Middlesbrough's renaissance under Warnock - Tony Pulis claims he 'played a little bit of a part in it' [Gazette]

The good news is, that with any luck, most of those at greater risk of covid-19 will hopefully have had their vaccinations by Easter and we will be able to show Tony in person on 24/04/21 how much we valued his time in charge 😀
 
festa5 said:
He basically wants credit for selling players. Any idiot can sell players.

He might be due some credit if he'd sold those players AND then replaced them with a core of players who are essential to us now. Or sold them and achieved promotion.

But he wasted money loaning Besic, Hugill, Mikel and the Dutch winger he never picked and blew £7m on a centre back we offloaded 12 months later at a loss.

Saville might be doing well now. Is he worth his fee yet though? Not for me.

So his only real contribution to our current success is McNair, probably our best player. A player he never played!

Woodgate probably deserves more credit for our current position. As much as a car crash that he was he didn't (or wasn't allowed) to waste money, brought in Bola and Dijksteel for less than half a Flint, brought through Spence and brought Johnson back into the squad.

He's mastered the art of self promotion like, I'll give him that.
Click to expand...
Sums it up very well.
 
Pulis was single handedly responsible for killing my interest in Boro in the time he was here - only WGS's tenure compares in how poor the football, and the connection with the team was.

I'd also love to know what contractual incentive he had to reduce costs, because some of the transfer decisions were crazy.
 
I'm gonna break the trend on here and say he was right. The club was clearly in a mess when he arrived. Some stupid contracts on some average players like Britt and Fletcher and Christie. Over stretched on players like Braithwaite and Randolph. We sadly had to sell the decent players because the average ones wouldn't leave. Pulis managed to steady us, was 2 games away from promotion through having faith in Traore, and yes it was a bit dour, but he was a necessary evil and Woodgate showed what could have happened if we hadn't got him in
 
coluka said:
The good news is, that with any luck, most of those at greater risk of covid-19 will hopefully have had their vaccinations by Easter and we will be able to show Tony in person on 24/04/21 how much we valued his time in charge 😀
Click to expand...
I'll be there, applauding over all the hate. ;)
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Pulis was single handedly responsible for killing my interest in Boro in the time he was here - only WGS's tenure compares in how poor the football, and the connection with the team was.

I'd also love to know what contractual incentive he had to reduce costs, because some of the transfer decisions were crazy.
Click to expand...
See I can never understand comments like this. Whatever you think of Pulis the football was far superior to the football under Woodgate.
 
atypical_boro said:
See I can never understand comments like this. Whatever you think of Pulis the football was far superior to the football under Woodgate.
Click to expand...
Pullis' reputation was saved by the unnatural ability of Adama Traore, the only reason he wasn't found out sooner was because injuries forced his hand into playing wingbacks. The football under TP was dreadful. Woodgate's boro was more exciting to watch for all the wrong reasons. A bit like when Big Brother first started.

Personally I think Monk suffered not having Pep Clotet as his right hand man, concentrating more on making a few quid for his pals than building a balanced squad also meant he was unable to get the boro promoted. Pullis rode the wave of Monk's messy squad full of quality players. Anyone could have done the job after that, keeping the seat warm whilst the big contracts wound down. Woodgate paid the price for not having any experience in his backroom team. Thank gawd for Warnock, eye for a player, able to set up a team, coach players, connect with fans... THE REAL DEAL!!
 
“The money Steve spent and gave the (previous) manager (Garry Monk) to spend was over £55million. The wage bill was absolutely horrendous when you think of it.

“It was really trying to get the best out of what we had then, but also to readdress and reset the football club.

And Pulis spent £20m on Flint, McNair and Saville alone, not also forgetting the Mikel and Hugill deals. You seriously telling me we won't have been paying out a fortune in wages on them two.

As for his comment about trying to get the best ouf of what we had then, well it shouldn't have been such a challenge. We had one of the best squads in the division. We should have been in and around the play-offs, so finishing 1 point outside them was hardly an achievement.
 
atypical_boro said:
See I can never understand comments like this. Whatever you think of Pulis the football was far superior to the football under Woodgate.
Click to expand...

I can only assume this comment is meant to get bites, as frankly if it was meant as a serious comment to justify the ability of Pulis it would be silly. What next, comparing the respective medical qualities of Harold Shipman with those of Conrad Murray 😂
 
coluka said:
I can only assume this comment is meant to get bites, as frankly if it was meant as a serious comment to justify the ability of Pulis it would be silly. What next, comparing the respective medical qualities of Harold Shipman with those of Conrad Murray 😂
Click to expand...
Not at all Col. Its quite simply 'who played the best football out of those two' and the answer is Pulis. The fact you didn't like him doesn't stop it being true.
 
At best Pulis's football was effective or I suppose you could say efficient. The problem was that it was soul destroyingly boring even in most of the matches we won.
 
Centralscrutinizer said:
At best Pulis's football was effective or I suppose you could say efficient. The problem was that it was soul destroyingly boring even in most of the matches we won.
Click to expand...
And Woodgate's was soul-destroyingly boring and we barely ever won, and worse when we lost which was most of the time.
 
atypical_boro said:
Not at all Col. Its quite simply 'who played the best football out of those two' and the answer is Pulis. The fact you didn't like him doesn't stop it being true.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that it is his brand of football I do not ‘like’ As for him personally, I have never met him but if you substitute like for trust in your comment then you’d be more accurate.
As for the football itself, the results were more effective under Pulis, he also had a stronger squad and better players at his disposal, the replacements he oversaw were lesser imho. The style of football was arguably better under Woodgate, results were less effective, but results alone do not paint the full picture of their qualities, nor tools at their disposal. Pulis was set up to succeed and failed. Woodgate was set up to fail and did so, as expected given his inexperience and hand dealt, partly by the chairman, partly by his predecessor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top