Tony Pulis is overrated and out of work

[Con]

I wanted to respond to this post in the Paul Lambert thread, but it would take the thread off topic. So I post here.

 

 

When did Tony Pulis become a managerial god?

He had a good run with Palace for a couple of months, great. You need to wait a bit longer than that to judge him as a genius.

 

 

Good spot. There is a media campaign in his favour, even though the Palace form had turned-around under his care-taker predecessor before he got the job.

 

Do you think there is an agenda in the media for Pulis to take over as England manager after the World Cup?

 

Hope not. I really don't want Pulis as England manager, not with the exciting new golden generation of talent that is coming through.

 

Personally, he's probably a great guy. He runs the London marathon doesn't he? But before we call Pulis a genius we need to judge him not just on results but on the kind of football his team plays.

 

Is getting results with crap football as skilful in managerial terms as failing to get results but reaching mid-table with exciting football? 

 

No. A manager who gets results with shit football is IMO worse than a manager who fails to do better with attacking football. 

 

In ice-skating terms, attacking football is a triple-axel into a backwards one footed-landing. It's hard to get right.

 

Fat boy defender, boot-and-hoof football is much easier to get right. It's just a standing jump with the splits.

 

Let's call the manager who plays attacking football Mark Hughes (who is Welsh so probably not in the tabloid frame for the post-Hodgson England job) and the manager who plays crap football Tony Pulis.

 

A manager who succeeds to mid-table with rubbish football is actually the equivalent of a manager who gets his team relegated playing good football.

 

 

[Dodgyknees]

I'm holding Con's hand on this one.

[VillaChris]

Pulis is Welsh. I don't know anyone who thinks he should be English manager!

 

He did a really good job at Stoke. Promoted them, keep them up comfortably for 4 years, got them to an FA cup final and into Europe. In fairness Steve Bruce is doing something similar at Hull.

 

The trouble with Palace is his style is effective for staying up but not much more than that. He has a problem with fitting flair players into his rigid system aswell. Tuncay and Gudjohnsen barely played at Stoke and there's talk of them selling Johnny Williams to Swansea for 3m. I'll let Con mention his mate.

 

So just like MON, Bruce and Big Sam, he has a shell life of about mid table in the premier league due to limited style of play which means he struggles to win many away games although I doubt Palace care much given their record of being a yo yo club.

[kurtsimonw]

Completely disagree.

 

That Crystal Palace squad on paper is one of the worst ever in the Premier League. They have a few decent players like Speroni, Jedinak, but the majority coming into this season had no Premier League experience at all. They picked up next to nothing throughout the first quarter of the season and yet he had them surviving very comfortably. You have to consider he did a good job for Stoke also. Yeah Hughes has moved it on, but Hughes inherited a Premier League side, not a Championship one which Pulis built up.

 

No. A manager who gets results with shit football is IMO worse than a manager who fails to do better with attacking football. 

 

I can't agree at all. A manager who tries to play attractive football and can't get results is likely a bit naive in thinking he can outplay the opposition. Chelsea have played some geat stuff this season, but against the top sides? Mourinho's not so naive to think his players can outplay the likes of City, so he changes up his style.

 

Getting results is the absolute be all and end all of football management. The way you do is secondary.

 

Pulis isn't great, but he's a good manager and if your team is struggling then he should be one of the first choices to bring in as he organises his teams well, has experience in relegation battles and keep his side up, they also have a knack of late goals.

[VillaChris]

Getting in someone like Pulis would amusingly improve our home form, pretty sure Palace won 7 games at home since he took over which is amazing really and Stoke were always near impossible to play at the Britannia against him bar the Lowton wonder goal game.

 

I'd back us to win 8-9 home games a season and be very tough to beat at home under someone like him, I'd imagine he'd narrow the pitch for starters. Flipside is he'd coach out the counter attacks and our away form would go to pot but if you'd combined the two we'd have a comfortable mid table finish.

