Adkins

[BushBlade]

Only in S2 could fans want a man who has had 4 promotions to his name out already and a man of Cloughs calibre to remain in charge, unbefuckinglievable.

Is anyone saying that? Some have said we should have stuck with Clough but the consensus seems to be NA is the best we could have got to replace him, whether you think sacking Clough was the right move or not.
It's all getting very familiar though with people doing lists of why NA is a bad manager, just like the lists of Clough's failings, which I think some people just did on Word so they could cut and paste and post it every day.
It's shit being a Blade at the moment and we can criticise the club, defend the club, make lists, make suggestions but the reality is we can do nothing but sit and watch our decline, frustratingly helpless.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Dubious signings thus far (in terms of them working within the team)

i have to say his signings so far have been extremely concerning

Adkins needs the time to let those contracts run out so he can get his own players in

Picked a few comments from this thread (could have picked a lot more); there's a fairly big assumption being made here; is he actually making his own signings?

It seemed pretty clear to me that Phipps was saying signings are now being done, at least in part, by the technical board (and while the manager is a part of that, he isn't solely responsible for signing players). In fact, it seems Phipps main problem with Clough was that he wanted total autonomy over which players were brought in. Considering who his father was (who he is sure to try to emulate), rightly or wrongly, Clough was never going to buy into a system where he wasn't in control of signings, was he?

I'm thinking specifically of Jim's facebook post, he said (click expand, read the highlighted bits):

"Which positions do we need to strengthen? How quickly can we shrink the squad to a more rational, economical size, given the injury situation? What strength can we draw from our academy to serve the first team? Which players should be recruited and on what terms (loan, permernant, price, etcetera)?

All such questions are left to our Technical Board (MD, football manager, FD, academy manager etc) to decide, provided they stay within board approved budgets and parameters" (....)

"That said, some of the current problems in the side (its size, for example) are byproducts of our trying as a board to be true to our approach, in circumstances where we allowed the Technical Board process to be thoroughly undermined by a gaffer who was not interested in the process; hence, some of the excesses (recruiting in quantity, signing injured players etc). We should have seen what was happening (the excesses anyway) and responded to them more quickly.

"In appointing a new football manager last summer, we specifically set out to find a gaffer who would help us re-establish a process that would prevent the repetition of the same mistakes. I am very happy with the progress we have made on this particular front and believe the fruits of the Technical Board process will show themselves over time, if we stick to the process."

How much input is Adkins actually having on player transfers? Is he in complete control of player recruitment? (it certainly doesn't sound like it). Do the "technical board" suggest players to him, and he authorises the signings he likes? (don't think it is this either, what would be the point? Surely the scouting staff are in a better position to have these type of conversation), or, and I hate to say it but I suspect this is the case, is he effectively in a coaching position, with only limited input on player comings and goings?

I believe Jim is from the states? (and he and the prince certainly follow US sport). As anyone who watches any US sport will tell you, in the US it is quite normal for a team to be coached by a coach, with squad recruitment being headed by the general manager. To Jim, this system might seem the norm in a structure of a sport club.

Various US owners have come over and tried to implement that system here (i.e. it has been claimed that all of the expensive Liverpool signings such as Carroll, Downing, Adam, etc were made by Damien Comolli, over the heads and very much against the wishes of the then managers). I don't for a second think that is being done here, but I do wonder what input the rest of this technical board have on signings (and it would certainly explain some of the square pegs in round holes!).

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, maybe the "technical board" is just there so the manager can run player recruitment ideas past them before he moves, but again, this just doesn't feel right. How would that be different to any other club? (and surely Clough had to go through the same process, so why pick up on that point?). Jim mentions a "FD" in the technical board; is this a football director or financial?

