The same squad?

[PeteBlade]

I keep hearing and reading that "The same squad got us to two cup semi finals" as a way to big Clough up and a stick to beat Adkins with.

Let's have a look at that shall we?

The Charlton game that took us to Wembley included:
• Connor Coady
• Harry Maguire
• Michael Doyle
• Jamie Murphy

Then we have a fully fit and in form John Brayford alongside a fully fit Bob Harris.

Our 3 subs were McGinn, Davies and Porter.

Against Forest at home we had Coady, Maguire, Harris and Murphy.

Against Hull at Wembley we had Coady, Harris, Maguire, Doyle and Murphy and brought on Davies.

Even ignoring Doyle (who most thought wasn't good enough) and Brayford (who has been injured or in poor form) people are ignoring 3 major players for us when they say "it's the same team".

Ask yourself this, add those three players to this team and where would we be?

Players we either haven't replaced or couldn't resign.

It wasn't even close to being the same team.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

But we still got to a semi-final the following season without Harry and without Conor Coady.

Not interested in blowing Clough's trumpet (ooh er!), but he did motivate them beyond their capabilities to do that. Adkins' motivational qualities on the other hand are... well, let's be kind - they're "yet to be seen".

 

[PeteBlade]

But we still got to a semi-final the following season without Harry and without Conor Coady.

Not interested in blowing Clough's trumpet (ooh er!), but he did motivate them beyond their capabilities to do that. Adkins' motivational qualities on the other hand are... well, let's be kind - they're "yet to be seen".

And he had a much stronger team. Although those same cup superstars lost to some dismal teams at Bramall Lane.

And the team that started at Tottenham still contained several players who aren't in the squad this season, including our not replaced player of the year.

For me, the story is always about selling the best players and replacing them with players of worse quality.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

For me, the story is always about selling the best players and replacing them with players of worse quality.

Whereas for me, the story's partly about selling your best players. The manager doesn't get a free pass, whatever the circumstances.

The fact is, Clough still reached another semi-final in his second season, despite having the rug pulled from under him. (The "benefits" of the January transfer window weren't yet available to him in the context of the League Cup run.)

What's the best memory we can look back on of this season? Beating Walsall? The "flying geese" celebration?

 

[Tyler Durden]

People overlook that Cloughs "exact same semi-final season teams" got turned over by Fleetwood and Crewe in two successive home games.

The squad weren't the same, the performances however were identical to this season on numerous occasions.

That's not necessarily a dig at Clough (although I certainly don't like him). It's proof that our problems on the pitch are the fault of the actual players and the culture at this club right now.

 

[EddieColquhoun]

Whereas for me, the story's partly about selling your best players. The manager doesn't get a free pass, whatever the circumstances.

The fact is, Clough still reached another semi-final in his second season, despite having the rug pulled from under him. (The "benefits" of the January transfer window weren't yet available to him in the context of the League Cup run.)

What's the best memory we can look back on of this season? Beating Walsall? The "flying geese" celebration?

22 signings in a season is hardly having the rug pulled from under him.

 

[Barney]

It's proof that our problems on the pitch are the fault of the actual players and the culture at this club right now.

I keep seeing you posting about a "culture" within the playing squad and saying that is why we are where we are. I don't understand how you manage to place so much blame on this "culture".

Some young kids have had discipline problems (Adams, McGahey) and there's been one total waster in the form of Baxter but on the whole the reason we under achieve is that the players are just not good enough and simple as it is, that is because it's a smidgeon above a mid table bunch of players.

The players are just the end product of the problems with both the manager and board.

 

[Tyler Durden]

I keep seeing you posting about a "culture" within the playing squad and saying that is why we are where we are. I don't understand how you manage to place so much blame on this "culture".

Some young kids have had discipline problems (Adams, McGahey) and there's been one total waster in the form of Baxter but on the whole the reason we under achieve is that the players are just not good enough and simple as it is, that is because it's a smidgeon above a mid table bunch of players.

The players are just the end product of the problems with both the manager and board.

The players who were part of both Clough and Adkins set-ups had the exact same attitude and dismal work rate.

Logic would dictate that players playing under two very, very different managers can't be the end product of both.

 

[nopigfansintown]

He never had sixteen players out of contract at the end of last season either.

 

[Barney]

The players who were part of both Clough and Adkins set-ups had the exact same attitude and dismal work rate.

Logic would dictate that players playing under two very, very different managers can't be the end product of both.

So you think it's more to do with attitude and work rate? I think it has much more to do with ability and the fact that both managers have brought in players who are not good enough.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

22 signings in a season is hardly having the rug pulled from under him.

