Ten months have passed since my last Comments article, and a lot has happened during that time! I said back in January that I felt Tony Pulis may be a man for stability and solidity, but I just didn't see him as the man who could ultimately lead Stoke City to its aspirations of playing Premiership football. It would seem that the Icelandic owners eventually also came round to that conclusion! Pulis left the club in June and was replaced with Johan Boskamp, an appointment that many see as a gamble. I have produced an indepth analysis of Pulis' departure and Boskamp's start in the article below. While I think it was the right move to sack Tony Pulis, I would thank him for bringing stablity to the side. In the meantime I welcome Johan Boskamp to Stoke City and hope he is the man that can produce a side to challenge for promotion.

Johan Boskamp – an early critique

Introduction

To clarify, by critique I mean an evaluation and assessment of the first few months of Boskamp’s managerial position at Stoke City, not necessarily a set of negative criticisms aimed at the man. However that’s not to say it will be without criticism where it is due. I merely hope to put forward a balanced set of points and discuss any causes for concern along with things worthy of praise.

Context

It is impossible to think that Boskamp’s reign exists in a vacuum, and it is inevitable that comparisons will be made to his predecessor Tony Pulis. This is natural as we have to consider Boskamp’s actions in the context of a larger and historical picture. Boskamp inherited an unenviable situation, arriving at Stoke following the sacking of Pulis in the close season, leaving him with a small squad, injured key players, and very little time to construct a team capable of enduring the rigours of a full Championship Season.

For me Pulis was doomed by economics. One of the reasons given for his sacking was his unwillingness to explore foreign markets, something that the media latched onto with indignant horror. However, that was only one of the reasons along with publicly criticising the Board, playing his part in the on-going contract renewal farce, and most importantly in my view, economics. Clearly the Icelandic owners bought the club as a business investment and not as a hobby. There are few millionaires able to splash money on their beloved football club for fun, and we must be realistic that most clubs outside of the Premiership money pot have to run as a business in a difficult climate of increased costs and spiralling debts. The Icelandic businessmen had a scheme to make money by achieving Premiership status in a five year plan. Those five years have now elapsed meaning they have probably invested more than they anticipated, and the only way they will make any money (or possibly just recoup their original investment) is by getting the club playing in the top flight. Gudjon Thordarson set their plans back by not winning promotion quickly enough, and was promptly removed as he was not seen by them as having enough qualities to take us higher once he had won promotion via the play-offs.

In Thordarson’s place they chose to appoint Steve Cotterill, who left us in the lurch, leading to the uninspiring appointment of Tony Pulis following the clearly more ambitious target of George Burley turning us down. During his reign Pulis made us into a solid if negative Championship side, but eventually I believe the owners came to, in my opinion, the correct view that he would not take us any further, and the necessary elevation to the Premiership was unachievable under him despite whatever financial backing was given. Fans of Pulis have said he was never given the financial backing he deserved, but that’s not the case. Money was clearly available (take the apparent signing of Rob Hulse) but money doesn’t guarantee that a player will sign. We may have been linked with Zamora amongst others but evidence suggests he never wanted to sign with us, and in the case of Hulse, he probably watched the very poor home game against Leeds Utd and wondered where he was going to get his service from given the style of play Pulis was employing. (I wouldn’t also be surprised if Hulse’s agent alerted Kevin Blackwell to his availability at that game, and a few weeks later he was signing initially on loan at “big club” Leeds Utd). Furthermore the owners would have been well aware of the disappointing drop in season tickets sales in the close season, and could credibly point to the lack of entertainment being served up by the Pulis methodology as one of the possible reasons. Add to this Pulis’ apparent struggle to find decent British-based players to strengthen the squad, and his frustrating reluctance to look further afield. There was little to suggest he was going to construct a team that could win promotion. Having shown they had been prepared to take risks and be ruthless in the past, the owners did it again and Pulis was gone.

So Johan Boskamp arrived with his assistant Jan de Koning with the promise of a more entertaining and attacking style, and a willingness to look to foreign talent to hopefully produce a squad capable of winning promotion. Jan de Koning’s links with the Ajax youth setup was an additional consideration, as it was hoped he might help develop more talent from the Academy, a part of the club Pulis had on the whole neglected. The Board admitted the appointment was a gamble that might backfire, but evidently they felt Boskamp had more qualities to offer than Pulis. The future will tell whether they were right. I largely welcomed this approach, and my initial impressions when Boskamp arrived were favourable especially when contrasted to the arrival of Pulis.

