Oliver Kay replies: are Stoke the least popular top-flight team since Wimbledon?

In this week's debate, Oliver Kay put forward the idea that Tony Pulis's team do not appeal to the neutral because of their approach to the beautiful game. Our writer refutes accusations that The Times match reports show anti-Stoke bias and reveals he used to get down to the Victoria Ground in his youth.

Joe: Stoke are unpopular because they cheat, waste time and have the throw-in as their only offensive tactic. As a Fulham fan, I am more than happy to watch big four teams get beaten by the underdog, but Hull and ourselves have proven that you don't have to play anti-football to do it. I understand Stoke's tactics, and they're certainly more worth their place than Derby's miserable bunch of incompetents, but I'd much prefer West Brom to stay up than them.

Petr: You're rolling a big stone up a very steep hill to claim the Shawcross tackle on Adebayor in the Arsenal match was fair and in the spirit of the game. As for the writer's statement that Stoke are "an honest bunch of players trying to make the most of their limited abilities in a league where they would perish if left to get by on technique alone", isn't that why there are lower levels of play to compete in? All this talk about opposition prima donnas, commitment, toughness, etc is just an elaborate rationalisation for not being good enough. They are sadly deserving of their unpopularity.

Richard: Who cares why Stoke play the way the do? If I said to a judge: "I robbed that granny because my kids are hungry", he wouldn't let me off. So, just because Stoke are struggling for survival doesn't mean they should be allowed to play horrible 1890's style football.

Piers: There's more than one way to skin a cat, Oli. Pulis didn't have to purposefully search for large, physical players to employ a gameplan that revolves around direct, aggressive football. That is the main sticking point. He chose that way. And that is why they are the least popular top-flight team since Wimbledon.

OK: I fully agree that there is more than one way to skin a cat. (Incidentally, did you know that “skinning the cat” is a move in gymnastics?) And doesn't also mean that Pulis has the right to choose how to set his team up? As long as they stick within the rules, of course, which, to my mind, they do.

Mike: The article seems to imply that Stoke's brand of football is somehow less entertaining than watching what we might call Arsenal-esque football. I'd argue that this isn't the case. Sure I enjoy watching slick passing football but, like most football fans, I also enjoy seeing a bit of blood and thunder every so often. A few strong challenges usually rile a crowd and, let's be honest, the majority of football fans attend games just as much to vent their frustrations as to sit and be entertained. It's no use denying that we all like to see a bit of (controlled) aggression in the game.

OK: I like a bit of blood and thunder. I was watching a 1980s game on ESPN Classic a few weeks ago and the number of crunching tackles was magnificent. Even better was the fact that the players on the receiving end would dust themselves down and get on with the game, rather than staying down in the hope of getting their opponent booked or sent off. But the rules have changed since then, with Fifa looking to protect the more skilful players. If there is to be aggression, it has to be controlled aggression. I would argue that Stoke’s aggression is controlled, for the most part. But … we are approaching a crossroads in terms of how football is played in this country. With the game being as quick as it has become, the fine line between ultra-committed, combative football and dangerous challenges is becoming precarious. I don’t think I’ve seen many career-threatening tackles from Stoke’s players this season, but, as a general point, while long throw-ins are acceptable, systematic fouling and dangerous challenges are not.

Ady: The "unwatchable" argument doesn't wash. We've only had a few games on TV this season. We beat Spurs 2-1...the opposition had two sent off, there were chances all over the show and there was 11 minutes of exciting injury time. We lost 3-2 to Everton, hardly a dull game. We lost to Man Utd and there you have a point, but Utd were average at best as well. The Premiership is exciting because it is competitive and unpredictable and while Stoke may not be pretty they more then contribute to it.

OK: I agree that Stoke are watchable. I enjoy watching how teams deal with the Delap throw-in. That isn’t to say that I would enjoy watching it every week, but you know that, whoever Stoke are playing, they will give them a game. You can’t say that of every team, so, yes, I would agree that they enrich and embellish the rich tapestry of  the Premier League.

Mick: I didn't feel any animosity towards Stoke until we [West Ham] faced them last weekend. A physical approach and route-one style of play is common practice with teams like Bolton and Wigan already, so my feeling was more to be impressed that they beat Arsenal and drew at Anfield than to feel disdain, but after actually watching them that quickly changed. It's nothing to do with their physicality. It’s the time wasting and cheating that took place from first minute to the last. They took the lead after four minutes and after that every time Rory Delap got a throw we hate to wait at least a minute for him to take it and Thomas Sorenson consistently took his time with goal-kicks even in the first half. There was also faking of injuries and just anything that could possibly be done to cheat. They got their just desserts in the end, with the fight between their own players, and, after we took the lead, it was hilarious watching Sorensen run to get the ball and take goal kicks having previously delayed them for ages.

