Tony Pulis’ Record

[Holmowl]

12 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

TRUE

To anyone who thinks Pulis is a promotion getting manager answer this simple question

What were you doing in 2007?

Can you remember?

What things were happening in your life, your work, your hobbies etc?

2007

That was the last season Pulis got promoted

 

Explain how he could get promotion in the interim nine years spent in the top tier.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, Holmowl said:

Explain how he could get promotion in the interim nine years spent in the top tier.

STOP THIS now

I've already been embarrassed once on this point

 

 

[Holmowl]

1 hour ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

You totally missed the two big points about Pulis and Boro. First of all his 1st season at Boro was the one that Monk had already got them on the edge of the play offs by christmas in his second year on his own he could not get them in the play offs and the football was none existent. So of the two seasons he had at Boro he did worse than Monk, who was not sacked for football reasons. Boro were just 3 points off the play off positions when Boro sacked him at Christmas for Pulis. A strange decision from another strange chairman, sacking a successful manager for a less successful manager and then an even less successful manager! Sounding all too familiar this isnt it!

Not true.

 

Monk left Boro in 9th.

 

Pulis took them to 5th.

 

 

[Ante's Bubbly]

27 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

Not true.

 

Monk left Boro in 9th.

 

Pulis took them to 5th.

 

 

 

For goodness sake, it is really simple, Monk got the team 3 points off the play offs by Christmas and Pulis carried on the good work and got them into the playoffs that season. The season after he managed them all on his own and did not manage the play offs. I am guessing they were more than three points off by Christmas, but whichever half of the season he failed in, HE FAILED, JUST HIM, HE FAILED DAVE, DAVE HE FAILED... DAVE!

 

AHEM! Or maybe think of a relay race where Monk and Pulis beat Pulis and Pulis. If you dont get it I give up.

 

I admit that Pulis was for a short time at Gillingham and a bif longer at Stoke, fairly succesful at playing lots of big players that could kick and throw footballs a long way and sometines bash people out of the way while thundering in for a header or free kick, but often now refs give free kicks for those kinds of things and players get booked or sent off for being too physical. Bulls in a china-shop style football is not so effective and I dont think we have enough players that can play that way. It looks like we are going to be given the chance to find out though so I hope I am completely wrong and DC backs him in January, gets us the strikers we desperately need and Pulis is really succesful, but my money would have been on Monk, Howe, Pearson, Cook, or Sven Goren Eriksson, before Pulis because I see him as a step backwards, or at least sideways, not forwards. 

[Holmowl]

37 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

For goodness sake, it is really simple, Monk got the team 3 points off the play offs by Christmas and Pulis carried on the good work and got them into the playoffs that season. The season after he managed them all on his own and did not manage the play offs. I am guessing they were more than three points off by Christmas, but whichever half of the season he failed in, HE FAILED, JUST HIM, HE FAILED DAVE, DAVE HE FAILED... DAVE!

 

AHEM! Or maybe think of a relay race where Monk and Pulis beat Pulis and Pulis. If you dont get it I give up.

 

I admit that Pulis was for a short time at Gillingham and a bif longer at Stoke, fairly succesful at playing lots of big players that could kick and throw footballs a long way and sometines bash people out of the way while thundering in for a header or free kick, but often now refs give free kicks for those kinds of things and players get booked or sent off for being too physical. Bulls in a china-shop style football is not so effective and I dont think we have enough players that can play that way. It looks like we are going to be given the chance to find out though so I hope I am completely wrong and DC backs him in January, gets us the strikers we desperately need and Pulis is really succesful, but my money would have been on Monk, Howe, Pearson, Cook, or Sven Goren Eriksson, before Pulis because I see him as a step backwards, or at least sideways, not forwards. 

I’d have loved Howe to come. Fantastic record and attacking football.

 

As for Monk, you have your answer from the poll on OT where 80% preferred Pulis to Monk (10%) and Jos (10%). I’m not saying you are wrong, though I think you are, and so do 90% on here.

