Stoke's Football

D D

Damocles

Administrator
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
41,818
I've found the attitude towards Stoke on this forum a little irritating since we first started playing them recently.

I think it probably goes hand in hand with the lack of patience, as it exhibits the same level of thoughtlessness that we seem to put down to 'new fans', 'young fans' or whatever, but in reality has been part of our core for many years.

It find it a little distasteful how we are talking about Stoke and their style of football like it is beneath us, and I've heard them called everything from a disgrace, to horrible, to calls of them being kicked out of the Premiership.

It is yet another example of a small minority of our fans completely detaching themselves from the roots and history of our fine club. Some of these 'fans' have actually being around for a while, so where this comes from I don't know. I am thinking that many of them grew up secretly wanting to be United fans due to their huge successes, but were City fans through family connections or locality. Now, they have the best of all worlds, they can thump their chest about Division Two, can glory hunt and demand trophies with masses of impatience, and keep the family/friends sweet while they are doing it. Just a theory.

10 (ish) years ago, we were actually a much worse side than the current Stoke one and our only goal threat came in the form of scrappy taps ins from the Goat or Wanchope. Horlock, Tiatto, Barton, Howey, Foe, later guys like Thatcher and even now with Bellamy and De Jong, we've always had a thug element about us. We ensured our survival from relegation and our promotion to the Premiership by kicking people off of the pitch and playing long ball, defensive football.
I'm not saying we played this right up until the Sheik came in, but probably right up until Pearce was around.

My point is, I find this attitude of how everybody is below us a disgrace, it's the exact reason why I dislike the rags so much. Stoke are a good, solid team and deserve our respect, not this arrogance that we seem to throw out as of late. Pulis has made the Britannia a near fortress, and they are on of the most difficult teams in the league to beat. The calls to "throw them out of the Prem" for their style of football were strangely absent when we were using the exact same tactics. The only difference is that they have somebody who is a credible goal threat, where we relied on tap ins, mistakes and long balls until Anelka came along.
 
Damocles said:
I've found the attitude towards Stoke on this forum a little irritating since we first started playing them recently.

I think it probably goes hand in hand with the lack of patience, as it exhibits the same level of thoughtlessness that we seem to put down to 'new fans', 'young fans' or whatever, but in reality has been part of our core for many years.

It find it a little distasteful how we are talking about Stoke and their style of football like it is beneath us, and I've heard them called everything from a disgrace, to horrible, to calls of them being kicked out of the Premiership.

It is yet another example of a small minority of our fans completely detaching themselves from the roots and history of our fine club. Some of these 'fans' have actually being around for a while, so where this comes from I don't know. I am thinking that many of them grew up secretly wanting to be United fans due to their huge successes, but were City fans through family connections or locality. Now, they have the best of all worlds, they can thump their chest about Division Two, can glory hunt and demand trophies with masses of impatience, and keep the family/friends sweet while they are doing it. Just a theory.

10 (ish) years ago, we were actually a much worse side than the current Stoke one and our only goal threat came in the form of scrappy taps ins from the Goat or Wanchope. Horlock, Tiatto, Barton, Howey, Foe, later guys like Thatcher and even now with Bellamy and De Jong, we've always had a thug element about us. We ensured our survival from relegation and our promotion to the Premiership by kicking people off of the pitch and playing long ball, defensive football.
I'm not saying we played this right up until the Sheik came in, but probably right up until Pearce was around.

My point is, I find this attitude of how everybody is below us a disgrace, it's the exact reason why I dislike the rags so much. Stoke are a good, solid team and deserve our respect, not this arrogance that we seem to throw out as of late. Pulis has made the Britannia a near fortress, and they are on of the most difficult teams in the league to beat. The calls to "throw them out of the Prem" for their style of football were strangely absent when we were using the exact same tactics. The only difference is that they have somebody who is a credible goal threat, where we relied on tap ins, mistakes and long balls until Anelka came along.
Click to expand...

If I want to watch someone punt the ball 60 yards up the park I can go to Hough End on a Sunday morning. It's not £40 quid a match entertainment.
 
Damocles said:
I'm not saying we played this right up until the Sheik came in, but probably right up until Pearce was around.
Click to expand...

Bit harsh on Keegan's division one side mate, probably the best City side I have watched since the early 70's, I'd love Mancini to produce that with these players.

In some ways I agree about Stoke, they're just doing what needs to be done mostly. They played well tonight for me, but ironically the bad injury affected them more than Arsenal, to the point where they virtually stopped tackling. Arsenal were cleary galvanised by it, and went on to win convincingly, even though they only took the lead in the 90th minute.

I wish our fans would dump the obsession with Stoke, they mean f**k all to us, their rivals are Port Vale and Crewe Alex, leave them to it.....
 
bellwhaft said:
1967. And we were never as obvious as they are.
Click to expand...