[Con]

Pulis is Welsh. I don't know anyone who thinks he should be English manager!

 

He did a really good job at Stoke. Promoted them, keep them up comfortably for 4 years, got them to an FA cup final and into Europe. In fairness Steve Bruce is doing something similar at Hull.

 

The trouble with Palace is his style is effective for staying up but not much more than that. He has a problem with fitting flair players into his rigid system aswell. Tuncay and Gudjohnsen barely played at Stoke and there's talk of them selling Johnny Williams to Swansea for 3m. I'll let Con mention his mate.

 

So just like MON, Bruce and Big Sam, he has a shell life of about mid table in the premier league due to limited style of play which means he struggles to win many away games although I doubt Palace care much given their record of being a yo yo club.

 

Selling Johnny Williams to Swansea for 3m is like Pulis taking over at Aston Villa and then ostracising and selling Grealish to Sunderland.

 

Travesty. Surely a half-way decent manager should be able to incorporate his great talent into the side.

 

That he cannot suggests he is a manager who only has a Plan A. That's nowhere near good enough for international football.

 

Actually, the idea of Pulis managing England still sounds ridiculous to me. But I'm worried about the excessive praise that he is getting in the media - and I'm not the only one who has noticed.

[Stevo985]

Pulis is like Allardyce.

Great at what he does. Making crap teams decent.

He's never going to win the league or manage in the champions league. But he is what he is and he's very good at it.

[VillaChris]

The praise is he kept an awful team up, they lost 1-4 at home to Fulham in Holloway's final game let's remember.

 

I've seen little praise of Palace's football even though to me they're better to watch than his Stoke teams. The template is generally the same though, tight deep defence and scrappers in midfield even if Jedinak is actually a decent player.

[villa4europe]

Pulis is like Allardyce.

Great at what he does. Making crap teams decent.

He's never going to win the league or manage in the champions league. But he is what he is and he's very good at it.

Yep, problem is how long will the fans be happy with finishing 11th?

West ham fans have always had this sense of grandeur / entitlement which means that eventually Sam will get the boot because he can't get them to punch above their weight, the palace fans I've spoken to claim they'll still be this ecstatic with pulis in 5 years time if they are exactly where they are now

Time will tell, even Stoke got ambitious

[VillaChris]

You can see how the likes of Pulis and Big Sam keep teams up in the prem year in year out.

 

There is no great secret to it, just make teams difficult to beat at home and nick some 1-0s. Generally accumulate 30 points from 19 home games and get nick two wins and a couple of draws from away games. You can still lose plenty of away games and stay up, think Hull lost 13 away this season.

 

Pulis's record at Selhurst from taking charge was 7 wins, 2 draws and 5 defeats so 23 points from 14 games.

 

Lambert got 21 from the 19 games.

Edited May 26, 2014 by VillaChris

[Con]

Completely disagree.

 

That Crystal Palace squad on paper is one of the worst ever in the Premier League. They have a few decent players like Speroni, Jedinak, but the majority coming into this season had no Premier League experience at all. They picked up next to nothing throughout the first quarter of the season and yet he had them surviving very comfortably. You have to consider he did a good job for Stoke also. Yeah Hughes has moved it on, but Hughes inherited a Premier League side, not a Championship one which Pulis built up.

 

 

 

Don't forget Joel Ward a left-back destined for one of the big sides. Jason Puncheon played at his peak this season. They also spent £6 million on Dwight Gayle who is Defoe-like excellent. That Scottish forward I can't remember his name now, had him back for the final games, looks Premier League class. Also had Tom Ince on loan second half of season who at least added competition to the squad.

 

Plus Jedinak and Speroni, that's top quality he had playing for him. Many of his also-rans had a lot of experience, so it's not like he had to field a bunch of kids.