 

Let’s see. If Pulis gets it I’m sure you and 99% of fans will get behind him. Similarly, if he doesn’t, I’ll want whoever comes in to succeed,

 

As for Sven...really? A struggling 20/21 Championship side. He wouldn’t have a clue.

 

[Lionel Fessi]

 

On 11/11/2020 at 09:13, Holmowl said:

Stoke - 3 full seasons in Championship. 12th, 8th, 2nd. Kept them comfortably in Prem for 5 seasons. 
 

Palace - saved them from Prem relegation and got Prem Manager of Season

 

West Brom - kept them in Prem for two seasons.

 

Boro - towards top of Championship but no promotion.

 

Stoke - Championship 138 games, 1.54 ppg.

 

Stoke Prem - 190 games, 1.18 ppg

 

Palace Prem - 26 games, 1.46 ppg

 

WBA Prem - 106 games, 1.17 ppg

 

Boro Championship - 68 games, 1.68 ppg

 

Championship goals record:-

 

Pulis Average GF56 GA45

Owls 19/20 GF58 GA66

Owls 18/19 GF60 GA62

Owls 17/18 GF58 GA60

Owls 16/17 GF60 GA45

Owls 15/16 GF66 GA45

 

 

I'm keen to see how he sets up the team.

 

We all know what to expect and I have a feeling we'll set up similarly to how we did under Monk..only we'll be alot more effective!

 

 

 

[Lionel Fessi]

10 hours ago, Holmowl said:

I’d have loved Howe to come. Fantastic record and attacking football.

 

As for Monk, you have your answer from the poll on OT where 80% preferred Pulis to Monk (10%) and Jos (10%). I’m not saying you are wrong, though I think you are, and so do 90% on here.

 

Let’s see. If Pulis gets it I’m sure you and 99% of fans will get behind him. Similarly, if he doesn’t, I’ll want whoever comes in to succeed,

 

As for Sven...really? A struggling 20/21 Championship side. He wouldn’t have a clue.

 

Mate....its pointless arguing with some of the idiots in this thread, some people just don't get it!

 

I like agreeing with you on posts @Holmowl instead of arguing over what position best suits FF!

[Holmowl]

34 minutes ago, Lionel Fessi said:

 

 

I'm keen to see how he sets up the team.

 

We all know what to expect and I have a feeling we'll set up similarly to how we did under Monk..only we'll be alot more effective!

 

 

 

Me too. Really looking forward to next Saturday, to see what we get.

 

I don’t imagine big changes. The obvious will do me - put Reach and Harris on their best side, stop picking non-scoring strikers.

[Ante's Bubbly]

11 hours ago, Holmowl said:

I’d have loved Howe to come. Fantastic record and attacking football.

 

As for Monk, you have your answer from the poll on OT where 80% preferred Pulis to Monk (10%) and Jos (10%). I’m not saying you are wrong, though I think you are, and so do 90% on here.

 

Let’s see. If Pulis gets it I’m sure you and 99% of fans will get behind him. Similarly, if he doesn’t, I’ll want whoever comes in to succeed,

 

As for Sven...really? A struggling 20/21 Championship side. He wouldn’t have a clue.

 

 

I agree with the majority of what you are saying wholeheartedly, but the only ways that our team is struggling are:-

 

1. We have a points deduction against us

2. We have had a lot of injuries to key players

3. We are sadly lacking any championship quality strikers

 