Charisma

Boskamp’s arrival at the club has certainly livened things up! I remember watching the live news conference on Sky when Pulis was appointed and found it a very downbeat affair, and really from that moment I struggled to warm to him. I couldn’t put my finger on what it was that made me reluctant to trust him fully or accept him, but I guess there was something about his character or charisma that give me a gut feeling that all was not well. However I put my initial unease to one side and supported him for the greater good of the club. I even had his picture on my wall! I was largely satisfied with his efforts until his final season, but could never whole-heartedly warm to Pulis or trust him, and by the end of his reign I was openly irritated by him and was glad when he was sacked.

By contrast there is something about Boskamp that I can’t help warming to. He exudes a charismatic, humorous manner that I can’t help but like, and his aims, proposed methodology, and ambitions for the club make me desperate for him to succeed. The ability to talk straight about matters, use humour, and bring a fresh and different approach to the club has certainly been for me a more positive change, and made me excited about going to Stoke again. This was in total contrast to Pulis who had removed what little enthusiasm I had left by the end of his tenure, to the point I was wallowing in complete apathy. Boskamp promised a more entertaining and attacking style, and the opening few games seemed to bear this out, containing such drama, excitement, and even had broadsheet newspapers enthusing about our play for once. What a refreshing change from the negativity that hung over Pulis and the Britannia Stadium like a dark cloud. I was sick of Pulis’ post-match interviews, patronising us with talk of a working-class area wanting hard work, and Stoke City struggling to compete with other sides. I want hard work and commitment yes, but I want to see good footballing principles, and entertainment. Boskamp has a vision of how this can be achieved. It is whether or not he gets the time and the necessary support to bring success and entertainment to Stoke City in equal measures.

I accept that much of such feeling is entirely subjective, and down to personality preferences. I accept that more cautious fans might prefer a Pulis style of management, preaching safety first. But all I can say is that of the two styles and approaches, I warm more easily to a jovial “character”, who on the one hand can make jokes about his love of chips, while on the other believes in trying to play football that will entertain the fans. He makes me want to listen, as opposed to switch off. He makes me want to go to watch Stoke City again. He has reignited the passion that Pulis had extinguished. There’s hardly a dull moment at the club now for sure!

Team matters

Much was made of the horrendous situation Pulis inherited when he arrived at Stoke, and to be fair he did walk into a right mess following Cotterill’s treachery and Dave Kevan’s unsuitability. However it must be said that Pulis continued to make use of the “it’s not my team” excuse for much of his first season long after his arrival, and in general Stoke fans were happy to cut him some slack and take that into account during some of the poor performances as we fought to avoid relegation. The horrors of losing twice against Grimsby, and the 6-0 thrashing at Nottingham Forest spring to mind. However it was largely accepted that he deserved to chance to build his own side with his own signings over the summer break, and have a full season in charge before we could really judge him. This was certainly a view I held, and I was in the main content with our consolidation as a mid-table side in his second (and first full season in charge).

For those already cutting into Boskamp so early into his Stoke City management, it is worth bearing in mind the patience that was afforded Pulis. Boskamp also arrived in an unenviable position. With Pulis sacked a few weeks before the start of the season, players leaving the club, and very little transfer activity in the other direction, Boskamp inherited a small squad, containing a number of key individuals facing lengthy injury lay-offs or contractual disputes. Pulis had hardly made an impact on addressing this problem, and indeed his reluctance to explore foreign markets was his apparent eventual down-fall. He signed Sidibe before departing, and no doubt did the ground work for the Sweeney deal, although the player actually signed after Pulis was gone.

As a result, Boskamp had to work hard to bring in players, travelling many miles in search of new signings to improve the club. This will have not been ideal preparation for the team, for any time away hunting for players would mean less time on the training ground getting the existing squad used to his systems and ideas. Through a combination of spending money and loan deals, Boskamp finally managed to bring in the new faces needed to give Stoke City something resembling a squad. International duty, a subsequent diplomatic incident at immigration, and finally injury have denied us a look at our record transfer Sammy Bangoura, a player that Boskamp spoke highly of and has much hope for. Similarly we have yet to see much of fellow striker Hannes Siggurdsson although there are encouraging signs from his recent international and reserve outings. However, we have now had chance to draw some early conclusions over the other new additions.

The most influential has been loan signing Luke Chadwick, a classy intelligent player who has brought creativity and flair to the team. The recent birth of his child seems to have left him understandably fatigued, and his displays were a little jaded of late and coincided with Stoke City’s poor performances. However, when on form in Chadwick we have a genuine match changer. I think this was an excellent signing by Boskamp. Another genuinely good footballer the manager has brought to the club is defender Carl Hoefkens. He is quick and clearly skilful, and is slowly adapting to the English game, although there have been questions about his aerial ability and some discussion about whether centre-half is his best position. There maybe some merit in trying him in midfield or the troublesome right-back spot (more of that later!) Bringing Paul Gallagher in on a season loan from Blackburn seems to have been a great move. He is an intelligent, committed player who can finish well and link up play with team mates. I don’t think he has been utilised in his best position yet, and I’d like to see him alongside another striker rather than playing in the “hole” just behind a front man.

