Tony Pulis?

[Donki]

Maybe, but no one can argue with his record at the top level compared to someone like Pulis.

I also think the dividing the fans thing is overplayed. I don't see a universal approval in and around WHL of the football we are playing under Poch. Most people seem pretty meh about it actually.

I agree but Rafa is seen by some by only being a fat spanish waiter, his use of the word "fact(s)" and for his meltdown with the media. Look at the reaction he got with the Chelsea fan, I think it would be the same with us, I would be happy to see him at the Lane IF we were looking for a new man.

 

[Mullers]

Funnily enough, after reading your post, I looked up Pulis' philosophy. It appears that he has neither spoken nor written about any philosophy at all.

What I did find though, was a piece on Eurosport.com, where Mourinho comments on his ability. Two comments in particular sprang out at me;

"If I own an English club, I sign Tony Pulis, it's as simple as that."

and

"He's a guarantee to achieve what the club wants."

Both direct quotes from Maureen. I was a bit tickled because they pretty much echo what I'm saying.

Go me

I don't think Pulis HAS a philosophy, other than to organise a team to deal with a specific situation, much as Mourinho does.

With better players, I'm pretty damn sure he'd be very successful.

I think Mourinho was just being nice he said after his cup win that:
“The natural tendency of this (Tottenham) team is to win trophies, I don’t know when or which ones but they have to win"
which is a load of bollocks to be fair.
Pulis I think would inject some steel into the side but I think there is a big difference between managing west brom and us, there are big expectations with us and also there is the Levy factor. He left Palace by mutual consent because Palace wouldn't back him in the transfer market, there would be even worse problems with us.

 

[DubSpurs]

If Poch didn't work out, I'd sooner Pulis than Frank De Boer or someone from Ligue 1.

He knows the league, would already have decent knowledge of our squad and speaks the language.

I know it's a cliche but if he name was Pulisimo he'd be getting linked with every top job around Europe

 

[Barry Mead]

I am very much a fan of the pragmatic manager, the one who isn't tied to the dogma of a given shape or style of play nut one who looks at what'he has and works on a style of play that gets the best out of thgem and looks for players that can improve it

I get a bit fed up hearing we can't judge a manager until he has the players he wants and can play the way he wants, well first we shouldn't be hiring a manager who needs a complete rebuild and second no club can guarantee any manager they will get certain players so even if the club accepted a re build they may not be able to deliver all the players wanted so you need a manager capable of working with what he has
I'm not sure about Pulis but he has shown a lot more inclination to play an attacking game since he has had teams with certain attacking qualities and skills, so it's not an unreasonable assumption that his philosophy is not that of a dogmatic desire to play a given shape and style but a pragmatic this is what I've got lets work out how I can a/best use it and b/ best improve it

I certainly wouldn't reject him out of hand and would have prefered him to either AVB or Poch who both seemed far too dogmatic in their approach and for all the criticism once levelled at Pulis's approach at Stoke it has to be said that both AVB and Poch have produced some dull boring football with very few sparkling entertaining games to offset it

 

[Flashspur]

Now I would expect to see this kind of an thread if we were 6th from bottom...but coming in 6th?

 

[dontcallme]

Pulis is a bit like Harry, and he would get us playing again and sort us out.

Can he push us to top 4? maybe. who knows, Harry did but didn't count for anything as the squad was so good according to some.

Pulis isn't a fashionable manager so won't be given the time or day by most fans which is rubbish.

I'd really like to see Pulis given a chance at a club like Spurs, he got Stoke to an FA Cup final!, His transfers are questionable but considering we don't let our managers buy players it won't be his fault, although as some blame AVB for th famous 7, who knows it could be his fault?

good thread and if it all goes wrong I'd like to see us go for Pulis.

I don't think Pulis is like Harry at all other than being old fashioned coaches.

Harry gave the flair players the freedom to play and this was true whether he was managing West Ham or Portsmouth.

Pulis is much more structured as a manager. Stoke spent a lot of money and most of his signings simply aged into obscurity. At the same time he didn't develop any style of play. He organised the defence well, bought big lumps up front and signed midfielders with good long delivery.

At Palace they didn't allow him the same bottomless pit of money and he duly left.

Pulis' style is well suited to a lower Prem club. He'd be a safe option and would make us stable like Moyes, Allardyce and Curbishley I'm almost certain he'd struggle at a top 6 club.

His nationality has nothing to do with it.

 

[UpTownSpur]

Is this some kind of nightmare or have I woken up as a West Ham fan? Is Tony Pulis really being discussed as a prospective Spurs manager? Why not throw in Fat Sam as his assistant while you're at it?