I don't think there was a blade in the country who didn't come into this season thinking we needed a solid defender or two, and I think most would have said we needed some "bite" (and height, if possible) in midfield, and I would guess quite a few who would have gone with a new keeper too!? And certainly the Murphy cash should have gone straight back into a quality like-for-like replacement. With the exception of Sharp, all of the signings have felt reactive rather than proactive. Is that a manager assessing the squad, or the technical board being over-cautious? (either way, it was overly optimistic to just "run with it", and still is!).

I should stress, it is only an interpretation of his words (one I'm quite happy to admit may be a misinterpretation), but if true it might explain a lot! Most clubs who've tried to implement a stateside-style structure have been established in the top league, and still failed and most eventually reverted to the more traditional top-down manager system. ). Trying to implement it at this level, with expectations as high as they are would be utter madness, which makes me wonder if my hunch is true?

By Jim's own admission, "a process" is in place, so how much autonomy over player recruitment does the manager have? With the benefit of hindsight, some were fairly obvious Adkins signings, other signings (or the lack of) feel a bit odd. Do we perhaps have too many cooks?

 

[BushBlade]

Picked a few comments from this thread (could have picked a lot more); there's a fairly big assumption being made here; is he actually making his own signings?

It seemed pretty clear to me that Phipps was saying signings are now being done, at least in part, by the technical board (and while the manager is a part of that, he isn't solely responsible for signing players). In fact, it seems Phipps main problem with Clough was that he wanted total autonomy over which players were brought in. Considering who his father was (who he is sure to try to emulate), rightly or wrongly, Clough was never going to buy into a system where he wasn't in control of signings, was he?

I'm thinking specifically of Jim's facebook post, he said (click expand, read the highlighted bits):



How much input is Adkins actually having on player transfers? Is he in complete control of player recruitment? (it certainly doesn't sound like it). Do the "technical board" suggest players to him, and he authorises the signings he likes? (don't think it is this either, what would be the point? Surely the scouting staff are in a better position to have these type of conversation), or, and I hate to say it but I suspect this is the case, is he effectively in a coaching position, with only limited input on player comings and goings?

I believe Jim is from the states? (and he and the prince certainly follow US sport). As anyone who watches any US sport will tell you, in the US it is quite normal for a team to be coached by a coach, with squad recruitment being headed by the general manager. To Jim, this system might seem the norm in a structure of a sport club.

Various US owners have come over and tried to implement that system here (i.e. it has been claimed that all of the expensive Liverpool signings such as Carroll, Downing, Adam, etc were made by Damien Comolli, over the heads and very much against the wishes of the then managers). I don't for a second think that is being done here, but I do wonder what input the rest of this technical board have on signings (and it would certainly explain some of the square pegs in round holes!).

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, maybe the "technical board" is just there so the manager can run player recruitment ideas past them before he moves, but again, this just doesn't feel right. How would that be different to any other club? (and surely Clough had to go through the same process, so why pick up on that point?). Jim mentions a "FD" in the technical board; is this a football director or financial?

I don't think there was a blade in the country who didn't come into this season thinking we needed a solid defender or two, and I think most would have said we needed some "bite" (and height, if possible) in midfield, and I would guess quite a few who would have gone with a new keeper too!? And certainly the Murphy cash should have gone straight back into a quality like-for-like replacement. With the exception of Sharp, all of the signings have felt reactive rather than proactive. Is that a manager assessing the squad, or the technical board being over-cautious? (either way, it was overly optimistic to just "run with it", and still is!).

I should stress, it is only an interpretation of his words (one I'm quite happy to admit may be a misinterpretation), but if true it might explain a lot! Most clubs who've tried to implement a stateside-style structure have been established in the top league, and still failed and most eventually reverted to the more traditional top-down manager system. ). Trying to implement it at this level, with expectations as high as they are would be utter madness, which makes me wonder if my hunch is true?

By Jim's own admission, "a process" is in place, so how much autonomy over player recruitment does the manager have? With the benefit of hindsight, some were fairly obvious Adkins signings, other signings (or the lack of) feel a bit odd. Do we perhaps have too many cooks?