Two other loan deals have yet to produce the promise the manager sees in them. Both Kolar and Ngalula Mbyi Gabriel a.k.a "Junior” were brought in from Anderlecht to give the midfield a boost. Kolar has given us glimpses of true talent, ability to deliver a decent cross, flashes of real skill, but seems to currently lack the confidence to regularly take on a full-back. Meanwhile Junior again has shown flashes of skill, but looked to be struggling with the pace of the English game at times, and often seems reluctant to attack space with the ball at his feet or play a forward cutting pass, preferring to knock it safely sideways. Junior works best alongside Dave Brammer, who can provide the telling pass, and seems to be a revitalised player now Pulis has gone. Realistically the midfield should be pretty strong this season especially when the unfortunate Sweeney returns from injury to add competition on the left side.

The team is showing key areas of concern though, mainly in defence, and often in attack. Recent games have shown a weakness in defence, and this clearly because we are not yet playing our strongest back four due to a combination of long-term injuries and contractual disputes. Marlon Broomes has made a determined attempt to do a good job at left-back, but being a right-footed player is clearly not the long-term answer. Meanwhile Pulis acquisition Lewis Buxton was either signed as “one for the future” and has been forcibly introduced too early, or simply is not up to the Championship standard. He tries hard, gives his best, but unfortunately seems to be one of the dangerously weak links in the side. It makes it harder to see the quality John Halls sat on the sidelines playing no part until he signs a new contract (a stance I fully support). We need to keep players of Halls’ quality at the club if we are to progress, but we should not be held ransom by any player and his agent. My final comment about the defence is that while he has in the main done a very good job since arriving at Stoke City, Michael Duberry seems to have faltered a little since being giving the responsibility of the captain’s armband. I’m not convinced he has the leadership qualities to inspire his team mates in a tricky spot, and maybe the extra worry has affected his game.

The final area of concern is the forward line, something that was never really addressed since the departure of Ade Akinbiyi. Gifton Noel-Williams was initially denied a new contract, then eventually offered one following his decent form after Akinbiyi’s move to Burnley. Once Noel-Williams went we were left with no strikers of note until Mamady Sidibe arrived from Gillingham signed by Pulis, and Bruce Dyer joined on a one year deal almost as a desperation move. Sidibe was surely brought to the club by Pulis as squad cover and not an answer to our goal-scoring troubles, and simply found himself on his own upfront for much of this season because he was the only choice available. To be fair he has toiled hard, has good link-up play, but doesn’t look a lethal goal-scorer as his past record suggests. Hopefully with the return to fitness of Bangoura and Siggurdsson, and Gallagher available alongside one of them, this is an area that will soon no longer be a problem.

Tactical Aptitude

Despite the obvious weaknesses in the squad, early in the season Boskamp’s attacking tactics and passing football seemed largely to be paying dividends, not only for entertainment but for results. The Norwich game stands out as particularly impressive. It remains to be seen if his 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1 formation is his favoured approach, or just being utilised due to the limitations of the current strike-force. (Personally I’m not keen on a lone striker, and once Gallagher arrived I’d have like to have seen him used alongside Sidibe.) It is ironic that Pulis used this formation for much of his last season, although I think that was mainly through choice not necessity! The difference is that Boskamp has tried to play attacking football and supply service from the wings, where Pulis’ team usually contained no recognised wingers and opted for hopeful lofted balls to the big man upfront.

Unfortunately after a better start than most would have hoped for, we have fallen away lately with three straight defeats. I believe the reason for this is mainly being forced to field a weakened side through injury and suspension, although I do have a few tactical concerns. Certainly the suspension of Brammer did not help, as it brought together the central midfield pairing of Russell and Junior, depriving us of any creativity in the middle, and starving the wingers of service. Halls not playing has made us weaker at the back through the inclusion of Buxton, and at the same time removed an attacking outlet as he was willing to push up and assist the attacking moves. Maybe the perceived lack of creativity in midfield was a reason Boskamp had for playing Chadwick or Gallagher behind a loan striker as they had the skill to link up play and produce something of attacking note.

