Rickie on the bench? **** it, I've had enough, Adkins out.

[Thedelldays]

There is no way on gods earth that saints leaving lambert on the bench is a good tactic

 

Jesus fuking Christ

[S-Clarke]

Lambert on the bench works, all west ham could do was stick 2/3 people on him and still look stupid.

 

It's stupid to run him into the ground for 90 mins knowing we wont score. Play Lambert for 30 when we should score 2-3 is much more sensible. Shame the rest of the team haven't a clue.

 

It didn't work, it hasn't worked, it won't work.

Edited 21 October, 2012 by S-Clarke

[lordswoodsaints]

RL causes problems,he scores,he defends,he brings other players into the game,he holds the ball,he hits a decent dead ball and he's difficult to beat in the air........in fact he's probably everything that jay rod and guly are not so if you leave him on the bench then you are not putting your strongest team out and you are not giving yourself a better percentage chance of getting something from the game.

He's by no means the cause or the answers to all of our problems but to leave the fella on the bench is obviously not a footballing decision or a tactical one.......was I the only one who thought 'what the **** is this fella doing' when the teams were announced? I can guarantee that every one of you thought or did the same thing so we can't all be wrong can we?

Adkins is a dead man walking and he knows it.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Adkins is losing the dressing room and the fan base over this ridiculous policy of deliberately marginalising our best player. It's insane, and makes no sense on any level.

[rshephard3]

Lambert on the bench works, all west ham could do was stick 2/3 people on him and still look stupid.

 

It's stupid to run him into the ground for 90 mins knowing we wont score. Play Lambert for 30 when we should score 2-3 is much more sensible. Shame the rest of the team haven't a clue.

 

You're joking right? As much as anything he's excellent at defending set pieces etc, in fact better than Fonte. He's not 65 years old, he's up to a 90 minute battering at Upton Park and should have played. Especially as we've wasted money on Rodriguez who is failing spectacularly to live up to the lower league hype surrounding him.

[Saint Charlie]

After RLs commanding display at Loftus Rd lets hope he keeps his place for a while.

[mitch01]

I agree, but I will defend to the hilt NA's right to leave Rickie out if he sees fit. He is our manager and he has done more than enough to convince me that he should be our manager long-term. After two seasons of sensational results we are seeing a downturn in fortunes. Although I would have expected us to do better from our first 12 games, I am hardly surprised.

 

For a fuller version of my argument, see:

 

http://notplayedonpaper.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/why-nigel-adkins-should-survive-el.html

[SaintBobby]

I don't think Lambert shld have been left on the bench vs West Ham and I'm worried that he was.

 

The fact that we beat QPR yesterday does not change my view.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I think my original point with this thread still remains. We are a far superior team with Lambert in the lineup and it's irresponsible to leave him out. Hopefully (and it seems he has) NA has learnt his lesson after having his fingers burnt.

[Saint Charlie]

I think my original point with this thread still remains. We are a far superior team with Lambert in the lineup and it's irresponsible to leave him out. Hopefully (and it seems he has) NA has learnt his lesson after having his fingers burnt.

 

Agree - I think within the lineup we have now with Gaston playing just off Rickie and occassionally going a bit more direct it really suits him.

 

I could understand NA's rational before, as JR is more mobile, and we didnt have Gaston available, but now RL is settled in the side and playing well - scoring and making goals.

[Glasgow_Saint]

Another dumb thread from helen flanagan

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Another dumb thread from helen flanagan

 

You continue to not read and misunderstand posts...don't you have far more 'important' agenda's to be keeping up with anyway?

[influx]

You continue to not read and misunderstand posts...don't you have far more 'important' agenda's to be keeping up with anyway?

 

prat quoting prat

[Jonnyboy]

Another dumb thread from helen flanagan

 

[CanadaSaint]

Hopefully the bed is starting to dry out now.

[SaintBobby]

Hopefully the bed is starting to dry out now.

 

LMAO. :-)

 

Nice one!

[CB Fry]

Hopefully the bed is starting to dry out now.

 

 

 

Oh I Don't know, you seem to be still p i s s*ing your pyjamas over the comments some howwible posters said about Jos when we signed him nearly eighteen months ago,and trawling the forum for posts from ten weeks/18 months ago to make half arsed points.

