Tony Pulis 24 years of killing football

[StephenH]

He's over rated , has praise heaped on him for producing teams that destroy and bludgeon their way to mid table safety.

If he's so good at what he does, then why has he never produced anything like the Leicester City team that won the PL last season?

Overrated?

He is very good at not getting his team relegated. Is that overrating him?

Leicester used black magic last season................

 

[wiziwig]

Overrated?

He is very good at not getting his team relegated. Is that overrating him?

Leicester used black magic last season................

Yes, seriously overrated, just as I thought the Leicester City defensive back line was seriously overrated last season as much of their successful defending IMO, was down to the leniency of the match officials in game after game.

I feel much the same can be said with Pulis tactics. If officials allow it, then he's a genius. I've watched the game twice now and I'm still at a loss how their goalkeeper Foster wasn't even spoken to , never mind booked for his time wasting.

 

[braineclipse]

He's over rated , has praise heaped on him for producing teams that destroy and bludgeon their way to mid table safety.

If he's so good at what he does, then why has he never produced anything like the Leicester City team that won the PL last season?

I really don't think the Leicester last season thing is a fair measuring stick for any manager. It really was a once in several decades (at least) kind of thing.

In terms of (short term) results he's not over rated. If the goal for a club is not to get relegated I don't think there are many managers out there that small to medim clubs can get that are as likely to deliver in terms of objective results.

 

[thfcsteff]

The defence of this tosser galls me. We are better than this. Positive talk of this horrible little worm should be met with a three-match ban!!!!!!!

 

[the dza]

Give Pulis superstar players, you get Mourinho

I don't like either of them or their methods. They are both good at what they do though.

 

[wiziwig]

I really don't think the Leicester last season thing is a fair measuring stick for any manager. It really was a once in several decades (at least) kind of thing.

In terms of (short term) results he's not over rated. If the goal for a club is not to get relegated I don't think there are many managers out there that small to medim clubs can get that are as likely to deliver in terms of objective results.

My point is , he's never really done anything in terms of league position where I can say that he's done that much better than he should've .. His highest position at Stoke is 11th, where he achieved that once. His other final positions are 12th, 13ths and 14ths , it's nothing special. Mark Hughes, in his three seasons as Stoke boss has surpassed anything, Pulis did by finishing 9th, three seasons running.

 

[braineclipse]

Give Pulis superstar players, you get Mourinho

I don't like either of them or their methods. They are both good at what they do though.

You think Pulis could win the CL with Porto, win the CL with Inter or beat Pep's Barca with Real? Or for that matter win the league with Chelsea at a 50% rate?

My point is , he's never really done anything in terms of league position where I can say that he's done that much better than he should've .. His highest position at Stoke is 11th, where he achieved that once. His other final positions are 12th, 13ths and 14ths , it's nothing special. Mark Hughes, in his three seasons as Stoke boss has surpassed anything, Pulis did by finishing 9th, three seasons running.

They've stayed clear of relegation scraps with a degree of consistency that not a lot of managers are delivering. Yeah Hughes got 9th, a decent improvement on Pulis averaging around 12th-13th. But he now has them heading straight for a relegation scrap and Hughes might be on his way out of the club. They could easily go into a bit of a tailspin and quick managerial changes like we've seen many clubs do before. The impressive thing about Pulis and his results is that he delivers those results consistently. He seems to make small-medium teams relegation-proof. That consistency is impressive even if he's lacking individual highlight seasons.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

I just hope his team nick points of other teams at the top

 

[wiziwig]

They've stayed clear of relegation scraps with a degree of consistency that not a lot of managers are delivering. Yeah Hughes got 9th, a decent improvement on Pulis averaging around 12th-13th. But he now has them heading straight for a relegation scrap and Hughes might be on his way out of the club. They could easily go into a bit of a tailspin and quick managerial changes like we've seen many clubs do before. The impressive thing about Pulis and his results is that he delivers those results consistently. He seems to make small-medium teams relegation-proof. That consistency is impressive even if he's lacking individual highlight seasons.

