Advertisement

Match Preview: Stoke City v Bournemouth

“Must-wins” don’t come more “must-win” than this. If we had just drawn 0-0 with Leicester last week then there wouldn’t be as much panic. But after being 2-0 up we were then getting pegged back to 2-2 after yet another defensive error, which has understandably left many people worried.

It’s probably been said more times than David Cameron’s had hot pigs - but we’re missing Shawcross. It can’t be hidden, the defence just isn’t the same without our leader there, and the mix-ups and errors are some of the simplest kind. Like when last Saturday two men went to head the same ball like they had never met each other before, and went and let in Jamie ‘LadBible’ Vardy to score.

Since then we’ve had a trip down south to Craven Cottage and won unconvincingly to go through to the 4th round of the Capital One Cup. We made 10 changes, so you can’t compare the two performances, or defence. But, I can’t lie, our defence went AWOL in the last 15 minutes and I’m not sure how Fulham didn’t take us to extra-time. You know one of those where everyone in the crowd is nervously laughing at each other with a look on their face that screams, “Oh god we’re so bad, but we’re getting away with it”.

But now we’re onto the difficult Bournemouth next. Difficult Bournemouth you ask? A newly promoted side with a capacity of 600 at their ground - were in the Vanormama Conference last year - have a Wonga loan for a transfer budget - a manager who almost certainly has his orienteering badge from the scouts. They’ll be a pushover.

Well they’re not by any means. On the road they’ve won at West Ham and scored four goals in the process, and in other games they’ve played some very attractive, vibrant, attacking football. They also have players that are in some great form, including Matt Ritchie, going for goal of the season six games in, cheeky git.

And one of those situations where you would usually think “easy three points for Stoke at home, at home aren’t they, Stoke don’t lose at home”. Well, it’s not.