Despite the problems listed above, the team has kept clean sheets in half their games and even with so many bad injuries in games and the bad results that came with it, we rallied and have amassed enough points to be just two points from mid table. After just 11 games. That is not a team that is struggling. The whole point with Monk for Pulis is not whether people are fed up of Monk (plenty on here hated him before he had overseen a single game), or whether they are looking forward to the perceived safe hands of Pulis, it is whether Pulis is the kind of manager the club really needs right now. Pulis will stop us from conceding so many goals people are saying. Well 5 clean sheets out of 11 games, with all the first choice and some second choice defenders out for several games along with our 1st and 2nd choice defensive midfielders, is quite a good record, when you consider that we were just a couple of minute away from another clean sheet against Luton and the fact that we have played two of the ex-prem teams and several that are near the top of the division, one of whom put 5 past us not that long ago. If you do the maths, 5 clean sheets out of 11 equates to20/21 clean sheets in a season if it carries on over 46 games. Our record is 17 clean sheets in a season and even the biggest Pulis fans surely do not believe that Pulis will get us more than 20/21 clean sheets this season? We are a quarter of the way there with more than a quarter of the season left and our defence is only going to improve when Luongo, Hunt, Flint, Shaw and Lees, can join the recently returned Van Aken, Palmer, and Iorfa. So why did we need to get rid of Monk, if we were not going to replace him with a manager whose teams concede a similar number of goals, or less (if possible), but score more goals?

 

Our biggest problem at the moment is that we have no high scoring strikers and only one that has ever been prolific at this level, but not for 5 or 6 years. Our other striking options are midfielders that are not regular scorers, a converted right back, who is not a regular scorer and Jack Marriott, who had one very good season for Peterborough in league 1, is 26 now and really ought to be scoring a few goals, or at least getting a few on target. That is our problem, up front. Until our attacking players start to gel, create more opportunities for each other and start putting more of them away, that is the area we need to improve. 

 

If you need somebody to improve your strike rate, either bring in at least one goal-scoring striker, or a manager who can get teams scoring more goals without upsetting the defensive structure of the team. Is Pulis that kind of manager? I am afraid that by far the biggest sway of opinion, from fans of clubs that Pulis has managed and actually know what they are talking about, from statistics and from the mouth of the man himself, he is not a creative, high goal-scoring type of manager. So why are so many people so keen to have him? I am totally baffled.

[Holmowl]

6 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

I agree with the majority of what you are saying wholeheartedly, but the only ways that our team is struggling are:-

 

1. We have a points deduction against us

2. We have had a lot of injuries to key players

3. We are sadly lacking any championship quality strikers

 

Despite the problems listed above, the team has kept clean sheets in half their games and even with so many bad injuries in games and the bad results that came with it, we rallied and have amassed enough points to be just two points from mid table. After just 11 games. That is not a team that is struggling. The whole point with Monk for Pulis is not whether people are fed up of Monk (plenty on here hated him before he had overseen a single game), or whether they are looking forward to the perceived safe hands of Pulis, it is whether Pulis is the kind of manager the club really needs right now. Pulis will stop us from conceding so many goals people are saying. Well 5 clean sheets out of 11 games, with all the first choice and some second choice defenders out for several games along with our 1st and 2nd choice defensive midfielders, is quite a good record, when you consider that we were just a couple of minute away from another clean sheet against Luton and the fact that we have played two of the ex-prem teams and several that are near the top of the division, one of whom put 5 past us not that long ago. If you do the maths, 5 clean sheets out of 11 equates to20/21 clean sheets in a season if it carries on over 46 games. Our record is 17 clean sheets in a season and even the biggest Pulis fans surely do not believe that Pulis will get us more than 20/21 clean sheets this season? We are a quarter of the way there with more than a quarter of the season left and our defence is only going to improve when Luongo, Hunt, Flint, Shaw and Lees, can join the recently returned Van Aken, Palmer, and Iorfa. So why did we need to get rid of Monk, if we were not going to replace him with a manager whose teams concede a similar number of goals, or less (if possible), but score more goals?

 

Our biggest problem at the moment is that we have no high scoring strikers and only one that has ever been prolific at this level, but not for 5 or 6 years. Our other striking options are midfielders that are not regular scorers, a converted right back, who is not a regular scorer and Jack Marriott, who had one very good season for Peterborough in league 1, is 26 now and really ought to be scoring a few goals, or at least getting a few on target. That is our problem, up front. Until our attacking players start to gel, create more opportunities for each other and start putting more of them away, that is the area we need to improve. 

