Interview With Adkins After Coventry (A)

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

William Henry Foulkes

William Henry Foulkes

Big Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
4,981
Reaction score
5,326
Location
The Pantry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03sq7jy
Interviewer: Adam Oxley
Length: 5:32
  • started poorly, deflected goal off the player's backside
  • second goal too easy, second phase from the corner
  • responded well
  • their keeper's made some good flying saves
  • half time we still had the belief
  • got done with a sucker punch at the end
  • a game that we could have won we haven't done
  • we needed a victory and that's that
  • Ben got overpowered which we haven't done
  • responded well, could have gone the other way and capitulated
  • we had good possession
  • they defended well at times
  • didn't get the luck
  • going to do everything we can to win the next game
  • only thing I'm interesting in is Sheffield United trying to win the next game
  • then there's a lot of things to do
  • there's no sentiment about palying the youngsters
  • reflect on it
  • Flynny and Bash not trained all week
  • mentions reflect on the season again
  • preparations very much started for next season
  • we have been playing some good football
  • have to keep building
  • don't want to be dreaming about the play-offs want to be thinking about the top two
  • need to give ourselves opportunity to start next season well
  • wish the wives and families of Mark and Dean well
  • get ourselves back to Sheffield, sulk, and then get ready for next week
 

William Henry Foulkes said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03sq7jy
Interviewer: Adam Oxley
Length: 5:32
  • started poorly, deflected goal off the player's backside
  • second goal too easy, second phase from the corner
  • responded well
  • their keeper's made some good flying saves
  • half time we still had the belief
  • got done with a sucker punch at the end
  • a game that we could have won we haven't done
  • we needed a victory and that's that
  • Ben got overpowered which we haven't done
  • responded well, could have gone the other way and capitulated
  • we had good possession
  • they defended well at times
  • didn't get the luck
  • going to do everything we can to win the next game
  • only thing I'm interesting in is Sheffield United trying to win the next game
  • then there's a lot of things to do
  • there's no sentiment about palying the youngsters
  • reflect on it
  • Flynny and Bash not trained all week
  • mentions reflect on the season again
  • preparations very much started for next season
  • we have been playing some good football
  • have to keep building
  • don't want to be dreaming about the play-offs want to be thinking about the top two
  • need to give ourselves opportunity to start next season well
  • wish the wives and families of Mark and Dean well
  • get ourselves back to Sheffield, sulk, and then get ready for next week
Click to expand...
Alcoblade in 5.. 4... 3...

Edit: Well fuck me what do you know :D
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
responded well
Click to expand...

We did. But we shouldn't've had to. At one point it looked like they could create chances at will and it looked like it could be 4 5 (or more) by half time.

William Henry Foulkes said:
half time we still had the belief
Click to expand...

True dat. Not only were we camped in their half at times - we were often camped in their box. They were all over the place. But we didn't convert our chances. Or even really come that close. A couple of decent saves but nothing spectacular. It was us being wasteful (sound familiar?) not them being strong.

William Henry Foulkes said:
only thing I'm interesting in is Sheffield United trying to win the next game
Click to expand...

Seems to me from this that his focus is where I'd expect it to be from Adkins, and where it should be.
 
Quite possibly Adkins's most idiotic interview yet.

"A game we could have won, we haven't done" in a must-win situation. (Where's the frustration? Where's the annoyance? Were's the sense of having given it all?)
We were "unlucky".
Ben Whiteman to blame.
More bothered about "winning" the utterly pointless Scunny game than properly getting on with next season's preparation.

Madkins, Sadkins, big fat furry fucking eejit


 
Alfreton14Blade said:
Quite possibly Adkins's most idiotic interview yet.

"A game we could have won, we haven't done" in a must-win situation. (Where's the frustration? Where's the annoyance? Were's the sense of having given it all?)
We were "unlucky".
Ben Whiteman to blame.
More bothered about "winning" the utterly pointless Scunny game than properly getting on with next season's preparation.

Madkins, Sadkins, big fat furry fucking eejit

Click to expand...
To be fair, just because he's not ranting in his interview, it doesn't mean he's not angry in private. Alan Biggs was talking about this with Wednesday's manager, said the same of Sean Dyche.
Still, I agree with you over Whiteman.
 
Alfreton14Blade said:
Quite possibly Adkins's most idiotic interview yet.