Tbf, I did make a distinction between the first half of the season (when, despite Maguire being sold & the non-arrival of Coady, the League Cup run happened) & the second half (when the effects of Cloughy's expensive January transfer dealings were felt, or rather, not felt).

Not interested in sympathising with Cloughy, just giving credit were it's due within the context of an overall hugely disappointing season.

Not interested in sympathising with Positive Nige either. But in his case, there's neither owt in the way of consolatory memories from this season, nor much in the way of hope for next season as I see it (other than "he's done it before, it can't be a fluke, therefore he's destined to do it with us [somehow]").

 

[Tyler Durden]

So you think it's more to do with attitude and work rate? I think it has much more to do with ability and the fact that both managers have brought in players who are not good enough.

I should've been clearer in my first post so that's my fault. I think that our problems this season are primarily to do with approach and application. I don't think the squad is good enough in terms of ability either but it's been compounded by their attitude.

 

[PeteBlade]

I should've been clearer in my first post so that's my fault. I think that our problems this season are primarily to do with approach and application. I don't think the squad is good enough in terms of ability either but it's been compounded by their attitude.

Or helped by a board refusal to sign better players imo

 

[Barney]

Or helped by a board refusal to sign better players imo

Not this again.

 

[PeteBlade]

Not this again.

Ah, I forget this doesn't suit your agenda therefore isn't true.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Or helped by a board refusal to sign better players imo

The board are the long-term issue, the overall root cause of all this mess. I don't question McCabes intentions but he is utterly inept and I have no confidence in his abilities to take this club forward.
And I was one of his biggest supporters at one time.

 

[Barney]

Ah, I forget this doesn't suit your agenda therefore isn't true.

No, it's just that you don't have any grounds to say whether it is true or not. Do you think Adkins would have started gobbing off about those two players that were near to being signed in the loan window if he wasn't allowed to sign any?

Or even in the extremely unlikely event they hadn't allowed it, perhaps they indicated to Adkins that he'd already used and wasted the budget that should have been enough for promotion.

 

[PeteBlade]

No, it's just that you don't have any grounds to say whether it is true or not. Do you think Adkins would have indicated that two players were near to being signed in the loan window if he wasn't allowed to sign any?

Or even in the extremely unlikely event they hadn't allowed it, perhaps they indicated to Adkins that he'd already used and wasted the budget that should have been enough for promotion.

No, you're completely right of course. The manager will be completely happy with being able to sign 2 players permanently after losing his best player after game one.
Also having spent months talking about how important the JTW will be and how we needed to stay in touch until January before bringing players, he was fully expecting not to bring any players in January.

And then having the Chairman's puppet release a statement in January talking about the old manager over spending and needing to take three transfer windows to sort this out seemingly backing up this theory.

Whereas you don't like the manager, so it's entirely his fault.

 

[Esablade]

"fucking Cup Tarts"

tm Kenilworth (?) I think..

is sufficent....

 

[Tyler Durden]

No, it's just that you don't have any grounds to say whether it is true or not. Do you think Adkins would have started gobbing off about those two players that were near to being signed in the loan window if he wasn't allowed to sign any?

Or even in the extremely unlikely event they hadn't allowed it, perhaps they indicated to Adkins that he'd already used and wasted the budget that should have been enough for promotion.

It was decided by the 'Technical Board' that there were no signings considered suitable for the team. Phipps said as much in his statement. Adkins isn't entirely calling the shots in terms of transfers. Clough, in his defence was sacked for trying to.

 

[finlaytheblade]

But we still got to a semi-final the following season without Harry and without Conor Coady.

Not interested in blowing Clough's trumpet (ooh er!), but he did motivate them beyond their capabilities to do that. Adkins' motivational qualities on the other hand are... well, let's be kind - they're "yet to be seen".

When playing teams from an higher league it's not motivation that's difficult to acheave ( players always motivate themselves in such situations ) it's the
ability to beat them that's the hard bit.Clough did pick the team's and tactics in these matches and deserves credit for getting it right.

 

[Barney]

No, you're completely right of course. The manager will be completely happy with being able to sign 2 players permanently after losing his best player after game one.
Also having spent months talking about how important the JTW will be and how we needed to stay in touch until January before bringing players, he was fully expecting not to bring any players in January.

And then having the Chairman's puppet release a statement in January talking about the old manager over spending and needing to take three transfer windows to sort this out seemingly backing up this theory.

Whereas you don't like the manager, so it's entirely his fault.