If you feel his work deserves the high praise it gets, then fair enough, I don't and I will just leave it at this.

Setting up teams to eek out points on approx 30% possession is not a skill set I admire to much, especially when his team is up against a similar quality to his own.

Also, Pulis has had poor starts like Hughes is experiencing at the moment. Pulis, has also had a mid season slump which took him into the relegation places and it wasn't until the end of March that Stoke managed to get out of the bottom three.

I don't know about you but, if I were offered the chance to see all 20 premier league teams on their home patch , The Hawthorns would be the last venue I'd choose to visit.

 

[glasgowspur]

It keeps getting mentioned about quality of football, so what would you rather have, martinez playing lively expansive football as you drop down the League's watching poorer and poorer opposition every season, or pulis grinding out results against the best teams in terms best league in the world?
Clubs like wba can't attract or keep managers who can do both.

 

[Raziel]

It keeps getting mentioned about quality of football, so what would you rather have, martinez playing lively expansive football as you drop down the League's watching poorer and poorer opposition every season, or pulis grinding out results against the best teams in terms best league in the world?
Clubs like wba can't attract or keep managers who can do both.

Its a reflection of the limitations of the game itself, eventually I think we will have look at points awarded again, perhaps something like 2 points for a score draw, 3 points for win, 4 points for away win or win by more than 3 goals. In a system like that, ultra defensive teams will be punished by points and be less effective.

Pulis and Mourinho are two sides of same coin, yes they accomplish a goal, but you could argue even when they have the resources to play another way, they don't. So safe bets for club management that look for a guarantee of safety/results, but don't care about the product they provide.

 

[glasgowspur]

Its a reflection of the limitations of the game itself, eventually I think we will have look at points awarded again, perhaps something like 2 points for a score draw, 3 points for win, 4 points for away win or win by more than 3 goals. In a system like that, ultra defensive teams will be punished by points and be less effective.

Pulis and Mourinho are two sides of same coin, yes they accomplish a goal, but you could argue even when they have the resources to play another way, they don't. So safe bets for club management that look for a guarantee of safety/results, but don't care about the product they provide.

Interesting on the points. I've been proposing up here in Scotland where most teams will defend with 11 men against Celtic, and in the past rangers, that they should play home and away like a euro tie with the third game being at home for whoever wins the "tie".
Cutting the games each teams play against each other from 4 to 3 would allow a bigger league and freshen things up. It's not unusual for the top teams up here to play each other 5 or 6 times a season.

 

[the dza]

You think Pulis could win the CL with Porto, win the CL with Inter or beat Pep's Barca with Real? Or for that matter win the league with Chelsea at a 50% rate?

He couldn't do the Porto thing or the Inter thing, though I think the luck Porto had was like the luck Leicester had last season. I think, with peak Lampard/Drogba/Terry/Cech etc. he's a competent enough manager to win the league with that side. We don't really know how he'd adapt at having a team that was vastly superior to the opposition in a high percentage of games, which is what would decide the league title.

What we do know is how Pulis sets his team up against teams with more talent than his own (which is most teams). It's a slightly more attacking version of how Mourinho set up Man Utd away to Liverpool the other night. 30% of the ball, spoil spoil spoil.

When Pulis and Mourinho play sides who they fear, who they think have more talent, then they are the same style of manager. That's regardless of what Mourinho achieved with Porto etc.

 

[Craig_J]

He couldn't do the Porto thing or the Inter thing, though I think the luck Porto had was like the luck Leicester had last season. I think, with peak Lampard/Drogba/Terry/Cech etc. he's a competent enough manager to win the league with that side. We don't really know how he'd adapt at having a team that was vastly superior to the opposition in a high percentage of games, which is what would decide the league title.