 

....If that aint top class bedwetting I don't know what is. Waaaaaaaaah

 

 

 

But you're right. Jos was outstanding for four and a half minutes yesterday. Proved everyone wrong he did. Well done you.

Edited 26 November, 2012 by CB Fry

[CanadaSaint]

I'm honoured to have fallen within the field of view of such a highly self-esteemed poster.

 

Having watched your contributions for some time I've finally found something I agree with - the first four words of your post.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

What I find funniest about this whole situation is that those now being smug have still failed to understand the points made.

 

The reason I felt that Nigel had to go was the strange team selections, flicking between formations and substitutions that in my opinion was costing us matches. I have outlined these many times on this forum so I'm not going to repeat them. However, since we've started Lambert every game, we've not tried to shoehorn JRod on the left wing, stopped taking off our best players etc, we've started winning.

 

I am happy to admit I was wrong and he shouldn't go, but personally I think people should have the humility to also recognise that we were right after all.

 

Very happy at the moment though.

[alpine_saint]

What I find funniest about this whole situation is that those now being smug have still failed to understand the points made.The reason I felt that Nigel had to go was the strange team selections, flicking between formations and substitutions that in my opinion was costing us matches. I have outlined these many times on this forum so I'm not going to repeat them. However, since we've started Lambert every game, we've not tried to shoehorn JRod on the left wing, stopped taking off our best players etc, we've started winning.

 

I am happy to admit I was wrong and he shouldn't go, but personally I think people should have the humility to also recognise that we were right after all.

 

Very happy at the moment though.

 

Give it up, DPS. Its a congential, if not terminal problem that some people who frequent this site suffer. I have long stated that this site is at its sheer nastiest when we've won, not when we've lost.

[norwaysaint]

Give it up, DPS. Its a congential, if not terminal problem that some people who frequent this site suffer. I have long stated that this site is at its sheer nastiest when we've won, not when we've lost.

 

It's ok to be wrong, it's a pretty normal thing and when we post opinions or rumours, it'll often turn out that way. I think what's needed is a bit more humility when posting those opinions and rumours. You'd have to admit yourself Alpine, that you post some very strong opinions, but don't leave much room for doubt and never come back to the subject with any humility if you weren't right. That kind of aggressive posting can come across as arrogant and can make people enjoy pointing out how wrong you were a little more. Take the wind out of their sails a bit by leaving room for your own fallibility.

[notnowcato]

Give it up, DPS. Its a congential, if not terminal problem that some people who frequent this site suffer. I have long stated that this site is at its sheer nastiest when we've won, not when we've lost.

 

DPS has the humility to admit the error in his thoughts of requesting Adkins to move aside. I was with him in the disappointment of the results but not is his suggested course of action.

 

Unfortunately, humility is not something you have shown on this forum.

Edited 26 November, 2012 by notnowcato

[Saint Without a Halo]

Give it up, DPS. Its a congential, if not terminal problem that some people who frequent this site suffer. I have long stated that this site is at its sheer nastiest when we've won, not when we've lost.

 

For you Alps that must nearly always be the case as you more often than not predict a loss! So the reaction to you is quiet resignation on a loss but "look how wrong you were" when we win!

Would love the site to remain nasty for as long as possible if it means we continue to win though!

[Saint86]

What I find funniest about this whole situation is that those now being smug have still failed to understand the points made.

 

The reason I felt that Nigel had to go was the strange team selections, flicking between formations and substitutions that in my opinion was costing us matches. I have outlined these many times on this forum so I'm not going to repeat them. However, since we've started Lambert every game, we've not tried to shoehorn JRod on the left wing, stopped taking off our best players etc, we've started winning.

 

I am happy to admit I was wrong and he shouldn't go, but personally I think people should have the humility to also recognise that we were right after all.

 

Very happy at the moment though.

 

So basically, you assumed that Nigel was a moron and couldn't fix the problem? After the 2 years he has given us you were ready to doubt and ditch him after about 3 or 4 bad performances. (I give you the credit of you not assuming we would beat city, utd etc). Basically DPS, you summarise what is wrong with british football, why we have no patience, no development and ultimately a **** national team. You need stability and trust to allow people to develop. Not, oh well, the good 2 years are over, 4 weeks of this crap and the man is clearly useless. Its bull****.