You ask some very pertinent questions. I think Sammon may be evidence. Ex Derby player who many thought we'd sign last season. Despite sacking Clough, we still end up with Sammon. Coincidence? I suspect there's been an element of this since Warnock was sacked; we were linked with Hendrie when Warnock was manager, despite Warnock being sacked we still end up with him. Who signed Billy from Scunny? Who signed BT second time (and first come to think of it), who signed Kitson?

That said, I think Woolford, Sharp and Hammond are NA's signings but is he being restricted by some kind of criteria imposed on him? It's almost like we have a policy of only shelling out for players that are 'proven' and can be personally 'vouched for' by the manager, so we don't sign any more bad eggs like Hendrie, and we'll only gamble on younger players if they're dirt cheap.

 

[robbiez666]

Picked a few comments from this thread (could have picked a lot more); there's a fairly big assumption being made here; is he actually making his own signings?

It seemed pretty clear to me that Phipps was saying signings are now being done, at least in part, by the technical board (and while the manager is a part of that, he isn't solely responsible for signing players). In fact, it seems Phipps main problem with Clough was that he wanted total autonomy over which players were brought in. Considering who his father was (who he is sure to try to emulate), rightly or wrongly, Clough was never going to buy into a system where he wasn't in control of signings, was he?

I'm thinking specifically of Jim's facebook post, he said (click expand, read the highlighted bits):



How much input is Adkins actually having on player transfers? Is he in complete control of player recruitment? (it certainly doesn't sound like it). Do the "technical board" suggest players to him, and he authorises the signings he likes? (don't think it is this either, what would be the point? Surely the scouting staff are in a better position to have these type of conversation), or, and I hate to say it but I suspect this is the case, is he effectively in a coaching position, with only limited input on player comings and goings?

I believe Jim is from the states? (and he and the prince certainly follow US sport). As anyone who watches any US sport will tell you, in the US it is quite normal for a team to be coached by a coach, with squad recruitment being headed by the general manager. To Jim, this system might seem the norm in a structure of a sport club.

Various US owners have come over and tried to implement that system here (i.e. it has been claimed that all of the expensive Liverpool signings such as Carroll, Downing, Adam, etc were made by Damien Comolli, over the heads and very much against the wishes of the then managers). I don't for a second think that is being done here, but I do wonder what input the rest of this technical board have on signings (and it would certainly explain some of the square pegs in round holes!).

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, maybe the "technical board" is just there so the manager can run player recruitment ideas past them before he moves, but again, this just doesn't feel right. How would that be different to any other club? (and surely Clough had to go through the same process, so why pick up on that point?). Jim mentions a "FD" in the technical board; is this a football director or financial?

I don't think there was a blade in the country who didn't come into this season thinking we needed a solid defender or two, and I think most would have said we needed some "bite" (and height, if possible) in midfield, and I would guess quite a few who would have gone with a new keeper too!? And certainly the Murphy cash should have gone straight back into a quality like-for-like replacement. With the exception of Sharp, all of the signings have felt reactive rather than proactive. Is that a manager assessing the squad, or the technical board being over-cautious? (either way, it was overly optimistic to just "run with it", and still is!).

I should stress, it is only an interpretation of his words (one I'm quite happy to admit may be a misinterpretation), but if true it might explain a lot! Most clubs who've tried to implement a stateside-style structure have been established in the top league, and still failed and most eventually reverted to the more traditional top-down manager system. ). Trying to implement it at this level, with expectations as high as they are would be utter madness, which makes me wonder if my hunch is true?

By Jim's own admission, "a process" is in place, so how much autonomy over player recruitment does the manager have? With the benefit of hindsight, some were fairly obvious Adkins signings, other signings (or the lack of) feel a bit odd. Do we perhaps have too many cooks?

I had a feeling that the committee was more a regulatory body than an active one. Signings had to go through them but Adkins would be the person making the suggestions.

Sharp
Woolford
Hammond

are all his former players so you would assume they are ones he wanted.

