Adkins Interview Ahead of Blackpool (A)

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


Alfreton14Blade said:
By choice? Or by fiat from above?
Click to expand...

"Delighted to get both players over the line and I'm looking forward to working with them," said boss Adkins. "Billy is someone I know well and Conor is a player we have admired from afar and have monitored his progress since he was at Kilmarnock."

Read more: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/billy-sharp-and-conor-sammon-sign-for-sheffield-united-1-7377793#ixzz3yM7kFUjU


What is the reason for people thinking that Adkins didn't want to sign Connor Sammon?
I've never heard or read anything to suggest that he didn't.
Other than on here. Usually when people are trying to defend Adkins and blame Clough.
 
Sothall_Blade said:
"Delighted to get both players over the line and I'm looking forward to working with them," said boss Adkins. "Billy is someone I know well and Conor is a player we have admired from afar and have monitored his progress since he was at Kilmarnock."

Read more: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/billy-sharp-and-conor-sammon-sign-for-sheffield-united-1-7377793#ixzz3yM7kFUjU


What is the reason for people thinking that Adkins didn't want to sign Connor Sammon?
I've never heard or read anything to suggest that he didn't.
Other than on here. Usually when people are trying to defend Adkins and blame Clough.
Click to expand...

Could the use of "I" in Sharp's case & "we" in Sammon's case be significant here? Adkins doesn't tend to be a Cloughlike user of the "royal We", I don't think?

But, as Winco says: who really knows the truth of this one.

I'm just inclined to think that Adkins had to cope with a fair bit of post-Clough meddling when he first arrived (including the reinstatement of Neill Collins).
 
billyblademan said:
Clough said the same. Didn't he once say something about having 19/20 core first team players?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Actions didn't seem to match the rhetoric on that – a gamble that someone like James Wallace could be part of that core, added to the hoarding right-back recruitment policy, sort of went against that. We'll see if Adkins sticks to his guns.
 
Alfreton14Blade said:
Could the use of "I" in Sharp's case & "we" in Sammon's case be significant here? Adkins doesn't tend to be a Cloughlike user of the "royal We", I don't think?

But, as Winco says: who really knows the truth of this one.

I'm just inclined to think that Adkins had to cope with a fair bit of post-Clough meddling when he first arrived (including the reinstatement of Neill Collins).
Click to expand...

Clough didn't use "we" in the Royal context. He was referring to "we the management team". I think Adkins means the same.
Who do you think was doing the meddling after Clough left?
The fact that Adkins has played Collins in almost every match suggests that he rates him and was perfectly happy to reinstate him.
 
Keen Blade said:
have you noticed how windy it is today on the west coast when you come out of the amusement arcades ?

now then , I would describe Ikpeazu as "high-sided vehicle" ................

I'm hoping he gets blown over the promenade before getting to Bloomfield Road this evening !

Because if Blackpool saw how he walked unimpeded through our defence at Port Vale , they will play him.

NEIL Armstrong & Michael COLLINS were 2 of the first 3 men on the moon.

And the moon is where Neil Collins will want to be later tonight !
Click to expand...

I was there, unfortunately...........
 
Sothall_Blade said:
Clough didn't use "we" in the Royal context. He was referring to "we the management team". I think Adkins means the same.
Who do you think was doing the meddling after Clough left?
The fact that Adkins has played Collins in almost every match suggests that he rates him and was perfectly happy to reinstate him.
Click to expand...

You seem to suggest I'm an anti-Clough type. I'm not (however much I might have got pissed off last season). I wasn't clamouring for him to be sacked, although all things considered it was a bit of a relief when it happened, given the ever more poisonous atmosphere around the place.

So, as regards the "royal We" comment, I was merely being flippant. The point stands though that, to the best of my knowledge, Adkins doesn't use "we" to denote collective management team responsibility over decisions. It seems a bit unusual him using the word in this case, especially after referring to the Billy decision using "I". There may be nothing in it, there may be something in it though.