 

Congrats on being a man and saying you were wrong ofc.... yada yada, moral highground for the negative few as always. You are firmly in the alpine bracket for a lot of people i suspect.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

So basically, you assumed that Nigel was a moron and couldn't fix the problem? After the 2 years he has given us you were ready to doubt and ditch him after about 3 or 4 bad performances. (I give you the credit of you not assuming we would beat city, utd etc). Basically DPS, you summarise what is wrong with british football, why we have no patience, no development and ultimately a **** national team. You need stability and trust to allow people to develop. Not, oh well, the good 2 years are over, 4 weeks of this crap and the man is clearly useless. Its bull****.

 

Congrats on being a man and saying you were wrong ofc.... yada yada, moral highground for the negative few as always. You are firmly in the alpine bracket for a lot of people i suspect.

 

Erm no, I didn't believe he was a moron and couldn't fix it. However, it took him 10 games to realise something that many of us realised after 5. There was no evidence up until this meeting with Cortese after Spurs that he was going to change the way he was setting up and picking the team. Sorry, but that is a long time to not realise that playing a striker on the left wing is ludicrous, or that we should play our best side every game, or that he shouldn't substitute our best players when we only have a 1 goal lead.

 

I don't really care what 'bracket' you put me in. I have had enough good debates and conversations on this forum that the thoughts of a few people that constantly try to play the ignorance card in relation to reading my threads or my reasoning behind what I write that it doesn't really matter to me...

 

We have won 2 games very convincingly. HOWEVER, if he decides to start making strange decisions again that cost us matches, and keep on making the same mistakes game after game, then I reserve the right to criticise him.

[Saint Charlie]

Erm no, I didn't believe he was a moron and couldn't fix it. However, it took him 10 games to realise something that many of us realised after 5. There was no evidence up until this meeting with Cortese after Spurs that he was going to change the way he was setting up and picking the team. Sorry, but that is a long time to not realise that playing a striker on the left wing is ludicrous, or that we should play our best side every game, or that he shouldn't substitute our best players when we only have a 1 goal lead.

 

I don't really care what 'bracket' you put me in. I have had enough good debates and conversations on this forum that the thoughts of a few people that constantly try to play the ignorance card in relation to reading my threads or my reasoning behind what I write that it doesn't really matter to me...

 

We have won 2 games very convincingly. HOWEVER, if he decides to start making strange decisions again that cost us matches, and keep on making the same mistakes game after game, then I reserve the right to criticise him.

 

 

All Adkins seemed to change to me was that Ramirez, Cork and Shaw have come in - all of whom were largely unavailable before.

 

The bed wetters who refused to give Adkins a chance to show what he could assemble with a fully fit team in the formation he wanted were wrong.

 

Not saying you were one of them (each to their own) but there were lots of posters who said Adkins out - and that was clearly a knee jerk reaction and wrong.

[Dig Dig]

All Adkins seemed to change to me was that Ramirez, Cork and Shaw have come in - all of whom were largely unavailable before.

 

The bed wetters who refused to give Adkins a chance to show what he could assemble with a fully fit team in the formation he wanted were wrong.

 

Not saying you were one of them (each to their own) but there were lots of posters who said Adkins out - and that was clearly a knee jerk reaction and wrong.

 

Yet another who have miss read what DPS has been saying. He's never wanted Adkins out. Go back a actually read his multiple Adkins out threads and posts. He's been unfairly interpretated FFS.

[Wes Tender]

What I find funniest about this whole situation is that those now being smug have still failed to understand the points made.

 

The reason I felt that Nigel had to go was the strange team selections, flicking between formations and substitutions that in my opinion was costing us matches. I have outlined these many times on this forum so I'm not going to repeat them. However, since we've started Lambert every game, we've not tried to shoehorn JRod on the left wing, stopped taking off our best players etc, we've started winning.

 

I am happy to admit I was wrong and he shouldn't go, but personally I think people should have the humility to also recognise that we were right after all.

 

As you have posted this exact same post on the Adkins' decisions thread, I'll post my response to that on here too. And as you've posted no defence of your opinion there, I'll ask for a response here instead. How do you know what factors affect Adkins' decisions?

 

Wes Tender: What I find funniest is that some posters were prepared to draw their own conclusions as to Adkins's ability to manage in the Premiership based on factors where they had no real understanding of the reasons for those decisions he made which they criticised. Most accepted the points being made, but disputed their validity, which they are entitled to do on a forum of opinions.

