hypochondriac Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Oh believe me there were. Wes Ender was a stand out one demanding proof and how would Nixon know what players we were looking at. There were a number of others that held similar views. Totally ignoring all that Nixon had got spot on all summer. Yep Wes was definitely one who did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 This point is what baffles me the most. One of two things seems likely - NA was a part of the club decision to adopt a standard 4-3-3, which seems likely given he is first team manager. Or, he had little to do with it and it's being enforced on him and he had just pre-season to make it work. Either way, it seems odd that we have then gone on to sign players who simply aren't suited to it. One way or another, he knew how we would be playing, yet has signed out-and-out center forwards like Mayuka and JRod. Did he? Or was that the work of the 'recruitment department'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Wes and the like are in a minority of their own, you just notice them more. Because he's so incredibly pompous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Did he? Or was that the work of the 'recruitment department'? Which includes Adkins, so yes, he did. Adkins has said very publicly that he identifies targets and then it's up to NC to go and get them, I believe he referenced that fact again in yesterdays post-match conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 I find it hard to believe Cortese would be stupid enough to tell the manager what formation to play, or to over-rule the manager on what players to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Which includes Adkins, so yes, he did. Adkins has said very publicly that he identifies targets and then it's up to NC to go and get them, I believe he referenced that fact again in yesterdays post-match conference. Have a read of this interview and then decide. http://www.2ndyellow.com/2012/five-minutes-of-your-time-please-les-reed/ Key point being Adkins job is to 'focus on coaching and only the three coaches report into him' Reed heads up The football development and support centre, which includes scouting and recruitment and has 50 staff report in to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Adkins is playing 4-3-3. It's his choice and it's possibly the right choice (certainly we were cut to ribbons by Wigan and Everton when we went the 4-4-2 route). He wants the whole club to play in the same formation to enable a seamless transition from one age group to the next. Makes total sense. How on earth does that equate to him having to play 4-3-3 because his boss told him to? It doesn't. It's ********. Cortese has no say whatsoever on the formation. Cortese has a say on players that come in. He has the final say, because he signs the cheques, but that is the same up and down the country. I'm not a Cortese fan, but to say that Adkins is his puppet is bull. Agree with most of that - in principle, but I think both of them (NC/NA) underestimated the defensive requirements of the Prem. I was not alone in saying we needed extra defenders in the summer after; Jaidi's retirement, Martin's season long loan, Harding's departure and the acceptance that Richardson was aging and not Prem. level. YES - Clyne was a good buy - but has lots to learn, Yoshida will look better when he doesn't have to play at full back...but neither Fonte or Hooiveld - though good players in NPc -have what it takes for Prem. So until January - at least - we either have to improve - or else. Mistakes were made but it was also Cortese's responsibility to have bought the extra defenders, and not spent 3 weeks on the Ramirez deal. Adkins will carry the can......or get the sack.....in the end, but he's not the only one bearing rsponsibility for the situation so far . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobM Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Have a read of this interview and then decide. http://www.2ndyellow.com/2012/five-minutes-of-your-time-please-les-reed/ Key point being Adkins job is to 'focus on coaching and only the three coaches report into him' Reed heads up The football development and support centre, which includes scouting and recruitment and has 50 staff report in to him. You've quoted that slightly out of context though, let's be honest. The actual quote, in part of a larger answer about his role at the club and the people he manages, was "The Manager is able to focus on coaching the team and only the three first team coaches report directly to him." This in the context of the actual answer suggests Les Reed is there to take the pressure off of things that may distract from pure-footballing matters, such as managing people away from the first team or coaches, but identifying targets are 100% footballing matters that do have NA's involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 You've quoted that slightly out of context though, let's be honest. The actual quote, in part of a larger answer about his role at the club and the people he manages, was "The Manager is able to focus on coaching the team and only the three first team coaches report directly to him." This in the context of the actual answer suggests Les Reed is there to take the pressure off of things that may distract from pure-footballing matters, such as managing people away from the first team or coaches, but identifying targets are 100% footballing matters that do have NA's involvement. Well they obviously aren't listening too him then as