Wes Tender

Exactly. Obviously there is little we can do to keep a player who is determined to leave, but increasingly it will be the case that provided we can stay in the Premiership and offer them football at a high level, they might prefer to stay here and play first team football rather than reserve football or bench-warming at some glory club. And as this policy of bringing on our academy players to play in our first team continues, they will enjoy the cameraderie of playing alongside their mates who they developed with. With a reputation now of bringing through some of the brightest names in English football within the past few years (and historically during decades before), now we are in the Premiership there is nothing stopping our players being selected for the National team either. Unless we can gain a better player by spending £12 million or so, as we did with Ramirez, why would we not save ourselves that expenditure if we have a player of that calibre already here? If we are offered stupid money and the player wants to move on, then fair enough. But if the player is happy to stay, why wouldn't we want to keep him? In another article, it is suggested that there are three other players additionally to Luke Shaw that Manchester United ought to look at:- http://www.sabotagetimes.com/football-sport/luke-shaw-and-three-more-youngsters-fergie-should-prise-from-southampton/ If all four of them can play together in the first team, together with other young talented players like Ramirez, Clyne, Cork, Gazzaniga?, that would be wonderful to see.

Talk about an over reaction to a bit of banter on an internet forum.

There is an error on Wikipedia then, and you're just the person to put them right.

Perhaps a little light entertainment on the eve of our match against the Canaries is in order.

We certainly could do with some decent back-up in case the current four are injured or suspended. It remains to be seen whether in January we can get in players of a higher calibre than our current defence, (who are improving match by match), but if we can, then it increases competition for a place in the team and increases the options for squad rotation and substitutions too.

I wonder whether this guy realises that Nigel Adkins has qualifications in Sports Psychology? Whether he knows or not, he is certainly pretty impressed with how Adkins applies it.

Yoshida is improving with every game, but so are all of the defence. Shaw is still just a kid and as well as starting him this season, Yoshida, Clyne and Gazzaniga are also new to the team, so not unnatural that they will take some time to gel together. I agree that Fonte has improved playing alongside Yoshida. Shaw adds balance to Clyne as they are both fast backs who can foray forwards, but quick enough to track back as cover. Although Gazzaniga showed signs of nerves earlier, he also seems to be growing and the other players appear to be increasingly comfortable with him behind them. We could do with more cover for each of them in January, but this back four don't look to be that far off a decent improving defence.

Ah, the chuckle brothers. They must tweet each other to alert one another when they post.

Where do I say that Adkins has done nothing wrong this season? I don't have the reasons behind his decision not to start Lambert on occasions, his reasoning behind playing J Rod out wide, the reason for tactical substitutions. Because of that, I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he must have his reasons based on inside knowledge and experience. Regrettably, others are not so understanding or far readier to condemn when things don't go according to plan.

Undoubtedly there was a lot of amateur dramatics involved from their player. It really was laughable the way that he eventually got up and hobbled theatrically and if he was a horse, he would have risked being shot. But thankfully for all who hold him dear, the injury was nowhere near career or life threatening and after a few more minor hobbles when he got up and tried to re-enter the game, he was soon running about like a newborn lamb.

Yet another one who has zero information to assist his opinion, but as usual, that is not going to be a factor in him making it anyway. Chelsea message boards, NC's employment of managers, better managers out there than Adkins, his interview technique - you're all over the place, just like a mad professor, really. But on your last point, I give up. Adkins has deliberately deployed players out of position, substituted others and not played his best side for no apparent reason, or was it just to annoy those fans who know better than him how to manage a team?

