Is Adkins job untenable?

[Turkish]

If you read my post you will see that I indicated that IMHO NA was probably involved in a joint decision to agree a process/system, not that he decide himself. But O.K. you win. I have far better thing to do with my time than argue with someone with as much inside knowledge of the workings of the club as yourself. Iv`e got a yoghurt in the fridge that is going out of date.

 

So why in August was he talking about having a number of systems and formations, now so adamant he will only play one? Which is part of the process he is adhereing to. The process he is doing his best to stick to, but is one he was actually instrmental in agreeing on, despite it being completely at odds with what he's said and done in the past.

[norwaysaint]

Adkins' exact words on the "process" from his interview:

We're looking to have our own Southampton way here. We want to play 4-3-3. We want to get midfield players who can pass the ball and rotate. We want to get full backs who can get forward. We want to score goals and entertain the crowd. It's a brand of football that we want to promote but we also want to win. You've got to try to marry it up, can you play winning football and can you play the sort of football that your club wants to be associated with. Obviously here we've got our Southampton way we want to promote, bringing youngsters through into the first team.

 

I get the idea from this more that Cortese has said he wants attractive, passing, attacking and entertaining football, and this 433 idea is what Adkins has told Cortese is how he plans to accomplish this. It can be read other ways though, but I think Cortese's only real input to how the team play is that vision.

 

A quote from Sky:

 

"We're trying to marry everything up. In every game, the objective is to win so we've got a find a way to do that," Adkins said.

"We want to have a certain brand of football, but maybe it's going to take a bit of time to do that and to get it perfectly.

"That's a process we've got ensure we concentrate on because we believe that's the way to give ourselves an opportunity to remain in the Barclays Premier League.

"It's a fine line, because if we want to stay in the Barclays Premier League then we've got to win games of football - but we can't sacrifice the principles and the vision we've got here

.

 

None of this gives me the impression he's being forced to play a certain way. it sounds more like they've got together and agreed on how they want to take the club forward. It sounds very much like Adkins is onboard with this vision and even in his post-match interview he sounded quite defensive of sticking to playing the way he's stated he wants to. I think the 433 thing is down to Adkins and I think he needs to step back and admit he might need to mix it up a bit more than that. I think the "process" only refers to the idea that we are going to play this quick passing, attacking, entertaining football and that's how the youngsters are being brought forward to play so that we will start supplying our own players ready for the "southampton way".

 

I'm not saying i go along with this idea, but I think the idea that Adkins is being forced to play 433 as part of somebody else's agenda is off the mark.

 

in addition, I don't see the relevance of Adkins saying he doesn't know how long he's got in the job. To me that means he hasn't been set a deadline. Surely it's the correct response from nearly all league managers?

[Turkish]

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/175813.html

 

"Honest answer? I don't know how long I have got in this job," Adkins said, as he reflected on his side's 4-1 thumping against West Ham on Saturday. "Stability is important at a football club, but I'm not naive enough to neglect the reality that football is a results-driven business.

 

"To stay in this league, we simply cannot continue to concede goals at the rate we have done in the first eight games and while we have a process in place at this club that we are doing our best to adhere to, you need to win football matches at some stage.

 

"On too many occasions in this Premier League, we have given away too many goals. I am being honest about the situation and while I'll continue to work as hard as I can, we'll wait and see what happens."

 

Doesn't sound like a man full of confidence he's going to be here much longer or at ease with the process he agreed to put in place.

[shurlock]

Adkins' exact words on the "process" from his interview:

 

 

I get the idea from this more that Cortese has said he wants attractive, passing, attacking and entertaining football, and this 433 idea is what Adkins has told Cortese is how he plans to accomplish this. It can be read other ways though, but I think Cortese's only real input to how the team play is that vision.

 

A quote from Sky:

 

.

 

None of this gives me the impression he's being forced to play a certain way. it sounds more like they've got together and agreed on how they want to take the club forward. It sounds very much like Adkins is onboard with this vision and even in his post-match interview he sounded quite defensive of sticking to playing the way he's stated he wants to. I think the 433 thing is down to Adkins and I think he needs to step back and admit he might need to mix it up a bit more than that. I think the "process" only refers to the idea that we are going to play this quick passing, attacking, entertaining football and that's how the youngsters are being brought forward to play so that we will start supplying our own players ready for the "southampton way".

