Clifford Nelson

Some players are seemingly made for being scapegoated. At the first mistake Guly made on Saturday the sighs started, exactly as it did with Papa Waigo last year. The week before Barnard miscontrolled and lost the ball seven times consecutively (I counted) but he was repeatedly forgiven. Guly isn't the greatest Brazilian player ever, or he wouldn't be here, but for control, moving the ball around and seeing a killer pass we haven't got anybody better. I nearly forgot that he has also scored 10 goals so far. Sh*t he ain't!

I think you're mainly right. However, it looks to me that both teams made tactical adjustments, us believing that Dale was to play with a diamond again, and they believing we were playing with wingers. It went wrong on the night, but just as you point out, the problem for us being really flexible is that both Lambert and Barnard are both playing every game, so that we can never be flexible enough to play 4-4-1-1 for example, as the obvious choice for the first "1" is Guly. The idea that 4-4-2 is the snake oil remedy to cure all ills is at best uninformed and at worst plain stupid.

Not for the first time we bought a player for one position only to play them in a different one and then condemn them as useless. I never found it a problem to sort out the first issues with a player: Right or left footed? Central or wide? Why have previous managements had such problems with the basics? Even BA (Before Adkins) this season poor Guly was put out to play left wing, not surprisingly with very limited success.

Unless you have plenty of previous you will not get a custodial sentence for ABH. If convicted a community sentence will be the outcome.

And WM. Ahhhh!

I think Blandford Saints post above yours makes a lot of sense. Looking at Oakley's replacements he suddenly looks very much better than maybe we thought he was at the time. I always thought he was OK, and he was nothing like a whipping boy amongst the fans, but I know that there were many fans who didn't rate him highly. At the moment I think we can count ourselves lucky with Hammond/Morgan and Chaplow. Not many teams have got a midfield like that before you start touching the heights of the PL.

You don't want two anchors, nor two box to box players in a 4-4-2 formation. That is very much why we struggled in CM before Chaplow came on the scene. All players have natural tendencies which you can't coach out of them. I therefore agree wholeheartedly: It's Chaplow all the time and then a choice between the other two. Personally I think Hammond adds more command on the pitch, although Morgan is more skilful.

I think I referred to the frequent criticisms at the time, so hardly harsh. The other signings you're mentioning didn't meet our expectations either, although Svensson played internationally for Sweden up till last year and Delap still plies his trade regularly in the Premiership. However, none of the above where an out and out leader in the midfield. It might well be that we are asking for something which is very rare, and which costs an awful lot of money.

I can't say that I have read every post in this thread, but I remember clearly two criticisms which were frequently repeated. Firstly, that he didn't score enough goals, and secondly, that he never seemed to command the midfield. He wasn't the star of the midfield which we kept hoping for, and whilst always competent we kept hoping for another midfield signing who we could really admire instead of only accept. Oakley was a decent chap who kept piranhas and wrote a column in the Echo. His only problem, probably, was not to be as colourful as we would have wanted.

A fair assessment although I have previously said that I think that he is the most talented player we have ever let go. Pardew never fancied him, so it came as no surprise to me that we didn't buy him. We also didn't play a system which he was at all familiar with. He looked to me like the right side of a front three in a conventional 4-3-3, neither an out and out striker, nor a winger. Under Adkins I think he would have been nursed to great heights.

Apologist.

I am not one of KD's greatest detractors, but he makes me nervous rooted on the spot instead of catching crosses. Bart also makes me nervous, mainly because I sense a lack of command. Whatever NA decides I'm sure it will be a decision about what is best for the team. Since he is an ex-goalkeepter himself he will be more aware than I about both KD's and Bart's shortcomings. After yesterday I'm sure that we are all agreed that the clubs best fullbacks are Harding and Butters. The other two wouldn't have come near the performances we saw yesterday. £50K for Chaplow is very good business, but having Harding on a free must surely be one of the best signings ever.

When NC arrived "in the building" he made it quite clear that the freeloading culture was finished. From then on every spectator would pay for his ticket, including himself. He appears to have meant what he said, but some ex-players still seem to think that they should be treated in some special way. Let's not bring it up again. Some may have other reasons for disagreeing with NC, but raising their unhappiness in the media certainly gives me the impression that they think themselves more important than the club. This club doesn't need any more in-fighting. If their gripes are real and have been costly they have the recourse to the courts. That they're not there gives me the impression that they're not certain to win, which is a sign in itself that these conflicts are more complicated than they seem. My best advice for them is to move on, and if they can't, then move away. I will remember them for their football regardless. The days of genuflecting are over.

