Originally Posted by Ever Wolf
Football is a results business. Good defences get you results just as much as scoring goals.(unless you're United who have 3 top strikers at their disposal)
When he took over again Stoke were mid table in the Championship. Now a mid table Premier League side, FA Cup final 2 years ago and European football. He deserves some credit.
Because Wolves on the other hand were mid-low table Premier League side, now mid table Championship.
I know Wolves have nothing to do with what we're discussing but it's the polar opposite of Stoke
I know football is a results based buisness and that's why I'm telling you that the defending stats are irrelevant. Clean sheets + lack of goals = mid table. Pulis has spent a fortune to turn Stoke into an average football side that plays average football at best. My argument is that other managers have performed at similar/higher levels this season with smaller budgets. The only stats that really matter are points when it comes down to it.
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve any credit at all, he still had to get results despite being afforded a huge wage bill (I remember all of the loans in 06-07, fuckin warz!), but to say that he's the best performing manager in the league is going over the top. There are plenty of far more worthy candidates.
If you want to bring Wolves into this then fine. Instead of backing their manager (Mick McCarthy) they (Jeff Moxley and co) decided to build a huge stand that they didn't need. McCarthy had a net spend of -£3 million that season (11/12). Later the Wolves 'fans' got on McCarthy's back despite the fact that he was doing his best working with a small budget. The fan apathy lead to Mick being sacked before his totally inept (as a manager) number two Terry Connor stood in and sunk the ship. The difference between the two clubs were the boards and their decision making skills, not the two managers that had built them up. Pulis is fortunate to be backed by a great board, McCarthy wasn't.