• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

OT - "I F*****g Hate Stoke"

Great post from RAWK (surprisingly)

"I fudging hate Stoke.

Usually I just hate them in the build-up and aftermath to us playing them, but take great pleasure in other teams struggling against them. No more. Maybe it's some newly found solidarity from other teams, or maybe it's just after however many years, I resent having to watch Tony Pulis' black arts. Like Sam Allardyce on Red Bull, trying to push the envelope and tour the ugliest back alleys for any way to get through a football match. Maybe each human being has a finite amount of space in their lives they can accept Stoke being part of, and I've exceeded mine. Whatever it is, I fudging hate Stoke.

I fudging hate their alehouse tactics. I fudging hate that a Stoke shirt seems to grant players a certain immunity. I hate that because referees expect Stoke to be overly physical, that seems to allow them - in their own tiny little minds - the excuse for Stoke to be overly physical. I'm sick of their fudging back four, all of whom look like proper Rugby League Town tacos, smacking their way around the league. Wilkinson's elbows, Huth's stamp, Ryan Shawcross and his peculiar brand of footballing Jiu-Jitsu. In midfield you've got cynical bricks fudging Whitehead, who takes great pleasure in mastering the poorly timed trip, or Charlie Adam who is just tugboat slow and reckless. Top it off with that taco Waters upfront. GHod I hate him. He's got the face of a badger baiter. Just a horrible, horrible collection players.

It's not a surprise though is it? In Tony Pulis you've got a really vile manager. Him and his stupid fudging baseball cap. All his pundit mates laugh off his teams; "well if you knew Tony as a player you'd know what his teams are like" - there's a fudging reason no one knows what sort of player he was. They simply don't care to remember some lower league yard dog, and cringe that they have to watch a team in his image. I'll give Pulis some credit though, never has a manager captured the essence of a town and it's people so well in how their team plays football than Stoke. He's such a horrible, overly macho taco. The poster boy for British footballing culture, where a dive is sneaky and insidious and thus far worse than breaking a players leg with a horror tackle, elbowing someone in the face or stamping on their chest. The man has managed to usurp Mark Hughes and Sam Allardyce as the Wannabe Alpha of the league.

The fans, in amongst it all, I have some twisted sense of sympathy for. Tony Pulis' own personal Volkssturm of outcasts, trudging along every (other) week out of some misplaced sense of duty. Duty to protect their birth place. All off on a march to their death. A football death. A football death that couldn't be further removed from the one Rodgers speaks of. Off to the windy vortex of misery, void of hope. the great architecture of schadenfreude. "If we can't enjoy football then neither can you". The essence of Stoke.

Stoke. That horrible fudging verb.

1) Stoke.
To remove joy and purpose from the occasion

Tony Pulis was delighted to stoke Liverpool at the football match

Just fudge off, Stoke. Not even down the lower leagues, because if that happens some poor taco will be stuck paying to watch his team run the Stoke gauntlet, being told to 'embrace' the challenge. Nah. fudge that. fudge this idea that defeating Dr Pulis' Monster is some kind of footballing achievement. They're removed almost entirely from the sport. Stoke a horrid mixture of shotput, 11 players cynically fouling on rotation, and set pieces. That's the fudging Stoke credo right there. If it's not a set play you can't control what's happening, so you foul, and get another set play.

I'm not against physicality in football. I'm not against the odd bit of cynicism. But I'm not having the defence of Stoke. It's pure anti-football. They routintely turn up to games against any team to make sure the ball is out of play as much as possible. That is not a worthwhile tactic. Wouldn't wish it on anyone.

fudge off you oatcake munching tacos."

Completely agree with this post, regardless of who it was written by.

He raises some very good points. The main thing I take away from it is why do refs allow the dirtiest players i.e. Fellaini, Adam, Shawcross, Huth, Scholes etc to make about 2 or 3 bad tackles before they are booked? And why do players like Lennon get a yellow card straight away for cynically pulling someone's shirt even though it was his first foul? Granted not every tackle is worth a booking, but the dirty players are definitely allowed to get away with more that's for certain. The refs can put a stop to it by booking said players regardless of if it's their first foul or their 4th foul. They will eventually get the message that they can't get away with so many bad tackles.