according to this on the 13th July defensive signings were our top priority. Our one defensive addition came in 7 weeks later, the day before the window shut. It seems there is a difference in priorities within th recruitment department. http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11700/7897625/Adkins-reveals-recruitment-plan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Well they obviously aren't listening too him then as according to this on the 13th July defensive signings were our top priority. Our one defensive addition came in 7 weeks later, the day before the window shut. It seems there is a difference in priorities within th recruitment department. http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11700/7897625/Adkins-reveals-recruitment-plandidn't we sign a defender five days later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 didn't we sign a defender five days later? Not the centre back Adkins was prioritising in this interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Not the centre back Adkins was prioritising in this interview. oh I see. When you said "our one defensive signing" I presumed you meant players that are defenders. Silly me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 oh I see. When you said "our one defensive signing" I presumed you meant players that are defenders. Silly me. It's quite clear Chez, 'Adkins reveals recruitment plans' then talks about signing centre backs and priorities. I'll remember to spell it ur for those too dense and brainwashed in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 please do. but don't rewrite history. We signed two defenders. Do you blame Cortese or Adkins for not adding the extra defenders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 please do. but don't rewrite history. We signed two defenders. Do you blame Cortese or Adkins for not adding the extra defenders How am I rewriting history? Adkins is talking about centre halves, he was talking about priorities. He was talking about loaning out a centre half, another one retiring, another one with an uncertain future. No where does he mention full backs. Centre backs were his priority according to that interview. 7 weeks later he got one. It could be Adkins fault or it could be the 'recruitment department' maybe Adkins forgot to tell them about his priorities because if he did they obviously didn't listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 There is obviously something wrong when a manager says strengthening the defence is a priority then £30mill is spent and all we've added to the defence is a youngster from Palace and a Japanese centre back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 How am I rewriting history? Adkins is talking about centre halves, he was talking about priorities. He was talking about loaning out a centre half, another one retiring, another one with an uncertain future. No where does he mention full backs. Centre backs were his priority according to that interview. 7 weeks later he got one. It could be Adkins fault or it could be the 'recruitment department' maybe Adkins forgot to tell them about his priorities because if he did they obviously didn't listen. I was focusing only on your statement that we made one and only defensive signing when we in fact signed two defenders. I agree he says we need one or two centre backs (depending on whether Seaborne would be able to play again) and we did sign one centre back. He also said we needed a keeper. We signed a keeper. Whoever needed to listen did. I'd of thought the left back recruitment was an easier rod to beat them with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 There is obviously something wrong when a manager says strengthening the defence is a priority then £30mill is spent and all we've added to the defence is a youngster from Palace and a Japanese centre back. and a keeper. The signings overall were spread across the whole field. 2 keepers 2 defenders defensive midfielder attacking midfielder 2 strikers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 No where does he mention full backs. Didn't we chase Buttner for weeks on end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 It could be Adkins fault or it could be the 'recruitment department' either Adkins didn't want a left back and another centre back, failed to identify one we could get, or chose to spend the money on Rameriz instead. Which do you think it was? IMO Adkins got all the players he wanted but the board just fell short securing the left back they wanted. He had full confidence in Jos and Fonte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 and a keeper. The signings overall were spread across the whole field. 2 keepers 2 defenders defensive midfielder attacking midfielder 2 strikers We brought in no PL experience and the lions share of that money, no f**k it, the vast majority of that money went on the attacking players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 either Adkins didn't want a left back and another centre back, failed to identify one we could get, or chose to spend the money on Rameriz instead. Which do you think it was? IMO Adkins got all the players he wanted but the board just fell short securing the left back they wanted. So he felt our CB options were strong enough ? Sackable offence. Martin going out on loan is beginng to feel like Fitz Hall being sold, and look where that ended up and why. Serious sh*t deja-vu. Fonte is Lundekvam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 I was focusing only on your