 

Let's just take your list as an example; you say that there were strange team selections, changing formations and substitutions that you disagreed with.

 

So did you have inside information regarding the fitness of the squad, their mental attitude, or whether players were chosen to counteract strengths, or exploit weaknesses in their opponent's team?

 

Should we play the same formation every game throughout the season and then make it easy for a rival manager to exploit it because we are so predictable? Again, different formations suit the different players available to play them and are also determined by the formation that the opposition are playing.

 

Do you also know the reasons for the substitutions? Were players carrying knocks? Were they becoming overtired? Were some made to counteract substitutions made by our opponents, or were they tactical?

 

We took off arguably our two best players at 76 and 78 minutes yesterday. But we managed to win despite that.

 

It is very easy to look at a string of results and call for the manager's head, but much more difficult to justify it with credibility, unless one has the facts that brought about the results.

 

I very much doubt that we are winning because we are starting Lambert every game, not playing J Rod on the wing and stopped taking off our best players, etc.

 

I suspect that it has a lot more to do with us having available two key players back from injury like Cork and Ramirez, a more settled defence who are starting to develop an understanding of each others strengths and weaknesses, growing confidence gained from playing teams who are closer to us in the table rather than the division's top teams and players adapting gradually to the increased pace and pressures in the Premiership.

 

Very happy at the moment though.

 

It will be interesting and instructive to know the extent of your inside knowledge that enables you to second guess Adkins' decisions and to reason why in retrospect they were wrong.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

All Adkins seemed to change to me was that Ramirez, Cork and Shaw have come in - all of whom were largely unavailable before.

 

The bed wetters who refused to give Adkins a chance to show what he could assemble with a fully fit team in the formation he wanted were wrong.

 

Not saying you were one of them (each to their own) but there were lots of posters who said Adkins out - and that was clearly a knee jerk reaction and wrong.

 

So what about actually starting Lambert every game? And not playing JRod on the left wing or as a second striker? Surely you noticed he's stopped doing that?

 

Managers always say to judge them after 10 games. After 10 games, it did not look good. After 5 games a lot of us identified the issues, and if we could identify them then surely Adkins could? Yet it took him until the Swansea game to change these issues. It should not have taken that long to realise the issues, and this is one of my main points. As a football manager you HAVE to be quicker to recognise certain patterns and traits.

[Wes Tender]

He's never wanted Adkins out. Go back a actually read his multiple Adkins out threads and posts. He's been unfairly interpretated FFS.

 

Quote: DPS:

The reason I felt that Nigel had to go was.....

 

You're being sarcastic, right?

[Dig Dig]

So what about actually starting Lambert every game? And not playing JRod on the left wing or as a second striker? Surely you noticed he's stopped doing that?

 

Managers always say to judge them after 10 games. After 10 games, it did not look good. After 5 games a lot of us identified the issues, and if we could identify them then surely Adkins could? Yet it took him until the Swansea game to change these issues. It should not have taken that long to realise the issues, and this is one of my main points. As a football manager you HAVE to be quicker to recognise certain patterns and traits.

 

When your best player is unavailable for 5 weeks and your best ball winning midfielder not available until game 11, sometimes you have to work with the players you have try and find a system which works. It did for spells and bursts but not enough to actually win games. It happens to even the best managers on occassion.

 

As soon as we have our best 11 available and playing a few games together, we start playing well and Adkins is great again. Funny that isn't it?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

As you have posted this exact same post on the Adkins' decisions thread, I'll post my response to that on here too. And as you've posted no defence of your opinion there, I'll ask for a response here instead. How do you know what factors affect Adkins' decisions?

 

 

 

It will be interesting and instructive to know the extent of your inside knowledge that enables you to second guess Adkins' decisions and to reason why in retrospect they were wrong.

 

Of course we have no idea on the factors that affect the team behind closed doors. However, if that's the way you view things then surely you can't give your opinion on anything the team does as you don't understand everything that goes on behind the scenes??!!

 

When Adkins made those substitutions against United none of the players looked like they had taken knocks, and didn't look any more 'leggy' than the rest of the team. Lambert had beasted Vidic all game.

 

Yesterday we were 2 goals up against a demoralised Newcastle. We weren't 1 goal up against a team famed for comebacks and near the top of the League. Please don't try and argue that there is no difference between the 2 situations.

