Are Stoke really that bad?

[Major Isewater]

Are Stoke really as bad as many made out following our away victory ?
 

They beat Villa away last night , who  smashed us .

The Potters have lost just once in seven games in all competitions, winning four of their past five.
 

Funny game football.

[Phileas Fogg]

No, they're a decent side. They have a good manager and have recruited well. Lots of people tipping them as an under the radar bet for top 6.

Us beating them is a very good win.

[Eastside Moonwalker]

Stoke have still the spine of a team that once played in the premier league and then from that have the players that believe they are better than what they actually are (some of which are still on prem wages). These are the Butland, Martins-Indi, Bauer, Ndiaye, Etebo. They are a lot better than what they used to be in this regard. They used to have a team of players in the championship on crazy money. Mccneil has sorted a lot of that out and I think even Butland and Shawcross are pretty good eggs.

Compare the 19/20 team to now and you can see that a lot of the bad influences are gone. Probably didn't help having Berahino amongst the dressing room too

[hertsexile]

Micheal O’Neill will get the best out of them they have quality players in their squad. Except them to be in mix at end of season. 
Let’s be positive for a change and just except that us winning away at Stoke Ed a great result. 

[JamesBCFC]

2 hours ago, Phileas Fogg said:

No, they're a decent side. They have a good manager and have recruited well. Lots of people tipping them as an under the radar bet for top 6.

Us beating them is a very good win.

Is this statement not contradictory?

If lots are tipping them, then they aren't under the radar?

 

I don't see them as a top 6 side this season, but a solid midtable one. It was still a very good win though. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Stoke away was an excellent win and a performance that had a bit of everything.

Lots of possession first half- Check.

Solidity without the ball 2nd half- Check.

Ability to maintain a threat with and without the ball. Yes. 1 goal in a half we dominated the ball and same in the half in which we didn't- Check.

Complete defensive solidity in and out of possession- Check. Zero shots on target conceded is excellent at this level, especially away from home.

As for Stoke, decent side but one I think are better without the ball a bit, seem potentially reactive and dangerous off the back of it, vs better sides and away from home certainly.

[E.G.Red]

I suspect that before last nights game, most on this forum would have gone for a Villa win.  Henri Lansbury was anonymous unlike  against us and I understand Villa  did have a good shout for a penalty . 

[Phileas Fogg]

1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said:

Is this statement not contradictory?

If lots are tipping them, then they aren't under the radar?

 

I don't see them as a top 6 side this season, but a solid midtable one. It was still a very good win though. 

Not really, I wouldn't think about it so deeply. What it means is lots of people on here (who know their football) were tipping them for top 6 when the media haven't really. 

[Red-Robbo]

Is Stoke the place really that bad?  Yep, it's like Raqqa - without the charm.

[slartibartfast]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Is Stoke the place really that bad?  Yep, it's like Raqqa - without the charm.

It's the arsehole of the empire........and Burslem's worse !

[Prinny]

I think they're not that good. I don't think there's a huge amount of quality in the Championship this year, but it's stacked at the top IMO. I don't care about results vs Villa reserves. Especially when we play our reserves. I don't know how that's an indication of quality. Preston had a man sent off on 22 minute for their ONLY WIN of the league season. And they got a bore draw at Millwall and we comfortably beat them.

I didn't make a league table prediction. But I would have had them somewhere in the 14th-20th range Just off the highlights of the first few championship league games and the ones I've watched I think the first few weeks are probably the hardest to judge based off of the weird pre-season but a lot of teams that you'd expect to be better (Forest/Preston/Derby) have looked really bad and I'd expect them to climb.

What are their weapons? Organised is nice, but how do they hurt teams? Just counter? I don't think that's enough. I'd like to believe that a team that seem to be actively trying to win will generally beat a team like Stoke.

My top 5 are in no particular order

Watford, Swansea, Bournemouth, Norwich, Brentford.

So if you have STOKE in the top 6. Are they better than us over the course of the season? Is one of the five I've listed not going to be up there?

So that's why I don't have them top 6, and expect a lot of teams who have looked bad to rise up with their superior squads over the likes of Stoke.

[bristolcitysweden]

I would say they look disinterested. A sleeping pill in disguise.

[Bristol Rob]

46 minutes ago, bristolcitysweden said:

I would say they look disinterested. A sleeping pill in disguise.

I have never seen a sleeping pill looking remotely curious, let alone interested.

[bristolcitysweden]

5 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I have never seen a sleeping pill looking remotely curious, let alone interested.

A bunch of tired overpaid gits

[Red-Robbo]

Their problem is a toothless attack.