I wouldn't be surprised if senior board members, aided by trusted members on the coaching/playing staff, meddled in the aftermath of the "failure" of Clough's "total control" era. That's my hunch.

You may be right about Collins. We may see Collins's contract being extended. My hunch though is that Adkins was landed with Collins (as with Sammon) & that they are, as things stand, merely the best in their positions (left central defender; big man up front) until better replacements can be brought in & within the "tightened belt" regime now operating.

Hopefully those better replacements will be brought in over the next week (along with Sam Morsy, or another confident & dynamic central midfielder). They're most definitely needed IMO. I'm not holding my breath at all mind.
 
Last edited:
LoughboroBlade said:
Not making an issue of it? Was I listening to a different interview? He practically near enough screamed at Staton about it! Big frustration displayed – quite enjoyed hearing it actually.

More was also explained on the type of players he's after, expanding on the Kennedy/Wallace issues on reliability – wants people in that will reliably contribute to 40 games plus in a season, and who might just need a rest every once in a while rather than being regularly out. Consistency in selection within a smaller squad of higher quality is the aim.
Click to expand...

I didn't think he was remotely serious about being annoyed by the offside.

Either you moan about refs and decisions, or you don't. Adkins doesn't. Acknowledge it, but accept it and move on.

He did mention 40 games a season players. I didn't connect it to Kennedy, Wallace etc and neither did he explicitly but it is an important part of his thinking.
 
Sothall_Blade said:
"Delighted to get both players over the line and I'm looking forward to working with them," said boss Adkins. "Billy is someone I know well and Conor is a player we have admired from afar and have monitored his progress since he was at Kilmarnock."

Read more: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/billy-sharp-and-conor-sammon-sign-for-sheffield-united-1-7377793#ixzz3yM7kFUjU


What is the reason for people thinking that Adkins didn't want to sign Connor Sammon?
I've never heard or read anything to suggest that he didn't.
Other than on here. Usually when people are trying to defend Adkins and blame Clough.
Click to expand...

And Sammon has played very well in a number of games for us this season.
 
Keen Blade said:
How anyone can listen to the rubbish from NA any more just escapes me.

Last time I went to Blackpool we lost 3-0 and the keener away fans were so incensed with our performance they actually offered physical violence to Stephen Quinn & Chris Morgan when they came over to applaud our loyalty.

I hope history won't be repeated , but that man-mountain hulk Ichpeazu destroyed us at Port Vale......
Click to expand...
Which of the points listed do you consider to be rubbish?

UTB
 

Baxter said:
I have sympathy for Adkins in that Phipps and co seemingly expected him to make a Maldini out of McEverley and a Shearer out of Sammon without the need for any further squad strengthening.
Click to expand...

BUT, we finished in the play-offs AND they've allowed him to bring in half a team. Would bringing in the correct half a team be about what was required to move us from 5th to 2nd?
That's what I expected anyway.
 
another dreary crock of shyte that he'll dress up as "another point on the board". at least there's no game on satdi so the bullshit-o-meter can be left in its box.
 
Grecian2000 said:
BUT, we finished in the play-offs AND they've allowed him to bring in half a team. Would bringing in the correct half a team be about what was required to move us from 5th to 2nd?
That's what I expected anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes he's brought in half a team, 3 loanees, 1 free transfer and his go to striker who's so far having a successful third spell with the club. Doesn't strike me as having free reign to build as I'm sure he'd have probably liked a few more permanent additions of his own without being burdened with the sell to buy policy we've adopted this season. It's worth worth bearing in mind since last years 5th position finish Murphy has been sold, he's been without Done and Brayford for the majority and other contributors such as Holt, Davies and Doyle are also no longer here so maybe we're worse off than last year? The table certainly suggests this. I too expected automatic promotion like you but in hindsight maybe the squad not just the team needed more than five new faces. I hope we're now in for an interesting few days but I won't be getting my hopes up.
 
robbiez666 said:
Sammon makes little sense in terms of a signing when we were also bringing Sharp in. I have a suspicion that we agreed the loan before Adkins took over.
Click to expand...