 

I'm not saying i go along with this idea, but I think the idea that Adkins is being forced to play 433 as part of somebody else's agenda is off the mark.

 

in addition, I don't see the relevance of Adkins saying he doesn't know how long he's got in the job. To me that means he hasn't been set a deadline. Surely it's the correct response from nearly all league managers?[/font][/color]

 

4-3-3 was Adkins default/preferred formation when he kept Scunny in the championship - he's been a long-time believer in it. Presumably he thinks it can do a similar job for us in the prem. Boring but true yet people still need to go clutching and looking for hidden agendas.

[Puddings and Monkeys]

You are not factoring in his animosity to the Echo. The comment about refusing to comment was a "f**k you" to the Echo that when picked up by other media outlets just looks odd without understanding the background.

 

Spot on. This was all it was and probably said in resposne to their "Adkins - I don't know how long I've got" article. But hey, let's make a big song and dance out of nothing as usual.

[miserableoldgit]

Adkins' exact words on the "process" from his interview:

 

 

I get the idea from this more that Cortese has said he wants attractive, passing, attacking and entertaining football, and this 433 idea is what Adkins has told Cortese is how he plans to accomplish this. It can be read other ways though, but I think Cortese's only real input to how the team play is that vision.

 

A quote from Sky:

 

.

 

None of this gives me the impression he's being forced to play a certain way. it sounds more like they've got together and agreed on how they want to take the club forward. It sounds very much like Adkins is onboard with this vision and even in his post-match interview he sounded quite defensive of sticking to playing the way he's stated he wants to. I think the 433 thing is down to Adkins and I think he needs to step back and admit he might need to mix it up a bit more than that. I think the "process" only refers to the idea that we are going to play this quick passing, attacking, entertaining football and that's how the youngsters are being brought forward to play so that we will start supplying our own players ready for the "southampton way".

 

I'm not saying i go along with this idea, but I think the idea that Adkins is being forced to play 433 as part of somebody else's agenda is off the mark.

 

in addition, I don't see the relevance of Adkins saying he doesn't know how long he's got in the job. To me that means he hasn't been set a deadline. Surely it's the correct response from nearly all league managers?[/font][/color]

 

Pretty much what I was getting at, but, hey, what do I know?

 

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

[Turkish]

Still no one can explain why in preseason Adkins was talking about having a number of formations and why now he insists we will stick with one and why Adkins is doing his bes to adhere to a process at the club. Surely he is doing his best to adhere to something that he has agreed himself? Why not say "we have decided that we will play 4-3-3 because we believe that is the way forward" Rather than sticking to a process.

[derry]

No, his position not untenable.

[tajjuk]

It's in his interview on Saturday.

 

Listen to it. He says and I quote 'there is a process at the football club we are doing our best to Adhere to, but it's about winning football matches'

 

"there is a brand of football the football club wants us to play but you've got to win"

 

Do you adhere to instructions or do you do you best to adhere to something you've decided yourself?

 

Here it is if you dont believe me

 

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/175813.html

 

What was that you were saying about quoting FACTS?

 

You do also know in that article they say this "Adkins' mood will unlikely have been helped by confirmation that Southampton's £12 million summer signing Gaston Ramirez will miss the next six weeks as he recovers from a leg injury, with Southampton's home match against Tottenham next Sunday seemingly becoming a must-win game for the club's under-fire manager.

Read more at http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/175813.html#uM4lOJ0rXu8Pzo2S.99 " as if it happened on Sunday, when in fact the ESPN article it links to is for the 9th October and they have changed 'up to 6 weeks' to "will miss the next 6 weeks". Despite the club confirmed nothing except that he wasn't going on internaitonal duty and what sort of injury it was.

 

Point is journalist cherry pick information and add in their agenda to make a story, exact same thing you seem to be doing. As far as I can tell Adkins is just responding to speculation and being realistic, he's lost 6 games out of 8 and recognises that it's poor form and could potentially put his job at risk. I see nothing in his words that even hints at this "confirmation at the weekend from the manager that he is not fully In control of team affairs and transfers." You have essentially made this up. The guy plays attacking football and wants to play possession football, these are the "processes" he eludes to, they have been present with NA way before he manages us, it's just the club happens to share the same principles. All he is saying is that he is not going to set the team to 'park the bus' or start hoofing it like West Ham do as that isn't his or the clubs ethos, it isn't board room pressure, it's the way NA has always managed and it's responding to external media criticism of the way his team has played. He believes that the team can be successful in the premiership by playing good attacking, possession football however they aren't doing it because of costly defensive errors.

 

Sorry but your whole post is just extrapolating comments, making 2=2 = 5 and using media rumours and speculation. There are no facts in anything you have said.

 

So is Adkins job untenable?

 

NO.

[Turkish]

You do also know in that article they say this "Adkins' mood will unlikely have been helped by confirmation that Southampton's £12 million summer signing Gaston Ramirez will miss the next six weeks as he recovers from a leg injury, with Southampton's home match against Tottenham next Sunday seemingly becoming a must-win game for the club's under-fire manager.

Read more at http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/175813.html#uM4lOJ0rXu8Pzo2S.99 " as if it happened on Sunday, when in fact the ESPN article it links to is for the 9th October and they have changed 'up to 6 weeks' to "will miss the next 6 weeks". Despite the club confirmed nothing except that he wasn't going on internaitonal duty and what sort of injury it was.

 

Point is journalist cherry pick information and add in their agenda to make a story, exact same thing you seem to be doing. As far as I can tell Adkins is just responding to speculation and being realistic, he's lost 6 games out of 8 and recognises that it's poor form and could potentially put his job at risk. I see nothing in his words that even hints at this "confirmation at the weekend from the manager that he is not fully In control of team affairs and transfers." You have essentially made this up. The guy plays attacking football and wants to play possession football, these are the "processes" he eludes to, they have been present with NA way before he manages us, it's just the club happens to share the same principles. All he is saying is that he is not going to set the team to 'park the bus' or start hoofing it like West Ham do as that isn't his or the clubs ethos, it isn't board room pressure, it's the way NA has always managed and it's responding to external media criticism of the way his team has played. He believes that the team can be successful in the premiership by playing good attacking, possession football however they aren't doing it because of costly defensive errors.

 

Sorry but your whole post is just extrapolating comments, making 2=2 = 5 and using media rumours and speculation. There are no facts in anything you have said.

 

So is Adkins job untenable?

 

NO.

 

Except i'm not am I. I'm using quotes from Nigel and Les Reed himself.

 

Dont let that stop you though.

[BadgerBadger]

Still no one can explain why in preseason Adkins was talking about having a number of formations and why now he insists we will stick with one and why Adkins is doing his bes to adhere to a process at the club. Surely he is doing his best to adhere to something that he has agreed himself? Why not say "we have decided that we will play 4-3-3 because we believe that is the way forward" Rather than sticking to a process.

 

Will someone please explain to him and put him out of his misery.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

This needed a new thread why, exactly ?

 

Cortese's SFC NEVER comments on crap like this. A refusal to comment should not be interpreted as failure to back the manager.

 

Crikey Alps, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with you once more. WTF?

 

Redknapp probably has a hand in all these rumours to be fair. Think of the frenzy the hacks got themselves into regarding him and England. He was never even approached.

 

Just because the media continue to propagate this story, doesn't mean it's true. As I have pointed out previously, a proliferation of stories if often caused by journo's and press agencies picking up a (non)story, which may very well be rumour/pure speculation, and rehashing it to fill paper space. I have a good mate who is a sports writer, and has told me this is fairly common practice. (For what it's worth, he also seems fairly confident that the Harry talk is pure b*ll*cks)

 

As for the OP's claims to have no agenda etc, it's quite frankly rubbish. You are making the same points you continually make RE: Adkins/Cortese and the distribution of power. You are taking half-comments/rumour/speculation and presenting it as FACT, which it simply is not.

 

Pointless thread.

[tajjuk]

Except i'm not am I. I'm using quotes from Nigel and Les Reed himself.

 

Dont let that stop you though.

 

 

You are, but I can't be bothered to argue, it's a stupid thread and just deserves the giant facepalm.

[Turkish]

You are, but I can't be bothered to argue, it's a stupid thread and just deserves the giant facepalm.

 

So direct quotes from the manager is media speculation is it?!!

 

 

It's a very simple question, which is raises a few valid points and you were compelled to write another essay on yet at the same time can't be bothered to reply to it. Odd.

[miserableoldgit]

Crikey Alps, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with you once more. WTF?

 

Redknapp probably has a hand in all these rumours to be fair. Think of the frenzy the hacks got themselves into regarding him and England. He was never even approached.

