Minty

I'm gonna repost this here because I think it's relevant. On the match thread, someone asked why Adkins 'gets it so wrong and leaves it so long to change it', and this was my reply:

Who the f*ck are you? :-P

This nicely highlights many of the problems we have at the moment, but not in a way you might think. It highlights why some fans' black-and-white thinking (and often Dave Merrington's too) means they make fools of themselves. Nigel Adkins always has a plan. He watches the opposition, he sends a team and formation out to do a job. He changes things, he tries things, and he is always analysing what is going on. Sometimes it works nicely. Sometimes, the opposition don't play as Nigel might have expected, sometimes Saints' don't play quite how he intended or players having a poor game mean we don't do the job intended. Sometimes luck plays a part. That's football. Stuff happens, things change. It is never a question of simply getting something 'right' or 'wrong'. That only happens in hindsight. Nigel will get stuff wrong, but everything he does is done for a reason and I would rather someone like him in charge to get us out of a bad patch, rather than rely on luck of a chequebook. He has earnt our trust IMO. And when the going gets tough, it is even more important to recognise this.

Clearly my arrival on the thread turned the game around...

Yeah, and got the Beeb match page open, I just like to hear (most of) the balanced comments and descriptions from fans on here to get more of a flavour.

At work, can't have any audio. Thanks to those giving more detailed and constructive summaries...

So, anyone want to actually comment on the game for those of us with no access to any commentary...?

I think we've missed Chaplow's intensity more than any lack of depth upfront recently, but I do agree that there is a lack of depth in our attack. I tend to look at it as an opportunity however. Few of us would argue that, on paper, a strikeforce of Lambert, Connelly, Barnard, Guly is a poor selection, but injuries have ruled out that choice for most of the season. Form has been intermittent for some players, only Lambert has performed consistently well and Guly has chipped in with a lot of goals too. So, the way I see it, we should simply be looking to sign better players. We should NEVER be looking for an understudy or back-up for any player, we should always be looking for better. If we find someone then initially they'll probably play alongside Lambert, but in due course, the competition for places, and perhaps injuries or as we find now, with suspension, may mean that this new player can replace Lambert in his hold up/link up role, alongside a second striker. It may be that we end up changing our style or patterns of play a bit too, and I have no problem with that. Indeed I would welcome it. Lambert has been first choice for some time and so naturally we play to his strengths, but if this enforced change means we develop more depth to our tactics, as well as hopefully to our squad through some signings of better players, then it's a win/win situation. Above all else however, I fully trust in Adkins to do the job. He has earnt that.

If we're looking purely at the player, then the conversion rate of shots to goals would be the best benchmark, surely?

You missed out the "(Fact)" from the end...

No one has actually said that... Most people on this thread have been quite balanced and said that stats can be interesting and contribute to the bigger picture. You're 100% right about mentality and adaptability etc. Anyone who think stats tell the whole picture is clearly wrong.

I agree with all of that, and I certainly like seeing stats like these, but as to whether it would improve the level of discussion or understanding on the forum, or amongst fans, I think that's a bit hopeful... some people won't change their mind, no matter what the stats say.

Stats help develop a picture, but you can't make any final judgements based on them alone. A good point was made above about a winger laying on chances that aren't taken... the stats would not show how productive the winger has been because his chances weren't converted. That's why, to make real judgements on players you need to have seen all their games, combined with the various stats, and now managers have ProZone which tells them far, far more than any of us will ever have access to. For all the discussion about goals and assists, the key one for me is conversion rate... and ultimately, as Rabbit says, points won.

Ahem...

This has nothing to do with left or right, so don't try and drag it down that route. I don't know of one person, left, centre, right or you, who agrees with this strike.

The perceived quality of the song and how funny it is or isn't, wasn't the point, but never mind. I thought it was quite amusing, nothing more, but then we all have different comedy tastes. I just can't believe ITV think it needed to be edited out.

Nope, but that was also football, a fairly recent Dorchester Town game: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_conf/9418641.stm

Same here actually... walked past slightly earlier to see that it was a delayed KO but knew nothing more at that time, then walked back past to see events unfold. I also used the one near the Bargate before jumping on the number 58 or 59 bus home.

I'm not going to defend the way Andy has made his points, but I have to admit that in general terms, I have grown up to learn that I shouldn't use the term 'coloured'. I've never actually know why, because I always felt similarly to many of you above, that it was being used purely in broad descriptive terms (just as 'white' is), and just because it has been used in racist ways by others in the past, doesn't mean it always is. Here's a BBC article from 2006 about it with some background: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6132672.stm Personally I think the only way to avoid this kind of scenario is to solely use descriptions of ethnicity, i.e. Afro-Caribbean, African British, and that if we're not sure, to perhaps describe people as being from 'various ethnic backgrounds', but I would not seek to punish anyone who uses a term when it is CLEARLY not intended to be used in any kind of racist way. They say ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the law, but actually, given how much things change in this world, I don't think anyone can be criticised for genuinely not realising that a term *may* cause offence like Hansen.

I've not found anyone who agrees with them on this. There are some negotiations which are borderline, some which you think 'that's a bit hopeful' but their demands are ridiculous IMO.

A few threads about censorship and offence being caused recently, but this one is ridiculous IMO. The following song, written especially for the show and taking the TV audience into account, has been cut from the final edit of tomorrow nights show. It's not even that edgy. If someone made the same comparisons and jokes in a stand up routine, no one would care. Very stupid IMO. Here's Tim's blog about it: http://www.timminchin.com/2011/12/22/im-not-on-the-jonathan-ross-show/ Anyone find it offensive?!?

Whereas I actually think he makes the programme.

Anyone listen to Jack FM? There's an advert on there for some furniture place with what I assume is supposed to be an impression of Michael McIntyre. Now to some people, the original is annoying, but this advert is f*cking awful, not even close to his voice, and you can't even hear what he's advertising. At least annoying adverts that stick in your head have kinda done their job (POSH windows anyone?) but this is shocking. Anyone else heard it?

£8/£9 depending on where I go.

Dream on indeed. Happened to someone I know, went through paperwork for 10/11 and 09/10, and seemed clear that they were due a few hundred quid rebate, but HMRC wrote back asking for details going back to 07/08 and it turned out a previous employer had used an incorrect tax code and so said person nwo owes HMRC £750. Ultimately it is of course money that should've been paid at the time and so there can be no argument about it, but it's bloody annoying if it happens.