by Martin Spinks
martin.spinks@thesentinel.co.uk

STOKE and Hull should really be hand-in-hand and taking a collective bow after defying all reasonable expectation by gathering 41 points between them out of a possible 87 on offer thus far.

Such solidarity is unlikely, of course, as they remain potential rivals in a dog-eat-dog quest for survival that could yet leave one or both consumed by the Premier League’s natural laws of gravity.

But there is less excuse for the apparent shortage of any mutual respect and affection between these two promoted brethren.

Hull must give their own reasons for what has veered more towards a mutual dislike, but from this end there certainly appears to be a festering resentment towards the wider world’s tendency to welcome Hull into the Premier League with a red carpet and Stoke with a straw mat.

They resemble a sibling rivalry in which one has been cuddled and indulged like a potential Grade A student, the other given a clip around the ear for having ideas above his station.

Hull’s victories thus far have been slightly the more eye-catching and easily the more applauded by the outside world, while Stoke’s, by contrast, have been almost grudgingly acknowledged and far less charitably received.

We all know why Stoke labour under this credit crunch. And yet for a second successive week, Stoke’s football hardly paled by comparison to the supposedly purer variety regularly dished up by West Bromwich Albion and Hull.

True, Stoke’s fixtures against these two have arguably been their least inspiring on home turf this season. But is that because they have dragged the visitors down to their level, as outsiders will willingly assume, or, as supporters at this end might prefer to argue, because the visitors have failed to inspire Stoke as much as more vaunted travellers to these parts?

And wasn’t Stoke’s greater directness on Saturday more to do with their greater obligation as the home side to take the initiative and less to do with Hull’s preference for a silkier approach to the game?

Either way, the greatest contrast in styles came not on the pitch, but on the touchline, where a fascinating little duel was gradually developing to distract from the frequently less animated goings on between two teams rarely hitting top gear.

Tony Pulis probably looks at himself in the mirror first thing in the morning and gives a mere shrug of the shoulders, while Phil Brown probably looks at himself in the mirror first thing in the morning and blows himself a cheeky little kiss.

That remarkable complexion of his suggests his back garden must be a few thousand miles nearer the equator than the rest of the country, but at least he wasn’t wired up as usual with the kind of equipment that interferes with NASA space probes, preferring for once to follow the old fashioned example of a manager 10 yards to his right, whose idea of high-tech assistance is a fresh pack of lozenges to revive a sore throat.

Brown’s exhibitionism in the technical area was cringing at times – not least when pointing at his irate opposite number and faking laughter – and it says something when assistant manager Brian Horton, a man whose glazed stare could start a riot in an empty convent, is required on at least one occasion to try to calm him down.

Hull’s goody-two-shoes image in the wider world would also be under much closer scrutiny were outsiders to regularly witness the kind of gamesmanship that would have had Stoke hung, drawn and quartered long ago.

Dean Windass now boasts nearly as many yellow cards as minutes on the pitch this season after being booked for some admittedly delightful cheekiness when twice warming up on Rory Delap’s intended run-up for two first-half throws.

Then there were the consistent protests, not least from Brown, virtually every time a decision went against the visitors, while several Hull players decided to indulge in a game of I-Spy on the goal-line in a rather crude and blatant attempt to delay Ricardo Fuller’s 73rd-minute penalty.

Such gamesmanship is fine, but only as long as it isn’t accompanied by any smug and hypocritical insinuation that Hull’s approach to the game is somehow more Corinthian than Stoke City’s.

There is no problem with the likes of Stoke and Hull resorting to any legal tactic to pull off Premier League survival ... just don’t pretend otherwise.

All of which will have rendered the final outcome all the more satisfying for the Stoke faithful after contemplating a far worse fate for an uncomfortably long period in the wake of Hull’s finely-executed opener on the stroke of half-time.

Both teams will claim they didn’t deserve to lose, but only Stoke can surely claim they deserved to win.

Theirs was certainly the greater pressure against a Hull defence steadfast enough to cope as capably as just about any team has with anything Stoke could fling into the opposition box.

A flicked header into the keeper’s arms and Fuller’s prod wide under pressure was all they could show in a first half seemingly destined to finish goalless.

Then came the sucker punch seconds before the break.
A long free-kick into Stoke’s area was twice won in the air by the visitors for Marlon King, brimming with poise and vision, to control instantly before lashing a beauty across the keeper and into his top left-hand corner. Stoke picked up the baton in the second half and exhibited a more consistent tempo, but genuine chances remained relatively scarce as Hull’s rearguard resisted with the kind of diligence with which their defence has rightly pinched at least some of this season’s acclaim from Geovanni’s talented feet.

And, on the one occasion when Delap’s throw found its target, Boaz Myhill was down smartly to parry away Fuller’s downward header one-handed, while Leon Cort presented the Wales international with an easier save from a hurried effort inside the area.

Michael Tonge again impressed from the bench and, with his very first touch, swept across goal and narrowly past Delap at the far post after a selfless pass to his left by Fuller.

The Jamaican went solo in the 72nd minute, however, when Mama Sidibe flicked on Thomas Sorensen’s long kick to unleash Fuller so comprehensively that Myhill was forced to chance his arm off his line.

Sadly for him, that arm made sufficient contact with Fuller’s trailing leg to leave the referee awarding the penalty that no-one would probably have given in front of the Kop, but only Rob Styles would have refused in front of the Boothen End.

Fuller, no doubt fired up by Hull’s predictable protests, drove low to the right with just enough power and direction to find the net via Myhill’s defiant hand.

The visitors showed enough ambition thereafter to leave a question mark over the final outcome, but Geovanni’s belated attempt to stamp his class on proceedings ended with a firm drive over the bar.

Entertaining? Not the best, certainly not for the neutral, but entertainment here at Stoke this season comes in the form of Premier League survival and so every single point, no matter how collected, is gratefully received.

Stoke make no bones about that, nor their forgivable limitations either, in what remains a humble and proud refusal to Brown-nose their way into the high opinion of others.