CanadaSaint

You were the one who originally used the terms "play maker" and "ball winner" when you lectured someone else for having a different opinion to yours, so please don't tell me how to think as well. I've offered my opinion that we don't get the ball forward quickly enough - that's neither a conventional nor an unconventional concept. I said right after the Barnsley game that we got away with it against a weaker team but that it could prove costly against a stronger team, and on Saturday it did; it could prove just as costly against Reading. It's not about "a lack of movement or the strikers being (un)able to hold up a pass." Against Barnsley, Lee made all kinds of intelligent runs and never got the ball until he couldn't avoid being offside. Against Donny we had De Ridder and we didn't capitalize on it because we didn't get him the ball where and when he needed it - he certainly made himself available. In both games Ricky got the pass he was looking for about 10% of the time, at best. The best (but not only) way to find an opening is to start early, while the openings are there, and it helps a lot to look forwards rather than sideways and back. Again, that's neither a modern nor an old-fashioned concept. And I've said that there's plenty of scope for sideways and back as long as we don't do it to excess. In my view we do. Yes, the Blackpool wide men were very threatening but some of that was due to the fact that we didn't do anything quickly enough to make our wide men threatening. Besides, Schneiderlin, Cork, Chaplow and Lallana are hardly Spanish-style players, are they, so how can we expect them to play like they are? As for your "fans who think they are more tactically aware than Adkins" comment, you seem to lose sight of A) the fact that this is a forum for sharing opinions - informed and otherwise, and B) the fact that you offer your opinions as often as most - and not always with the high level of expertise you seem to expect from others. That was a disappointing comment, coming from you. Adkins has done a great job and I still think we're going up, hopefully as champions - but we probably need to at least draw with Reading for that to happen, which IMO is a big ask considering how we're playing right now. But I can still like and admire Adkins and yet reserve the right to say that if we are promoted, it will IMO be despite our midfield rather than because of it. I don't think anyone at Reading has scored over 7 or 8, and things aren't much different at WHU. They both seem to get far more offensive contributions - and certainly far more goals - from their midfield than we do. Thank God we've got Ricky.

If Morgan is "the playmaker" why has he been playing so deep - at the base of the diamond or just in front of the back four? How can we hope to attack with speed, as we did before the end of November, if he has to come from there in order to initiate attacks? And I'd venture to suggest that Schneiderlin has made as many tackles as Corky ("apparantly the ball winner") in recent games, which - again - takes him away from the playmaking role. And when Hammond plays with those two, which he has - especially during our bad run, we've got a hell of a lot of ball-winning and not much creating going on. My problem is that I'm not sure who our playmaker is, because we're taking an age to get the ball forward and a lot of the attack options are closed-off by then. We get caught in a sideways-and-back blob in the middle of the park - almost waiting for Morgan to get forward in support. It happened against Barnsley and Donny, two weaker sides, and we still won. But it happened again against Blackpool, a much better side, and we got stuffed. It needs sorting before Reading arrive.

I agree because it gives us width and some pace in attack - but only if we get the ball to him early enough. The temptation is to say that we don't seem to have that kind of player, or that the player who's playing there didn't offer much on a particular day, when the problem IMO is the bit I underlined. There's certainly a place for "sideways and back" but we do it to excess and so we don't get the ball forward soon enough to expose defences. We don't capitalize on the skills of the Lees and de Ridders - or even the Puncheons - in our squad. I said after the Barnsley game that the excessive sideways and back could hurt us at some point, against a better team that Barnsley, and yesterday it did. I think De Ridder could do that for us down the right. But against Donny and again yesterday (in the second half) he seemed to eventually receive the ball only when he came back looking for it, which meant he had his back to goal with a guy right up his arse. What chance does he have of doing what we need him to do - turning, running and getting to the goal line - when he gets the ball so late? Tadanari Lee suffered from the same problem - it wasn't him keep being caught offside, it was intelligent runs not being spotted soon enough by our midfield. It doesn't look like there's anybody in our central midfield with the control and vision to involve/release our wide men as quickly as we need to do it. And yet we were doing it earlier in the season. What happened?

As we always do in these post-game reaction threads, we tend to focus only on our own lot. However, while we played poorly I'd like to commend Blackpool. They were very well prepared by Holloway and they worked their arses off, showing speed, skill and inventiveness. They offered a number of powerful reasons for us to avoid the playoffs at all costs. As badly as the West Ham lot must feel about losing to Reading today, they'll feel even worse seeing Blackpool playing like that.

That's where Schneiderlin played against Donny and IMO it's probably his best position. What I think we lack is a visionary playmaker who constantly retains a mental picture of his up-front options and uses them as soon as he gets the ball. The lack of that type of player causes a lot of the "sideways and back" we so often see in the middle of the park, especially today.

I can handle players having poor games because it happens, even when it happens to about six at the same time. What I can't handle is "the fittest team in the division" being outworked and out-hustled for the entire ninety minutes. Having someone instantly up their arses just caused us to play even more square passes and backward passes in midfield than we usually do, explaining why we had lots of possession but virtually no penetration. And yet if Sharp had scored the penalty and Jos had scored when he could have farted it in, the story could have been oh so different.

Confucius, him say: A striker who can't read the onside line and misses penalties will not play many games. I give you Billy Sharp, penthouse to sh*thouse in one week flat.

I feel really sorry for the 2,000+ who trecked all the way up there and vastly outperformed the team.

I don't think Fonte and Butterfield combined would score 4 in the match ratings. Adding Sharp might make it 6.

That's the bit that's p*ssing me off most. Schneideriln seems to be playing at the base of the diamond and playing reasonably well, but farther forward we're clueless. Turn back, pass square, back to Kelvin, hoof. I don't want to ignite the Guly debate again but ...

It was pitiful. He used his concentration time looking at the ref, and even glanced at him again just as he started his run-up. That's when I knew he wouldn't score. Five times out of ten players who look at the ref end up missing. Focus on the goal, listen for the whistle and go.

KUMB will go into meltdown after this. Should be a good read.

LOL We're forever blowing hot air, hot air to our fans, They think we're the best but we're worse than the rest We're blowing hot air to our fans

Just back from cleaning myself up after reading thread title and realizing that it's an almost direct parallel to 1949 when we lost our main striker, blew a mega-point lead and missed out on promotion (see Fitzhugh's post a while back). Anxiously awaiting A) confirmation that it's ****** or B) a win, and ideally both.

That's pretty much where I sit, too. And I also really enjoyed FC's post. Even if the Liebherrs did decide to move along, we have so much to be grateful for, and we're in far better shape than we've ever been on so many levels. My questions were more about whether they would just drop us to the highest bidder, especially a consortium of hedge funds. My hunch is that their family honour and integrity - and the importance to them of Markus's wishes - will help to ensure that we'll be fine regardless of their decision. FWIW I certainly don't see Nicola walking for a while, and his input - given how close he and Markus were - is likely to count for a hell of a lot.

In the sense that none of us has actually heard a Liebherr say why they're in this, at least AFAIK, you're correct about not knowing their motivation. However, I don't know how many times Cortese - the critical point of contact - has to say that the family are fully committed before people will believe him. And Yes, LTC, he could be lying. As always, time will tell.

But your suggestion ignores the questions I asked, so the hackneyed old saying you used doesn't help much, does it LTC? It was the same situation when Markus bought-in, and there are enough pictures of him celebrating wins as though he had followed us since he was a kid, so the hypothesis underlying the questions is that money isn't everything to the Liebherrs. They also seem to be a very tight family in which honour and loyalty are high values. No, nobody could blame them if they sold at a profit but my implied point was that I don't think this is their primary motivator.

Now there's the difference, I guess. You think that scotty is "very, very naive" and I think you're very, very cynical. In scotty's favour, though, is the fact that Cortese has always made a big point about playing with style, which to me means that he's in it for more than the money and power.

Yep. The barstewards may have cost me the Ipswich game with their sh*t-for-brains connection screw-up, but at least they got us home on time. I'd much rather have made the Ipswich game and arrived home late, mind! Still, it was brilliant to see you guys again. And two wins out of two. Not to mention the pies.

Question 1: Has there ever been a successful hedge fund takeover of a major football team, and why would a consortium of them (cut-throats partnering with cut-throats) think it would be any different this time? Question 2: If the club is for sale, why would the Liebherrs even consider a hedge fund when there are very serious, well-monied, "fit and proper" buyers from across the world who are always interested in buying into the Premiership? Question 3: If Markus was as fond of the Saints and the community as we know him to have been, and if bringing top-level success was one of his main goals at the time of his death, why on earth would the Liebherrs consider selling it to an outfit that is concerned only with money and financial return? Question 4: If the family knew that one of Markus's dying dreams was for the club to become established in the Premier League and eventually compete in the Champions' League (in Europe - their playground), and if they have oodles of money to the point at which the Saints are barely a blip on the financial radar screen, why on earth would they sell it at all? Question 5: Assuming that the only logical answers to these questions is "because Nicola has lost interest and wants to get out", why would Nicola want to get out just as we're on the verge of joining the kind of playing field that he and his ego relish? I'm not saying that there is no foundation at all to the rumours - just that they fly in the face of a lot of logic.

I'm not sure what his termination arrangements were with Blackburn, but Sam is in danger of being paid more not to manage teams than he has ever been paid to actually manage them.

I've felt for some time that WHU may end up in the playoff scramble because they've never looked a very well-balanced, multi-option team to me. Add to this the fact that they'll be under more media and fan pressure than anyone (they already are, really), and I can see them in a real dogfight. Us and Reading. Champions on GD.

No, Bearsy, it was a double-slam and I think I actually got you. Window Cleaner is mistaken as well. Despite how things may look. You may have eluded my radar until now, but not any more.

And here's me thinking that the thread topic was about coverage where we don't have much. Either I misread it or you did. There's a bit of a hint in the second line - "I think we could absorb injuries in most areas."