I'm disappointed. I didn't think that Franny was so childish as to air his grievances on TV. We will, of course, recall that Franny is no longer allowed to hire rooms at SMS, or am I wrong in that?

I thought Burke was in partnership with Hare, famous digger uppers of stiffs.

NA suddenly pops up on the OS with a story about how he has been chasing N'Guessando for two years. This turns up several days after we signed him on loan with no celebration whatsoever. Looks to me like PR a job of trying to make it sound that we have landed our catch, when in fact we haven't. I'd be surprised if something suddenly changes on monday.

Since no news are coming out of SMS at all, who in the club would have any information about what is happening between NC and the Liebherr family? Can you imagine NC confiding in anybody, or the family keeping some poster on the 606 informed? No, I didn't think so either. The AOX affair can be taken from any newspaper. Maybe he'll go, maybe he won't, but as off last night there were no bids for him.

With all that top class interest we should be able to raise enough to buy ourself a proper right footed winger. They will be surprised in the PL when they realise what they've bought.

To those who responded to my comment I can only say that my reaction was from the last two times I've visited, which was recently. I very much remember the charm offensive which was laid on when Markus and Nicola came into "the building". The word must clearly have gotten to the ticket office that we wanted was cheerful and happy supporters and bums on seats. (Goes together those two.) In my last visits it hasn't been the same, and whilst I have received my tickets it wasn't with the cheerful attitude of then. Chewing on a sandwich, appearing unshaven and uncombed etc. were issues I observed when standing there watching. There clearly wasn't management guidelines and no oversight. Am I going to protest wildly? No, but I thought that it was worth mentioning since the ticket office is the face of the club which supporters see. The appearance I saw belonged at Luton or other relative backwaters. Not in my opinion at Saints. I doubt that I stumbled across a couple of one-offs.

Puncheon appears to be a problem for us but a solution to Millwall. Here he plays narrow, hangs on to the ball and seems to provide little or nothing. I reckon that he isn't really a wide player at all, but whilst that is an issue for us, it is less so for Millwall. Since I can't see him changing his entire way of playing I'd rather see him replaced by somebody else.

With AOX not quite on song (it happens with youngsters) and Puncheon doing he usual ineffective stuff, we were fairly stuffed against a rather robust (that's politician speak for ruthless) defense. We always need to provide width with whatever formation we are playing, and managed admirably when AP was playing 4-5-1 for a brief period. Puncheon, apart from any other shortcoming I've been whingeing about, is not a proper winger and will go narrow regardless of formation. Papa Waigo did a much better job although I didn't think that wingplay was is strength. Guly is most effective offensively when he can create movement in the opposition's half.

He is obviously doing something very useful at Millwall, although I don't know what. Yesterday was, I think, a typical Pucheon performance. As we know there are fans here who think that those performances are great, but it frustrates the hell out of me. I think there is some fundamental flaw in JP's make up where he finds it very difficult to cooperate naturally with his fellow players. There is an element of "look at me" about him which makes him run into dead ends. Whether that is a subject for coaching, management or psychoanalysis may be another discussion point, but I would rather he practiced it elsewhere. I don't think he could carry the role of squad player without repeated major sulks and poor or mediocre performances. He wants to go, so why not let him.

Our 4-3-1-2 formation against Blackpool would give Guly a role in the hole behind Lambert and Barnard. The formation worked a treat, and whilst it countered Blackpool's 4-3-3 I can't see why we can't set out our on stall and let the opposition worry about us rather than the other way around. This squad ought to be good enough for that. It would upset the 'true believers' who thinks that 4-2-2 is the only "right" way to play football, but I would find it worth the effort. In my way of looking at it the 4-4-2 formation isn't very flexible, whilst from the basis of 4-3-3 you can move to 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1 or 4-3-1-2 very easily. I would like us to re-think our entire footballing philosophy to one that made us much more flexible, and I can't see that grounded in 4-4-2.

Pucheon's performance yesterday is exactly what he has been producing for us for all the time he's been here. You might think it's OK or not, but it wasn't different. Personally I don't think it is contributing anything substantial enough to warrant him to stay at the club.