 

If you need somebody to improve your strike rate, either bring in at least one goal-scoring striker, or a manager who can get teams scoring more goals without upsetting the defensive structure of the team. Is Pulis that kind of manager? I am afraid that by far the biggest sway of opinion, from fans of clubs that Pulis has managed and actually know what they are talking about, from statistics and from the mouth of the man himself, he is not a creative, high goal-scoring type of manager. So why are so many people so keen to have him? I am totally baffled.

Do you think Monk bears none of the responsibility for our lack of goals?

 

Do you think playing Harris on the left, from where he hasn’t assisted or scored for a year is part of the problem?

 

Do you think that seeing Reach cross for the QPR goal, then Harris cross for the Brentford goal, from their natural wings, warranted them being swapped back onto their wrong foot next game? 
 

Do you think playing Kachunga as a striker, when he came as a non-scoring RW, will lead to goals? He’s scored 3 goals in over 3000 minutes.

 

Do you think his repeat use of the anonymous Marriott would soon bring goals?

Edited November 13, 2020 by Holmowl

[Ante's Bubbly]

1 hour ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

I agree with the majority of what you are saying wholeheartedly, but the only ways that our team is struggling are:-

 

1. We have a points deduction against us

2. We have had a lot of injuries to key players

3. We are sadly lacking any championship quality strikers

 

Despite the problems listed above, the team has kept clean sheets in half their games and even with so many bad injuries in games and the bad results that came with it, we rallied and have amassed enough points to be just two points from mid table. After just 11 games. That is not a team that is struggling. The whole point with Monk for Pulis is not whether people are fed up of Monk (plenty on here hated him before he had overseen a single game), or whether they are looking forward to the perceived safe hands of Pulis, it is whether Pulis is the kind of manager the club really needs right now. Pulis will stop us from conceding so many goals people are saying. Well 5 clean sheets out of 11 games, with all the first choice and some second choice defenders out for several games along with our 1st and 2nd choice defensive midfielders, is quite a good record, when you consider that we were just a couple of minute away from another clean sheet against Luton and the fact that we have played two of the ex-prem teams and several that are near the top of the division, one of whom put 5 past us not that long ago. If you do the maths, 5 clean sheets out of 11 equates to20/21 clean sheets in a season if it carries on over 46 games. Our record is 17 clean sheets in a season and even the biggest Pulis fans surely do not believe that Pulis will get us more than 20/21 clean sheets this season? We are a quarter of the way there with more than a quarter of the season left and our defence is only going to improve when Luongo, Hunt, Flint, Shaw and Lees, can join the recently returned Van Aken, Palmer, and Iorfa. So why did we need to get rid of Monk, if we were not going to replace him with a manager whose teams concede a similar number of goals, or less (if possible), but score more goals?

 

Our biggest problem at the moment is that we have no high scoring strikers and only one that has ever been prolific at this level, but not for 5 or 6 years. Our other striking options are midfielders that are not regular scorers, a converted right back, who is not a regular scorer and Jack Marriott, who had one very good season for Peterborough in league 1, is 26 now and really ought to be scoring a few goals, or at least getting a few on target. That is our problem, up front. Until our attacking players start to gel, create more opportunities for each other and start putting more of them away, that is the area we need to improve. 

 

If you need somebody to improve your strike rate, either bring in at least one goal-scoring striker, or a manager who can get teams scoring more goals without upsetting the defensive structure of the team. Is Pulis that kind of manager? I am afraid that by far the biggest sway of opinion, from fans of clubs that Pulis has managed and actually know what they are talking about, from statistics and from the mouth of the man himself, he is not a creative, high goal-scoring type of manager. So why are so many people so keen to have him? I am totally baffled.

 

1 hour ago, Lionel Fessi said:

Mate....its pointless arguing with some of the idiots in this thread, some people just don't get it!

 

I like agreeing with you on posts @Holmowl instead of arguing over what position best suits FF!