Sammon and Edgar are more curious. Sammon especially seems to have been inexplicably dropped. Whilst he was hardly great, his partnership with Sharp was doing pretty well.

 

[wizadry]

Is anyone saying that? Some have said we should have stuck with Clough but the consensus seems to be NA is the best we could have got to replace him, whether you think sacking Clough was the right move or not.
It's all getting very familiar though with people doing lists of why NA is a bad manager, just like the lists of Clough's failings, which I think some people just did on Word so they could cut and paste and post it every day.
It's shit being a Blade at the moment and we can criticise the club, defend the club, make lists, make suggestions but the reality is we can do nothing but sit and watch our decline, frustratingly helpless.

Good post Bush, i could point you to a few but i can't be arsed to trawl through all the posts from yesterday.

 

[sitwell]

Only in S2 could fans want a man who has had 4 promotions to his name out already and a man of Cloughs calibre to remain in charge, unbefuckinglievable.

Clough took over a side that was bottom of the 3rd division ,was halfway through a rebuild bringing in shedloads of money from cup runs.
Adkins took over a side that had reached the playoffs is 16 games in and failed miserably in league and cups.
You cant live on your past you have to live in the present and future. The lack of motivation is a big worry for me but no way would I want him sacked ,I just think sacking Clough was a terrible decision.

 

[BushBlade]

Good post Bush, i could point you to a few but i can't be arsed to trawl through all the posts from yesterday.

Well one's definitely a WUM. I wouldn't ask you to trawl through that depressing shit again, I'll take your word for it.

 

[Revolution]

Adkins is trying to re-create the Scunthorpe team from 7 years ago, for reasons best known to himself. Shame all of the players seem to be worse than 7 years ago.

As for Hammond specifically, I know nothing of PL players so I assumed that he was being signed because he was different from our midfielders eg he had pace, or scored goals, or laid them on. Nope.

 

[Bladesince59]

Maybe Neil and Danny weren't so bad after all?

 

[wizadry]

Clough took over a side that was bottom of the 3rd division ,was halfway through a rebuild bringing in shedloads of money from cup runs.
Adkins took over a side that had reached the playoffs is 16 games in and failed miserably in league and cups.
You cant live on your past you have to live in the present and future. The lack of motivation is a big worry for me but no way would I want him sacked ,I just think sacking Clough was a terrible decision.

I appreciate this sitters, my main point is that with Adkins previous regimes he has more of a chance of getting it right than Clough has just on their achievements alone. I think the timing on sacking Clough was the bad part and not actually sacking him, this is what we'll probably agree to disagree on.

 

[robbiez666]

With the comments about players drinking and Adkins' frustration about them not doing what he tells them to I'm starting to suspect that the player power issues which faced Clough may still be there. It's easy enough to run one bad egg out of the club but not if there's a group of them.

I can't imagine Adkins would be happy with any players going out and getting shit-faced regularly. Even if you're injured (McNulty), it sets back your recovery from injury. The explanation may be:

• No one at the club knows it's going on (and they really should)
• The club are happy with it
• The club aren't happy with it but can do nothing about it.

I can only assume it's the last option.

On an entirely different point, we seem to be on our second manager who, instead of looking to the future, seems to be trying to revive the past. I can understand him bringing in players he knows initially, but if it carries on in January I would be disappointed.

 

[BushBlade]

Clough took over a side that was bottom of the 3rd division ,was halfway through a rebuild bringing in shedloads of money from cup runs.
Adkins took over a side that had reached the playoffs is 16 games in and failed miserably in league and cups.
You cant live on your past you have to live in the present and future. The lack of motivation is a big worry for me but no way would I want him sacked ,I just think sacking Clough was a terrible decision.

