RobM

Neither of those two players would have prevented our sloppy, slow start to the second half, nor prevented either goal. Our forwards aren't the problem, our defenders are - standard for this season so far.

The problem now is we panic, get scrappy and give more chances away.

That was far too easy for them.

I don't disagree that Rickie is our best forward, but if Adkins has worked out from scouting feedback and other research of WHam that playing a certain way will give us the best chance of winning, but that way doesn't involve Rickie, should you still play him? Should you go against that belief and play Rickie and base your tactics and style around him, if that goes against the advice and research of WHam?

That's correct, hence debate, two or more people going back-and-forth with their opposing views.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Big Fat Sam reacts and what, if any, changes he makes to counter us.

I don't think it's a technicality, it's my entire point - you cannot pre-determine that Adkins should be sacked and we will lose this game (except for luck) based on one single players selection. That's not a technicality, that's the entire point.

We just went from all-out defence to 7 players counter attacking in a split second, that's pretty impressive. Just let down by a desperate cross from JP sadly.

Because your opinion is clearly starting with Rickie is our only way to win. You refer to Branfoot not starting MLT as proof that this is correct. My opinion is football has never been about one player only, but over the years tactical awareness and tactical flexibility - between games and within a single game - is more important than simply 'Rickie is best, play him'. This has changed a lot over the years, no longer can one team just play one style. Good teams have to switch the way they play to match the opposition and counter their strengths. Not starting with Rickie allowed NA to play in a way he believes will win the game and so far, from what I'm watching at least, it's proving a good decision as we look very good. The reason you don't understand this is the same reason you think we can only win with Rickie, the same reason you'll no doubt be shouting 'I told you so' over this forum if we don't win and the same reason you don't understand anybody else's opinion unless it's drawn out in front of you.

It hasn't, it's always been that way. That's the point you're failing to understand.

Football, not ever, not in the last 20 years, has been about one single player. Never did one player make eleven, never did one player make a team. And you have made it very clear that not starting with Rickie has lost us the game, as you have said the only reason we could win would be luck since this decision was made. Stop squirming out of it, have the balls to stand by your own opinion at least.

You seem to think the only possible way we can win is with Rickie starting. We have other players too, Rickie is on the bench, Adkins might, just might, be more tactically aware than you. Judge the decision at 17:00, based on the result, the way we play and how Rickie may have changed that.

I do. Do you remember how football has changed a lot over the years?

C) How do you know, before the game has even kicked off, whether this is a bad decision?

So if we lose it's because Adkins got it wrong. But if we win it's only down to luck. You're an idiot and the sort of fan we can do without.

Idiot. 45-1, we always concede.

His confidence was clearly shot after his last mistake, given his Tweets after the game. I think he needs a chance to regain his confidence and come back stronger. Fonte, on the other hand, has been far more impressive alongside Yoshida so deserves to keep his place. Odd really, since just weeks ago I was suggesting the exact opposite.

Considering how much we sacrificed in payments to get him, then how much we paid him to get f-all, I agree completely

In his position last season were Hammond, Chaplow, Morgan and Cork, one of which played, another is injured, so I definitely think he is an improvement to those he has actually replaced.

I thought he had a good game too. Likewise JRod seemed better today and Gazza looked very assured and his kicking was excellent. Maya looked well out of position at RB, as he was, but showed he is a good 1-on-1 defender and is confident on the ball. So if we're judging signings, it's not all bad today.

It's hard to disagree with your sentiment, knowing sweet-FA about what went on behind the scenes. I hope the fact we signed two defensive players of good quality (Clyne and Yoshida), tried to sign another of good quality (Buttner) as well as others we were linked with, plus the fact we signed Davis (a holding midfielder) showed we didn't solely concentrate on attacking players. But the facts are clear, we bought more attacking players than we needed to and not enough defensive players. I think NC is well awake and aware though, but he can't do anything about it. I'd also hope he realises a manager can only work with the resources given to him and changing manager doesn't address the fact our defensive players aren't quite good enough for this level. If our problem was NA using good Premiership players incorrectly, changing managers seems sensible, but it seems more the case that players like Jos, Richardson, Fox etc simply aren't Premiership defenders and those that seem good enough lack Premiership-specific experience. A new manager won't change this, but signing Premiership defenders in Jan will do.

What do you think wen't so wrong in the summer window? You, we, none of us know anything other than we attempted to sign more defensive players than we did, but failed in doing so. We do not know why. Since this is all we know, the only thing that could differ is we actually sign the defensive players we want. It's not amazing, nor a miracle, but happens in every club, in every league that operates the same transfer windows and limitations. The reason the January window exists is to allow clubs to sign players to strengthen their squad, which as you say yourself, we really need to do. We don't know why we didn't land all of our targets in Jan, we'll never know. We now know better than ever how we need to strengthen, but cannot do so until Jan. That's why it's being hailed as an important time - we simply cannot bring in the quality and experience we want until then. You're the only person referring to it as a miracle or amazing, you're the only person talking about NC's magic wand and you're the only person suggesting the failed targets from the summer will be attempted again in Jan (I've not seen anybody else say this). Everyone else seems to be aware that we need better defensive players, we were unable to sign as many as we needed in the summer, so our next chance is Jan.

Agreed, this is more than just loyalty to one man. But there is nothing to suggest we can't keep NA and stay up.

Please can you explain, as I genuinely don't understand, how deciding on transfer targets is not based on experience? Surely we will look at the specifics of our weaknesses - which we know is more complex than simply 'fullbacks' and focuses on what it is about our fullbacks that is weak - and use the experience of them so far in the Premiership to decide upon their replacements? Without experience, how can you do this?

Indeed we should have. We did in part, with Clyne and Yoshida, we also tried to sign others like Buttner, so it wasn't like we ignored this need. But it didn't happen as well as it should have. Come Jan, we can put this right, but in the mean time any manager who comes in has to work with the same resources.