 

If people are such idiots that they do not understand simple maths, no matter how many times it is explained to them then yes I agree with you. What I do not agree with is the misconceived concept that we are suddenly going to change into a free scoring team that keeps more clean sheets than we have been getting already. Is that simple enough for you?

 

I will happily watch our team under any manager and I am as eager as the next fan to see our team turn out, hopefully as I have discussed on here often enough, with all our players playing in their best positions, Harris will not be on the right btw because he is banned for three games, but hopefully Reach will be on the left and I would play Paterson on the right , where his most productive goal-scoring spell came from. I just do not believe that sacking Monk for Pulis is a big step forward. If it is such a good idea, why didn't we do it last time?

[@owlstalk]

57 minutes ago, Lionel Fessi said:

 

 

I'm keen to see how he sets up the team.

 

We all know what to expect and I have a feeling we'll set up similarly to how we did under Monk..only we'll be alot more effective!

 

 

 

 

 

There's absolutely no guarantees of that whatsoever

[Sova]

Speaking of Pulis's record, his first few games at Stoke, back in 2002, were hopeless. They didn't win in 9 games, picking up just 3 points. But guess which team rocked up to the Britannia on 28 December 2002 and lost 3-2 to a goal in the 4th minute of injury time. Yes: it was us. Had we won, Stoke would have replaced us at the bottom of the table. But that late goal was the catalyst for a decade of Pulis-ball. And it's all our fault.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Sova

[Ante's Bubbly]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

Do you think Monk bears none of the responsibility for our lack of goals?

 

Do you think playing Harris on the left, from where he hasn’t assisted or scored for a year is part of the problem?

 

Do you think that seeing Reach cross for the QPR goal, then Harris cross for the Brentford goal, from their natural wings, warranted them being swapped back onto their wrong foot next game? 
 

Do you think playing Kachunga as a striker, when he came as a non-scoring RW, will lead to goals? He’s scored 3 goals in over 3000 minutes.

 

Do you think his repeat use of the anonymous Marriott would soon bring goals?

 

Monk took the blame for us not scoring enough goals, because he did not want to damage the very fragile mentality of our players, but the fact is they missed sitters regularly. The attacking players are not good enough. As for Harris, very early on and on several occasions I said that Harris can do all that he does on the left side of the field equally well on the right side of the field and let a real left winger that provides assists and scores goals, do what he was bought to do. I did think that was a mistake by Monk, but then Reach has not really settled into that position since that wonderful cross has he? When he has played there he seems to hold back more. In the some of the recent games Bannan was waiting for Reach to go down the wing to release a ball to him and Reach kept coming back and Bannan picked another option. Harris runs up and down without providing good balls to people or scoring many goals, you have said it yourself. Was that Monks Fault? I personally think that Paterson would be better played in that position because he will never be a striker as long as he has a hole in his @r$e. He was most productive on the right wing, play him there, behind, in front, or ideally instead of Harris and we will get better balls in from Reach on the left and Paterson on the right. I would also play Rhodes up front for five or six games to see whether he can benefit from the improved delivery of balls into the box. Anyway enough of tactics we all have our ideas about how the game should be played, but better quality finishing generally comes from better quality finishers and we do not have any of those at the moment, our finishing has been very poor. The tactics that Monk employed in the games where we created lots of chances and missed them were the same as in the games where we had less chances and did not put as much effort in. In some games we made less mistakes and kept going in other games our players either had off days, made bad decisions, had bad technique or bad attitude at times. I believe that Bruce brought him in, not Monk. Is it Monks fault that we did not buy a striker in the summer? Our chairman was happy to get five or six of our main goal scorers out of the club and replace them with who exactly?  Why leave such an important part of the team until the very last minute and then decide that the person you have put all your money on (again), is not going to be fit enough! Pathetic work again from our chairman. If you still think after all the debating on here about our chairman's pathetic player purchasing policy and all that Monk said about the young hungry players he wanted, that his first choices for new players were an old defender with a broken leg, and last minute signings like old average players like Kachunga and a younger, never made it striker like Marriott, you need to sit down and have another good think about it.