Where I do have a concern is the tactical substitutions often used by Boskamp. Admittedly I don’t know if players like Kolar or Chadwick had picked up a knock or had been under the weather, but they have seemed to have been almost “penalised” on occasion for not getting any service. If they have had a quiet first half or so because they’ve not received the ball much from midfield, Boskamp tends to replace them at, or not long after the break, often with a different type of player. For example away at Plymouth he took off Kolar and replaced him with Siggurdsson, a striker who then played out of position on the left. This is something I’d expect from Pulis who often played Greenacre or Asaba on the wing rather than a natural midfielder. In this particular case it might have been better to have either instructed the central midfield pair to give Kolar the ball more, or replace one of them with a player who could hopefully give Kolar the ball (maybe Karl Henry). Also given Sidibe’s ineffectiveness, it might have been best replacing him with Siggurdsson, and leaving Kolar on to deliver him some crosses. Later in the game when a tired Chadwick was replaced, we had no width to supply balls into the three strikers we then had on the pitch. It was left to Russell to frustratingly dink hopeful balls forward for the strikers to chase.

Personally once we have a full strength side to choose from, I’d like to see a 4-4-2 formation with Gallagher up front with one of Bangoura or Siggurdsson, with Kolar on one wing and Chadwick on the other, and with Brammer alongside a battling midfielder in the centre. I think Harper does best coming on later in the game to run at tired defenders, rather than starting, and I’d keep another striker on the bench to swap things round if needed. Of course up this point Boskamp has not had the luxury of that situation, another reason not to attack him prematurely. Hopefully we will soon be blessed with our full attacking line-up and we can really judge what Boskamp is about. Crucially we need to sort out the defence to restore confidence in the team, but I think that is largely a question of personnel not tactics.

The Start

Bearing in mind the difficult circumstances in which Boskamp arrived, combined with his extremely limited previous knowledge of Championship football, and the low expectancy of many of the fans from his first season, I think the start he has made has been pretty decent. Prior to the three straight defeats, we had a very healthy position in the table, and a start that many would not have predicted after his appointment. For those already baying for blood so early in the season, it is worth bearing in mind that Pulis lost his opening four matches, only picked up his first point in his fifth, and then lost the sixth. It was his tenth match in charge before he picked up a win, and after 13 league games he’d amassed 10 points. I accept that he arrived at a time when the team was low on confidence, but he also had an under strength squad to work with, pretty much like Boskamp. We gave Pulis time to turn the side around, but sadly there’s a section of the Stoke “support” who won’t apply the same level of understanding to Boskamp.

Furthermore there is the great belief that Pulis worked some kind of miracle to save us from certain relegation. As I have said, he took a long time for him to turn results around, and it is the consensus view that the signings he brought in before the final deadline were vital in keeping us up. Where did the money come from for these signings? A good FA Cup run culminating in a 5th Round tie against Chelsea earned us the cash to bring in the likes of Crossley, Akinbiyi and Warhurst, players attributed with giving us that extra quality to avoid relegation. It was only after a full summer of acquiring his own players that Pulis had a team we could truly judge as his own. So our survival was largely down to literally the luck of the draw. What would have happened if we’d drawn a Championship side or a less glamorous Premiership side in the 3rd Round instead of Bournemouth, and been knocked out making little money in the process? Would those players have been signed, I guess the answer is “unlikely”. Would we have avoided relegation? I doubt it very much. Then would Pulis have been afforded such hero worship as the man that saved us? No. Luck is almost as important as team selection and tactics in football when deciding a team’s fate. Boskamp has had the benefit of financial backing of the Board in the early stage of his Stoke City reign. But he still deserves longer than some fans are giving him to establish his own team like Pulis did, and to prove himself. I would argue that the main weak links so far have been players signed by Pulis - Buxton, Sidibe, Russell and Harper. They are not bad players, and they try hard, but they have lacked the necessary quality to either avoid making errors or provide a true creative cutting edge. We need to reserve judgement until Boskamp can regularly play his strongest side. It will also be interesting to see if further additions can be made in the January transfer window to strengthen the squad.

Conclusion

I welcome the arrival of Johan Boskamp to Stoke City. Overall since Boskamp arrived I have found more things to be happy about than concerned about at the club. For one he has engendered in me a renewed interest and passion, making me want to go, not dreading it. He has yet to have his full first choice team available, and it is far too early to pass judgement on his potential as a manager to take us to the top flight. There are some encouraging signs, especially the emphasis on attacking, entertaining football. To be calling for his sacking after just 13 matches as some “fans” are, is patently ridiculous. These are the calls of the narrow-minded, the xenophobic, and those with conveniently selective memories. Things will not be perfect under Boskamp, they never are with any manager. But I think he deserves a fair chance to show us what he can do. The time has come for ALL supporters to do exactly that, to support. Support the manager, support the players and support the club we love, because by positively getting behind them we have a better chance of realising the dream of playing at the highest level. We can make a start by getting behind the lads against Derby County on Saturday.

AndyP 12/10/05