Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Really getting fed up with the "he only scored 3 goals in a season therefore I'm going to berate him and ignore that he played about 3 games in total minutes" thing that fans do.
Chamakh was incredibly effective while we actually used him consistently and like almost all players, when given absolutely no consistent games he did nothing.
He was pretty good for Palace, he holds up the ball well and he has good movement, somewhere between not scoring enough and doesn't get enough chances but he certainly helps create room for others to score.
Hughes has spent around £6million at Stoke so far in three transfer windows, Pulis spent about 100million in the previous 4-5 years and they ended up releasing a huge number of players and had very little real quality to show for it.
Ultimately I think Pulis can get a defence sorted and organised very very well, but struggles to create a team that can attack well at all, outside of set piece goals Stoke were pretty woeful.
I think you have situations where an ultra defensive minded coach takes over a half decent squad that has zero organisation and you get what happened to Palace last year.. Pulis did well no question but the team put in I think two incredibly improved performances before he took over with frankly a non idiot in charge. Palace had the basis of a good side but a defence with no instructions, training, control or plan. Pulis gave them that and suddenly the team worked. But I think that would be Palace's high point and Pulis over several years like at Stoke would kill the attack with his style.
As the Palace owner I'd be hesitant to give him much money, his spending at Stoke was pretty insane for the quality of football, level of entertainment and progression of the team.
I think a manager like Pulis can improve a team like Palace short term but long term make the offensive side of the team worse. I think a ultra attacking manager could improve the attack at a very very defensive side, but might struggle after a couple seasons when the defence gets worse. You need for long term, a balanced manager than can achieve both pieces of the puzzle, and I think after the spending Pulis managed at Stoke and the time he was given, he didn't achieve any improvements offensively at all.
I'd kind of like to see him stay at Palace just to see what happened over the next couple years, I suspect defence stays strong but offence gets worse till they started to struggle very badly.
But again, I can see not wanting to back bigger transfer targets, particularly if it was anyone creative/offensive, his buying over the years has been dreadful.
Chamakh was incredibly effective while we actually used him consistently and like almost all players, when given absolutely no consistent games he did nothing.
He was pretty good for Palace, he holds up the ball well and he has good movement, somewhere between not scoring enough and doesn't get enough chances but he certainly helps create room for others to score.
Hughes has spent around £6million at Stoke so far in three transfer windows, Pulis spent about 100million in the previous 4-5 years and they ended up releasing a huge number of players and had very little real quality to show for it.
Ultimately I think Pulis can get a defence sorted and organised very very well, but struggles to create a team that can attack well at all, outside of set piece goals Stoke were pretty woeful.
I think you have situations where an ultra defensive minded coach takes over a half decent squad that has zero organisation and you get what happened to Palace last year.. Pulis did well no question but the team put in I think two incredibly improved performances before he took over with frankly a non idiot in charge. Palace had the basis of a good side but a defence with no instructions, training, control or plan. Pulis gave them that and suddenly the team worked. But I think that would be Palace's high point and Pulis over several years like at Stoke would kill the attack with his style.
As the Palace owner I'd be hesitant to give him much money, his spending at Stoke was pretty insane for the quality of football, level of entertainment and progression of the team.
I think a manager like Pulis can improve a team like Palace short term but long term make the offensive side of the team worse. I think a ultra attacking manager could improve the attack at a very very defensive side, but might struggle after a couple seasons when the defence gets worse. You need for long term, a balanced manager than can achieve both pieces of the puzzle, and I think after the spending Pulis managed at Stoke and the time he was given, he didn't achieve any improvements offensively at all.
I'd kind of like to see him stay at Palace just to see what happened over the next couple years, I suspect defence stays strong but offence gets worse till they started to struggle very badly.
But again, I can see not wanting to back bigger transfer targets, particularly if it was anyone creative/offensive, his buying over the years has been dreadful.