OK: There is something funny about the Sorensen scenario you mention. Time-wasting is a bit pathetic and the strange thing about it, given it’s hardly a new trick, is that teams might expect it to work. Referees are generally pretty wise to it, but not always.

Rich: The biggest problem in football today is some of the media and the people running the Premier League trying to turn the game into a form of television entertainment to appeal to viewers with no football knowledge but money to spend. Stoke are a breath of fresh air this season, a passionate, committed team with vocal, passionate support. Stoke are in the Premier League to compete and hopefully will be there to stay. If there were more teams like Stoke and Hull, the Premier League would be much better.

Marco Bonfiglio: How about this for a pitch? "Strictly Samba Football" – after every two games, 606 holds a phone-in, asking fans who they want voted out of the Premiership (purely on aesthetic grounds, of course). By the end of the season, we will have whittled it down to the champions. Plus it will have saved everyone the messy business of watching all that football. Of course, by Week 30 we'll be watching the big four slug it out on a weekly goddamn basis, but to quote Butch Cassidy, "That's a small price to pay for beauty".

OK: Marco, you’re a funny guy. Your “Corinthian” joke also tickled me. And, Rich, your point about the desire for “entertainment” is a fair one. Football is a form of entertainment and I wouldn’t want to see every team playing the Stoke way or even the way that Chelsea did when breaking records under Jose Mourinho, but the idea that every team should conform to strict technical and stylistic criteria is plain wrong. Variety is the spice of life, is it not?

JR Stoke: More media Stoke bashing. I thought this would have worn off by now. The media may not like us, but as a Stokie with many friends that are fans of other clubs, even ones we've drawn against or beaten, not one dislikes us. Most admire us for putting up a scrap. I've even had many positive comments from Vale fans! When we can afford the cash, hopefully from another season in the Prem, then better signings will come. I just hope that the players carry on playing with passion. Who cares what everyone thinks? It's what Stoke fans think that counts. Stoke and Proud.

Robert Nixon: While I agree that Stoke are not popular, I think this is mainly with the media. A lot of fans the club and of other clubs have enjoyed seeing Stoke beat Arsenal, Aston Villa, etc with a very limited team in terms of footballing ability and without the huge financial resources available to their opponents. Is that why they are unpopular with certain journalists? It appears so.

Janet: I've read articles written about every Stoke game and only a handful can be classed as unbiased. It seems to me that writers have decided to play "knock down Stoke" while writing about them.

OK: I’ve just had a look back at a few of our match reports this season and I don’t see any sign of anti-Stoke bias. Every group of supporters are convinced that the media is against their club and that we are in all love with Arsenal/Liverpool/Manchester United/Newcastle/West Ham (delete as appropriate). We are in fact quite a broad church. I dare say some individual reporters will not have great respect for Stoke and what they stand for. But that will be based on what they see, rather than prejudice. As for me, I have worked in Stoke and (having been brought up not a million miles away) I often used to go to games at the Victoria Ground in my youth, when they were in the First Division. Peter Fox, George Berry, Adrian Heath and – a personal favourite – the laughably bad Wayne Ebanks. Now you’re talking.

Fletch: Stoke are not too dissimilar to many of the teams that get promoted, only to go down again the fol lowing season. They are not a big club, do not have the resources to buy a team of superstars and therefore cannot be expected to produce good football every week. The only way they can win is to limit the amount of time the ball is in playable areas of the pitch and to try and nullify the threat of the opposition as much as possible. It works sometimes and other times it does not. If it keeps them up, then well done to them, but I don't think people will every warm to them. I personally hope they go down, along with Bolton and City.

OK: City are the antithesis of Stoke. They play wonderful football at times, with Robinho, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Stephen Ireland pulling the strings, but they are nothing like as spirited or as streetwise as Stoke. I would imagine that Mark Hughes wishes he could inject something of Stoke’s spirit into his City squad.

PJ: As an Everton fan I would like to say what a refreshing change it makes to have teams like Stoke in the Premier League: a proper football club with proper football fans. We won at their place but it was a real struggle and probably didn't deserve it. The atmosphere down there was one of the best I've heard for many years. Good luck to them and I hope more players start to show as much passion and commitment as the Stoke team.

