of them and were
left with left backs Pulis obviously doesn't rate.

Brunt has been used there, but with his suspension, Lescott may be used again, who knows...

I don't agree with Lescott playing left back either, but the point is, Pulis hasn't purchased a
centre half to play at left back, he's working with players who are already at the club. If he
buys a couple of left backs and then still plays Lescott there, then we can be critical. But right
now, there's little to be critical about.