Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 http://www.footballcourier.com/news/story/1899080/why-was-nigel-adkins-sacked/full_story.html interesting article..... who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Very good article DD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 (edited) Article is full of holes - Ramirez was moved to the left out of necessity, not choice due to Lallana's injury. And at times it's been very difficult to distinguish whether we were playing 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1. Edited 20 January, 2013 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Been playing 4231 for a while niw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Very interesting write up and nice to look at it from a football perspective rather than a political one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 I do hope we continue with the 4-2-3-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Article is full of holes - Ramirez was moved to the left out of necessity, not choice due to Lallana's injury. And at times it's been very difficult to distinguish whether we were playing 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1. Don't totally agree with this. There were other options available. We could have kept Ramirez in the central position. And should have done IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Been playing 4231 for a while niw Agree i dont understand anyone thinks we play 442 . Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Agree i dont understand anyone thinks we play 442 . Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2 did you read the article..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 No the start of the downfall was the ridiculous summer transfers or lack of - or the lack of action by the CEO to get rid of the manager if he didnt feel he was right! 15 or 16 games to go is not the time to gamble we got away with it with Pardew I am not so sure we can again. Pochettino may be the man he may not but if he doesnt hit the ground running its a poisoned chalice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Formation may have been a factor in the sacking but I don't agree that failure to play 433 or playing 442 made the sacking inevitable. However we lined up, the team tried to play between the lines. There's a place for pragmatism with even the most dogmatic adherents to 443 until perhaps you get to the level of Barcelona. Many of us were saying earlier in the season that we didnt really have all the players required for 433. Maybe Nigel was simply experimenting with variations to get the best out of the players available in a period of transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Don't totally agree with this. There were other options available. We could have kept Ramirez in the central position. And should have done IMHO. We tried Jrod on the left at the start of the season but it didn't work. Guly came in -and did OK imo but will always have his critics. Recently, it hasn't been so much whether Ramirez is going to play on the left or in the hole but whether he'll start at all -and I've got to admit the decision to leave him out at Stoke (at least till the second half when we desperately needed to retain possession) and Chelsea was pretty much spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manji Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 At last a thinking mans article with no agenda. Encouraging as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Article is full of holes - Ramirez was moved to the left out of necessity, not choice due to Lallana's injury. And at times it's been very difficult to distinguish whether we were playing 4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1. You do know its not an article as such, just a fan on a forum giving his opinion. Where he makes some valid points. To be fair I can't ever remember an article where you didn't claim it was full of holes or cherry picking. You've certainly done it for every remotely negative article about the current situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSaint Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 I'm not sure it was just about formation so much as not fully "toeing the company line", whatever that may be - a cardinal sin, I suspect, in the world of Cortese. It could stretch into things such as whether to start Rickie, where to play Ramirez, when to start/not start academy graduates, and a host of other things. Moreover, we still don't know (do we?) whether it was Adkins or Cortese who had the beef with the now-important Puncheon. And we've bought a number of fairly expensive players who haven't really had a sniff at a regular role - several "early ball" players who don't really fit into Nigel's final-third team style. When hindsight paints a more accurate picture, it's usually one involving a number of problems rather than a single issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 You do know its not an article as such, just a fan on a forum giving his opinion. Where he makes some valid points. To be fair I can't ever remember an article where you didn't claim it was full of holes or cherry picking. You've certainly done it for every remotely negative article about the current situation. Fine its not an article, though I respect a fan's analysis -and probably hold it to a higher standard than your average journo. And I couldn't care less if an article is negative - I didn't interpret this piece as particularly negative. I just think the whole formation line is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things -hence why we've argued about it on a few occasions. In a similar vein, I don't like single cause explanations -or the idea that there's always someone to blame. Alas that's the common currency on a mongboard. That pretty much explains my position on everything -not any great love for Cortese or besieged need to rally behind the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedArmy Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 I don't get this myth that all we played in league one and the championship was 4-4-2. We regularly played 2 or 3 different formations in any one game, when things weren't going our way or to close a game out. The diamond we played quite regularly at one point was practically a 4-3-3 at times with Lambert's tendency to drift out wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Anyone remember this piece from Adam Blackmore's blog in August? http://bigadamsport.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/is-it-southampton-way-or-highway-for.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Agree i dont understand anyone that thinks we play 442 . why? We often play 4-4-2. I didn't see a 4-2-3-1 at Stoke. Lambert and Rpodriguez played up front. Lambert didn't play in midfield, deep in the hole or anything ither than up front. We had two central midfielders and Guly and Puncheon played left and right midfield. How is is that not a 4-4-2? I don't think that was the reason he got sacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 20 January, 2013 Share Posted 20 January, 2013 Anyone remember this piece from Adam Blackmore's blog in August? http://bigadamsport.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/is-it-southampton-way-or-highway-for.html Yep. Was dismissed as bulsh it at the time. 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