What we do know is how Pulis sets his team up against teams with more talent than his own (which is most teams). It's a slightly more attacking version of how Mourinho set up Man Utd away to Liverpool the other night. 30% of the ball, spoil spoil spoil.

When Pulis and Mourinho play sides who they fear, who they think have more talent, then they are the same style of manager. That's regardless of what Mourinho achieved with Porto etc.

Agreed. It's possible that Pulis set his teams up fairly differently with better players at his disposal. And failing that Mourinhos Chelsea teams were always boring as hell to watch anyway but it didn't stop them from being successful.

 

[Baleforce]

I think there is a bit of revisionism regarding Jose, his early Chelsea team dealt out plenty of thrashings, Duff, Lampard and Robben were very effective.

Football doesn't award points for style, you can only judge a tactic on it's effectiveness.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

Yea didn't he win the league one season with them scoring over 100 goals or is my memory playing tricks?

Edit: just checked and it was Ancelotti who did that with Chelsea.

 

[the dza]

I think there is a bit of revisionism regarding Jose, his early Chelsea team dealt out plenty of thrashings, Duff, Lampard and Robben were very effective.

Football doesn't award points for style, you can only judge a tactic on it's effectiveness.

I don't think there's any revisionism re. Mourinho and the way he sets his teams up for the big games. Park the bus and counter-attack to varying degrees. It's effective, but not much different to Pulis tactics. The difference is, Pulis can't spend £90m on a single player and uses these tactics almost continuously, to ensure that the sh1te teams he manages are established and not relegated. Mourinho's teams can play more expansive football against lesser teams as he has much better players to work with so there is often a gulf in talent between his team and the opponent.

I don't blame either of them, it works. But I think there's a bit of snobbery around someone like Pulis doing it, whereas when Jose does it it's called a tactical masterclass.

We can point to other teams who avoid relegation (Swansea for example) and say that they do it in a much better footballing way than Pulis, and I think that's a fair criticism. But I'd also say the same for Mourinho, in that managers like Guardiola and Klopp try to get their teams to attack and play football even in the big games, whereas Mourinho falls back on defensive tactics and spoiling, no matter the players at his disposal.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Its a reflection of the limitations of the game itself, eventually I think we will have look at points awarded again, perhaps something like 2 points for a score draw, 3 points for win, 4 points for away win or win by more than 3 goals. In a system like that, ultra defensive teams will be punished by points and be less effective.

Pulis and Mourinho are two sides of same coin, yes they accomplish a goal, but you could argue even when they have the resources to play another way, they don't. So safe bets for club management that look for a guarantee of safety/results, but don't care about the product they provide.

Sounds very attractive overall but iirc when (decades ago now) the idea of awarding additional points for bigger win margins was raised, the Football League threw it out on the grounds it would open the door to corruption. The fear was that, especially at the business end of the season, mid-table teams with little to play for could too easily be bribed into deliberately conceding a hatful of goals by a team challenging at the top that was desperate to make up ground on the League leaders.

Wonder if there are any precedents for awarding additional points in any other leagues around the world? I'm not aware of any - which may or may not speak volumes.

 

[thfcsteff]

Good GHod, beat me with sticks of rhubarb and bamboo canes, but WTF are we still discussing this HORRIBLE, sleazy, GREASY little track-suited WORM for? fudge THIS BLOKE! The sooner he is OUT of football, the BETTER! I cannot believe ANY West Brom fan pays to watch the absolute brick he throws out there. No wonder Berahino is bereft! Pulls is a rooster-wombling money-clam!

 

[Rorschach]

Good GHod, beat me with sticks of rhubarb and bamboo canes, but WTF are we still discussing this HORRIBLE, sleazy, GREASY little track-suited WORM for? fudge THIS BLOKE! The sooner he is OUT of football, the BETTER! I cannot believe ANY West Brom fan pays to watch the absolute brickE he throws out there. No wonder Berahino is bereft! Pulls is a rooster-wombling money-clam!

So you are saying you're not a fan?