I think that DPS is getting it in the neck for a couple of reasons. Apart from the fact that it is impossible to judge how the season might pan out based on only a few games anyway, what gets up other posters noses is the suggestion that he makes, based on no inside knowledge of factors that might affect them, that decisions made by Adkins have directly contributed to our poor start and should result in him being sacked. Even more ludicrous is the suggestion that he and some others were able to suss out these strategical shortcomings after just 5 games, three of which were against three of the top four in the division and another that we actually won. And then he has the gall to claim that now that Adkins has addressed these shortcomings that he, DPS, is vindicated and was right all along. And yet he admits that he doesn't know the reasons why Lambert didn't start some matches, whether he was fully fit for example, does not know what the strategical thinking was behind J Rod playing out wide, does not know this information about any other players in the squad, but is nevertheless confident that it qualifies him to make better decisions than an experienced manager who has dealings with the players on a daily basis and sees them perform on the training ground. The fact that key players were absent through injury is not accepted as a reason for our poor start, so not accepted either now that they have returned and allowed Adkins more latitude and have resulted in improved performances. And anybody who points out all this, is burying their heads in the sand.

You said that you and some others had sussed out the manager's shortcomings in just 5 matches. What you and they said was plainly not right. In fact it was a load of rubbish. If you think that despite your opinions being demolished as such, those who not accept them are buying their heads in the sand, then you are plainly deluded. Yes changes have taken place and things have improved. But that is because of changes brought about in players' availability and playing against easier opposition, rather than some brilliant insight that you have about the manager's shortcomings which he has belatedly compensated for, having read your thoughts on here.

You're right. Not having the inside information about players' fitness levels, whether they are carrying an injury, whether they have the stamina to last 90 minutes, whether they are part of a tactical decision to exploit a rival team's weaknesses, or their substitutions, a lack of knowledge of these things precludes me from making a realistic judgement on the manager's performance. I can express an opinion, sure. As can you. But if you are challenged on your opinion because the basis of it has no grounding of the reasons why Adkins made a team selection, played a formation, made substitutions and the timing of them, then the weakness of your argument is shown up as just conjecture. But to call for Adkins' head so early based on this conjecture was ridiculous. The return of Cork and Ramirez has enabled Adkins to play the formation we have now. Also helpful have been the inclusion of Shaw and the renaissance of Puncheon. Without these factors, I don't believe that we could play this formation anywhere near so effectively. I would even go as far as to say that had we had this team, with this experience they have now, we might well have won a few more of those matches had we played them again now.

I'm really impressed that "a lot of you" had the sheer brilliance to identify in just 5 games why we had not managed to beat Manchester City, Wigan, Manchester United, Arsenal and Aston Villa. Oh. Sorry, we did beat Aston Villa rather convincingly, yet it was one of the first 5 games that had enabled you to challenge Adkins' ability. The fact that three of the other teams were part of the division's glory teams, leads me to ponder whether you realistically expected us to beat any of them. And yet you and "a lot of others" were able to produce a succinct and intelligent appraisal of where our manager had got it so wrong. What a shame that he doesn't have the benefit of your insight and has to rely instead on his first hand knowledge of the players, their fitness, their mental attitude and general ability.

Quote: DPS: You're being sarcastic, right?

As you have posted this exact same post on the Adkins' decisions thread, I'll post my response to that on here too. And as you've posted no defence of your opinion there, I'll ask for a response here instead. How do you know what factors affect Adkins' decisions? It will be interesting and instructive to know the extent of your inside knowledge that enables you to second guess Adkins' decisions and to reason why in retrospect they were wrong.

Yes, of course it does. I've predicted before the first ball was kicked this season that we will finish in 10th. That was just a gut-reaction, a bit of fun, the equivalent of placing a bet at the bookies. But I've not been revising my prediction because of a few reverses against the division's top teams. And I haven't been calling for the manager's head or predicting relegation on the strength of results obtained after just a third of the season. That really would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? As ridiculous as writing off Mo Farah in the 10,000 metres at the 3,000 metre mark on the basis that he's at the back of the field.

Posters can crow if their predictions either way this early on in the season prove to be correct. Some might have to eat humble pie, while others can gloat. But in reality, nobody can predict how the season will pan out this early on, so those with more sense realise that and don't indulge in knee-jerk reactions when either things go wrong, or when there is an upturn, because they might look stupid at the end of the season as a result. Even if you are proved right and wish to gloat about it, then your predictions will owe much more to luck than intelligent prescience.