Obvious? So we can be dirty, boring bastards as long as we aren't obvious about it?

With the exception of today, our football in the last four/five games has been boring as hell, so we certainly haven't got that one over them.

Dirtyness wise, I can think of many a game where we kicked them off of the park, and if you can't, I challenge that you've seen 40 minutes of City's football, let alone 40 years.
 
there isnt a word in the dictionary that could describe my utter contempt for those Stoke bastards , on my way back from Chelsea and just passing through that shit hole by the name of Stoke on trent , Shawcross I hope you have many a sleepless night you dirty Twat .
 
They are very good at the particular style of football that they choose to play. It's not pretty and its not overly entertaining but it has proved to be pretty effective for them. They definitely aren't a team that I'd choose to watch. But fair play to them, they're doing what they need to in order to stay up (which they should easily do now), West Brom took a very different approach and look where that got them.

stoopid comment removed
 
Damocles said:
bellwhaft said:
1967. And we were never as obvious as they are.
Click to expand...

Obvious? So we can be dirty, boring bastards as long as we aren't obvious about it?

With the exception of today, our football in the last four/five games has been boring as hell, so we certainly haven't got that one over them.

Dirtyness wise, I can think of many a game where we kicked them off of the park, and if you can't, I challenge that you've seen 40 minutes of City's football, let alone 40 years.
Click to expand...

OK you are obviously an all-knowing being City-wise. Seeing Johnny Crossan run out as captain as a 7 year old in 1966-67 and seeing most everything in between must be a dillusion on my part.
 
Damocles said:
I've found the attitude towards Stoke on this forum a little irritating since we first started playing them recently.

I think it probably goes hand in hand with the lack of patience, as it exhibits the same level of thoughtlessness that we seem to put down to 'new fans', 'young fans' or whatever, but in reality has been part of our core for many years.

It find it a little distasteful how we are talking about Stoke and their style of football like it is beneath us, and I've heard them called everything from a disgrace, to horrible, to calls of them being kicked out of the Premiership.

It is yet another example of a small minority of our fans completely detaching themselves from the roots and history of our fine club. Some of these 'fans' have actually being around for a while, so where this comes from I don't know. I am thinking that many of them grew up secretly wanting to be United fans due to their huge successes, but were City fans through family connections or locality. Now, they have the best of all worlds, they can thump their chest about Division Two, can glory hunt and demand trophies with masses of impatience, and keep the family/friends sweet while they are doing it. Just a theory.

10 (ish) years ago, we were actually a much worse side than the current Stoke one and our only goal threat came in the form of scrappy taps ins from the Goat or Wanchope. Horlock, Tiatto, Barton, Howey, Foe, later guys like Thatcher and even now with Bellamy and De Jong, we've always had a thug element about us. We ensured our survival from relegation and our promotion to the Premiership by kicking people off of the pitch and playing long ball, defensive football.
I'm not saying we played this right up until the Sheik came in, but probably right up until Pearce was around.

My point is, I find this attitude of how everybody is below us a disgrace, it's the exact reason why I dislike the rags so much. Stoke are a good, solid team and deserve our respect, not this arrogance that we seem to throw out as of late. Pulis has made the Britannia a near fortress, and they are on of the most difficult teams in the league to beat. The calls to "throw them out of the Prem" for their style of football were strangely absent when we were using the exact same tactics. The only difference is that they have somebody who is a credible goal threat, where we relied on tap ins, mistakes and long balls until Anelka came along.
Click to expand...


Agree with you 100%. I've respected Stoke from the moment they got back up beacause they knew they only had one real chance to stay up with the players they had. Even then it would be very difficult. But they did it, and whether or not I like Tony Pulis or not(really really don't) he has as you say made it a fortress up there. Just survival in the premiership nowadays is a difficult thing, and they've managed to quickly take themselves solidly out of that conversation with their "style".
It isn't pretty, but it seems to be effective. It won't win the league, but it will keep you up and competitive. We were just unfortunate in that they were the exact sort of side that's real trouble for us.
 
Let's be generous: the name of the game, if you can't win the league is to try and bloody well stay in it. Stoke are just like a good few teams whose simple ambition is to get to the other side of 40pts as quickly as possible, and possibly to do something in the cup competitons. Just like we have in the past.

They have found a rather effective way of doing it. If they played in sky blue shirts at CoMS with this kind of football, week in and week out, I would watching it, and I would be rather satisfied that when I renewed my season ticket, I would be watching EPL footy for another season.

But let's be quite clear, it might be effective but as a definition of football it comes way down the pecking order.

Football should be played on the ground. Why has so much been invested in playing surfaces, and why did Hull make no effort to flatten theirs after the rugby match?

I will watch the Stoke version if I have to, but give me a passing game played on the ground.
 
bellwhaft said:
Damocles said:
Obvious? So we can be dirty, boring bastards as long as we aren't obvious about it?

