This was a blog that may never have been. I felt it best to wait until the final result of Arsenal's clash with Stoke before writing about the Potters, for fear of post-defeat doom ignoring the point in favour of 'who cares if it wins you matches'-style hand-wringing.

Fortunately, we bask today in a victorious glow, a victory both moral and physical. And it was a physical game. Rugby is a physical sport.

Anti-football

Arsenal fans hate Stoke fans. Stoke fans hate Arsenal fans. Arsenal players hate Stoke players and vice versa, and even the two managers hate each other. And it's for so many reasons.

The most obvious is the Shawcross incident that jeopardized Aaron Ramsey's career, and the lack of any kind of sympathy from Stoke, to a worrying degree.

Tony Pulis said that Arsene Wenger could 'keep his opinions' about the challenge when all he said was that it was unacceptable, which is true, and England international Shawcross (To write that made me scream at the heavens' apologised to Ramsey for the 'accident'.

The sheer audacity of these quotes has been gone over again and again, and I don't care to tread old ground. The issues Arsenal have with Stoke are ideological.

Phil McNulty of the BBC waxed lyrical about Stoke when they defeated Liverpool 3-1, questioning why people had issues with their 'long-ball, direct style' and suggesting snobbery was to blame.

After all, Stoke defend very well, and they get the results to stay mid-table. Perhaps they do. Long-ball, direct football has its merits, and can be exciting at times. Not the way Stoke City play it.

Of course Arsenal fans dislike the way Stoke play. Compared to what is served up at the Emirates more often than not it's like tucking into a chip butty as opposed spicy gazpacho. But it's not just snobbery, it's the sheer negativity at every second.

Stoke set out with the express aim of preventing the other team from scoring.

Fine.

But that's their main aim. Not to score, not to win, but to shut out the opposition.

That's not in the spirit of the game. Every throw in, every goal kick is stretched out to make the clock run down faster, and the, frankly, monstrous players Stoke put out every week are only too keen to throw themselves into challenges that will take up time.

It's not sacrificing yourself for the team because Stoke play for nothing.

Painful

Much as I loathe Wilkinson, Shawcross and co, it's Tony Pulis that is the Hitler to the Gestapo of his team.

Marching about dressed like an overgrown ball boy, shouting fruitlessly from under a baseball cap, it's his orders that make Stoke play that way.

They are capable of more, but he wants them to be crushingly negative.

It's horrible.

He has no intentions of changing it, because it keeps Stoke afloat. Stoke aren't poor, they aren't the little man. They may not be loaded, but neither are Swansea or Norwich. They do alright. Pulis has spent decent money on Michael Kightly and Steven N'Zonzi, players who are more technical that normal Stoke fare. Stoke have a +£120 million net spend compared to Arsenal Do we notice this?

Absolutely not.

His quotes after the game yesterday were unbelievable. After Arsenal's goal was correctly given despite a linesman trying to rule that Giroud being offside while not interfering with play was an issue, he suggested that officials 'don't know what offside is anymore', and that Arsenal's players complaining to the referee impacted the decision.

Poor Stoke.

Not like three of their orcs weren't doing the same.

Pulis likes to complain about the downfall of traditional football. You can't tackle anymore. People don't like direct football. Arsenal don't like it up 'em. Pathetic. Football the way Pulis clearly remembers it was boring, tribal and blighted by hooliganism. Arsenal are everything Stoke stand against, and vice versa.

And that's why Arsenal have a problem with Stoke. Not snobbery. Morality.

Latest: