The Hiddink Thread

[Styles 9,790]

2 minutes ago, petre.ispirescu said:

Tony Pulis with money aka Jose Mourinho should go into retirement if we somehow go on a legendary run and miraculously snatch a Champions League place. 

That is extremely harsh.

Who knows what kind of football Tony Pulis would have produced with a huge budget.

[*Z4YN 69]

2 minutes ago, petre.ispirescu said:

Tony Pulis with money aka Jose Mourinho should go into retirement if we somehow go on a legendary run and miraculously snatch a Champions League place. 

[Jase 43,479]

1 minute ago, Styles said:

That is extremely harsh.

Who knows what kind of football Tony Pulis would have produced with a huge budget.

Pulis spent quite a lot at Stoke some years ago and he didn't change his style of play one bit.

[Styles 9,790]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

Pulis spent quite a lot at Stoke some years ago and he didn't change his style of play one bit.

Quite a lot of money for Stoke which is not even remotely close to what Mourinho has been able to spend.

[Jase 43,479]

2 minutes ago, Styles said:

Quite a lot of money for Stoke which is not even remotely close to what Mourinho has been able to spend.

Yes but even then, Pulis could still have gotten some good players with that money and changed his style but he didn't. You only have to look at Stoke now under Mark Hughes - their transfer budget isn't big but yet, they spent on some good players and their style of play has evolved.

[Styles 9,790]

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

Yes but even then, Pulis could still have gotten some good players with that money and changed his style but he didn't. You only have to look at Stoke now under Mark Hughes - their transfer budget isn't big but yet, they spent on some good players and their style of play has evolved.

Stoke weren't an established Premier League team then and as a club didn't have the same money (TV revenue helps attract players like Shaqiri).

Pulis did all the hard work and provided the foundation.

Give him the same budget Mourinho had and I'm sure he'd have been more adventurous.

[Jase 43,479]

4 minutes ago, Styles said:

Stoke weren't an established Premier League team then and as a club didn't have the same money (TV revenue helps attract players like Shaqiri).

But there were still decent players around that he could have signed but didn't, especially after finding their feet in their first two Premier League seasons.

6 minutes ago, Styles said:

Give him the same budget Mourinho had and I'm sure he'd have been more adventurous.

Don't think it's as simple as that. Mourinho has had big budgets to work with throughout his career but he has hardly been adventurous, has he? And you only have to look at David Moyes for instance. Worked well with a small budget at Everton but became clueless when he had lots of money to spend at United. His style of play at OT was dull to watch as well.

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

Same Guus is too old...

[kiwi1691 255]

2 hours ago, petre.ispirescu said:

Tony Pulis with money aka Jose Mourinho should go into retirement if we somehow go on a legendary run and miraculously snatch a Champions League place. 

You really are an imbecille

[OhForAGreavsie 5,774]

9 hours ago, petre.ispirescu said:

Tony Pulis with money aka Jose Mourinho should go into retirement if we somehow go on a legendary run and miraculously snatch a Champions League place. 

I've probably been to Stamford Bridge about 1,000 times and put tens of thousands of pounds into the club. This surely gives me the right to call myself a Chelsea fan. That's not to say that I deny anyone else's right to regard themselves as a Blue whether they've watched many more games than me, or none at all. It does mean however that anyone using the word we about the club is associating themselves me and hundreds of thousands of others. Believe me, there's nothing we about me and you in the manner of the support given to the club.

I'm sure you are tempted to say amen to that. Well, maybe that's something we do have in common then.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

31 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I've probably been to Stamford Bridge about 1,000 times and put tens of thousands of pounds into the club. This surely gives me the right to call myself a Chelsea fan. That's not to say that I deny anyone else's right to regard themselves as a Blue but it does mean that anyone using the word we about the club is associating themselves me and hundreds of thousands of others. Believe me, there's nothing we about me and you in terms of supporting the club.

I'm sure you are tempted to say amen to that. Well, maybe that's something we do have in common then.

Supporting the club or supporting Mourinho ? Cause petr.ispirescu didn't say anything bad about Chelsea FC.

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

Same as these guys -saying "we" is pretty funny when you're hundreds of miles away.

 "Remember when "we" beat the Germans in that film, Raiders of the Lost Ark ?"

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU#

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,774]

1 hour ago, Belgiannutt said:

Supporting the club or supporting Mourinho ? Cause petr.ispirescu didn't say anything bad about Chelsea FC.

There are plenty of Chelsea people, past and present, for whom I have no respect. I never speak about any of them in the way some here talk about the club's greatest ever coach.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

25 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

There are plenty of Chelsea people, past and present, for whom I have no respect. I never speak about any of them in the way some here talk about the club's greatest ever coach.

Well that's your choice. It's not because you don't do it that other people aren't allowed to do it. He's allowed to express a negative opinion of Mourinho.

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,774]

3 hours ago, Belgiannutt said:

Well that's your choice. It's not because you don't do it that other people aren't allowed to do it. He's allowed to express a negative opinion of Mourinho.

 

When did anyone say otherwise? I do of course make negative observations myself. Pretty often in fact but I do not pour bile. When someone chooses to do that they lose my good opinion. Few, if any, will care about that I'm sure but it's a fact all the same.

[robsblubot 3,213]

On 1/24/2016 at 11:39 AM, Styles said:

That is extremely harsh.

Who knows what kind of football Tony Pulis would have produced with a huge budget.

Indeed. Even Hiddink seems to do alright.

On a different subject, it's really funny to see how people automatically make the link between correlation and causation - causality. I had a discussion with Henrique the other days and he said that it wasn't about the manager, but Jose had to leave. I can certainly see that certain players were fed up with him for one reason or another and have upped their performances since he left.

However, my disagreement with him was on the *needing* part: if we have no ambitions this season, as it seems to be the case, Arsenal result won't fool me (against 10 men too), would keep Jose cause us to drop or eventually he would stabilize things as he seemed to be doing? Without empowering the players as we did by sacking Jose.

I digress because that's not even the point I was going to make. Back to cause and consequence, the question is how much of the improvement is down to the individual, Hiddink, and how much is just good players getting in some sort of shape.

Hiddink's last works are nothing to write home about.

[CurlyHairLikeLuiz 1,625]

What about Deschamps? He's out of contract after the Euros.

[kellzfresh 7,226]

I was very critical of how bad our fullbacks attacked during the Mourinho spell, but Hiddink seems to have fixed this. Fair play to him