I think it made perfect sense to buy a target man centre forward to play alongside Billy Sharp.
We were crying out for one all last season, hence the signings of O Grady and Davies on loan.
According to the official site, Sammon has made 28 appearances out of a possible 33. Sharp has made 32.

Who would have played up front in those matches if he hadn't signed Sammon?
Done was injured for the first part of the season. He and Adams have both been in and out of the team.
Higdon and McNulty (twice) were loaned out at the first opportunity and have not been recalled.

If Adkins didn't sign Sammon why doesn't he just leave him out like he does with other players he inherited? (Wallace, Cuvelier, Scougall).

What are these hunches and suspicions that Adkins didn't sign Sammon based on? That's what I'm trying to understand.
 
Sothall_Blade said:
I think it made perfect sense to buy a target man centre forward to play alongside Billy Sharp.
We were crying out for one all last season, hence the signings of O Grady and Davies on loan.
According to the official site, Sammon has made 28 appearances out of a possible 33. Sharp has made 32.

Who would have played up front in those matches if he hadn't signed Sammon?
Done was injured for the first part of the season. He and Adams have both been in and out of the team.
Higdon and McNulty (twice) were loaned out at the first opportunity and have not been recalled.

If Adkins didn't sign Sammon why doesn't he just leave him out like he does with other players he inherited? (Wallace, Cuvelier, Scougall).

What are these hunches and suspicions that Adkins didn't sign Sammon based on? That's what I'm trying to understand.
Click to expand...
Because he was linked with us before NA arrived, when Clough was in charge. And we still had Mal Brannigan at the club, the ex-Derby bloke who probably signed Sammon for Derby (with Clough obviously).
It's reminiscent of Hendrie, who was linked to us when Warnoe was in charge and still ended up signing for us.
 
BushBlade said:
Because he was linked with us before NA arrived, when Clough was in charge. And we still had Mal Brannigan at the club, the ex-Derby bloke who probably signed Sammon for Derby (with Clough obviously).
It's reminiscent of Hendrie, who was linked to us when Warnoe was in charge and still ended up signing for us.
Click to expand...

Clough was sacked on the 25th May 15.
Adkins was appointed on the 2nd June 15.
Players reported for pre-season training on the 6th July.
Pre-season fixtures on the 18th July, 21st July, 23rd July.
Sammon and Sharp signed on the 25th July.

If Sammon was signed by Clough and/or Brannigan before Adkins was appointed, why would he miss 3 weeks of vital pre-season training and friendlies with us?
 
Sothall_Blade said:
Clough was sacked on the 25th May 15.
Adkins was appointed on the 2nd June 15.
Players reported for pre-season training on the 6th July.
Pre-season fixtures on the 18th July, 21st July, 23rd July.
Sammon and Sharp signed on the 25th July.

If Sammon was signed by Clough and/or Brannigan before Adkins was appointed, why would he miss 3 weeks of vital pre-season training and friendlies with us?
Click to expand...
That's not what I said though. He was linked with us during Clough's regime.
Why didn't he sign before? Maybe Mal was still negotiating his loan fee?
 
BushBlade said:
That's not what I said though. He was linked with us during Clough's regime.
Why didn't he sign before? Maybe Mal was still negotiating his loan fee?
Click to expand...

Sammon was signed 53 days after the appointment of Adkins.
Are you suggesting that Adkins was unaware for 52 days that Brannigan was trying to negotiate a loan fee for Sammon?
If not and the deal hadn’t already been done, there was plenty of time for Adkins to say he didn’t want him and choose a different target.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that Adkins didn’t choose to sign or at very least approve the signing of Sammon.
 