In the context of what they'd allowed Clough to do, I agree. He signed a load of players who were loyal to him, who rated him. I seem to recall a couple of posters saying at the end of the JTW that the board were now 'stuck with Clough for the foreseeable future (not me, I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet here) because we'd committed to his signings, his people, his way of doing things.
Whilst I still think NA is the best man for the job, given we can't un-sack Clough, I don't think the players are playing for him. Players that respond to a Clough type manager probably won't respond to someone so different; in personality, in approach, a traditionalist versus a 'new man'.
I don't know where we go from here. I can't help but think the signing of Hammond is reminiscent of when Adams signed Doyle, who was supposed to be a great captain and would 'sort out the dressing room'.
I'm also worried that a lot of players are just seeing out their contracts and can't wait to get away.

 

[BushBlade]

Maybe Neil and Danny weren't so bad after all?

Wilson was a bad appointment. I said on the day it was announced that as soon as we had a bad patch, which we inevitably would, the crowd would turn on him. They did, and when KM came over from Brussells and heard the boos, he sacked him.
Of course, if he'd copied Mandy, replaced him with an experienced manager with a successful record and let him bring a couple of good loans in, he might have got away with it.

 

[alcoblade]

Is anyone saying that? Some have said we should have stuck with Clough but the consensus seems to be NA is the best we could have got to replace him, whether you think sacking Clough was the right move or not.
It's all getting very familiar though with people doing lists of why NA is a bad manager, just like the lists of Clough's failings, which I think some people just did on Word so they could cut and paste and post it every day.
It's shit being a Blade at the moment and we can criticise the club, defend the club, make lists, make suggestions but the reality is we can do nothing but sit and watch our decline, frustratingly helpless.

The end of the season can't come soon enough. The best action the club can do is to ensure we ship out every single player who's contract is up, and start again.

The new policy should be to buy up and coming players, those doing it now in the division we are in. More emphasis on pace and athleticism, and for fuck sake how long before we learn this lesson?

I don't know if it is Adkins choice, or policy, to fish in the pool of dried up championship players, but it isn't working.

Learn these lessons fast, United and Adkins.

UTB

 

[Pollingtonblade]

The end of the season can't come soon enough. The best action the club can do is to ensure we ship out every single player who's contract is up, and start again.

The new policy should be to buy up and coming players, those doing it now in the division we are in. More emphasis on pace and athleticism, and for fuck sake how long before we learn this lesson?

I don't know if it is Adkins choice, or policy, to fish in the pool of dried up championship players, but it isn't working.

Learn these lessons fast, United and Adkins.

UTB

But they won't will they? All those players who's contracts are up at the end of season will be renewed and this time next year we'll still be ambling about in this fucking division with Phipps and Adkins repeating the same things.

Do you or anyone else seriously think we'll be ruthless and get shut of the shit AND buy in a load of good players?

 

[alcoblade]

But they won't will they? All those players who's contracts are up at the end of season will be renewed and this time next year we'll still be ambling about in this fucking division with Phipps and Adkins repeating the same things.

Do you or anyone else seriously think we'll be ruthless and get shut of the shit AND buy in a load of good players?

I'm confident we will bin most of this squad when the contracts expire. I'm much less confident that we'll sign good players. A change in policy needs to be evident first.

UTB

 

[robbiez666]

I would look at every contracts which is up, and if we didn't want to keep them we should transfer list/loan them now. Happy to contribute to their wages until the season ends

Thanks to good work from Foxy :

Mark Howard - bye
George Long - Loan out or play. If no improvement, bye
George Willis - extend possibly

Craig Alcock - bye
Neill Collins - bye
Bob Harris - bye (too injury prone)
Terry Kennedy - bye (ditto)
Jay McEveley - bye
Harrison McGahey - Loan him out and unless performs well, bye

Jose Baxter - bye
Jamal Campbell-Ryce - bye
Florent Cuvelier - loan him, if he can't manage an injury free half season, bye
Ryan Flynn - bye
Keiron Wallace - extend

We still have too many bad midfielders under contract. These should be listed. (Coutts, Scougal, Woolford, Basham)

Higdon - Bye
List McNulty immediately.