 

"I very much doubt that we are winning because we are starting Lambert every game, not playing J Rod on the wing and stopped taking off our best players, etc."

 

I would disagree. Having Cork and Ramirez back in the side has of course helped. However, not playing Lambert is a big mistake, whatever division we are in (look at Saints record when Lambert has been missing). You obviously also think that JRod has performed well on the wing?!

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

When your best player is unavailable for 5 weeks and your best ball winning midfielder not available until game 11, sometimes you have to work with the players you have try and find a system which works. It did for spells and bursts but not enough to actually win games. It happens to even the best managers on occassion.

 

As soon as we have our best 11 available and playing a few games together, we start playing well and Adkins is great again. Funny that isn't it?

 

Who said Adkins is great again? Just more Wummery from you I see.

[Dig Dig]

Who said Adkins is great again? Just more Wummery from you I see.

 

Care to add anything else or do you want to focus on one flippant remark? Easy cop out that.

 

You accuse me of being a WUM but you created much more of a stir than I ever could with your Adkins meltdown.

[Wes Tender]

So what about actually starting Lambert every game? And not playing JRod on the left wing or as a second striker? Surely you noticed he's stopped doing that?

 

Managers always say to judge them after 10 games. After 10 games, it did not look good. After 5 games a lot of us identified the issues, and if we could identify them then surely Adkins could? Yet it took him until the Swansea game to change these issues. It should not have taken that long to realise the issues, and this is one of my main points. As a football manager you HAVE to be quicker to recognise certain patterns and traits.

 

I'm really impressed that "a lot of you" had the sheer brilliance to identify in just 5 games why we had not managed to beat Manchester City, Wigan, Manchester United, Arsenal and Aston Villa. Oh. Sorry, we did beat Aston Villa rather convincingly, yet it was one of the first 5 games that had enabled you to challenge Adkins' ability. The fact that three of the other teams were part of the division's glory teams, leads me to ponder whether you realistically expected us to beat any of them.

 

And yet you and "a lot of others" were able to produce a succinct and intelligent appraisal of where our manager had got it so wrong. What a shame that he doesn't have the benefit of your insight and has to rely instead on his first hand knowledge of the players, their fitness, their mental attitude and general ability.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Care to add anything else or do you want to focus on one flippant remark? Easy cop out that.

 

You accuse me of being a WUM but you created much more of a stir than I ever could with your Adkins meltdown.

 

Yeah I will add to it.

 

If we're missing 2 players, doesn't it make it even stranger that we weren't playing Lambert every game from the start? I will agree, those 2 players have made a difference, in addition to the other changes made to the setup of the team. However, if you believe that losing 4-1 away at West Ham, or 6-1 at Arsenal is acceptable because we are missing 2 players then I will have to disagree.

 

Would you like to show me where I said he was great again?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I'm really impressed that "a lot of you" had the sheer brilliance to identify in just 5 games why we had not managed to beat Manchester City, Wigan, Manchester United, Arsenal and Aston Villa. Oh. Sorry, we did beat Aston Villa rather convincingly, yet it was one of the first 5 games that had enabled you to challenge Adkins' ability. The fact that three of the other teams were part of the division's glory teams, leads me to ponder whether you realistically expected us to beat any of them.

 

And yet you and "a lot of others" were able to produce a succinct and intelligent appraisal of where our manager had got it so wrong. What a shame that he doesn't have the benefit of your insight and has to rely instead on his first hand knowledge of the players, their fitness, their mental attitude and general ability.

 

Look, I have responded to your questions, there is no reason to be that sarcastic is there? You can either discuss this maturely and accept that what we said is correct, or you can stick your head in the sand and sit with the 'Smuggers' that believe that no changes have taken place, and it was all a matter of time before we came good.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I'm really impressed that "a lot of you" had the sheer brilliance to identify in just 5 games why we had not managed to beat Manchester City, Wigan, Manchester United, Arsenal and Aston Villa. Oh. Sorry, we did beat Aston Villa rather convincingly, yet it was one of the first 5 games that had enabled you to challenge Adkins' ability. The fact that three of the other teams were part of the division's glory teams, leads me to ponder whether you realistically expected us to beat any of them.

 

And yet you and "a lot of others" were able to produce a succinct and intelligent appraisal of where our manager had got it so wrong. What a shame that he doesn't have the benefit of your insight and has to rely instead on his first hand knowledge of the players, their fitness, their mental attitude and general ability.

