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

I disagree. I loved watching football unleashed under Woodgate. It was like the natural evolution of total football. Some people just didn't get Woodgate football, in same same way that people often don't get Radiohead.
Such things as goals or wins are unimportant to me as I rejoice in the purity of football with the shackles off. I embrace chaos and uncertainty, whereas the more timid traveller runs home to mummy and hides under the table, whimpering about wingers not tracking back, sucking his thumb while thinking calming thoughts of dael fry at right back.
 
atypical_boro said:
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Amazing what people will see when they are blinded by hate.
Click to expand...

Not like you taking a selection of words out of the overall context in which they were stated... oh wait on 🤔🤔🤔 Lets be clear, both were awful, one was less painful on the eyes to watch, despite the results and the quality of the tools and relative experience gained in their careers as managers.
 
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...

I don’t know if you know how the loan system works, but you don’t get to pick and chose your players.

It’s basically this is what’s available, take it or leave. He didn’t identify Hugill, Besic, or Van La Parra. They’re who the club identified and were willing to pay for. There wasn’t a single Boro fan who didn’t want Besic back after his first loan spell.

The fans absolutely slaughtered him for signing Mikel, who he identified and actively chase. They then realised he was by far our best central midfielder.

Aiden Flint didn’t work out, not every signing does. We got the vast majority of our money back. But fans who called McNair and Saville absolute dross now realise they’re key players in our squad. Again though, he didn’t identify them.

I don’t think he deserves the level of praise he implies, I disagreed with giving Mowbray praise for selling players and doing nothing so it would be hypocritical to give Pulis praise for that (though some posters who praised Mowbray for years for doing just that are now dismissing Pulis for a similar claim) however it has to be said under Pulis we had two very solid seasons finishing 5th and 7th whilst slashing the wage bill and turning a profit.

The club was undoubtedly in a better financial shape when he left than when he took the job.
 
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...
We had all stopped attending under Pulis. We had sat through the misery since 2008 but he was different level. Completely killed my love of football, don’t know how anyone can defend him.
 
From a BBC article on bamford

Tony Pulis would begin the process of adding grit to guile, moving Bamford to a central attacking role and coaxing 11 goals from him in 2017-18 as Boro fell just short of promotion.

Moving him from a central attacking role to a central attacking role?
 
It’s mad to think during Monk and Pulis spell here.

We could have had a front 3 of Traore, Bamford and Braithwaite. 3 players who are all performing very well at the top level of the game and worth a hell of a lot of money between them now.

Instead Monk spent 15 million on Assombalonga and Pulis preferred Gestede before his injury. Incredible.
 
Block21 said:
It’s mad to think during Monk and Pulis spell here.

We could have had a front 3 of Traore, Bamford and Braithwaite. 3 players who are all performing very well at the top level of the game and worth a hell of a lot of money between them now.

Instead Monk spent 15 million on Assombalonga and Pulis preferred Gestede before his injury. Incredible.
Click to expand...
Agree

How Monk never used Adama.

And the fact Pulis played Bamford out wide.

Quite incredible decisions.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
From a BBC article on bamford

Tony Pulis would begin the process of adding grit to guile, moving Bamford to a central attacking role and coaxing 11 goals from him in 2017-18 as Boro fell just short of promotion.

Moving him from a central attacking role to a central attacking role?
Click to expand...
IIRC he only played him due to some injuries didn't he?
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
IIRC he only played him due to some injuries didn't he?
Click to expand...

Yep. In fact I recall a radio interview in which Pulis said he’d been surprised at Bamford playing well at centre forward. What sort of puff piece attempts to give the charlatan credit for Bamford? He gets credit for Traore too which I’ve never agreed with.
 
Block21 said:
It’s mad to think during Monk and Pulis spell here.

We could have had a front 3 of Traore, Bamford and Braithwaite. 3 players who are all performing very well at the top level of the game and worth a hell of a lot of money between them now.

Instead Monk spent 15 million on Assombalonga and Pulis preferred Gestede before his injury. Incredible.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Monk also spent a ridiculous amount on Fletcher!
 
Adi_Dem said:
Yep. In fact I recall a radio interview in which Pulis said he’d been surprised at Bamford playing well at centre forward. What sort of puff piece attempts to give the charlatan credit for Bamford? He gets credit for Traore too which I’ve never agreed with.
Click to expand...
Much as I dislike Pulis, I think he deserves credit for Traore, he basically seemed to tell him to keep it simple. That doesn't make up for his treatment of Bamford and his anti football though!
 
Adi_Dem said:
Yep. In fact I recall a radio interview in which Pulis said he’d been surprised at Bamford playing well at centre forward. What sort of puff piece attempts to give the charlatan credit for Bamford? He gets credit for Traore too which I’ve never agreed with.
Click to expand...

We might actually have scored (and god forbid, won the tie!) against Villa in the play offs, if that complete an utter tool as manager put our best striker up top for more than 20 minutes out of the whole 180 minutes!

The moment the FT whistle blew at Villa Park, Pulis' P45 should've been printed.
 
Block21 said:
It’s mad to think during Monk and Pulis spell here.

We could have had a front 3 of Traore, Bamford and Braithwaite. 3 players who are all performing very well at the top level of the game and worth a hell of a lot of money between them now.

Instead Monk spent 15 million on Assombalonga and Pulis preferred Gestede before his injury. Incredible.
Click to expand...
Yet some of our fans around said Traore is a sprinter not a footballer, Braithwaite is just too lightweight, and Bamford misses too many. Some people don't know what they're talking about
 
I don't think there's any idiocy in playing bamford out wide. He played there for Karanka and did well there before being moved inside. I remember him being touted as a number 10 as well. Let's not forget our manager had just spent a fortune on Britt and braithwaite so it was a question of squeezing too many players into too few positions. And at the risk of sounding like pog ate my hamster I remember starting a thread when we were struggling in the prem saying we should be starting bamford and being roundly pooh-poohed. I can remember a single person being against the pooh-pooh. Not a one.
 
Otto42 said:
Much as I dislike Pulis, I think he deserves credit for Traore, he basically seemed to tell him to keep it simple. That doesn't make up for his treatment of Bamford and his anti football though!
Click to expand...

All he did really was play him. It was always obvious how good a player he was. He played him, told people to pass to him and traore played. Any credit Pulis gets for that must be very limited.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
I don't think there's any idiocy in playing bamford out wide. He played there for Karanka and did well there before being moved inside. I remember him being touted as a number 10 as well. Let's not forget our manager had just spent a fortune on Britt and braithwaite so it was a question of squeezing too many players into too few positions. And at the risk of sounding like pog ate my hamster I remember starting a thread when we were struggling in the prem saying we should be starting bamford and being roundly pooh-poohed. I can remember a single person being against the pooh-pooh. Not a one.
Click to expand...

i argued in favour of starting Bamford for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top