[Leveller]

48 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I have never seen a sleeping pill looking remotely curious, let alone interested.

Ah, but disinterested doesn’t mean the same as uninterested - it means neutral, unbiased, fair.

[kiwired]

They are going to be a hard away team to play but will struggle to break down teams when at home very much like City last season.

[joe jordans teeth]

9 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Are Stoke really as bad as many made out following our away victory ?
 

They beat Villa away last night , who  smashed us .

The Potters have lost just once in seven games in all competitions, winning four of their past five.
 

Funny game football.

Manager is the problem there,good international manager while shutting up shop and countering but at Stoke with that squad he got he’s doing exactly the same which is baffling 

[joe jordans teeth]

3 hours ago, Prinny said:

I think they're not that good. I don't think there's a huge amount of quality in the Championship this year, but it's stacked at the top IMO. I don't care about results vs Villa reserves. Especially when we play our reserves. I don't know how that's an indication of quality. Preston had a man sent off on 22 minute for their ONLY WIN of the league season. And they got a bore draw at Millwall and we comfortably beat them.

I didn't make a league table prediction. But I would have had them somewhere in the 14th-20th range Just off the highlights of the first few championship league games and the ones I've watched I think the first few weeks are probably the hardest to judge based off of the weird pre-season but a lot of teams that you'd expect to be better (Forest/Preston/Derby) have looked really bad and I'd expect them to climb.

What are their weapons? Organised is nice, but how do they hurt teams? Just counter? I don't think that's enough. I'd like to believe that a team that seem to be actively trying to win will generally beat a team like Stoke.

My top 5 are in no particular order

Watford, Swansea, Bournemouth, Norwich, Brentford.

So if you have STOKE in the top 6. Are they better than us over the course of the season? Is one of the five I've listed not going to be up there?

So that's why I don't have them top 6, and expect a lot of teams who have looked bad to rise up with their superior squads over the likes of Stoke.

Bournemouth will be around top 10 if they don’t sign a striker,to think some think fammy was a waste of money when solanke was 19 million (que him getting a goal off his ass now)

[Lanterne Rouge]

6 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Is Stoke the place really that bad?  Yep, it's like Raqqa - without the charm.

 

4 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

It's the arsehole of the empire........and Burslem's worse !

When Viz did their first `Crap Towns` book they had to decide whether to award the title to Stoke or Hull so visited both to help make their minds up.

Hull just edged it due to the first thing they saw after stepping off the train was a human turd in a phone box.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Prinny said:

I think they're not that good. I don't think there's a huge amount of quality in the Championship this year, but it's stacked at the top IMO. I don't care about results vs Villa reserves. Especially when we play our reserves. I don't know how that's an indication of quality. Preston had a man sent off on 22 minute for their ONLY WIN of the league season. And they got a bore draw at Millwall and we comfortably beat them.

I didn't make a league table prediction. But I would have had them somewhere in the 14th-20th range Just off the highlights of the first few championship league games and the ones I've watched I think the first few weeks are probably the hardest to judge based off of the weird pre-season but a lot of teams that you'd expect to be better (Forest/Preston/Derby) have looked really bad and I'd expect them to climb.

What are their weapons? Organised is nice, but how do they hurt teams? Just counter? I don't think that's enough. I'd like to believe that a team that seem to be actively trying to win will generally beat a team like Stoke.

My top 5 are in no particular order

Watford, Swansea, Bournemouth, Norwich, Brentford.

So if you have STOKE in the top 6. Are they better than us over the course of the season? Is one of the five I've listed not going to be up there?

So that's why I don't have them top 6, and expect a lot of teams who have looked bad to rise up with their superior squads over the likes of Stoke.

I had them 12th.  An improved team from Nathan Jones time, but not top 6 unless they find a way to really click.

 

[Prinny]

30 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I had them 12th.  An improved team from Nathan Jones time, but not top 6 unless they find a way to really click.

 

I think that 1-24 is all pretty reasonable and we're pretty in line. I would have Derby, Boro, QPR above them for sure, and obviously with the help of Captain Hindsight and his 20/20 vision it's easy to say Reading too. If we're talking quality and not just league position I would have had Wednesday above them too before the season started. So I'll say Stoke are the 17th best side.

