Minty

This is an interesting debate because if any company submits something to medical authorities and has it passed, it is pretty hard to then blame the company for any subsequent issues. These authorities exist for medical devices and procedures because of the potential health issues that can arise, whereas as long as a car passes an MOT, there is no such need for specific devices and parts to pass government tests. Liability should probably be shared to a degree but by default, if a government agency is partly to blame, then that is going to funded by the tax payer, because we pay for the government departments. A private company would have liability insurance for this kind of thing, the government has the taxpayer. I don't agree at all, but we are all supposed to trust these authorities to test things on our behalf, and if we can't do that...???

To be fair, they don't claim an exclusive at all and quite clearly state 'it has been reported this morning' so I don't see anything wrong with that. The Echo won't always hear about things first, especially in cases like this where it originates from afar, and they'd not be doing their job if they didn't report on stories like this.

And Frazer.

If views were expressed like he did above all the time, then more people would discuss and engage with him, but unfortunately it's usually not. I actually agree that some of the polar views expressed on here are rather silly IMO, but it works both ways. Both sides need to ignore those who add little to the discussion, and the polar extremes are usually in this camp, because they don't want to discuss. And as I mentioned earlier, there is no 'party line' and anyone trying to create or promote such generalisations only serves to diminish their own argument.

I don't think so - it implies that he might actually be useful for something, and I'm not so sure.

Just the headline it seems, not the actual article. I know in the past when I used to write for the Echo, the headline was written by someone else, so that's probably what happened here, someone not reading it properly (and also clearly not knowing Saints' history).

Extremely harsh. Whilst we all follow Saints closely, there is no rule for how much we should follow other clubs, let alone leagues and countries! Everyone is entitled to an opinion based on their knowledge. I will happily comment on players I've seen, but won't on those I haven't, as in Hooper's case. I make no apologies for that, and it sure as hell isn't 'shocking'. It's just life.

Can anyone who has seen him play a bit, tell us some more about him? I too have to admit I know nothing about the player.

I don't think there's any such thing personally. I've been called it plenty of times, but usually because the person calling me it is at the opposite end of the spectrum to me. I'm an optimist, and some people simply can't handle that. Shame, but it's true. As with everything though, just saying 'Don't worry, everything will be fine' or 'We're doomed I tell you' mean little... the important stuff is the reasoning WHY someone feels that way, which allows us to get into decent debate. Without that reasoning, some people rely on labelling people to construct a non-existent argument.

I think one of the problems is that people consider SaintsWeb to be like a supporters group, or collection of fans, when it is effectively just a communication medium and portal. In general terms (not getting all statistical on you), the larger the group of fans, the more representative it will be, BUT that is the group of fans and NOT the loudest opinions made by that group, because as has been said, some people are significantly louder than others and they do tend to be the more annoying/less informed individuals. Most fans I know with a semblance of common sense and respect for others opinions are more likely to walk away from a thread once it degenerates into the usual crap, and so the quality debate is diluted.

Just skimmed this thread and the match reaction thread which clearly prompted it. Not got much to add really however: 1 - As much as I agree with much that has been written in response, it is a clear fact that if people simply ignored alps, or anyone they felt wasn't actually contributing anything constructive, then that would improve things far more than the poster concerned changing/not posting. 2 - The 'It's not what you say but how you say it' line fits best overall, but also to have discussion about anything needs people with different opinions to actually want to listen to a different opinion to their own, and respect it. It works both ways. 3 - One of the main things that causes problems is when people conjure up generalisations about perceived groups of forum members, like the 'bedwetters', or the 'happy clappy brigade', or try posting things like 'You lot said this', as though we are all in little groups with exactly the same opinions on certain things. It's a load of ********, and the more these labels are used or referred to, the more it devalues the opinion of anyone who uses it. Stick to replying to individuals and reply to specific points - less of the broad brush stuff. 4 - Finally, and most simply, treat others as you would expect to be treated yourself.

I don't know, I can't read minds. He obviously had an idea. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure what would've worked, but given we were down to 10 men, the odds were always against us. I'm not making excuses, nothing worked and part of that may well be down to Adkins, but if your criteria for judging a manager are 'Has he ever got something wrong?' then you're never going to be happy.