 

Just because the media continue to propagate this story, doesn't mean it's true. As I have pointed out previously, a proliferation of stories if often caused by journo's and press agencies picking up a (non)story, which may very well be rumour/pure speculation, and rehashing it to fill paper space. I have a good mate who is a sports writer, and has told me this is fairly common practice. (For what it's worth, he also seems fairly confident that the Harry talk is pure b*ll*cks)

 

As for the OP's claims to have no agenda etc, it's quite frankly rubbish. You are making the same points you continually make RE: Adkins/Cortese and the distribution of power. You are taking half-comments/rumour/speculation and presenting it as FACT, which it simply is not.

 

Pointless thread.

 

Exactly. I am afraid that with his "raison d`etre" to be one of this forums inner-circle "characters" he is becoming as tiresome as Dalek with his one-trick pony Hoddle mantra.

[Ian the Red]

 

So according to your logic Les Read should be sacked first as its his fault for failing to buy the right players????

[Turkish]

So according to your logic Les Read should be sacked first as its his fault for failing to buy the right players????

 

Yep. I think Les Reed should carry the can for the failiure to address the key areas in our team that he failed to during the summer, areas Adkins clearly identified needed strengthening as a priority. It has directly led to the situation we are now in.

[This Charming Man]

So according to your logic Les Read should be sacked first as its his fault for failing to buy the right players????

 

Well that is one of the key parts of his job, isn't it? The buck has to stop with someone. It's all well and good saying signing players is a tricky business, I don't argue with that - we might not get our first target, we might not even get our second but you have to get someone in to improve the squad. We failed to do that in 3 positions this summer. You could forgive one but 3 is a massive failing.

[del boy]

no it isn't

[Turkish]

no it isn't

 

care to expand?

[Bearsy]

Ain't untenable meaning it's all over bar the shouting?

 

I ain't thinking that at all, I'm thinking he's under threat but could still turn it round with a few wins.

[shurlock]

Still no one can explain why in preseason Adkins was talking about having a number of formations and why now he insists we will stick with one and why Adkins is doing his bes to adhere to a process at the club. Surely he is doing his best to adhere to something that he has agreed himself? Why not say "we have decided that we will play 4-3-3 because we believe that is the way forward" Rather than sticking to a process.

 

Put the quote in context: Adkins was asked in preseason why we were playing 4-3-3 and he said that he wanted us to have several different options. But it was obvious then that 4-3-3 was the future, the direction of travel -hence why he was asked the question. In theory, we still have multiple ways of playing -and NA would be the first to emphasise that- but we are sticking with 4-3-3 because he believes it's best option out of the various ones we have.

 

It's really very simple ffs. And NA was a believer in 4-3-3 long before Cortese came along, so maybe you want to change your profile. Scunny and 4-3-3 rhyme perfectly woah woah.

Edited 24 October, 2012 by shurlock

[buctootim]

Its not untenable. He will go or stay depending on whether Cortese and Reed, whether fairly or unfairly, hold him accountable for the failure to strengthen the defence sufficiently and whether the team still believe in him. Nothing else really matters.

 

If they accept the defence is the problem and Adkins is not / only partly to blame then he will get till January plus 4 games - which effectively means the whole season because if the January signings dont turn things around it will be too late for any new manager to make any difference to the outcome so sacking him before the summer will be pointless.

Edited 24 October, 2012 by buctootim

[Turkish]

Put the quote in context: Adkins was asked in preseason why we were playing 4-3-3 and he said that he wanted us to have several different options. But it was obvious then that 4-3-3 was the direction of travel -which is perfectly consistent with his footballing philosophy at Scunny. In theory, we still have multiple ways of playing -and NA would be the first to emphasise- but we are sticking with 4-3-3 because he believes it's best option out of the various ones we have.

 

It's really very simple ffs.

 

He didn't say that though did he. he said he was adhering to the process at the football club, Why not just say he loves 4-3-3, thinks its the best formation in the history soccerball and he believes its the best option for us?

[Chez]

Read his interview on Saturday where he says he is doing his best to stick to the process at the club and we will play 4-3-3. Read Les Reids interview where he says Adkins job is to coach the team and he is in charge of recruitment and all th scouts report into him. Read Adam Blackmores prophetic blog. I can't be arsed to find the links, I'm sure you'll find them on here though.

 

Adkins picked the 4-3-3 formation in the first place. Every other side has to follow HIS decision to enable seamless translation from one age group to the next. He has total control of team affairs, formation and selection. The varied formations so far and selections show this. You are twisting things and using Blackmores opinion to create fact. It's not currently fact, its an opinion.

 

You are right about transfers. Decisions are based on a committee. Adkins and scouts will make recommendations and then it will passed over to Les Reed and NC to try and negotiate the deal. If the player in question wants too much NC will be the one that says yes or no. Nothing at all untoward here and normal practice. The only difference elsewhere would be that perhaps a manger would be the dominant voice on transfers and that might still be the case at our place. Is Pardew being undermined because of Carr find and recommends players to buy at Newcastle? What's Pardew's role there?

 

 

I just want to add that I am by and large negative towards Cortese so not defending him. I just think you are using the wrong rod to beat him with here.

 

As for untenable, I'd say no. You kept saying that we'd be in a relegation battle (the vast majority probably in their heart agreed with you although hoping for a Swansea like season) and we are, so I think most are happy to give him more time so long as he himself stops making mistakes like taking Puncheon off against Manure.

Edited 24 October, 2012 by Chez

[thefuriousb]

Still no one can explain why in preseason Adkins was talking about having a number of formations and why now he insists we will stick with one and why Adkins is doing his bes to adhere to a process at the club. Surely he is doing his best to adhere to something that he has agreed himself? Why not say "we have decided that we will play 4-3-3 because we believe that is the way forward" Rather than sticking to a process.

 

Your supposed rigid 4-3-3 has been 4-1-2-3, 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1 on any number of occasions ...not just in separate games but in a 90 minutes period. HTH

[Turkish]

Your supposed rigid 4-3-3 has been 4-1-2-3, 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1 on any number of occasions ...not just in separate games but in a 90 minutes period. HTH

 

'We will play 4-3-3' HTH

[buctootim]

I just want to add that I am by and large negative towards Cortese so not defending him. I just think you are using the wrong rod to beat him with here.

 

What are your objections / reservations re Cortese?

[shurlock]

He didn't say that though did he. he said he was adhering to the process at the football club, Why not just say he loves 4-3-3, thinks its the best formation in the history soccerball and he believes its the best option for us?

 

Coz that's Adkinspeak -he likes talking in impersonal, david brent corporate babble, especially when it comes to defending the club. Asked about transfer developments, he'll talk about a 'policy of doing our business in private'. He very rarely talks in the singular - that's what makes him so evasive and frustrating and why Blackmore lost his rag with him.

It's no different here - you're sharp, you can appreciate that.

[Chez]

What are your objections / reservations re Cortese?

 

Not for this thread. No revelations, just the standard moans about ticket tax, ST reclassification/prices, hypocritical spending of future income etc. My point was that I am not a `Cortese supporter' yet even I can see that Cortese/reed have not interfered with the formation or team.

[Turkish]

Coz that's Adkinspeak -he likes talking in impersonal, david brent corporate babble, especially when it comes to defending the club. Asked about transfer developments, he'll talk about a 'policy of doing our business in private'. He very rarely talks in the singular - that's what makes him so evasive and frustrating and why Blackmore lost his rag with him.

It's no different here - you're sharp, you can appreciate that.

 

He didn't talk in Adkinspeak when he was on about picking the players and living and dying by his selection. Dont know why he didn't include formations in that as well if he believes in it so much.

[buctootim]

Not for this thread. No revelations, just the standard moans about ticket tax, ST reclassification/prices, hypocritical spending of future income etc. My point was that I am not a `Cortese supporter' yet even I can see that Cortese/reed have not interfered with the formation or team.

 

ok ta.

[Chez]

He didn't say that though did he. he said he was adhering to the process at the football club,

it's his process.

 

He wanted to flood the midfield (4-3-3) and therefore asked that the youth teams follow suit. He played 4-4-2 last season and had the rest of the sides doing that too.

 

He has made the change and forced others to do the same five minutes after making them all play 4-4-2. He's possibly apologising for making the other teams change tack completely.

[Turkish]

it's his process.

 

He wanted to flood the midfield (4-3-3) and therefore asked that the youth teams follow suit. He played 4-4-2 last season and had the rest of the sides doing that too.

 

He has made the change and forced others to do the same five minutes after making them all play 4-4-2. He's possibly apologising for making the other teams change tack completely.