 

[dontcallme]

Is this some kind of nightmare or have I woken up as a West Ham fan? Is Tony Pulis really being discussed as a prospective Spurs manager? Why not throw in Fat Sam as his assistant while you're at it?

I find it strange too.

In theory he's a manager who organises a defence well and works the players hard to become a better team than their parts.

In reality I can't think of any examples of this style of manager taking over a top 6 Prem side and being successful.

 

[ShayLaB]

I find it strange too.

In theory he's a manager who organises a defence well and works the players hard to become a better team than their parts.

In reality I can't think of any examples of this style of manager taking over a top 6 Prem side and being successful.

Jose obviously thinks very highly of him and in many ways they have the same pragmatic approach.

 

[dontcallme]

Jose obviously thinks very highly of him and in many ways they have the same pragmatic approach.

Mourinho helped turned Frank Lampard into one of the best goalscoring midfielders in Prem history. He also knew how to get the best out of flair players such as Robben, Cole, Duff etc. He also got Real Madrid playing really good football showing he knows how to play attacking football.

I don't think Mourinho's approach is anything like Pulis'.

 

[14/04/91]

Redknapp helped turned Frank Lampard into one of the best goalscoring midfielders in Prem history. He also knew how to get the best out of flair players such as Robben, Cole, Duff etc. He also got Real Madrid playing really good football showing he knows how to play attacking football.

I don't think Mourinho's approach is anything like Pulis'.

You might want to edit your first word....

 

[14/04/91]

It seems Hughes' head has finally deflated and he's willing to put in the hard work. He really should have stayed at Fulham way back when and continued to build something rather than jump ship to try and get a bigger job (can't even remember which one it was, Villa maybe?).

Maybe he could see Fulham was an average, ageing squad and got out at the right time. In hindsight you can hardly blame him, they're in a state these days.

 

[Tucker]

The guy spent an absolute fortune at Stoke, it's not a matter of him having to make do with shit players. He likes playing dirty boring football, it's in his DNA.

 

[@Bobby__Lucky]

To be completely fair, Pulis is Redknapp before we took him on. But with better points.

Redknapp was a bit of a "mid table manager" himself at that time, but mostly he was disliked as an idea due to him being a Spammers legend of sorts. Pulis is just a welsh bloke who dresses like a chav, no real reason to dislike him in the same way.

I think he'd be great, given a chance at a bigger club. I worry that people judge managers based on how they've handled their environments, rather than their successes based on the challenges they have faced.

Personally, I'd say that Pulis could be fantastic - he's shown that he's no long-ball manager since he left Stoke, and can get teams playing attractive football imo.

I thought exactly this. Agree with every word you said here.

 

[dontcallme]

You might want to edit your first word....

Damn autocorrect.

 

[Jules_PF]

Good to see I'm not entirely barking mad! I have said in another forum many times, Pulis could be a very good manager for us

He would be our manager now if his name was Antonio Pulisoni.

 

[SpursManChris]

The guy spent an absolute fortune at Stoke, it's not a matter of him having to make do with shit players. He likes playing dirty boring football, it's in his DNA.

he has spent a fortune on many shit to average players, not a few GOOD ones. There is a difference.

 

[Tucker]

he has spent a fortune on many shit to average players, not a few GOOD ones. There is a difference.

Yeah that's the problem. HE bought them, he sure knows how to waste money, so I suppose he will fit right in here.

 

[SpursManChris]

Yeah that's the problem. HE bought them, he sure knows how to waste money, so I suppose he will fit right in here.

Keeping in mind, it IS Stoke and they're not going to be able to attract the worlds best. I said they were shit to average which is about what a team like Stoke will attract realistically. Hardly Pulis' fault.

 

[Ionman34]

Now I would expect to see this kind of an thread if we were 6th from bottom...but coming in 6th?

Like I said in the OP Flash, it's just conjecture. I wanted to see what others felt about Pulis SHOULD it all go pear shaped for Poch.

I'm praying it doesn't, as the last thing I want to see is yet another swap out of managers. But based on our recent history, there is always the possibility it could happen.

I think he's an interesting manager and feel he has more to him than many believe. Having said that, I also accept that I could be way off base. The only way to know for certain is to see him in the role.

It's also interesting to see some of the comments about us needing a 'proven winner,' should the change happen. Ramos was a proven winner, as was AVB pre Chelsea, whereas Aitch wasn't. Bill Nicholson was also untried as was Burkinshaw.
As with many things, past performance isn't always an indicator of future performance. I'll throw George Graham into the mix as well.