Grecian2000 said:
BUT, we finished in the play-offs AND they've allowed him to bring in half a team. Would bringing in the correct half a team be about what was required to move us from 5th to 2nd?
That's what I expected anyway.
Click to expand...
This. It should have been, it won't be now because we haven't brought the right players in. Simple as that.
 
Sothall_Blade said:
Sammon was signed 53 days after the appointment of Adkins.
Are you suggesting that Adkins was unaware for 52 days that Brannigan was trying to negotiate a loan fee for Sammon?
If not and the deal hadn’t already been done, there was plenty of time for Adkins to say he didn’t want him and choose a different target.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that Adkins didn’t choose to sign or at very least approve the signing of Sammon.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. I'm sure he did agree to it. If he hadn't, he would have effectively been calling Brannigan a twat. Which isn't very wise when you're new to a job. That's the problem with transfer committees. Apparently Rodgers had similar problems with the likes of Ballotelli, as did AVB at Spurs.
A manager can sometimes categorically say no but if he does so frequently he makes the other people on the committee, the ones who make the suggestions, look incompetent. Often the other members of the committee are respected by the owners and are quite influential. And if they're no good at spotting players, the club is in trouble.
A good example is what is happening at Villa at the moment. Being a manager is now a political minefield with far too many 'businessmen' and marketeers getting involved in clubs, for their own personal gain and advancement.
In almost all of the PL clubs, not one person in a position of power or influence gives a solitary shit about the fans.
 
We have no option but to keep the faith, I just hope he offloads all the shit when he gets the chance,
 
BushBlade said:
No, not at all. I'm sure he did agree to it. If he hadn't, he would have effectively been calling Brannigan a twat. Which isn't very wise when you're new to a job. That's the problem with transfer committees. Apparently Rodgers had similar problems with the likes of Ballotelli, as did AVB at Spurs.
A manager can sometimes categorically say no but if he does so frequently he makes the other people on the committee, the ones who make the suggestions, look incompetent. Often the other members of the committee are respected by the owners and are quite influential. And if they're no good at spotting players, the club is in trouble.
A good example is what is happening at Villa at the moment. Being a manager is now a political minefield with far too many 'businessmen' and marketeers getting involved in clubs, for their own personal gain and advancement.
In almost all of the PL clubs, not one person in a position of power or influence gives a solitary shit about the fans.
Click to expand...
Like they're not incompetent?
 
Billpuntonsbaldhead said:
Like they're not incompetent?
Click to expand...
Of course they are which is why Brannigan got the sack. But I know from my own experiences that when you join an organisation you don't rock the boat on day one. You wait and you watch.
 

Sothall_Blade said:
I think it made perfect sense to buy a target man centre forward to play alongside Billy Sharp.
We were crying out for one all last season, hence the signings of O Grady and Davies on loan.
According to the official site, Sammon has made 28 appearances out of a possible 33. Sharp has made 32.

Who would have played up front in those matches if he hadn't signed Sammon?
Done was injured for the first part of the season. He and Adams have both been in and out of the team.
Higdon and McNulty (twice) were loaned out at the first opportunity and have not been recalled.

If Adkins didn't sign Sammon why doesn't he just leave him out like he does with other players he inherited? (Wallace, Cuvelier, Scougall).

What are these hunches and suspicions that Adkins didn't sign Sammon based on? That's what I'm trying to understand.
Click to expand...

Yes, so do I. Sammon isn't really a target man. Neither of them have pace which makes no sense as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Lack of a leadership on the pitch
Replies
0
Views
323
RAP51
R
Wayne_Kerr89
A message to CW ….
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Wayne_Kerr89
Wayne_Kerr89
M
Looking forward to a great Season ahead
Replies
0
Views
396
munksyb
M
Kozzy_is_my_Dad
The psychology of managing the next few weeks
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Houston_Blade
Houston_Blade
1973Blade
A hat trick of wins at Loftus Road
Replies
15
Views
1K
finlaytheblade
F

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