 

Well in that case he has gone down massively in my estimations for persisting with a formation that we dont have the players to play effectively and isnt working.

[buctootim]

it's his process.

 

He wanted to flood the midfield (4-3-3) and therefore asked that the youth teams follow suit. He played 4-4-2 last season and had the rest of the sides doing that too.

 

He has made the change and forced others to do the same five minutes after making them all play 4-4-2. He's possibly apologising for making the other teams change tack completely.

 

When he was appointed he often repeated that the team were too predictable and that he wanted us to learn a second way of playing, and then later a third - which is exactly what happened in the Championship. I find it hard to believe he would now unilaterally decide to stick to 433 regardless of the opposition.

[Turkish]

When he was appointed he often repeated that the team were too predictable and that he wanted us to learn a second way of playing, and then later a third - which is exactly what happened in the Championship. I find it hard to believe he would now unilaterally decide to stick to 433 regardless of the opposition.

 

this my view on it. I cant believe he would just stick to 4-3-3 considering his success in changing shape to suit the opposition.

[kpturner]

When asked on Saturday how long he's got he replied he didn't know.

 

That isn't gossip.

Most managers in the country would give the same answer if they were being honest. Doesn't mean anything.

[shurlock]

When he was appointed he often repeated that the team were too predictable and that he wanted us to learn a second way of playing, and then later a third - which is exactly what happened in the Championship. I find it hard to believe he would now unilaterally decide to stick to 433 regardless of the opposition.

 

He doesn't though- he changed it against Man City and Wigan in the second half. He started with 4-4-2 against Fulham. And that's just the obvious stuff to an untrained eye.

 

Most managers have a default/preferred formation and tinker with it during the game. It's rarer to find a manager who has a different formation for each game. What will change is the personnel: thus a more 4-3-3 with JWP in the side, a more cautious set-up (e.g. Man U) is fundamentally different from a more expansive 4-3-3 with Ramirez in the side (e.g. Villa). Adkins has been on record as saying that it's players that make systems not the other way around.

 

The irony is that most people want us to tighten up defensively yet simultaneously want us to move to a formation that would make us more open and vulnerable. We can't have our cake and eat it.

Edited 24 October, 2012 by shurlock

[david in sweden]

Oh really Turkish ....How may threads do we need on this subject? Around 75% of the people voted in a poll that they wanted him to stay .....not satisfied with that?

 

For goodness sake....either one of the American presidential candidates would be overjoyed to get 51% in a poll.

 

As for the " dumbest journalist question of the year ".......the guy who asked him (if indeed he phrased it correctly).....ought to have known better

 

How on Earth should NA know that answer?........Until the day comes when the Board decide to sack him .... if indeed they do, how can he possibly know?

 

That question should have been directed to the Chairman.....not the manager himself.....

 

and why ask us a hypothetical question - when you have gone on record as criticising other people here (me amongst them) for daring to post hypotheticals.

 

How many people reading this site do you think have a functioning crystal ball?

[tajjuk]

Well in that case he has gone down massively in my estimations for persisting with a formation that we dont have the players to play effectively and isnt working.

 

Very naive comment, formation is irrelevant when your Centre back is handling the ball in the box and pulling someones pony tail or slashing a wide shot wildly into your own net, or charging into the back of the striker giving away penalties. Over three quarters of our goals conceded are down to individual defensive errors, nothing to do with the formation. Even with a 4-4-2 that the ignorant 'Mike Bassett' types want on here we would have still conceded those goals and probably scored less (Wigan at home as an example) because we definitely don't have the players for that formation to work in the premiership. Still would have been the same back four making f*ck ups.

 

The set up on Saturday was working well, we were away from home, dominating possession and generally keeping West Ham quiet, then the team decides to give West Ham a two goal advantage out of nothing.

 

The formation and our style of play isn't the issue, it's the personnel at the back.

[Turkish]

Dave Im not asking people to look into a crystal ball.

 

I'm asking in the current situation where it seems to be a case of when and not if he goes and with the pressure he is under.

 

Is his job tenable in people on this spaz boards opinion.

 

Which is what an internet forum is for is it not?