 

Managers always take the blame, they are never totally blameless, but I just do not see how Chansiri thinks Pulis will make us anything other than safe this season, which we were already on course to be. A long term contract for Pulis is folly based on his many short term records with clubs. Why do you think that he only ever spent more than two years at two of his seven clubs and only between 28 games and 38 games at four of those seven? Because he was such a big hit?

[Ante's Bubbly]

1 hour ago, Sova said:

Speaking of Pulis's record, his first few games at Stoke, back in 2002, were hopeless. They didn't win in 9 games, picking up just 3 points. But guess which team rocked up to the Britannia on 28 December 2002 and lost 3-2 to a goal in the 4th minute of injury time. Yes: it was us. Had we won, Stoke would have replaced us at the bottom of the table. But that late goal was the catalyst for a decade of Pulis-ball. And it's all our fault.

 

Brilliant logic. Going to call Chris Turner and give him an earful!

[Lionel Fessi]

2 hours ago, Ante's Bubbly said:

 

 

If people are such idiots that they do not understand simple maths, no matter how many times it is explained to them then yes I agree with you. What I do not agree with is the misconceived concept that we are suddenly going to change into a free scoring team that keeps more clean sheets than we have been getting already. Is that simple enough for you?

 

I will happily watch our team under any manager and I am as eager as the next fan to see our team turn out, hopefully as I have discussed on here often enough, with all our players playing in their best positions, Harris will not be on the right btw because he is banned for three games, but hopefully Reach will be on the left and I would play Paterson on the right , where his most productive goal-scoring spell came from. I just do not believe that sacking Monk for Pulis is a big step forward. If it is such a good idea, why didn't we do it last time?

 

To quote myself from a previous thread...!

 

I'm not advocating Pulis as my first choice, as I mention like many fans I would love somebody like Eddie Howe to come in on a 5 year deal and really transform the club.

 

But that's not the reality is it? Stop being so biased and understand we are not an attractive prospect to young & ambitious managers. Riddled with debt, relegation battle, point deduction, small transfer budget, limited ability of squad...

 

We don't need to roll the dice on a manager who COULD be everything we want as right now we do not have the platform as a club to make them succeed and in 12 months time we would be back to square 1 again. If it was 5 years ago and we were discussing who should replace Stuart Gray we would be having a totally different conversation - a manager to shape the future, backed lucratively by the owner, club under a new modern infrastructure etc in that scenario a dinosaur like Pulis would be a disaster. Understand that our situation as a club has changed, we are not a promotion chasing '3 year PL project' team anymore.

 

As for enjoying the football. We are currently the 23rd in the league, sit rock bottom in the Championship form table and have done since January 2020 and are the WORST attacking team in the division (go and modernise yourselves we sit 23rd for expected goals). THINGS ARE ALREADY VERY BAD.

 

I would happily trade all that for some boring 1-0 wins and even more long ball football if it gets us up the table. Remember, he won't be in charge forever. Like most fickle football fans you think how we play is more important than the results.As other fans mention and as his managerial resume clearly shows, he gets results. He gets team up the table. He get points on the board. Winning makes fans happy. Losing makes fans sad. Losing all the time and not scoring goals makes fans sad and angry.

 

Its nothing but pure ignorance to sit there and demand Pulis isn't good enough. The club is in a mess. Our situation has changed. We're not a good team anymore. We need stability. We need a manager who has a winning system. We need a manager who gets the best from not alot.

 

[Ante's Bubbly]

1 hour ago, Lionel Fessi said:

 

To quote myself from a previous thread...!

 

I'm not advocating Pulis as my first choice, as I mention like many fans I would love somebody like Eddie Howe to come in on a 5 year deal and really transform the club.

 

But that's not the reality is it? Stop being so biased and understand we are not an attractive prospect to young & ambitious managers. Riddled with debt, relegation battle, point deduction, small transfer budget, limited ability of squad...