"A game we could have won, we haven't done" in a must-win situation. (Where's the frustration? Where's the annoyance? Were's the sense of having given it all?)
We were "unlucky".
Ben Whiteman to blame.
More bothered about "winning" the utterly pointless Scunny game than properly getting on with next season's preparation.

Madkins, Sadkins, big fat furry fucking eejit

Click to expand...

None of this applies to the interview I heard. Though I do like Bagpuss.
 
BeatleBlade said:
To be fair, just because he's not ranting in his interview, it doesn't mean he's not angry in private. Alan Biggs was talking about this with Wednesday's manager, said the same of Sean Dyche.
Still, I agree with you over Whiteman.
Click to expand...

What does anger achieve btw?

Fwiw he didn't blame Whiteman - he mentioned him. It'd've been (much) better if he hadn't but I can't imagine it'll destroy Whiteman's career. (And it was utterly completely totally blindingly obvious that Whiteman was overrun for the first and Hammond would not have been.)

I reckon forensic analysis of after match comments is misplaced.

For me when people are speaking calm, measured, and considered that's when it's worth taking more literally.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Fwiw he didn't blame Whiteman - he mentioned him. It'd've been (much) better if he hadn't but I can't imagine it'll destroy Whiteman's career. (And it was utterly completely totally blindingly obvious that Whiteman was overrun for the first and Hammond would not have been.)
Click to expand...

Problem is though, WHF, Hammond's made countless faults which haven't been picked up on in post-game interviews by the manager. Indeed, he's even gone out of his way to praise Hammond & to lecture us all about his "unseen" contributions.

Then, in this interview, he chooses to highlight the failings of a kid making his third ever start in a first team game. Why the need?

Bad move, IMO.
 
Alfreton14Blade said:
Problem is though, WHF, Hammond's made countless faults which haven't been picked up on in post-game interviews by the manager. Indeed, he's even gone out of his way to praise Hammond & to lecture us all about his "unseen" contributions.

Then, in this interview, he chooses to highlight the failings of a kid making his third ever start in a first team game. Why the need?

Bad move, IMO.
Click to expand...

(In passing, I don't consider he's lectured me on Hammond. He's mentioned it. I've thought about it.)

Fair point about Hammond's countless faults not being mentioned - maybe he's, er, alluded to them on a couple of occasions.

Mentioning (not highlighting) Whiteman in the heat of the moment in an after match interview is regrettable but excusable.

Picking Whiteman for that role in the cold light of day, with plenty of time to consider the decision, could be seen as grounds for very serious concern for all sorts of reasons (cf McFadzean v Gillingham).

One of these matters, maybe it really matters - and it could already seriously affect our chances next season. The other one it'd be better if it hadn't happened is about as much as I'd say about it.

One is getting attention - the other isn't.

Bizarre.
 
JohnDenver said:
Is that why you bullet all his comments for us? :)
Click to expand...

It's one thing to bullet point the interviews.

It's another to analyse them for evidence of minor discrepancies: A-ha! On the afternoon of Thursday 24th October Mr Adkins you said to the Tea Lady you wanted two sugars in your tea, now it's only one. Therefore you murdered the vicar.

I think in broad terms you can take plenty out of these interviews, but imo sometimes the detailed analysis is maybe overdone.
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
(In passing, I don't consider he's lectured me on Hammond. He's mentioned it. I've thought about it.)

Fair point about Hammond's countless faults not being mentioned - maybe he's, er, alluded to them on a couple of occasions.

Mentioning (not highlighting) Whiteman in the heat of the moment in an after match interview is regrettable but excusable.

Picking Whiteman for that role in the cold light of day, with plenty of time to consider the decision, could be seen as grounds for very serious concern for all sorts of reasons (cf McFadzean v Gillingham).

One of these matters, maybe it really matters - and it could already seriously affect our chances next season. The other one it'd be better if it hadn't happened is about as much as I'd say about it.

One is getting attention - the other isn't.

Bizarre.
Click to expand...

Think you're overstating the case tbh. Had a look at the goal again & we're talking about Whiteman getting "overpowered" by a massive centre-forward miles away from goal. It was only fatal because big, brave Dave Edgar subsequently turned his back (yet again) on a speculative shot from about 25 yards out, which then ricocheted off him into the net.