How about we ALL get back to the point of the thread? I've not heard Adkins say so much (as little as it was) about tactics and half time, in any interview ever. It should be obvious to most fans that sometimes it might not be the tactics that aren't working, but the players, but seemingly the Manager always takes the flak and it's rarely even considered that a player may not have played as he had been asked, and so this was indeed an interesting point that Adkins made. Overall, even when we don't play well, I've always felt that Adkins has, or can, identify why that was the case, and hence my faith in him remains unwavering. If that were to ever change I might worry. I would really love to hear what he says in the changing room and in training because I sense there is a fantastic tactical brain at work in there (perhaps sometimes he overthinks things, but I'd rather that than the alternative).

I think there have been a few good points made above, and personally, I do think he can repeat himself a bit, especially when he thinks something is wrong and needs changing. He has more experience than most of us and has obviously managed at the top level, but a lot has happened since he worked in football, and managers like Adkins spend a lot more time analysing the opposition and previous games, to come up tactics and plans to win games, than ever used to happen in Dave's day, and I'm not sure that Dave recognises that. He talks about tactics in quite a simplistic way - much like some fans - who seem to think that 'we should play 4-4-2 not 4-3-3' is all that is needed to turn a poor performance into a good one. It's never that simple and arguably someone like Dave should be the first to recognise that, but it comes across that he doesn't. I do get frustrated when listening to him sometimes because I don't think he tells me much more than the commentator actually does... there's little additional insight into what is happening on the pitch and, importantly from an ex-manager, why that is, which I would expect from an 'expert summariser'. I respect him a lot and am very grateful for his time at Saints. It is of course just his opinion, so I'm not going to criticise him for having one, but for me, I'd like a bit more from the co-commentator.

Me too, having listened back again, and it really mirrors my thoughts. There has been plenty of talk about 'back ups' for Lambert etc being signed, but actually it's all about signing better players, and even putting pressure on Lambert too if need be. We are in such a good position, lets get some real quality in to improve the squad and really go for it.

Gotta agree with Hypo here alps... it seems you are seeking out any possible negative from what was quite a normal, typical, Adkins-style interview response. He never gives anything of substance away and frankly it seems like nothing he says is going to placate you except 'Here is our new signing, Lionel Messi'. Simple fact of the matter are that: a) Nige wants to sign players to consolidate our position and ensure promotion, and b) We are working hard to do just that. Nothing more, nothing less, and anything else that you or anyone else reads into it is purely your own interpretation.

Thanks S-Clarke. Must admit, I didn't recall him saying 'But there's every chance' and I fully accept that makes it sound a lot more likely. Doesn't actually change anything from my earlier point though. Hopefully we will improve the squad, which is ultimately what we all want.

Just to clarify, Nigel said NO SUCH THING. He said something along the lines of (if someone can quote exactly, that would be ideal) "we might make a loan signing, a small signing or maybe even a major signing, but we are working hard behind the scenes to get people in'.

I don't believe so, he wouldn't be in the squad at all if NA felt he wasn't pulling in the same direction/on the bus. Holmes has ability, but today was entirely appropriate for younger players to get a run out IMO. I don't think we should look for problems that most likely aren't there.

Funny really, because if someone like Schneiderlin or Cork were put into the team that Magilton was put into, fans would probably reach the same blinkered conclusion. Magilton was a footballer in a team that didn't really play football. He looked to keep possession whilst the rest of the were ****-or-bust, throw the ball forward or defend for your lives. Of course that was partly down to management too, but Magilton's reputation amongst some fans was entirely unfair thanks mainly to the rest of the team at the time. All that said, I did chuckle at the 'sideways move' comment.

Personally I doubt Nige would want to bring in anyone who thought that - he is so big on it being a squad game that any player who vaguely felt they deserved to start no matter what, would cause problems in the squad. That's not to say he won't try to sign players who he thinks are *capable* of jumping straight into the first team, as I think they are exactly the players we need... quality players who improve what we've got. But they must have the right attitude.

Is this because you don't think the club are looking to bring someone in, or because you don't think we'll get the players that we target?

He was put on the spot, as happens with the media, and he gave a pretty good general answer IMO. I doubt anyone would be more disappointed that Nige himself if he didn't get in the players he wants. Personally, he didn't raise my expectations any more than they were already - being top of the league I fully expect us to *try* to consolidate that by making some signings to give us the best possible chance of promotion (which is pretty much exactly what Nige said) but I am also realistic enough to know that it doesn't always happen.

I think Holmes certainly has some quality but he needs a run in a side so a loan would be ideal initially and then make a judgement after that. NA pretty much said that he and Forte would be going out on loan, so we'll see what happens.

Twas ever thus - there is never any guarantee that will will actually sign players we're after, but it was clear that we are chasing several players and we can't ask for more than that right now.