Humour me here - is Pulis a better van Gaal than van Gaal?
Both are renowned for setting up teams more defensively, struggling more (comparatively) going forward, boring football, but setting the team up for long-term success. Look at Stoke after the Pulis shackles were loosened - still solid defensively, but with a more attsck-focused manager they're doing better than most people expected. Same goes for Palace with Pardew, who although great under Pulis, have pushed even further forward with a more attack-focused manager. People point to the 'pain' of van Gaal being worth it for the long term success it brings, but Pulis has shown a capability of bringing short-term success (be it stabilising the club or avoiding relegation consistently), while also not falling out with his players, and still giving the club a solid base going forward.
So is he a better van Gaal than van Gaal?