Tony Pulis is overrated and out of work

[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.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I quite like Hughes, and he's a lot more positive than pulis. But, at least at rovers, he wasn't exactly a pochettino or Rodgers type, he was pretty pragmatic. Maybe he adapted because he knows top clubs prefer an attacking manager, I didn't get to see stoke play that much this year.

So maybe I owe Con an apology. I just don't think id use him as the example of a manager able to play brilliant football and finish midtable.

Edit: The two times I remember watching stoke this year was the away game at cardiff towards the end and their home game vs villa. Neither was anything special stylistically. They were outplayed by cardiff and failed to take the game to villa during villas horrible run in December. They won, but the game was pretty woeful overall, especially considering how many injuries villa had (herd was at CB)

Edited May 27, 2014 by Rovers13

[Isa]

Yeah, to be honest I've never considered him an "attacking manager" per se either and I've actually been surprised at how quickly he has turned Stoke into a decent footballing side. Especially given that he didn't exactly inherit a side filled with many good footballers.

I didn't watch the Cardiff game but I'd agree that our with them at the Britannia was horrible and pretty cagey from both sides. Although they were still much the better team in the second-half. Even when they mullered us at Villa Park I wouldn't say it was the best they had played this season either, that was more to do with them capitalising on one of the worst defensive displays the Premier League has seen since Derby played in it! The games that stand out in my mind were both again West Ham and the victories over United and Arsenal.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Isa

[Rovers13]

I usually agree with you on things, so i'm sure you're right about their style. And, I remember now that I did watch them play another game where they were pretty attacking. Their game vs Liverpool at home, which if I remember correctly they lost 5-3, was pretty open and attacking from both sides.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Rovers13

[VillaChris]

Mark Hughes's style isn't total football, at Blackburn and Fulham it was basic 4-4-2 but he does have the tedency to pick up decent flair players for cheap fees and fit them comfortably into his team, Bentley, RSC at Blackburn, Dembele at Fulham and Arnautovic and Odemwingie this year at Stoke. Think that lost cost a total of 15m.

 

It was an error not to persue him in 2011.

[LondonLax]

Hughes was playing very attacking line ups at City. He had Robinho, Ireland and Elano scoring a lot of goals but letting a lot in. Mancini came in and changed them to be a lot more defensive.

[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.

 

 

 

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.

 

You're just proving my point though. Which of those players performed before before Pulis was there? Puncheon and Gayle certainly didn't. Ward was part of a defence that was quite embarrassing. Pulis is the one that has bought these players on.

 

If you think Pulis hasn't done a great job, then you must truy feel the Palace squad should've been fighting for a European place. Because I think in a table starting from when he took over, they are not far from it. Clearly they should've been a relegation candidate with one of the worst squads in the leagues history, but he has done a brilliant job.

[Con]

You have to remember Palace's form in the early games wasn't helped by injuries to their key defenders: Joel Ward and their experienced international centre halves, Delaney and Gabbidon. During the run of 10 games when they lost 9 and won 1, the three played together just 5 times, including for the time they won. By the time Pulis got to Palace they were fit again, and so was Mariappa, who had Premier League experience with Watford and Reading and who missed all 5 of the games the others didn't miss.

 

We know from Villa how easily results go to pot when your best defenders are out.

[kurtsimonw]

You still didn't answer though. Under Pulis, they had form that would put them in the running for a comfortable top half finish. Do you seriously feel that squad was good enough for that? Or do you concede that Pulis did do a very good job?

 

Also, of every team that was bottom at the end of November, only 2 have ever survived (both finished 17th) Pulis' Palace finished 11th.

[Xela]

I think Stevo said it best - he makes crap teams decent. I have no doubt he would have got more out of this Villa squad then Lambert.

 

He organises teams... makes them competitive, hard to beat, he instills a never say die attitude in them. Palace would have gone down without him, of that i'm sure. 

[Xela]

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Wrong (IMO)

 

Football is a results business. You play to your strengths. 

[Con]

You still didn't answer though. Under Pulis, they had form that would put them in the running for a comfortable top half finish. Do you seriously feel that squad was good enough for that? Or do you concede that Pulis did do a very good job?

 

Also, of every team that was bottom at the end of November, only 2 have ever survived (both finished 17th) Pulis' Palace finished 11th.

 

Do you disagree Keith Millen turned around Palace's form before Pulis got involved with the players? 

 

A 0-0 draw against Everton and then the 1-0 win against Hull in his final game as care-taker manager. Two clean sheets and 4 points. Millen set the trend with the available players, Pulis continued it.

 

My criticism is not that Pulis did a "good job" it is that he is "overrated." Doing a "good job" does not make you a genius - as some people apparently think.

[PaulC]

It was more than a good job Con it was remarkable what he did with Palace in such a short period of time. Overrated nope. He did a great job at Stoke for many years.

[kurtsimonw]

I never agreed with the idea that he was a genius. But he was a top 3 manager in the Premier League this season and IMO there's not much debate about that.

[Rovers13]

It was more than a good job Con it was remarkable what he did with Palace in such a short period of time. Overrated nope. He did a great job at Stoke for many years.

See that's where people are wrong. He did a brilliant at palace this year, and a good job in getting them promoted. But he spent a ton of money there, so keeping them up with negative football wasn't any great job. With their spending, they could've been what Southampton are now.

[Con]

I don't think Pulis did any better a job than Lambert did given the various crises at Villa.

 

I would not say Pulis was a better manager this season than Pelegrini, Rodgers, Mourinho, Pochettino, and Martinez.

 

I would not have wished Pulis on Stoke or Hull either and Sunderland didn't need him. If you want remarkable, how about the job Poyet, getting results against Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea when he needed them?

 

In terms of performance I would not have had Pulis at Villa ahead of at least 9 managers (the 9th being Tim Sherwood).

[Rovers13]

Con, from the time he was there they were the 8th best side in the league. That'd be remarkable for any side that comes up via the playoffs, or any promoted side in general. And he did it without a summer transfer window to plan.

[Con]

Con, from the time he was there they were the 8th best side in the league. That'd be remarkable for any side that comes up via the playoffs, or any promoted side in general. And he did it without a summer transfer window to plan.

 

So you'd have had Pulis at Villa over Lambert?

 

Palace had better players than you give credit. Delaney and Gabbidon are regular internationals and very experienced - 32 and 34. Joel Ward is The Next Big Thing.

 

That's a good defence - when they're fit. Holloway didn't have them when they were fit. Pulis did. That explains part of the difference in results.

 

Jedinak is another very experienced international who proved very powerful defensive midfielder for the Premier League. Lambert was rumoured to be after him over the transfer window last summer so he was always going to be playing in the Premier League. 

 

That's a strong defensive core to the team. Add one goal, and you get 1-0 wins, which Pulis did. Great. Well, okay. A genius manager would have got them scoring more than 33 goals.

 

Pulis had the talent to get Palace scoring goals. Didn't know how to use it. Inept.

[VillaChris]

The defence he works with at Palace is nowhere near what he had at Stoke. IMO the spine of Begovic, Huth and Shawcross is the strongest defensive axis in the bottom half.

 

Speroni is a decent keeper but not on Begovic's level, Gabbidon, Marippa, Moxey, Delaney come on now. I'll give you Joel Ward, good player.

 

Just imagine if Lambert worked with that back 4....Palace would've probably conceded 100 goals this season!

[VillaChris]

 

You still didn't answer though. Under Pulis, they had form that would put them in the running for a comfortable top half finish. Do you seriously feel that squad was good enough for that? Or do you concede that Pulis did do a very good job?

 

Also, of every team that was bottom at the end of November, only 2 have ever survived (both finished 17th) Pulis' Palace finished 11th.

 

Do you disagree Keith Millen turned around Palace's form before Pulis got involved with the players? 

 

A 0-0 draw against Everton and then the 1-0 win against Hull in his final game as care-taker manager. Two clean sheets and 4 points. Millen set the trend with the available players, Pulis continued it.

 

My criticism is not that Pulis did a "good job" it is that he is "overrated." Doing a "good job" does not make you a genius - as some people apparently think.

 

 

Yes Keith Millen got 4 very good points v Everton and Hull but he didn't do very well at Bristol City so no chance he'd have got some of the results Pulis did over the reminder of the season.

[Con]

The defence he works with at Palace is nowhere near what he had at Stoke. IMO the spine of Begovic, Huth and Shawcross is the strongest defensive axis in the bottom half.

 

Speroni is a decent keeper but not on Begovic's level, Gabbidon, Marippa, Moxey, Delaney come on now. I'll give you Joel Ward, good player.

 

Just imagine if Lambert worked with that back 4....Palace would've probably conceded 100 goals this season!

 

Remember Gabbidon and Delaney are very experienced players. Internationals and 34 and 32 years old respectively. Experience counts for a lot, especially when the players aren't especially talented.