[Turkish]

Very naive comment, formation is irrelevant when your Centre back is handling the ball in the box and pulling someones pony tail or slashing a wide shot wildly into your own net, or charging into the back of the striker giving away penalties. Over three quarters of our goals conceded are down to individual defensive errors, nothing to do with the formation. Even with a 4-4-2 that the ignorant 'Mike Bassett' types want on here we would have still conceded those goals and probably scored less (Wigan at home as an example) because we definitely don't have the players for that formation to work in the premiership. Still would have been the same back four making f*ck ups.

 

The set up on Saturday was working well, we were away from home, dominating possession and generally keeping West Ham quiet, then the team decides to give West Ham a two goal advantage out of nothing.

 

The formation and our style of play isn't the issue, it's the personnel at the back.

 

So Les Reed carries the can for that then.

[tajjuk]

So Les Reed carries the can for that then.

 

Quite possibly, we don't know the circumstances, we don't know who we tried to sign, how much we offered and why the transfers didn't go through, we don't know if we ran out of money after spending it on attacking players or we just weren't willing to pay the sums being asked for the quality of player on offer. We don't know whether between NA and Les Reed our current defence was rated to be good enough and more attacking quality was therefore prioritised. Too many if's and buts for a particular person to take the blame.

 

We might know more in January if and when we sign some better defenders. Clearly we need at least a better centre back and left back than we have.

[Saint Fan CaM]

why is it untenable? Under ted we used to finish third from bottom every alternate season, going months without a win. Lawrie got us relegated in his first season. Give nigel a break and show some support for the club.

 

this!

[miserableoldgit]

Dave Im not asking people to look into a crystal ball.

 

I'm asking in the current situation where it seems to be a case of when and not if he goes and with the pressure he is under.

 

Is his job tenable in people on this spaz boards opinion.

 

 

 

Which is what an internet forum is for is it not?

Opinion? So says the person whose posts are full of "It`s obvious that" or "Adkins confirmed", never, "in my opinion" or "it`s possible that". You post everything as fact, no matter how close to the actual truth they are.

[Turkish]

Quite possibly, we don't know the circumstances, we don't know who we tried to sign, how much we offered and why the transfers didn't go through, we don't know if we ran out of money after spending it on attacking players or we just weren't willing to pay the sums being asked for the quality of player on offer. We don't know whether between NA and Les Reed our current defence was rated to be good enough and more attacking quality was therefore prioritised. Too many if's and buts for a particular person to take the blame.

 

We might know more in January if and when we sign some better defenders. Clearly we need at least a better centre back and left back than we have.

 

What we do know is that Adkins said in July he was looking for two centre backs to improve the team, he got one on the last day of the window. He said this in July. We also know Les Reed in in charge of recruitment and all scouts and recruitment people report to him, he has said this himself. So there is a huge disparity between what Adkins got and what he wanted. For this reason, i do not believe that Adkins is to blame for our current situation. he wanted defenders to improve the team, he said it was our prority. He didn't get them and we are paying for it. So before Adkins is sacked, Cortese needs to look at Reed. If Cortese backs Reed over Adkins then he has let the Adkins, the club and the fans down.

[tajjuk]

What we do know is that Adkins said in July he was looking for two centre backs to improve the team, he got one on the last day of the window. He said this in July. We also know Les Reed in in charge of recruitment and all scouts and recruitment people report to him, he has said this himself. So there is a huge disparity between what Adkins got and what he wanted. For this reason, i do not believe that Adkins is to blame for our current situation. he wanted defenders to improve the team, he said it was our prority. He didn't get them and we are paying for it. So before Adkins is sacked, Cortese needs to look at Reed. If Cortese backs Reed over Adkins then he has let the Adkins, the club and the fans down.

 

I can't argue with that, however as I said we don't know how much priority and focus was put towards defensive signings, I'm sure Alpine will jump on and start moaning about the 2 months spent chasing Ramirez around Europe, but that doesn't tell us anything.

 

You can say NA wanted more defenders (which he did, that's a fact), Reed is in charge of player recruitment (another fact), not enough quality defenders were signed (another fact), therefore it's Reed's fault but that's a very black and white approach and we don't know the full details.

 

We could have attempted to buy 20 different defenders and none of them came off for various reasons and only tried to sign a handful of attacking players and they did. In those hypothetical circumstances you couldn't suggest that Les Reed wasn't doing his job.