 

Also, out of interest, did you see how bad we were in the opening 50 minutes against Villa. We should have been at least 2 down by then. We came back and took advantage of them, and thank God we did. However, the 4-1 scoreline did hide a multitude of sins and you would be stupid to not recognise that.

[buctootim]

You had a girly meltdown and you made yourself look a bit of a tvvat. Arguing semantics and why everyone else is so stupid and they dont have your special insight to see the brilliance of the points you were really making is just compounding the effect. I'd stop digging if I was you.

[Dig Dig]

Yeah I will add to it.

 

If we're missing 2 players, doesn't it make it even stranger that we weren't playing Lambert every game from the start? I will agree, those 2 players have made a difference, in addition to the other changes made to the setup of the team. However, if you believe that losing 4-1 away at West Ham, or 6-1 at Arsenal is acceptable because we are missing 2 players then I will have to disagree.

 

Would you like to show me where I said he was great again?

 

Well actually it was more than just two against West Ham, Clyne and Richardson were both out as well.

 

I don't agree that dropping Lambert was the right thing to do but I can see Adkins reasoning.

 

The way you go on, you make it sound as if we had Ramirez etc available all along but Adkins just decided to play Rodriguez instead. Everytime he's had out best 11 available we've played it got points. He tried a few things early on which didn't work. Enough to start proclaiming that he's out of his depth and should be sacked.......absolutely no way.

 

You never said Adkins is great. Hope that makes you feel better.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

You had a girly meltdown and you made yourself look a bit of a tvvat. Arguing semantics and why everyone else is so stupid and they dont have your special insight to see the brilliance of the points you were really making is just compounding the effect. I'd stop digging if I was you.

 

*Sigh*. It's not semantics when it is the point I was making...

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Well actually it was more than just two against West Ham, Clyne and Richardson were both out as well.

 

I don't agree that dropping Lambert was the right thing to do but I can see Adkins reasoning.

 

The way you go on, you make it sound as if we had Ramirez etc available all along but Adkins just decided to play Rodriguez instead. Everytime he's had out best 11 available we've played it got points. He tried a few things early on which didn't work. Enough to start proclaiming that he's out of his depth and should be sacked.......absolutely no way.

 

You never said Adkins is great. Hope that makes you feel better.

 

It does not read like that at all. There is no way from reading my posts that people think that I am criticising Adkins for playing Rodriguez ahead of Ramirez. That is just plain untrue and fits perfectly with the persona you have built on this site.

 

Thank you, I never said it, yet you like to put words into people's mouths to support your argument. Frankly, you are what they call a liar.

[Wes Tender]

Of course we have no idea on the factors that affect the team behind closed doors. However, if that's the way you view things then surely you can't give your opinion on anything the team does as you don't understand everything that goes on behind the scenes??!!

 

When Adkins made those substitutions against United none of the players looked like they had taken knocks, and didn't look any more 'leggy' than the rest of the team. Lambert had beasted Vidic all game.

 

Yesterday we were 2 goals up against a demoralised Newcastle. We weren't 1 goal up against a team famed for comebacks and near the top of the League. Please don't try and argue that there is no difference between the 2 situations.

 

"I very much doubt that we are winning because we are starting Lambert every game, not playing J Rod on the wing and stopped taking off our best players, etc."

 

I would disagree. Having Cork and Ramirez back in the side has of course helped. However, not playing Lambert is a big mistake, whatever division we are in (look at Saints record when Lambert has been missing). You obviously also think that JRod has performed well on the wing?!

 

You're right. Not having the inside information about players' fitness levels, whether they are carrying an injury, whether they have the stamina to last 90 minutes, whether they are part of a tactical decision to exploit a rival team's weaknesses, or their substitutions, a lack of knowledge of these things precludes me from making a realistic judgement on the manager's performance.

 

I can express an opinion, sure. As can you. But if you are challenged on your opinion because the basis of it has no grounding of the reasons why Adkins made a team selection, played a formation, made substitutions and the timing of them, then the weakness of your argument is shown up as just conjecture. But to call for Adkins' head so early based on this conjecture was ridiculous.

 

The return of Cork and Ramirez has enabled Adkins to play the formation we have now. Also helpful have been the inclusion of Shaw and the renaissance of Puncheon. Without these factors, I don't believe that we could play this formation anywhere near so effectively. I would even go as far as to say that had we had this team, with this experience they have now, we might well have won a few more of those matches had we played them again now.