Actually playing Ben Whiteman rather than Hammond (on what I've seen up to now) holds out no horrors. Although playing either of them as a pivotal central-midfielder hardly seems appropriate for a promotion-seeking team. Unless my eyes deceive me, Hammond's only worth having here for his professionalism and his exemplary behaviour, assuming that he is influential amongst the group. On the pitch, he's a spent force.
 

William Henry Foulkes said:
It's one thing to bullet point the interviews.

It's another to analyse them for evidence of minor discrepancies: A-ha! On the afternoon of Thursday 24th October Mr Adkins you said to the Tea Lady you wanted two sugars in your tea, now it's only one. Therefore you murdered the vicar.

I think in broad terms you can take plenty out of these interviews, but imo sometimes the detailed analysis is maybe overdone.
Click to expand...
Nigel Adkins murdered the vicar? We have bigger problems than I thought.
 
Alfreton14Blade said:
Think you're overstating the case tbh. Had a look at the goal again & we're talking about Whiteman getting "overpowered" by a massive centre-forward miles away from goal. It was only fatal because big, brave Dave Edgar subsequently turned his back (yet again) on a speculative shot from about 25 yards out, which then ricocheted off him into the net.

Actually playing Ben Whiteman rather than Hammond (on what I've seen up to now) holds out no horrors. Although playing either of them as a pivotal central-midfielder hardly seems appropriate for a promotion-seeking team. Unless my eyes deceive me, Hammond's only worth having here for his professionalism and his exemplary behaviour, assuming that he is influential amongst the group. On the pitch, he's a spent force.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more.

At the match it was glaringly obvious what was going to happen and what did happen.

It really isn't clear on the highlights but they just came straight through us. Last few games Hammond has stopped this countless times.

(It also happened in a recent game where he was subbed at the Lane and the opposition walked almost unopposed from their keeper to shot on target repeatedly.)

Fwiw I posted at the time we wouldn't be keeping a clean sheet.

5' in we were 1 down (and this absolutely would not have happened if Hammond was on the pitch).

10' in we were two down. This is less clear, but was down to organisation, and again this may be the unseen work he does.

Four clean sheets in five with Hammond.

Two goals in ten minutes without him.

We did re-organise after, and at times Whiteman's quality on the ball showed (again).

But we missed Hammond yesterday.
 
1973Blade said:
Nigel Adkins murdered the vicar? We have bigger problems than I thought.
Click to expand...


Nah, we'll be reight, he''ll put a positive spin on it and SYP won't even know about it if you read the altered statements.

Be 27 years before it comes out anyway, longer if its under the Orgreave carpet.
 
Waffle, backside, waffle, waffle, started slowly, waffle, Hammond gives good gnosh, waffle, ooohs and Ahhhhs (booooos and Arse, more like) waffle, waffle, we move on to the next game (despite we've been utter shit in this one) waffle, unlucky, waffle (let's hope they don't realise that we have never troubled the goalkeeper apart from a pen in this one) waffle, waffle, yes Hammonds Mrs is having a baby, waffle. It was a spit roast but I had my todge up Hammomd's jacxie, waffle. Next season we will be endeavouring to win the next game, waffle, waffle. (I'm so pleased that Adam Oxley has asked me simple questions and started on the baby delivery shit) waffle, waffle.

Waffle TWAT
 
Kev Gee said:
You missed the ooooos and aaaaas.

The guy has lost the plot. (if he ever had a plot here at sufc)
Click to expand...

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or crash into the junction 26 sign on the M1 when I heard him come out with ooohs and chuffing ahhhs
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Couldn't disagree more.

At the match it was glaringly obvious what was going to happen and what did happen.

It really isn't clear on the highlights but they just came straight through us. Last few games Hammond has stopped this countless times.

(It also happened in a recent game where he was subbed at the Lane and the opposition walked almost unopposed from their keeper to shot on target repeatedly.)

Fwiw I posted at the time we wouldn't be keeping a clean sheet.

5' in we were 1 down (and this absolutely would not have happened if Hammond was on the pitch).

10' in we were two down. This is less clear, but was down to organisation, and again this may be the unseen work he does.

Four clean sheets in five with Hammond.

Two goals in ten minutes without him.

We did re-organise after, and at times Whiteman's quality on the ball showed (again).

