Graffito

I read your posts with interest but this comes across as a bit patronising. It's prefectly reasonable to question how much say the Manager (he whose position is being questioned) has in the signing of players. The Cortese quote I posted above suggests Cortese himself may identify players and may still have the final word on signings. He may or may not have had a "remakable career" (his words) as a Banker but I've read nothing suggesting he knows anything more about football than we do. If it is the case that Cortese is identifying and signing players then Adkins has responsibility without control, unless of course, Cortese's going to sack himself. I remain ever positive by the way.

"How are the decisions made then? Does Alan come to you with a list of players? We discuss a few times a day over the telephone and see each other every two days, we sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss what still needs to be done on the team. He listens to my view, I listen to his view, and then we find some common ground and then we see and I’ll start investigating and find possibilities in signing a player. The ultimate decision on who comes in and goes out relies on me and my decision." This is Nicola Cortese answering a question put by Adam Leitch of The Echo in an interview of Aug 2009. Granted this was before Les Reed and the so called transfer committee but it's reasonable to pose the question just how involved he remains in the football side of things.

Your solution is a bit drastic isn't it. You are saying you want to terminate Nigel! Aside from that, the example you give is totally irrelevant to the circumstances. I disagree with your conclusions as well. Nice bit of management theory codswallop though.

Re' the disallowed the "goal". Look at the ref after he's disallowed it. He appears to be looking at Lambert and makes a gesture with his arms as if to say the goal was disallowed for Lambert leaning down on the defender. Irrelevant now but the goal should have stood.

No of course not. And why start a thread on it if you think he should not be sacked?

No problem with taking Puncheon off but Lamberts...ffs. They were crap at corners So why take Lambert off?

Just back. Haven't read the thread but quite sure many have questioned why Lambert was subbed, especially when Fulham looked dodgy at set pieces all game. A winnable game we didn't win. Normally positive about Saints but didn't like that at all. Two points thrown away.

Allow extra time if traveling from London. The usual Sunday malarkey. Anything up to 2h 44m from Waterloo.

So they're still behind us. Does this mean the club must be run on a commercial basis but they step if things go belly up?

Fair point but it's also about qualifying.

Agree the future revenue is pretty much assured but borrowing against parachute payments is a concern.

It's already happening. Against Everton, Lambert man marked Fellaini.

Go back to pre-season when it seemed the new system would involve a much more defensive approach which I assumed we'd be using away from home. The first league match against City it looked like those were the tactics being used and we were able to break from defence and cause the problems. There was a recognition in starting Lambert on the bench that there was little point in wearing him out as an isolated striker. Bringing him off the bench worked because he was fresh and he scored. Wigan was a flat performance with defensive errors that cost us though we did hit the woodwork twice. Manu - Good performance and the tactics were right. Adkins substitutions didn't come off but I would argue that Ferguson's subs and the inability to shackle Scholes were bigger factors in losing. Arsenal - game over before we got into our stride. Disaster all round. Aston Villa - No issues with tactics and good performance. Everton - only saw on a dodgy internet feed the period covering their goals (before I gave up and went down the shed!) but that together with the line up that started suggests we have moved away from trying to play more defensive and compact away from home. Recognition maybe that we don't have the players to play it. One final comment. Why don't we press the opposition more. The bit I saw yesterday we stood off and made Everton look better than they are.

I wouldn't recommend it. I was a guest of a contractor at last year's match with seats right near the director's box. Going down the stairs for a drink at half time two blokes in suits had to be separated before it came to blows. They were both West Ham so it might be wise to keep a lid on it.

Oh no the little bast@rd's in there! Bad omen.

Do what Leeds did to them.

Zonal relies on a keeper that dominates his 6 yard box. We haven't had that with Kelvin. Let's see how zonal marking goes with Gazzaniga and Boruc.

Yeah play Kelvin.

Taller fullbacks or maybe Lambert protecting the near post zone?

As with all these tactical theories which make a compelling case it's often in the execution they fail. But I believe Lambert said on the interview he did on Five Live's Monday Club that Saints used zonal marking successfully last year. So the quality of opposition is much better this season and I guess we are able to retain possession less well which means the ball is in the danger zones more frequently.

On what grounds do you exclude yourself from this description? Let me guess....you don't wear a replica shirt.

Quality first touch and great strike but tbh it was terrible defending.

They've been down as low as the Third Division.

I watched the highlights just now on Saints Player and Uncle Dave isnt keen either. I see the merits of zonal marking. It suits the kind of fluid systems teams use these days. There's a lot more man to man marking outside the PL and a lot more 442. I just think with Saints there's a case for mix and match, playing zonal with man to man marking at set pieces.

You'd stick him on the post.