Oh, and why are you allowed to get away with horror tackles as long it's committed in the first 10-15 minutes? Surely a bad foul is worth the same punishment no matter what minute it occurred in.

Rant over
 
I don't understand why people mind so much that there are some O/T threads here. We're all interested in football and sometimes there isn't much news to be discussed about Spurs like when there's an international break. If there were 4-5 different O/T threads close to the top of the front page on a match day or on deadline day or something I would understand the frustration, but it seems perfectly fine to me that some other things are being discussed when people feel a need to fill their gg quota of the day, but can't be bothered re-hashing the sweeper keeper debate just to have something to talk about.

----------------------------------

On topic about Stoke. I hate it when we play them, terrible team. I very rarely watch them, when I do it's the last half an hour against a team I don't like so I can hope they get an ugly win.

I don't hate Stoke as a club though. They do things their way, their fans don't seem to mind and actually seem to like that kind of football for some reason or another. They do get away with some things, but so do most clubs.
 
Because it happens in the box a lot, I suppose. And since refs are reluctant to give penalties, they'll generally allow those to go unpunished. But if they allow those to go unpunished, but give them when they're just outside the box, then they'll look hesitant to give a penalty, and they generally go to great lengths to avoid that. So they just let the foul go entirely, inside the box or out.

It would be obstruction and an indirect free kick.

I think the indirect free kick is underused. Refs rarely call obstruction when it could be used to promote positive play.

I'd also change the handball rule so accidental handball got an indirect free kick. We'd get rid of the current all or none calls on handball for penalties. If an accidental handball affects play, give an indirect free kick and they can be an exciting variation.
 
Well written, funny and accurate post from the RAWK guy. I fudging hate Stoke, too.
Always funny when Stoke supporters ring up Durham..he keeps replaying some nutter calling him "Stoke-ist"
 
Completely agree with this post, regardless of who it was written by.

He raises some very good points. The main thing I take away from it is why do refs allow the dirtiest players i.e. Fellaini, Adam, Shawcross, Huth, Scholes etc to make about 2 or 3 bad tackles before they are booked? And why do players like Lennon get a yellow card straight away for cynically pulling someone's shirt even though it was his first foul? Granted not every tackle is worth a booking, but the dirty players are definitely allowed to get away with more that's for certain. The refs can put a stop to it by booking said players regardless of if it's their first foul or their 4th foul. They will eventually get the message that they can't get away with so many bad tackles.

Oh, and why are you allowed to get away with horror tackles as long it's committed in the first 10-15 minutes? Surely a bad foul is worth the same punishment no matter what minute it occurred in.

Rant over

Agree with your agreement.
 
It would be obstruction and an indirect free kick.

I think the indirect free kick is underused. Refs rarely call obstruction when it could be used to promote positive play.

I'd also change the handball rule so accidental handball got an indirect free kick. We'd get rid of the current all or none calls on handball for penalties. If an accidental handball affects play, give an indirect free kick and they can be an exciting variation.

Ah. Thanks for that, always assumed it was a penalty. I agree entirely about the reluctance to give indirect free-kicks. Perhaps because of that brouhaha about the one given against Arsenal a while back, involving Campbell and Fabianski, if I recall correctly.
 
I hate Stoke because of the champions league final in which chelsea somehow bluffed a win.
The fudgers in the bar in Spain where i witnessed aforementioned atrocity supported stoke and celebrated more than if theyd won it themselves.
Glorifying in our discomfort, as we were the only ones in there who wanted Bayern to win.
How it never ended in fisticuffs i will never know.
fudgers to a man.
 
I hate Stoke because of the champions league final in which chelsea somehow bluffed a win.
The fudgers in the bar in Spain where i witnessed aforementioned atrocity supported stoke and celebrated more than if theyd won it themselves.
Glorifying in our discomfort, as we were the only ones in there who wanted Bayern to win.
How it never ended in fisticuffs i will never know.
fudgers to a man.


i remember a bloke call redcrapp wanting them to win..
 
Back