Edit - Also not sure on the Michael O'Neil love. I don't follow international football so closely. But it's totally different. Stoke definitely look more organised. But like Northern Ireland, that's all you can do, you can't magically give them more quality. Maybe he IS going to get the best out of them like he appeared to for Northern Ireland, I just don't look at their squad and think they're that dangerous so even if he is great, I don't think they will be.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I think that 1-24 is all pretty reasonable and we're pretty in line. I would have Derby, Boro, QPR above them for sure, and obviously with the help of Captain Hindsight and his 20/20 vision it's easy to say Reading too. If we're talking quality and not just league position I would have had Wednesday above them too before the season started. So I'll say Stoke are the 17th best side.

Edit - Also not sure on the Michael O'Neil love. I don't follow international football so closely. But it's totally different. Stoke definitely look more organised. But like Northern Ireland, that's all you can do, you can't magically give them more quality. Maybe he IS going to get the best out of them like he appeared to for Northern Ireland, I just don't look at their squad and think they're that dangerous so even if he is great, I don't think they will be.

Yep, the problem with these pre-season predictions are that you’ve no idea what squads are gonna look like at the end of the window,

MON knows how to structure a defence, but it’s how he gets the best out of Clucas and Powell, and how they in turn feed the forwards.

Theres not a lot of difference between 6th and 14th in reality.

[Prinny]

On 02/10/2020 at 22:11, Davefevs said:

Yep, the problem with these pre-season predictions are that you’ve no idea what squads are gonna look like at the end of the window,

MON knows how to structure a defence, but it’s how he gets the best out of Clucas and Powell, and how they in turn feed the forwards.

Theres not a lot of difference between 6th and 14th in reality.

Yeah i think start of season I'd agree. I think just off of four games I'd put us in a higher bracket than Stoke.

My top 5

Us and other last play off place contenders

Stoke, Barnsley, Birmingham types.

Watching the second half of Stoke Birmingham today, two organised and unspectacular teams. Defenders on top. For Birmingham Iván Sánchez looks a nice player, Šunjić player of the game, Jutkiewicz always impresses me.

Stoke are so meh, talk of Clucas and Mikel quality, but so slow in their build up. Weren't dynamic at all until Tyrese Campbell came on. Sub Powell with the goal but it's a late run that should have been picked up and a slow deflected shot. Not impressed by them at all in the game vs us or this 1-1 vs Birmingham. We're so much more dynamic than both of these teams.

[Davefevs]

45 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Yeah i think start of season I'd agree. I think just off of four games I'd put us in a higher bracket than Stoke.

yep me too, hence why I had us 7th, Stoke 12th.

My top 5

Us and other last play off place contenders

Stoke, Barnsley, Birmingham types.

Watching the second half of Stoke Birmingham today, two organised and unspectacular teams. Defenders on top. For Birmingham Iván Sánchez looks a nice player, Šunjić player of the game, Jutkiewicz always impresses me.

yes, mentioned Sanchez a couple of weeks back....the kinda player that can give a good structured side like Brum that bit of a lift.  Bela not dissimilar either.  Sunjic was disappointing overall last season, but maybe he’s at home this season.  Jutkiewicz has been on my list for several years.

Stoke are so meh, talk of Clucas and Mikel quality, but so slow in their build up.
Mikel at 33 was a strange signing.  Clucas will do ok throughout a season.

Weren't dynamic at all until Tyrese Campbell came on.

haha, Campbell, another I really like.  But different player to his dad though, who I rated too.

Sub Powell with the goal but it's a late run that should have been picked up and a slow deflected shot. Not impressed by them at all in the game vs us or this 1-1 vs Birmingham. We're so much more dynamic than both of these teams.

Didn’t see the game.

[JamesBCFC]

Stoke could use a player like Afobe.

[Roger Red Hat]

On 02/10/2020 at 22:11, Davefevs said:

Yep, the problem with these pre-season predictions are that you’ve no idea what squads are gonna look like at the end of the window,

MON knows how to structure a defence, but it’s how he gets the best out of Clucas and Powell, and how they in turn feed the forwards.

Theres not a lot of difference between 6th and 14th in reality.

Is MON a good championship coach? He did a great job with the limited NI resources, but the Championship is a different KOF.

[Prinny]

4 minutes ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Is MON a good championship coach? He did a great job with the limited NI resources, but the Championship is a different KOF.

So far, i think he's organised the team well. Looks 1000% better than Nathan Jones' effort. I just don't think the squad is dynamic or exciting. So I think he's doing fine so far as far as setting up and coaching. Dunno how good he'll be on talent analysis and signings which is a huge part of management, getting good players in to work with. 

[bcfcredandwhite]

Is the fire/flames imoji a positive or a negative?

[ashton_fan]

Our defeat to Villa not looking so bad after their 7-goal win against Liverpool. I thought they would go down last season but they've made some astute signings and could do well much as it pains me to say it.