 

We don't need to roll the dice on a manager who COULD be everything we want as right now we do not have the platform as a club to make them succeed and in 12 months time we would be back to square 1 again. If it was 5 years ago and we were discussing who should replace Stuart Gray we would be having a totally different conversation - a manager to shape the future, backed lucratively by the owner, club under a new modern infrastructure etc in that scenario a dinosaur like Pulis would be a disaster. Understand that our situation as a club has changed, we are not a promotion chasing '3 year PL project' team anymore.

 

As for enjoying the football. We are currently the 23rd in the league, sit rock bottom in the Championship form table and have done since January 2020 and are the WORST attacking team in the division (go and modernise yourselves we sit 23rd for expected goals). THINGS ARE ALREADY VERY BAD.

 

I would happily trade all that for some boring 1-0 wins and even more long ball football if it gets us up the table. Remember, he won't be in charge forever. Like most fickle football fans you think how we play is more important than the results.As other fans mention and as his managerial resume clearly shows, he gets results. He gets team up the table. He get points on the board. Winning makes fans happy. Losing makes fans sad. Losing all the time and not scoring goals makes fans sad and angry.

 

Its nothing but pure ignorance to sit there and demand Pulis isn't good enough. The club is in a mess. Our situation has changed. We're not a good team anymore. We need stability. We need a manager who has a winning system. We need a manager who gets the best from not alot.

 

 

I do not know why you are aiming this at me. I merely pointed out that Pulis is not the huge lift that everybody thinks he is and that we were not in a pile of trouble that can be sorted out by changing from one so-so manager to another. We were always going to be near to the bottom of the table until at least Christmas and anybody thinking differently is kidding themselves. We have the worst strike force in the division, it only stands to reason that we have scored the least goals! Tell us again who our top strikers are? Also this magical myth that he gets the best out of players is exactly that. Stoke were better without him and managed to get into the top ten for three seasons on the bounce straight after he had left, having had a really horrendous season. I am deeply opposed to the man's football because I have seen it and I remember how awful it was, maybe because two Middlesborough fans I know were always wishing him gone for crimes against football. They actually preferred the disaster that was Woodgate and he nearly took them down! 

 

For the record, in a list of 24 of the worst Premiership managers Pulis features three times, for three different teams, "watching Middlesborough for 90 minutes has been one of the most painful things you can do these days", is one quote and I have had to put up with my suicidal Middlesboro mates slagging the man and his awful soul destroying football off so often that in the end, when they could not be bothered to do it any more, I really felt very sad for them and could not even bring myself to tease them. Which believe me, is difficult for me. 

 

33 goals for and 48 against was another quote (when mismanaged Palace) and 34 for, 45 against was another when he mismanaged Stoke for the last season. They went on to be a top ten team in their next three seasons (which Pulis never managed in his long stay there). 

 

I am not going to repeat this again, life is too short, but I will get behind Pulis the same way I do with every manager and I only hope that I will end up defending him the way I have recently defended Monk, who was not the best manager we have ever had, but I honestly do not think that Pulis is a step in the right direction from Monk. I really hope I am wrong and that Pulis does well for his best old mate Gary Megson and the lovely Owls. I hope you and I and every Wednesdayite can enjoy the rest of the season and what it brings, I will hold my peace now and try not to be as biased as those that never wanted Monk at the club!

 

Good luck to the new manager, UTO!

[bradowl]

5 hours ago, Sova said:

Speaking of Pulis's record, his first few games at Stoke, back in 2002, were hopeless. They didn't win in 9 games, picking up just 3 points. But guess which team rocked up to the Britannia on 28 December 2002 and lost 3-2 to a goal in the 4th minute of injury time. Yes: it was us. Had we won, Stoke would have replaced us at the bottom of the table. But that late goal was the catalyst for a decade of Pulis-ball. And it's all our fault.

We played Forest at home on Boxing Day putting in our best display of season in a 2-0 win. 

I really thought we had turned corner and was going to stop up. 

We put on another good performance on New year's Day winning 2-0 at Rotherham.