We didn't need any more than 2 permanents and 3 loans for promotion. I recall the vast majority of posters on here stating that the team that finished 5th only needed strengthening with good quality in a few key positions to have us competing this season. No doubt you were swimming against the tide and shouting about how we needed more permanents and fewer loans to be promoted?

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

The board are the long-term issue, the overall root cause of all this mess. I don't question McCabes intentions but he is utterly inept and I have no confidence in his abilities to take this club forward.
And I was one of his biggest supporters at one time.

If Adkins has vision thinking and the board realise this to move the club forward , and also bring a culture change , we do have a good chance to get some stability and structure into the club . McCabe to me has always had the best intentions of the club at heart , but just lost direction with bad advice and decisions .

Although the last two seasons have been a complete waste under both Clough and Adkins , at least we are in a good position to start afresh next season. It's all about keeping our nerve , board backing the manager and manager having the right tools to sort us out . Turnbull hopefully will earn his money , and all prove days of wasting money on poor players are over, with a good scouting system in place , bringing in players who actually want to improve working at the lane . It's all about application on all fronts and it's just been missing .

The only constant through all this is us supporters .

UTB.

 

[Barney]

It was decided by the 'Technical Board' that there were no signings considered suitable for the team. Phipps said as much in his statement. Adkins isn't entirely calling the shots in terms of transfers. Clough, in his defence was sacked for trying to.

After Adkins had already wasted the budget. If I gave a manager enough funds to be promoted and he wasted it on the wrong players I'd be tempted to take his hands off any more of my money too.

But then Adkins started gobbing off about two players being near in the loan window, so they either gave him a second chance and gave him even more money to waste, or they told him not to fuck things up any more and Adkins was just lying.

 

[PeteBlade]

We didn't need any more than 2 permanents and 3 loans for promotion. I recall the vast majority of posters on here stating that the team that finished 5th only needed strengthening with good quality in a few key positions to have us competing this season. No doubt you were swimming against the tide and shouting about how we needed more permanents and fewer loans to be promoted?

If you and the posters on here say we only needed 2 permanent and 3 loans to get promotion then it must be true.

 

[PeteBlade]

After Adkins had already wasted the budget. If I gave a manager enough funds to be promoted and he wasted it on the wrong players I'd be tempted to take his hands off any more of my money too.

But then Adkins started gobbing off about two players being near in the loan window, so they either gave him a second chance and gave him even more money to waste, or they told him not to fuck things up any more and Adkins was just lying.

Wasted the budget that you made up in your head?

And for "gobbing off" read talking about signing players.

 

[Tyler Durden]

After Adkins had already wasted the budget. If I gave a manager enough funds to be promoted and he wasted it on the wrong players I'd be tempted to take his hands off any more of my money too.

But then Adkins started gobbing off about two players being near in the loan window, so they either gave him a second chance and gave him even more money to waste, or they told him not to fuck things up any more and Adkins was just lying.

No that's just you projecting your predictable vitriol onto Adkins (for a change).

These funds of which you speak, including the Murphy money were swallowed by paying wages to a squad which at its peak consisted of 43 players, the majority of which were not signed by Adkins.

Furthermore, you still consider the signing of our top goalscorer to be a "waste". If you had been put in charge we would be battling relegation right now and there would be another Barney on this thread sat at home throwing darts at your picture.

 

[Barney]

If you and the posters on here say we only needed 2 permanent and 3 loans to get promotion then it must be true.

Just going off what was a pretty unanimous opinion. Where did you stand out of interest? Were you insisting that it was going to take a better permanent:loan ratio to be promoted? Or would you have been perfectly happy had we got in 2 permanents and 3 loans that were actually the right players?

 

[PeteBlade]

Just going off what was a pretty unanimous opinion. Where did you stand out of interest? Were you insisting that it was going to take a better permanent:loan ratio to be promoted? Or would you have been perfectly happy had we got in 2 permanents and 3 loans that were actually the right players?

Do you know what, I've no idea what I said pre season or whether I gave an opinion on what we needed.

Not being a football manager, my opinion would have been pretty irrelevant anyway.

 

[Barney]

No that's just you projecting your predictable vitriol onto Adkins (for a change).

These funds of which you speak, including the Murphy money were swallowed by paying wages to a squad which at its peak consisted of 43 players, the majority of which were not signed by Adkins.

Completely irrelevant. Bottom line is that the manager of the club was given enough funds to have been promoted, or at least get very near. He chose to waste it primarily on sky high wages for slow and old rejects on their way down.

If he wanted, he could have chosen to spend that money on the right types of players with enough quality. It's a mighty shame he didn't/hasn't got the managerial ability to do that.