OK: We had similar messages of support from fans of Liverpool, Manchester United and Sheffield Wednesday, while supporters of Arsenal, Fulham, West Ham and others were very critical. Is there a North-South divide here, I wonder?

Rob: Stoke are just about everything I hate in football. It’s not just their negative and physical approach, but also they then dive and cheat to gain an advantage, as seen with Fuller’s dive against Hull and Sorensen's play-acting when touched by Van Persie among several other examples. As the Premier League owes much of its wealth to TV revenue and Stoke are almost unwatchable on television then the Premier League would be better off without them.

OK: Out of interest, Rob, which team do you support? If it is a Premier League team, then I would take a pretty strong guess that they have players who dive and cheat to gain an advantage. Even Steven Gerrard and Wayne Rooney, whom I would instinctively call two of the most “honest” players in the Premier League, do it at times. If Sorensen had barged Van Persie, rather than the other way around, do you think Van Persie would have behaved any differently. I hate diving and play-acting, but I don’t think it started in the Potteries and I don’t think for one minute that they would finish in the top half of a diving/cheating league.

Sam: Of course I'd prefer us to play like any of the big four, but it’s naive to think this is possible with the players we have. Surely a better idea would be to ensure the team are in the top flight next season and then gradually use the money earned to bring in better players, thus changing the approach of the team over time. It’s simply incorrect to say we only score goals through Delap's long throw as less than half of our goals scored have come via this route. It’s also deeply misguided to say that Stoke are in any way a dirty team or that we cheat our way through games - a more honest bunch of players you couldn't find.

OK: I agree with you about them being an “honest bunch”. The one player I would criticise during the recent Manchester United game was Andy Wilkinson and his only crime, for which he was sent off, was to get caught up in his and the crowd’s enthusiasm after managing to wind up Cristiano Ronaldo. Incidentally, in terms of the Delap assists, what does “less than half” mean? I read recently that over a third of Stoke’s goals have come from the Delap throw, which is remarkable. I think a more sophisticated approach is needed if they are to survive in the Premier League for any length of time, but do opposition fans really expect Stoke not to use such a weapon when it is at their disposal? We’re not talking about Corinthian Casuals here.

Moe the Barman: As a Wimbledon fan I can still remember the vitriol from the media towards us in the late eighties and early nineties. Stoke are going to have to go a long way to be as unpopular as we were! Good luck to Pulis and his boys for the rest of the season.

OK: You’re not wrong, Moe. I can’t help wondering how some of today’s players would deal with the combined forces of Vinnie Jones, John Fashanu and Eric Young. Jones’s long throw-in (see, he could play a bit too) would have been the least of their worries. Wenger jokes occasionally now about the fearsome Wimbledon team he faced when he took over at Arsenal in 1996, but they were pussycats compared to the original Crazy Gang.

Comments

[John H]

Were Wimbledon unpopular? I'd forgotten. I do remember the obsessive hatred of the occasional sportswriter like Jeff Powell, but I also remember the club winning the fair play league twice whilst in the top flight, being championed as the underdogs by most neutral observers, and losing their best players at the start of each season to the likes of Liverpool and Chelsea. Hopefully once Wimbledon regain their place in the Football League they may be more popular the 2nd time around.

[Jamie Atkinson]

I find it baffling that Stoke get all this bad press, we have never been a great passing team and are just really playing to our strengths, we are organised and play a system that suits the quality in the team.

After watching Stoke for over 20 years, losing to teams in the 2nd Division under Alan Ball, I don;t really care how we stay up this season. It's been 27 years and the first season is about staying up, get that done and then it allows more money to come in and sign better quality players.

Stoke at home, the atmosphere, is simply first class, we will continue to unsettle the big boys and take the money men on and stick two fingers up to the Top 4 glory hunters each week.

[Dan Eardley]

To all the so called football fans who have posted on this forum. Stoke do not play attractive football, they play to their strenghs which is well documented. However stoke are not able to pay the wages of these so called attractive( diving, preening good time boys) who have to go through the annoyance of playing 90 minutes of football so they can pay for their diamond ear rings. All i can say since SKY ruined football in this country, people seem to forget what football was once like in this country. I remember passionate free flowing football, not the refs being surrounded by small children complaining about the 80th foul committed in the 3rd minute. Watching stoke is like going back 20 years, when you go home with a sore throat.