Yes, the officials' performance was abysmal. Sometimes from throws given the wrong way, or corners awarded the wrong way, or penalties denied, valid goals being disallowed, or cards issued wrongly, matches can be won or lost. Thank God that didn't come to pass because of the incompetance of the match officials at least, or else there would have been a mighty uproar from us.

Exactly. The season is a long hard slog and there is still the transfer window in January where adjustments can be made to improve us. Far too early to draw any credible conclusions from a difficult start to the season against very strong opposition early on.

What I find funniest is that some posters were prepared to draw their own conclusions as to Adkins's ability to manage in the Premiership based on factors where they had no real understanding of the reasons for those decisions he made which they criticised. Most accepted the points being made, but disputed their validity, which they are entitled to do on a forum of opinions. Let's just take your list as an example; you say that there were strange team selections, changing formations and substitutions that you disagreed with. So did you have inside information regarding the fitness of the squad, their mental attitude, or whether players were chosen to counteract strengths, or exploit weaknesses in their opponent's team? Should we play the same formation every game throughout the season and then make it easy for a rival manager to exploit it because we are so predictable? Again, different formations suit the different players available to play them and are also determined by the formation that the opposition are playing. Do you also know the reasons for the substitutions? Were players carrying knocks? Were they becoming overtired? Were some made to counteract substitutions made by our opponents, or were they tactical? We took off arguably our two best players at 76 and 78 minutes yesterday. But we managed to win despite that. It is very easy to look at a string of results and call for the manager's head, but much more difficult to justify it with credibility, unless one has the facts that brought about the results. I very much doubt that we are winning because we are starting Lambert every game, not playing J Rod on the wing and stopped taking off our best players, etc. I suspect that it has a lot more to do with us having available two key players back from injury like Cork and Ramirez, a more settled defence who are starting to develop an understanding of each others strengths and weaknesses, growing confidence gained from playing teams who are closer to us in the table rather than the division's top teams and players adapting gradually to the increased pace and pressures in the Premiership.

Stirling work, CanadaSaint. No doubt there will be some of the same suspects who will need reminding of their original opinions at the end of the season if we stay in the Premiership this year with Adkins still at the helm.

A brilliant result. 10/10's for several of the players today; there really wasn't a weak performance from any of them. I am hard-pressed to nominate the MOTM, because Puncheon, Ramirez, Clyne, Cork would have a good shout at it and others might be nominated where a case could be made for them too. OK, being realistic, this was a great time to play Newcastle, when they had played in Europe a few days ago and also had some key players out injured or suspended. But when we had key players like Cork and Ramirez out injured, few accepted that as a valid excuse for us, so why should it count for them? I believe that tactically Adkins out-thought Pardew today and the team out-fought them. Interesting to read the OPTA stats before the match that had Newcastle as the team which played the highest percentage of long balls. This has been a good tactic where they have two very fast and mobile strikers like Cisse and Ba to run onto a perfectly weighted long ball, but they were without the key players like Guttierez and Ben Arfa to supply them. A lot of their passing was very wayward and bread and butter for our midfield to mop-up and start counter-attacks. We also played a high line defensively which was highly effective. We hit the post three times, had a couple of penalty shouts, had what looked like a decent goal from Rodrigues ruled out, so it could have been 5/6 goals. The referee was poor, but I can hardly remember a linesman quite as poor as the one on the right side line in the second half, where he awarded at least two throw-ins to them which were blatantly ours. The support was pretty good and lovely to hear Nigel's name chanted so loudly by all sections of our fans. Perhaps we have turned a corner and settled on a good team selection and formation that is balanced and effective. Our passing and movement these past three matches has been superb. Where Cortese had expected Saints to become a team playing football which would come to be known as "the Saints way", I believe that we are beginning to see glimpses of what that will look like. Playing as well as that, we would have given any team in the Premiership a game today. Norwich and their style of play will be a good test of where we can be this season.

Do you think this might be him? https://www.facebook.com/barry.sanchez.73