Maybe they'll buck their ideas up when they know they need to find another employer to pay for their cars and expensive lager? It's about time these bunch of wasters had a huge boot up the arse.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

I'm Confident we will bin most of this squad when the contracts expire. I'm much less confident that we'll sign good players. A change in policy needs to be evident first.

UTB

I sincerely hope the first part comes true but really can't see it.

 

[alcoblade]

I sincerely hope the first part comes true but really can't see it.

Well, even with a very cynical head on, you can see that they could bin the entire squad and sign a load more dross, but this time at least at a third of the price.

UTB

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Well, even with a very cynical head on, you can see that they could bin the entire squad and sign a load more dross, but this time at least at a third of the price.

UTB

I think the Prince will pull out if we don't go up this year. Then we'll be back to where we were under Weir

 

[alcoblade]

I would look at every contracts which is up, and if we didn't want to keep them we should transfer list/loan them now. Happy to contribute to their wages until the season ends

Thanks to good work from Foxy :

Mark Howard - bye
George Long - Loan out or play. If no improvement, bye
George Willis - extend possibly

Craig Alcock - bye
Neill Collins - bye
Bob Harris - bye (too injury prone)
Terry Kennedy - bye (ditto)
Jay McEveley - bye
Harrison McGahey - Loan him out and unless performs well, bye

Jose Baxter - bye
Jamal Campbell-Ryce - bye
Florent Cuvelier - loan him, if he can't manage an injury free half season, bye
Ryan Flynn - bye
Keiron Wallace - extend

We still have too many bad midfielders under contract. These should be listed. (Coutts, Scougal, Woolford, Basham)

Higdon - Bye
List McNulty immediately.

Maybe they'll buck their ideas up when they know they need to find another employer to pay for their cars and expensive lager? It's about time these bunch of wasters had a huge boot up the arse.

I'd go with that. I might extend JCR's contract provided he's cheap (I have a soft spot for those at least inclined to take a man on), and I'd definitely flog Cuvelier. Other than that, spot on.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

I think the Prince will pull out if we don't go up this year. Then we'll be back to where we were under Weir

Maybe, so I'd start by analysing why we need millions to compete with those on a fraction of the budget.

I'd close the academy and cash in on the land, and there must be loads of room to trim the fat of the support staff. Overall though, we should stop overpaying for players wages.

UTB

 

[robbiez666]

I'd go with that. I might extend JCR's contract provided he's cheap (I have a soft spot for those at least inclined to take a man on), and I'd definitely flog Cuvelier. Other than that, spot on.

UTB

I see where you're coming from but way too inconsistent for me. I'd rather have an inconsistent 18 year old playing there.

 

[alcoblade]

I see where you're coming from but way too inconsistent for me. I'd rather have an inconsistent 18 year old playing there.

Well, it wouldn't raise my pulse either way .

UTB

 

[sitwell]

I would look at every contracts which is up, and if we didn't want to keep them we should transfer list/loan them now. Happy to contribute to their wages until the season ends

Thanks to good work from Foxy :

Mark Howard - bye
George Long - Loan out or play. If no improvement, bye
George Willis - extend possibly

Craig Alcock - bye
Neill Collins - bye
Bob Harris - bye (too injury prone)
Terry Kennedy - bye (ditto)
Jay McEveley - bye
Harrison McGahey - Loan him out and unless performs well, bye

Jose Baxter - bye
Jamal Campbell-Ryce - bye
Florent Cuvelier - loan him, if he can't manage an injury free half season, bye
Ryan Flynn - bye
Keiron Wallace - extend

We still have too many bad midfielders under contract. These should be listed. (Coutts, Scougal, Woolford, Basham)

Higdon - Bye
List McNulty immediately.

Maybe they'll buck their ideas up when they know they need to find another employer to pay for their cars and expensive lager? It's about time these bunch of wasters had a huge boot up the arse.

