Tony Pulis?

[spurs9]

Pulis can take clubs to a certain level, which is below where we currently are. He is also good at getting teams to play well quickly, but again, only to a certain level. Palace look better with Pardew. Stoke have finished higher in both Hughes seasons than in in of Pulis's in the PL and Hughes has spent considerably less money in his 2 seasons combined, than Pulis spent in any one season (works in both net spend and in total for incoming transfers) in the PL.

 

[ItsBoris]

Pulis can take clubs to a certain level, which is below where we currently are. He is also good at getting teams to play well quickly, but again, only to a certain level. Palace look better with Pardew. Stoke have finished higher in both Hughes seasons than in in of Pulis's in the PL and Hughes has spent considerably less money in his 2 seasons combined, than Pulis spent in any one season (works in both net spend and in total for incoming transfers) in the PL.

But how do you know that? Because he's never really been given the chance on a bigger stage than Palace, Stoke, or West Brom.

These may be a couple of surprising figures. When Harry Redknapp managed us, with probably our best team on paper in ages (and since), he had a 49% win record. At Palace, Tony Pulis had a 43% winning record and at West Brom he currently has a 48% winning record.

I think at a big club he'd probably be a manager of about Benitez's quality, and I think he would set teams up at the top level in a pretty similar way - strong and organized defensively, difficult to break down, and playing on the counterattack. He also seems to be pretty good tactically like Benitez is.

Pardew is a good manager as well I think, but I don't think he would be as suited to a team closer to the top of the table as Pulis would be. It's not surprising that he's doing well at Palace though especially since they see him as one of their own.

 

[The Apprentice]

You could argue that he's done more as a manager than Poch has.

 

[spurs9]

But how do you know that? Because he's never really been given the chance on a bigger stage than Palace, Stoke, or West Brom.

These may be a couple of surprising figures. When Harry Redknapp managed us, with probably our best team on paper in ages (and since), he had a 49% win record. At Palace, Tony Pulis had a 43% winning record and at West Brom he currently has a 48% winning record.

I think at a big club he'd probably be a manager of about Benitez's quality, and I think he would set teams up at the top level in a pretty similar way - strong and organized defensively, difficult to break down, and playing on the counterattack. He also seems to be pretty good tactically like Benitez is.

Pardew is a good manager as well I think, but I don't think he would be as suited to a team closer to the top of the table as Pulis would be. It's not surprising that he's doing well at Palace though especially since they see him as one of their own.

He hasn't earned a bigger stage than Stoke though, as he couldn't take them beyond 11th (which Hughes has done in both his seasons there, so you can't blame the club he is at).

In regards to win%, that's my point, both Palace & West Brom are less than a season long and as I stated, he's "good at getting teams to play well quickly, but again, only to a certain level", then teams figure that out and he can't improve them beyond it.

Why do you think Pulis would be good at a top club but not Pardew?

 

[spurs9]

You could argue that he's done more as a manager than Poch has.

Except finish in the top half of the PL.

 

[guy]

No one can say for sure whether he would be a success or not, or whether he would've had a better season with our squad, than poch has this season.

I think he would've got us around the same league position, but potentially we would have been more flexible in our approach.

Means bugger all though really, it's all if, buts and maybes

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

But how do you know that? Because he's never really been given the chance on a bigger stage than Palace, Stoke, or West Brom.

These may be a couple of surprising figures. When Harry Redknapp managed us, with probably our best team on paper in ages (and since), he had a 49% win record. At Palace, Tony Pulis had a 43% winning record and at West Brom he currently has a 48% winning record.

I think at a big club he'd probably be a manager of about Benitez's quality, and I think he would set teams up at the top level in a pretty similar way - strong and organized defensively, difficult to break down, and playing on the counterattack. He also seems to be pretty good tactically like Benitez is.

Pardew is a good manager as well I think, but I don't think he would be as suited to a team closer to the top of the table as Pulis would be. It's not surprising that he's doing well at Palace though especially since they see him as one of their own.

Pullis has only ever set up teams not to get beat. It is different kettle of fish when you manage a side that has to take the initiative and break down packed defences each week. We have no evidence he can do that.

 

[ackie]

I would rather have Benitez!

 

[ItsBoris]

He hasn't earned a bigger stage than Stoke though, as he couldn't take them beyond 11th (which Hughes has done in both his seasons there, so you can't blame the club he is at).

In regards to win%, that's my point, both Palace & West Brom are less than a season long and as I stated, he's "good at getting teams to play well quickly, but again, only to a certain level", then teams figure that out and he can't improve them beyond it.

Why do you think Pulis would be good at a top club but not Pardew?

You're forgetting that Pulis is the one who built the team and brought them into the Premier League and kept them there. Hughes is just benefiting from that success.

 

[spurs9]

You're forgetting that Pulis is the one who built the team and brought them into the Premier League and kept them there. Hughes is just benefiting from that success.