 

"So before Adkins is sacked, Cortese needs to look at Reed. If Cortese backs Reed over Adkins then he has let the Adkins, the club and the fans down." Agree with this wholeheartedly, if Reed failed to target/find more quality defenders despite NA requesting them then he has failed NA and is very much culpable to our current position. NC would know though as presumably he was aware of all approaches because he had to sanction the financial side of the bids.

[miserableoldgit]

I can't argue with that, however as I said we don't know how much priority and focus was put towards defensive signings, I'm sure Alpine will jump on and start moaning about the 2 months spent chasing Ramirez around Europe, but that doesn't tell us anything.

 

You can say NA wanted more defenders (which he did, that's a fact), Reed is in charge of player recruitment (another fact), not enough quality defenders were signed (another fact), therefore it's Reed's fault but that's a very black and white approach and we don't know the full details.

 

We could have attempted to buy 20 different defenders and none of them came off for various reasons and only tried to sign a handful of attacking players and they did. In those hypothetical circumstances you couldn't suggest that Les Reed wasn't doing his job.

 

"So before Adkins is sacked, Cortese needs to look at Reed. If Cortese backs Reed over Adkins then he has let the Adkins, the club and the fans down." Agree with this wholeheartedly, if Reed failed to target/find more quality defenders despite NA requesting them then he has failed NA and is very much culpable to our current position. NC would know though as presumably he was aware of all approaches because he had to sanction the financial side of the bids.

You won`t last long on here posting balanced, common sense stuff like this.

[The Kraken]

I can't argue with that, however as I said we don't know how much priority and focus was put towards defensive signings, I'm sure Alpine will jump on and start moaning about the 2 months spent chasing Ramirez around Europe, but that doesn't tell us anything.

 

You can say NA wanted more defenders (which he did, that's a fact), Reed is in charge of player recruitment (another fact), not enough quality defenders were signed (another fact), therefore it's Reed's fault but that's a very black and white approach and we don't know the full details.

 

We could have attempted to buy 20 different defenders and none of them came off for various reasons and only tried to sign a handful of attacking players and they did. In those hypothetical circumstances you couldn't suggest that Les Reed wasn't doing his job.

"So before Adkins is sacked, Cortese needs to look at Reed. If Cortese backs Reed over Adkins then he has let the Adkins, the club and the fans down." Agree with this wholeheartedly, if Reed failed to target/find more quality defenders despite NA requesting them then he has failed NA and is very much culpable to our current position. NC would know though as presumably he was aware of all approaches because he had to sanction the financial side of the bids.

 

Well, in that situation you could really, couldn't you. Les Reed's job is head of recruitment. He's not head of trying to recruit players; he's responsible for getting them through the door. Its a bit like saying you should only judge Nigel Adkins on trying to win games, and if we don't actually win them then he is blameless and you can't suggest NA wasn't doing his job. Reed was doing his job; and he failed in what he was trying to achieve (or at least failed to bring in the positional targets that the manager identified). That's the art of recruitment; you identify your targets and achieve success by bringing those targets in with suitable candidates. If we weren't able to bring in 20 different defenders then that would indicate there was a problem with the realism of the identification of candidates; again, Reed's responsibility.

Edited 24 October, 2012 by The Kraken

[Turkish]

I can't argue with that, however as I said we don't know how much priority and focus was put towards defensive signings, I'm sure Alpine will jump on and start moaning about the 2 months spent chasing Ramirez around Europe, but that doesn't tell us anything.

 

You can say NA wanted more defenders (which he did, that's a fact), Reed is in charge of player recruitment (another fact), not enough quality defenders were signed (another fact), therefore it's Reed's fault but that's a very black and white approach and we don't know the full details.

 

We could have attempted to buy 20 different defenders and none of them came off for various reasons and only tried to sign a handful of attacking players and they did. In those hypothetical circumstances you couldn't suggest that Les Reed wasn't doing his job.

 

"So before Adkins is sacked, Cortese needs to look at Reed. If Cortese backs Reed over Adkins then he has let the Adkins, the club and the fans down." Agree with this wholeheartedly, if Reed failed to target/find more quality defenders despite NA requesting them then he has failed NA and is very much culpable to our current position. NC would know though as presumably he was aware of all approaches because he had to sanction the financial side of the bids.

 

We also had the longest summer break in years so it's not like time was an issue. I just find it an incredible coincidence that last season we gaffed and missed out on a load of targets when trying to sign a centre half and got a last minute panic and exactly the same thing happened this year.