Agree with most of that however I firmly believe you should get a team out of that lot capable of beating Crewe and most other sides in this league. Motivation and tactics seem to be a major problem with Adkins ,something which he needs to address sharpish.

 

[robbiez666]

Agree with most of that however I firmly believe you should get a team out of that lot capable of beating Crewe and most other sides in this league. Motivation and tactics seem to be a major problem with Adkins ,something which he needs to address sharpish.

As individual players they have the footballing ability to get promoted. Unfortunately they all seem to lack any kind of mental attributes they'd need to do so. As a team unit they're shit as well.

 

[Deadbat]

I think the Prince will pull out if we don't go up this year. Then we'll be back to where we were under Weir

I agree I think if we fail this year....I have an inkling that we wont see the Prince, Phipps and Baki. They will pull out. The club will then say they have even less money and will be penny pinching even more. I think Adkins will move on if this is the case and would just resign - he knows being sacked would be a death knell for his managerial career at big clubs/decent level after he got sacked at Reading and would have too start right at the bottom again - if he wanted to carry on in management.

Be interested to see where we are in 12 months. I do feel we will still be in this league. That the foreign owners will be long gone and we will end up with someone like McCall as manager and a side full of kids and cheap signings.

Hope I am wrong!

 

[madeinsheffield]

might as well drop the entire starting 11 from yesterday for the Southend game and play the kids, worst case scenario we don't get any of the 3 points, just like yesterday, again. It might just give the 'first team' a kick up the arse

 

[Deadbat]

I a

Agree with most of that however I firmly believe you should get a team out of that lot capable of beating Crewe and most other sides in this league. Motivation and tactics seem to be a major problem with Adkins ,something which he needs to address sharpish.

Totally agree. Adkins tenure so far has been a massive disappointment. His signings, tactics, organisation and motivation are sadly lacking. He does not seem to the same Adkins from 4 or 5 years ago sadly. The players are rubbish but it is the managers job to get the best out of them. He is not doing that and failing badly at the moment. I am not calling for another change and we have to see it through to the end of the season and give him a chance to build his own side (worrying as that is with the signings so far) but it has been a major disappointment so far. Even with the crap players we have....they are still much better than Crewe, Oldham etc. Will to win, passion and fighting for the shirt comes from the manager. The players look a sorry bunch just idling away the last few months of their last big contract (none will get a contract/wage/club like SUFC after this season). It needs a shake up and I know we have all this...we cannot pay them up but something has to be done whether it be transfer listing a number of players (might do nothing but may also show them that it is unacceptable the performances) are giving a few kids a few games instead of some of the senior players.. We have just lost to the bottom of the league. I want some passion and fight. I think a few senior players need to be given the message loud and clear.

 

[Come from away]

I always get depressed after a loss, but not as frustrated as most as I did not pay for the game, travel or drink. That said, I think Adkins problem is trying to fit together parts that do not match. He wants to have Done, Adams and Sharp up front but they all naturally play the same position. In the end, I think he got it right early on by playing four up front with a Sammon-Sharp combination. I know this pushes Adams and Done out to the wings but otherwise we are just too small up front, and speed will get you nowhere against the packed defences that we are going to see on a regular basis. At the back where we still have a problem, even though Collins is not as bad as some make out we need Edgar and Basham back there as they are simply quicker and more agile. If we do get a Burns then Bash and Hammond can plug up the middle. As to Baxter, he does not do well when he starts and should be in the 'impact' mode when the other side has a few tired legs. While it is good to have a bunch of players to fill in, there needs to be a cull just to give room to add a couple in January. Unfortunately we will have to carry some longterm injuries until their contracts run out, but that is life in football. I still think we have the squad to get us up, but it is about finding out what mix works together, and that is not always simply the best skilled players - Kennedy, and Morgan before him, keep it simple, rarely make mistakes and hold nothing back; pity neither can play. Still clapping for my Blades.