He did take them to the PL and he also spent 130m (104m net spend) in 5 seasons to establish them as a safe but bottom 7 team. Hughes has spend 10m (6m net spend) in 2 seasons and established them as a top 10 team, whilst also making them a more entertaining side to watch. I bet if Paul Jewell had that kind of money, he would have done a better job with Wigan.

It's not like they were gradually improving under Pulis and Hughes continued the momentum, in his last 3 seasons at Stoke, they finished 13th, 14th and 13th (but with 3 points less than the 14th place finish).

 

[dannythomas]

I would rather have Benitez!

I would rather have Ancelotti ! He can bring back Bale and Modric as his first 2 signings ....

 

[Always Offside]

Pulis is a very good pragmatic manager. He has a strong grasp of the tactical side of the game and seems a good man manager.

His downside is he is absolutely awful in the transfer market. If we were to employ Pulis it would have to be in a DOF system where he has minimal input into which players we sign. That happens to be similar to our current system.

Personally I don't like the DOF system; a manager should get players he wants, but if we are to persist with the DOF system then Pulis is an excellent fit.

Couldn't agree more. My mate is a Stoke City fan and has said Pulis has squandered a surprising amount of money over his 2 terms as Stoke manager. He was happy to see him go and to this point is quite happy with the way things are going under Hughes.

 

[Ionman34]

Couldn't agree more. My mate is a Stoke City fan and has said Pulis has squandered a surprising amount of money over his 2 terms as Stoke manager. He was happy to see him go and to this point is quite happy with the way things are going under Hughes.

Not really a fair comparison that though. You only have to look at the varied reactions to our various managers on this board, to see that one mans meat is another mans poison.

I have to admit though, that the transfer ability of Pulis is questionable. Whilst I believe he has attributes in common with Mourinho, buying players isn't really one of them.

It's been an interesting thread thus far with some good points put forward on both sides.

I still believe he has enough about him to be successful with a bigger club, but can also see, from a lot of the posts against him, that he may not necessarily deliver what I believe.

What we have to take into account is that past performance is no indicator of future performance. I don't think any of us would have believed that Aitch would get us CL or be in the title mix as he was in 2010/2011. There was absolutely nothing in his previous CV to suggest he had it in him. Let's face it, he was brought in to stop the Ramos rot and excelled. Yes he had great players, but he got the best out of them. I believe Pulis does too, which is why I maintain the belief that he can be a success with a bigger club.

 

[dontcallme]

Not really a fair comparison that though. You only have to look at the varied reactions to our various managers on this board, to see that one mans meat is another mans poison.

I have to admit though, that the transfer ability of Pulis is questionable. Whilst I believe he has attributes in common with Mourinho, buying players isn't really one of them.

It's been an interesting thread thus far with some good points put forward on both sides.

I still believe he has enough about him to be successful with a bigger club, but can also see, from a lot of the posts against him, that he may not necessarily deliver what I believe.

What we have to take into account is that past performance is no indicator of future performance. I don't think any of us would have believed that Aitch would get us CL or be in the title mix as he was in 2010/2011. There was absolutely nothing in his previous CV to suggest he had it in him. Let's face it, he was brought in to stop the Ramos rot and excelled. Yes he had great players, but he got the best out of them. I believe Pulis does too, which is why I maintain the belief that he can be a success with a bigger club.

All fair points. That's not to say I agree with you.

Redknapp had a history of getting his players to play with freedom and with attacking intent. He won the FA Cup with Portsmouth and had them performing well in the league.

Ferguson at Aberdeen won 3 titles, the cup winners cup and 4 Scottish cups

O'Neill won 2 league cups for Leicester.

My point is those who have steeped up from smaller clubs to have a good level of success have often won things and O'Neill aside promote attacking intent.

Pulis didn't give any of his Stoke players freedom. He didn't buy flair players and wanted to structure the team to his requirements.

Everything about him for me puts him in the bracket of Allardyce, Moyes and Curbishley. Well suited for a lower Prem club as he'll organise them well but once at a bigger club where opposing teams set up differently become very limited.

 

[dagraham]

If we're hypothetically talking about English managers, I'd much rather have Pardew than Pulis. A smug twat no doubt, but a better manager and playing a more pleasing brand of football.

 

[dontcallme]

If we're hypothetically talking about English managers, I'd much rather have Pardew than Pulis. A smug twat no doubt, but a better manager and playing a more pleasing brand of football.

Can't stand Pardew but agree his style of play is more suited to a bigger club than most English managers around at the moment.

 

[Shadydan]

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNewsHQ/status/710180521217646592

 

[SonicSarr]

Lol at this thread. Seriously guys.

 

[mattie g]

Lol at this thread. Seriously guys.

Poch out!

 

[Flashspur]

@Ionman34 they say hindsight is 20/20...just saying