[Mama Sidibe]

i love longs balls. mmmm

[TH]

As a stoke fan my first wish is to see stoke stay up. My second is to watch good football. A Man U fan may wish for success first. Either way I don't mind a little stoke bashing but a more prolonged stint in this league then it may wear thin. Players needed - I think everyone would agree,

Anyway aren't Man U the least popular team in the prem (Global Man U fans aside)? he he he

[Grant, Dubai]

I live in Dubai and watched Milan V Hamburg live the other nite, which included Beckham, Ronaldinho etc - give me stoke vs bolton anyday!

[Richard]

This article illustrates nicely the British/English love of the under dog. The Stoke backers on here a quick to defend anything they do because hey, they're plucky, they have no money, their players don't own Ferrari's, ther're just trying thier best. But on the other hand good teams are just prima donna's, a waste of money, don't like getting stuck in, their fans all eat prawns etc. Why can't we appreciate talent instead of hard work, anyone can work hard, not everyone has talent.

[tim]

Hi,

I went to the boxing day game vs Man Utd, Stoke's game was more than a hoof forward and a long throw, but let's face it this is our first season in the top flight and we don't have the money to spend on great players. Put survival first, fancy football can come later.

[Gary]

What is this obsession about Stoke's throw-ins? Is it because no other team has anyone capable of doing what Delap does? Or that no one has thought of it before? sure it is direct, but it's only another dead ball situation. Most teams have free kick experts and no one moans about that. Is it any more in the "spirit" of the game, or any less "Corinthian" to score direct from a free kick a la Beckham or Ronaldo than it is to flick in A Delap throw?

[gadge]

Stoke do entertain, they"ve caused this debate haven't they. Are they just a group of athletic sportman? who cares! other sports don't. Look at tyson in boxing no one ever said " he's not entertaining because he's a explosive animal, unlike the majestic ali". No, they just admired the difference in styles. Lets do the same!

[FulFan]

At the beginning of the season I had a vitriolic dislike for Stoke. However, as the season has gone on I have a new found repect for Tony Pulis. I enjoy their battle with the big four and I think that teams have to be more creative to break them down

As a fulham fan, I was worried when we went to play them (we have a 'light weight' team to some respect) but dealt with them easily. Niether side looked like scoring but Fulham certainly were not pinned in. Why can the other teams not just play them and accept the result? Stoke Cheaters? Thats what the opposition managers say....

[David]

Stevie G Honest? I refer you to Shef Utd a couple of years ago and more laughably the Champs League game v Atletico Madrid for his honesty! As a tough tackling midfielder he should stop the diving as I'm sure it would annoy him if other players did to him what he does.

[morgao]

As an Arsenal fan I don't mind teams who play a more workaday level of football. However even Wimbledon had some cut and thrust about them where they had some decent attacking players. I can't think of one player at the front of the Stoke team that could be deemed entertaining (except for the wrong reasons). It could be interesting if the rumours of Dindane, Ledley and Quincy joining are true and come to fruition. Although I reckon it would be a hard sell to get Dindane to the potteries!

How have Pulis' other clubs lined up? I get the feeling he actually likes this kind of football.

[Craig Huxley]

As a lifelong Stoke supporter I wish we could play in the Premiership like we did in the early seventies with Hudson, Greenhoff, Ritchie etc but its just not possible. I find it interesting that not one comment suggests that Stoke's players are not good enough to be in the top division but they attack our tactics. I have yet to meet a supporter of any club who wishes their team to play 'nice football' and lose consistently rather than play to their strengths and win occasionally, even if it does mean 'direct football'. And as for those comments suggesting that we cheat......unfortunately you can go to any, and I mean any, professional football club and find players who will cheat or break the rules. I seem to remember all of the great sides in England having players who could take care of themselves and bend the rules: Billy Bremner at Leeds, Larry Lloyd at Liverpool, Billy Bonds at West Ham. Need I go on?

[MrJolly]

Funny you compare Stoke with the Crazy Gang, at the time in the 80's most wrote the CG off as a bunch that wouldn't have been able to mix it with the likes of Tommy Smith, Chopper Harris, Souness, Jack Charltonm etc. I remember one report on Wimbledon in the 90's suggesting that the only thing scary about them any more was the former CG members on the coaching team.
Stoke Dive, time waste, play the long ball and repeat the throw in trick, big deal.
It's up to teams with far greater resources to combat this and to win the game. Rooney is a prime case - the man gets an easy ride, when he loses the ball you can bet the next thing he'll do is to perform ashoulder barge on the full back in a fit of pique and get away with it.

I don't know anyone who dislikes Stoke as opposed to simply not care about them but much of the accusations thrown at Stoke can be thrown at teams that are the medias darlings with equal justification.