statement that we made one and only defensive signing when we in fact signed two defenders. I agree he says we need one or two centre backs (depending on whether Seaborne would be able to play again) and we did sign one centre back. He also said we needed a keeper. We signed a keeper. Whoever needed to listen did. I'd of thought the left back recruitment was an easier rod to beat them with. Prehaps I should have been absolutely specific then as I assumed that as Adkins mentioned 3 centre backs currently at the club or just retired and was talking about signing centre abcks I assumed, wrongly, people would realise he and i were talking about centre backs. I apologies for making that assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Didn't we chase Buttner for weeks on end? That went well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 either Adkins didn't want a left back and another centre back, failed to identify one we could get, or chose to spend the money on Rameriz instead. Which do you think it was? IMO Adkins got all the players he wanted but the board just fell short securing the left back they wanted. He had full confidence in Jos and Fonte. Did he? If that's the case why did he say he wanted to "bring in one or two centre backs to improve the side"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 We brought in no PL experience and the lions share of that money, no f**k it, the vast majority of that money went on the attacking players. Around £4.5m of our transfer money was spent on our defence. Whist we spent £3m on a striker who is yet to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 So he felt our CB options were strong enough ? Sackable offence. Martin going out on loan is beginng to feel like Fitz Hall being sold, and look where that ended up and why. Serious sh*t deja-vu. Fonte is Lundekvam. That was always Adkins' potential weakness, he's never worked at this level so wouldn't know who is capable or not. Then you have Charlton Athletic's sh!ttest ever manager giving him advice and you have a recipie for disaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Around £4.5m of our transfer money was spent on our defence. Whist we spent £3m on a striker who is yet to start. £10M on strikers who aren't first choice (or at least shouldn't be); and playing a rigid 4-3-3 that only allows for one central striker. Barmy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 either Adkins didn't want a left back and another centre back, failed to identify one we could get, or chose to spend the money on Rameriz instead. Which do you think it was? IMO Adkins got all the players he wanted but the board just fell short securing the left back they wanted. He had full confidence in Jos and Fonte. Well he didn't did he. One or two centre backs to improve the side. He got one. One or two goalkeepers. He got a kid from L2 and then a panic freebie when it became clear we'd balls up there. And no left back, despite chasing one for months. I would say Adkins was far from getting what he wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 That was always Adkins' potential weakness, he's never worked at this level so wouldn't know who capable or not. Then you have Charlton Athletic's sh!ttest ever manager giving him advice and you have a recipie for disaster TBF you'd have to say Pardew was probably their ****test ever manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 £10M on strikers who aren't first choice (or at least shouldn't be); and playing a rigid 4-3-3 that only allows for one central striker. Barmy. Whilst less than half that went on a defence which is still championship standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 TBF you'd have to say Pardew was probably their ****test ever manager. That was Les Reed actually. Wonder what happened to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 So he felt our CB options were strong enough ? Sackable offence. Martin going out on loan is beginng to feel like Fitz Hall being sold, and look where that ended up and why. Serious sh*t deja-vu. Fonte is Lundekvam. I thought they would be OK, just good enough to keep us up mind, none of this Europe bull, and I still do actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Did he? If that's the case why did he say he wanted to "bring in one or two centre backs to improve the side"? Good point. But he talks about improving the football club, so perhaps he means improving the squad rather than suggest the two he has are not up to it so need to be replaced. I don't know. I guess I could be wrong here and he didn't have confidence in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 We brought in no PL experience and the lions share of that money, no f**k it, the vast majority of that money went on the attacking players. can't argue with those facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 £10M on strikers who aren't first choice (or at least shouldn't be); and playing a rigid 4-3-3 that only allows for one central striker. Barmy. I have to agree. I simply do not understand signing Mayuka AND Rodriguez of we were only going t play one up. Neither are really suitable for the wide role, although both have given it a good go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Well he didn't did he. One or two centre backs to improve the side. He got one. One or two goalkeepers. He got a kid from L2 and then a panic freebie when it became clear we'd balls up there. And no left back, despite chasing one for months. I would say Adkins was far from getting what he