[Dig Dig]

It does not read like that at all. There is no way from reading my posts that people think that I am criticising Adkins for playing Rodriguez ahead of Ramirez. That is just plain untrue and fits perfectly with the persona you have built on this site.

 

Thank you, I never said it, yet you like to put words into people's mouths to support your argument. Frankly, you are what they call a liar.

 

Lol, persona, lies.....I think you read far too much into things. You put yourself out there for a number of weeks wilth multiple threads and posts stating that our most successful manager in decades should be sacked about 5 games into a new season. You're getting a bit of a ribbing for it now, thats all.

[Wes Tender]

Look, I have responded to your questions, there is no reason to be that sarcastic is there? You can either discuss this maturely and accept that what we said is correct, or you can stick your head in the sand and sit with the 'Smuggers' that believe that no changes have taken place, and it was all a matter of time before we came good.

 

You said that you and some others had sussed out the manager's shortcomings in just 5 matches. What you and they said was plainly not right. In fact it was a load of rubbish. If you think that despite your opinions being demolished as such, those who not accept them are buying their heads in the sand, then you are plainly deluded.

 

Yes changes have taken place and things have improved. But that is because of changes brought about in players' availability and playing against easier opposition, rather than some brilliant insight that you have about the manager's shortcomings which he has belatedly compensated for, having read your thoughts on here.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

You're right. Not having the inside information about players' fitness levels, whether they are carrying an injury, whether they have the stamina to last 90 minutes, whether they are part of a tactical decision to exploit a rival team's weaknesses, or their substitutions, a lack of knowledge of these things precludes me from making a realistic judgement on the manager's performance.

 

I can express an opinion, sure. As can you. But if you are challenged on your opinion because the basis of it has no grounding of the reasons why Adkins made a team selection, played a formation, made substitutions and the timing of them, then the weakness of your argument is shown up as just conjecture. But to call for Adkins' head so early based on this conjecture was ridiculous.

 

The return of Cork and Ramirez has enabled Adkins to play the formation we have now. Also helpful have been the inclusion of Shaw and the renaissance of Puncheon. Without these factors, I don't believe that we could play this formation anywhere near so effectively. I would even go as far as to say that had we had this team, with this experience they have now, we might well have won a few more of those matches had we played them again now.

 

But it is all conjecture, it is an opinion based on the facts that we know. What facts do you know for sure to defend the decisions he made?

 

As you seem to believe that judging after 5-10 games is too early, how long should a manager be given prior to being judged? The general timeframe is about 10 games, and one that is often referred to by Managers themselves. This thread was during game number 8. I had been vocal about the mistakes that were being made, but this was when I felt he had not learned and that I couldn't see him changing what we were doing.

 

I'm not saying those factors (Cork, Shaw etc etc) had no effect, however I believe the affect was IN CONJUNCTION with the changes mentioned above.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Lol, persona, lies.....I think you read far too much into things. You put yourself out there for a number of weeks wilth multiple threads and posts stating that our most successful manager in decades should be sacked about 5 games into a new season. You're getting a bit of a ribbing for it now, thats all.

 

So was it 5 games when I said he should be sacked? Would you care to show me where I said that after the Villa game?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

You said that you and some others had sussed out the manager's shortcomings in just 5 matches. What you and they said was plainly not right. In fact it was a load of rubbish. If you think that despite your opinions being demolished as such, those who not accept them are buying their heads in the sand, then you are plainly deluded.

 

Yes changes have taken place and things have improved. But that is because of changes brought about in players' availability and playing against easier opposition, rather than some brilliant insight that you have about the manager's shortcomings which he has belatedly compensated for, having read your thoughts on here.

 

Why was it plainly not right? I think you'll find that it was plainly right?!

[Dig Dig]

So was it 5 games when I said he should be sacked? Would you care to show me where I said that after the Villa game?

 

I think the important word in the sentence is "about".

 

More lies I'm adding to my internet persona I assume?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

I think the important word in the sentence is "about".

 

More lies I'm adding to my internet persona I assume?

 

8 games is closer to the 10 than many managers refer to than the 5 you mention.

 

And that is 8 Premier League matches, 10 overall. I was criticising before that, but I don't think I mentioned that he should be sacked prior to this.