 

 

I can't agree at all. A manager who tries to play attractive football and can't get results is likely a bit naive in thinking he can outplay the opposition. Chelsea have played some geat stuff this season, but against the top sides? Mourinho's not so naive to think his players can outplay the likes of City, so he changes up his style.

 

Getting results is the absolute be all and end all of football management. The way you do is secondary.

 

Pulis isn't great, but he's a good manager and if your team is struggling then he should be one of the first choices to bring in as he organises his teams well, has experience in relegation battles and keep his side up, they also have a knack of late goals.

 

 

 

 

If you play attractive football that doesn't mean you have to out-play the opposition. Wigan won the FA Cup under Martinez. Swansea won the League Cup last year. Many "smaller" clubs have shown you can play attractive footie against the top sides and win. Southampton the best of them this year, if you don't include Everton.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Con

[Con]

The praise is he kept an awful team up, they lost 1-4 at home to Fulham in Holloway's final game let's remember.

 

I've seen little praise of Palace's football even though to me they're better to watch than his Stoke teams. The template is generally the same though, tight deep defence and scrappers in midfield even if Jedinak is actually a decent player.

 

Between Holloway and Pulis Palace were managed by Keith Millen. He turned the form around before Pulis took over, culminating in the season defining 0-1 away at Hull.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Con

[terrytini]

He was on a no-lose situation wasn't he ?

 

If they had struggled and gone down - not his fault.  As it was, he is apparenlty a genius.

 

Yet everything was in his favour...a crowd who had nothing to do but support the Team, a style which suits a scrap.

 

I am not saying it was not a good acheivement, but it is no guide at all to how he would do over time, although his Stoke career is.

 

Which is, he will do ok.  No better no worse.

[terrytini]

By the way, interesting to see Palace fans lauded for their support, as opposed to being told by Stewards to sit down !!!

 

Dont say that doesn't help !!

[Con]

He was on a no-lose situation wasn't he ?

 

If they had struggled and gone down - not his fault.  As it was, he is apparenlty a genius.

 

Yet everything was in his favour...a crowd who had nothing to do but support the Team, a style which suits a scrap.

 

I am not saying it was not a good acheivement, but it is no guide at all to how he would do over time, although his Stoke career is.

 

Which is, he will do ok.  No better no worse.

 

He also had experienced players and good let us say advanced "scouting" about the likely line-up and team his side were going to play.

 

It's a shame the managerial performances of Hughes (Stoke), Bruce (Hull) and Poyet (Sunderland) get overlooked in all the Palace nonsense. 

 

Maybe there is a London team effect that is amplifying Pulis's media coverage.

[Demitri_C]

The guy is anti football do not not welcome to mange my club. If I wanted to watch rugby I'd go twickwnhan.

[NurembergVillan]

Personally, he's probably a great guy. He runs the London marathon doesn't he?

 

 

 

No. A manager who gets results with shit football is IMO worse than a manager who fails to do better with attacking football. 

 

 

 

Let's call the manager who plays attacking football Mark Hughes (who is Welsh so probably not in the tabloid frame for the post-Hodgson England job) and the manager who plays crap football Tony Pulis.

 

So is Pulis, but I rather suspect you knew that anyway.

 

A manager who succeeds to mid-table with rubbish football is actually the equivalent of a manager who gets his team relegated playing good football.

 

Edited May 26, 2014 by NurembergVillan

[NurembergVillan]

The guy is anti football do not not welcome to mange my club. If I wanted to watch rugby I'd go twickwnhan.

 

That's easy for you to say.

[Rovers13]

Con, that point about Hughes couldn't be more wrong. I like him as a manager, but he's not exactly the most attacking manager like you make him out to be. At rovers he was pretty direct a lot of the time.

[Isa]

Con, that point about Hughes couldn't be more wrong. I like him as a manager, but he's not exactly the most attacking manager like you make him out to be. At rovers he was pretty direct a lot of the time.

His Stoke side play pretty good stuff though going by whenever I've watched them. Well, a far cry from their football under Pulis anyhow.