wanted. So Reed and Cortese are to blame then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 So Reed and Cortese are to blame then? I thought it was all Guly's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 (edited) IMO Adkins got all the players he wanted but the board just fell short securing the left back they wanted. He had full confidence in Jos and Fonte. Cant agree with that. I specifically remember Adkins saying in an interview he wanted to bring two centre backs in. Literally no-one, even on this board would think Fonte and Hooiveld backed up by Seabourne was an adequate PL central defence Edited 21 October, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Cant agree with that. I specifically remember Adkins saying in an interview he wanted to bring two centre back in. Literally no-one, even on this board would think Fonte and Hooiveld backed up by Seabourne was an adequate PL central defence the article that Turkish pointed to gives the exact quote. "One or two CBs". So he did get that. I thought Fonte and Jos would be adequate, but then again I wasn't aiming for anything other than survival. I don't rate Seaborne, so I'd of liked to have seen two come in and him go out, but maybe Adkins rates Seaborne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 So Reed and Cortese are to blame then? Reed is head of recruitment so the buck stops with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 the article that Turkish pointed to gives the exact quote. "One or two CBs". So he did get that. I thought Fonte and Jos would be adequate, but then again I wasn't aiming for anything other than survival. I don't rate Seaborne, so I'd of liked to have seen two come in and him go out, but maybe Adkins rates Seaborne. He got the bare minimum. And that 7 weeks after the interview and the day before the window shut. Hardly sounds like it was a priority that Adkins said it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Reed is head of recruitment so the buck stops with him. Not going to argue with that. Something tells me he won't go before the manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 High time we supporters do something to relieve the pressure on Adkins by once and for all turning the spotlight on REID and his role in our absymal start to life back in the Premier League that equals play under Gray, Wigley, to name but two past managers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 He got the bare minimum. And that 7 weeks after the interview and the day before the window shut. Hardly sounds like it was a priority that Adkins said it was.fair point, but realistically was he ever going to get more than 8 new signings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 fair point, but realistically was he ever going to get more than 8 new signings? 8 would have been fine if they included more players where we were weak and fewer where we were already strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 8 would have been fine if they included more players where we were weak and fewer where we were already strong. not convinced we were all that strong in attacking positions myself. I didn't rate Barnard or Sharp, have no idea about Lee. But if we're only playing one up front a left back instead of the extra striker might have made sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 not convinced we were all that strong in attacking positions myself. I didn't rate Barnard or Sharp, have no idea about Lee. But if we're only playing one up front a left back instead of the extra striker might have made sense. Maybe not excessively strong in quality, but certainly in numbers. Central defence was strong in neither. Martin is much better than Seabourne - Adkins would only have sent him out on loan if he was sure two quality CBs were coming in imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 Hes got every right to be. He got the tactics spot on for that game and was let down by two unforced errors. I agree. The cracking goal we scored was also before Lambert was on the pitch, and when he did come on he didn't seem to do much, although I had a very dodgy stream. Does nobody consider that NA is trying to protect his player through a long and tough season, when his age and body type is against him in the recovery and fitness stakes (I should know).. I think others have pointed out Rooney and other top stars don't start every game. Plus when he gets injured we'll be without him anyway and we need to be able to cope. Criticise the manager if you must (starting Boruc?), but we ended up chasing a game where we had been quite comfortable, the better team indeed, even if not particularly pentetrating. It wasn't the Saints fans who were unhappy at half-time. Judging by the hysteria on here it would seem nothing the manager did was right, FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 October, 2012 Share Posted 21 October, 2012 I agree. The cracking goal we scored was also before Lambert was on the pitch, and when he did come on he didn't seem to do much, although I had a very dodgy stream. Does nobody consider that NA is trying to protect his player through a long and tough season, when his age and body type is against him in the recovery and fitness stakes (I should know).. I think others have pointed out Rooney and other top stars don't start every game. Plus when he gets injured we'll be without him anyway and we need to be able to cope. We've just had an international break; how much more rest does he need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now