But we missed Hammond yesterday.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Much of the anger is towards Hammond, but the complete pussiness of players like Coutts and Flynn mean his type are crucial. I'd go for a younger version, but if I were criticising the current midfield I'd be questioning how it's possible that the other 2 are so fucking soft.

UTB
 
alcoblade said:
Exactly this. Much of the anger is towards Hammond, but the complete pussiness of players like Coutts and Flynn mean his type are crucial. I'd go for a younger version, but if I were criticising the current midfield I'd be questioning how it's possible that the other 2 are so fucking soft.

UTB
Click to expand...

Hammond may well have got on the wrong side of Fortune, but would probably have taken a yellow for hacking him down.
 
He mustve turned a deaf ear to the choruses of 'Nigel Adkins you're taking the piss' after the second went in!

He's too soft on things..their keeper made a couple of half decent saves but he is pretty dodgy and flapped a fair few shots back out into the danger area, needed someone running in and putting him under pressure on crosses because i recall several wasted ones just routine catches for him with noone around.
 
JonnyRed(WCFC) said:
He mustve turned a deaf ear to the choruses of 'Nigel Adkins you're taking the piss' after the second went in!

He's too soft on things..their keeper made a couple of half decent saves but he is pretty dodgy and flapped a fair few shots back out into the danger area, needed someone running in and putting him under pressure on crosses because i recall several wasted ones just routine catches for him with noone around.
Click to expand...

Certainly true about their keeper - but the point of the interview is not really to say stuff like that. It's not an insider's look at the game.

For me the media interview is a duty; ostensibly he might be speaking to the fans/public but the main audience is the players.
 
Alfreton14Blade said:
Think you're overstating the case tbh. Had a look at the goal again & we're talking about Whiteman getting "overpowered" by a massive centre-forward miles away from goal. It was only fatal because big, brave Dave Edgar subsequently turned his back (yet again) on a speculative shot from about 25 yards out, which then ricocheted off him into the net.

Actually playing Ben Whiteman rather than Hammond (on what I've seen up to now) holds out no horrors. Although playing either of them as a pivotal central-midfielder hardly seems appropriate for a promotion-seeking team. Unless my eyes deceive me, Hammond's only worth having here for his professionalism and his exemplary behaviour, assuming that he is influential amongst the group. On the pitch, he's a spent force.
Click to expand...

I can only remember Reed and Whiteman being singled out for blame after games, which does seem peculiar, as senior members have been making many mistakes as well.

I think Whiteman has good potential. He looks tall and fairly athletic and has a very good right foot. He's played both right back and centre half, which may have been good for him. He still needs to develop the defensive side of his game though. He should aim to get much stronger over the summer and hopefully added bravery will also come with that.

To become a great defensive midfielder he also needs to take more defensive responsibility - the area in front of the centre halves should be his! Kante at Leicester has been brilliant this season and Sam Morsy is one who's done this role well at our level.

Regarding the goal we conceded at Coventry, a more experienced player would probably give away a foul when challenging with Fortune. Wrestle or pull him down early and it may not even have been a booking.

A bit later you said you thought Edgar should have pushed up to challenge Armstrong. But Edgar had a runner to watch (and space in behind him to minimise), while the back tracking Whiteman was in a better position to challenge Armstrong after he cut inside past Baptiste:

Coventry Away.jpg
 

William Henry Foulkes said:
Couldn't disagree more.

At the match it was glaringly obvious what was going to happen and what did happen.

It really isn't clear on the highlights but they just came straight through us. Last few games Hammond has stopped this countless times.

(It also happened in a recent game where he was subbed at the Lane and the opposition walked almost unopposed from their keeper to shot on target repeatedly.)

Fwiw I posted at the time we wouldn't be keeping a clean sheet.

5' in we were 1 down (and this absolutely would not have happened if Hammond was on the pitch).

10' in we were two down. This is less clear, but was down to organisation, and again this may be the unseen work he does.

Four clean sheets in five with Hammond.

Two goals in ten minutes without him.

We did re-organise after, and at times Whiteman's quality on the ball showed (again).

But we missed Hammond yesterday.
Click to expand...

Fair play about us being cut open through the middle, if that's what the problem was - you were there & you witnessed it.

Even so, if adjustments were successfully made after the opening debacle, it suggests it was at least as much an organisational problem as in Whiteman being the sole difficulty.

Hopefully he'll give it another go without the loanee Hammond next Sunday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom