S-Clarke

God, I wish we were playing QPR this weekend. They are so bad it's untrue.

That's usually how the script goes!

I think that's the formation we are evolving to. What I can see is this... ----------GK------------ ------CB -----CB--------- WBR --------------WBL -------CM----CM-------- AMR------AMC----AML-- -----------ST----------

I accept your points, and I do think Chaplow was probably the only viable alternative yesterday - but I think that's kind of scratching at the bottom of our squad if I'm honest. He's full of energy, but always on the edge of being sent off, or giving away silly fouls. Not sure he'd have been the best in the circumstances yesterday If i'm honest, and other than that we had no real alternative. It does show that with a few injures, the midfield area which was pretty well stocked, starts to look quite thin.

Yep, you're probably right. But you can't discard managers just because they don't have experience, the only way they'll get it is to experience it. Adkins isn't stupid, bright as a button, and he'll learn as he goes - as will the team as a whole.

You can't keep changing the keeper to stop conceeding goals, the route cause is not as clear cut as the GK.

What an effort by Cisse. Good game this. 2 pretty average sides, truth be told. I'd fancy us to create shed loads against both.

He probably used to be. But there's a reason he was let go on a free, and no one else wanted him.

QPR look absolutely horrific. Hughes is not going to last there, surely. Looks like Cesar is pretty much finished. Awful goal keeping. Odd signing.

They're not a bad side, they've just made too many signings for the sake of making signings. As you said, no real thought behind them (as shown with Green, and then Cesar) He also believes Granero is a world class player, which I fail to see. What has he ever done to be considered world class?

They've got a bit more grit and experience about them.

That's pretty much it. It's lazy just to blame the CB's, the ease in which Everton players ran at our back 4 on Saturday was slightly alarming and it does kind of spring up question marks about our lack of cover @ CM. I spoke to someone today who said that if we want to attack and play football as we are, then we'll always give the opposition chances. I don't think that's true. I look at the likes of Bilbao as an example from last season, when they didn't have the ball they worked their arses off to pressure and get that ball back. But it all boils down to ball retention, if we keep hold of the ball then they're less likely to have chances...! And then when we do need to pressure them, we'll have more energy, as it can be seriously sapping to be out on the field chasing the ball for 90 mins. I think we've been sloppy on the ball at times this season and we've given it back way too easily, now if we can really retain it then we'll concede less goals. Sounds simple...! But it always requires a bit of patience from the stands. When we've retained the ball previously and have gone back to the GK, and to the CB's etc then all I hear are moans, and groans ''GET IT UP'' etc. Why? What will that achieve? Nothing half the time, other than the ball being headed away and picked up by the oppo...but at the end of the day, when we do pass it backwards the opposition haven't got it and they can't score.

In terms of a player that would immediately fix a shortcoming in our side, it has to be Baines. I still think Clyne is a bit of a square peg at left back, he can cover there - but he's primarily a right back.

annoyingly, Evertons second goal came from them waltzing straight through the middle...!

This is actually quite an interesting debate, and it's interesting to see that most people are thinking along the same lines, and that the overreactions are from a minority. Personally, with our start, I didn't expect a great deal if I'm honest. I fully expected us to be in the bottom 3, so the fact we're not is pretty astonishing (OK, that may end tonight..). But we're playing as I expected. Fluent, expressive, enthusiastic - but probably slightly more naive than I thought we would be. It has been a baptism of fire, everyone has been given a short, sharp lesson on the Barclays Premier League. It holds no prisoners. So, I think the start will have given us a quick education on what to expect and I think we're looking a bit smarter. The quality is there though, technically we're a terrific little side. If we can just get the balance right between attacking and defending then we may have a good season after all. I know a fair few fans (not particularly just saints fans) are saying that we're doomed, we look relegation fodder etc - I don't think we do. I see a team that creates plenty of chances, causes any team problems and scores goals against anyone - bearing in mind we've just played what will probably be the top 4 or 3 in the league. If I was a Reading fan I'd be slightly more worried. They've had a pretty straight forward start compared to us, yet they haven't won a game. They concede goals, yet never really look like scoring. They don't stand out with the quality whereas I think you'd look at us and immediately see quality in certain area's. If we stick together and do what we have been doing in an attacking sense, then against the likes of Norwich, Reading, WHU I think we'll start to shift up the league. We're not a bad side, we just need to learn.

My take, is that he got his positioning wrong on Evertons 2nd goal. He should have got something on that if I'm honest. the Third goal came from such an amazing angle that he probably didn't expect it, and it was headed with such power that there wasn't a great deal anyone could have done - taking into account how unexpected it was as well. their equalizer...not really. Could have said he may have taken a bit more of control of the situation, but my take on it is that it was a rash initial clearance that went no where, and no one tracked Osmans run into the box.

Eh? What on earth are you on about? Is it said in jest or something, as it makes no sense. It's a bizarre couple of paragraphs which are just, weird.

It really wouldn't. We'd still be over run in midfield, as Guly is not a central midfield player. He is an attacking forward/striker/winger. Playing him in midfield is suicide really, and it would kind have been like hanging the poor guy out to dry.

I like petric, looks a very busy player who has an eye for goal. Risse down the left is dangerous too, in fact they're not a bad team. Much, much better than Villa.

At least we actually got an 11 out of you, but now you see the problem. We didn't really have another way of playing yesterday with the players we had available. Guly in midfield is wrong, and Adkins would have been lambasted (probably by you) if he'd have done it, and we'd lost anyway.

Prepare to face the wrath of Roger.

Adkins did say it wasn't as bad as corks, but that didn't exactly fill me with hope that he'll be back soon.

Yes, medial ligaments.

I'm still waiting for an alternative setup for yesterday, that you'd have gone with. All well and good criticizing, but if you can't think of an alternative, then what are you actually criticizing?

Hasn't he traveled something like 8 miles in games? More than any other? What he gives you is pressuring of the opposition, you watch him...he never gives them a rest, always tugging at them...and when he does get the ball 90% of the time he retains it and picks up good area's to do so. We don't have another player like him in our squad. I'm still stunned to see how people fail to see what he brings to us in terms of team-shape.