With the exception of today, our football in the last four/five games has been boring as hell, so we certainly haven't got that one over them.

Dirtyness wise, I can think of many a game where we kicked them off of the park, and if you can't, I challenge that you've seen 40 minutes of City's football, let alone 40 years.
Click to expand...

OK you are obviously an all-knowing being City-wise. Seeing Johnny Crossan run out as captain as a 7 year old in 1966-67 and seeing most everything in between must be a dillusion on my part.
Click to expand...

Nice reading ability, let's try this one again.

IF you think we've never kicked anybody off the park, I'd challenge whether you've seen 40 mins of City football, let alone 40 years.
 
I have nothing but respect for Pulis and Stoke City.
They have had to survive in a league where money means success. (i'm not complaining about this, just stating facts)
They have found a way to play and nick points where they have no right to and are now more than likely safe from relegation.
From this they can build as a team and push for better and better finishes in the prem.
To say that their way of playing is a disgrace because they make themselves hard to beat is ludicrous. If a team wants to be the 'best of the best' they will have to beat teams like Stoke as well as teams like Arsenal. The ability to overcome these different styles is what turns any good team into a brilliant team, and what makes the premiership the best league in the world.
So what if Stoke play shit football, there are another 18 teams to play them as well as us, all of which will have to play against the same style. So the playing field is level for everyone. Why complain?
Good Thread OP
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
Let's be generous: the name of the game, if you can't win the league is to try and bloody well stay in it. Stoke are just like a good few teams whose simple ambition is to get to the other side of 40pts as quickly as possible, and possibly to do something in the cup competitons. Just like we have in the past.

They have found a rather effective way of doing it. If they played in sky blue shirts at CoMS with this kind of football, week in and week out, I would watching it, and I would be rather satisfied that when I renewed my season ticket, I would be watching EPL footy for another season.

But let's be quite clear, it might be effective but as a definition of football it comes way down the pecking order.

Football should be played on the ground. Why has so much been invested in playing surfaces, and why did Hull make no effort to flatten theirs after the rugby match?

I will watch the Stoke version if I have to, but give me a passing game played on the ground.
Click to expand...

Nice little history trivia here. It took the English a while to actually catch on to the passing style of football. In the 19th century, the aim of the game was to kick it as long as you could, then run on to it while getting fouled from everyone. It was a sign of manliness, holding on to the ball for a long time while under pressure.
The South Americans and the Spanish however, developed a new style of football, were passing was the name of the game. They would actually try to pass things in to the net, and crossing a ball, or doing a solo run was seen as a lack of technique. Hooving the ball would generate boos from the other players and the crowd. The modern game was actually developed through a combination of these two style being mixed together in a melting pot of footy.

This could be why we have the stereotype that all Latin people can pass, whilst all English players are determined and put in loads of effort.
 
when we were in the old div 3 with them, we gave all this out its not a new thing like we sang in 99 stoke your a fucking joke
when you see a stoke fan kick a old woman because she happens to have a blue scarf on,
when you see posts from them asking other fans to slap any blues that stand up at there ground.
when you have to travel back to manchester with your windows smashed thanks to the pricks still stuck in the 70s
i could go on and on, and we have never had a throw in as the highlight of our game
 
Damocles said:
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
Let's be generous: the name of the game, if you can't win the league is to try and bloody well stay in it. Stoke are just like a good few teams whose simple ambition is to get to the other side of 40pts as quickly as possible, and possibly to do something in the cup competitons. Just like we have in the past.

They have found a rather effective way of doing it. If they played in sky blue shirts at CoMS with this kind of football, week in and week out, I would watching it, and I would be rather satisfied that when I renewed my season ticket, I would be watching EPL footy for another season.

But let's be quite clear, it might be effective but as a definition of football it comes way down the pecking order.

Football should be played on the ground. Why has so much been invested in playing surfaces, and why did Hull make no effort to flatten theirs after the rugby match?


christ, what was all that about? sounds like you're the stereotype to me! Don't know how long it is but I bet it's brown.

I will watch the Stoke version if I have to, but give me a passing game played on the ground.
Click to expand...

Nice little history trivia here. It took the English a while to actually catch on to the passing style of football. In the 19th century, the aim of the game was to kick it as long as you could, then run on to it while getting fouled from everyone. It was a sign of manliness, holding on to the ball for a long time while under pressure.
The South Americans and the Spanish however, developed a new style of football, were passing was the name of the game. They would actually try to pass things in to the net, and crossing a ball, or doing a solo run was seen as a lack of technique. Hooving the ball would generate boos from the other players and the crowd. The modern game was actually developed through a combination of these two style being mixed together in a melting pot of footy.

This could be why we have the stereotype that all Latin people can pass, whilst all English players are determined and put in loads of effort.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top