Tough one. I think maybe my age at the time would have dictated my feelings. So much has changed, at our club and within football itself. I don't know really. What I do know, is that I absolutely loved the game and now it's gone. It's gone.
The main problem as stated in earlier posts is the isolation of Campbell and Bowen, coupled with the midfielders protecting the back four lying far too deep. The solution seems so obvious but Adkins knows as we all do that the defence is so poor that without that protection we’d be paggered. I’d rather see Bowen up front with Campbell/Dicko/Keane, Evandro playing in centre mid with Batty alongside him, Milo hugging the touch line and Irvine in front of back four. No room for Marcus, undoubtedly talented but can’t tackle and spends most of the game almost holding hands with Marshall. If we were to get loans in, arf, we need at least two physical players to rough the opposition up as we are far too lightweight compared to other teams.
Think Adkins should just say to the players "what is your preferred position" and just go with it, assuming he has every position covered of course. Surely if players are playing where they feel comfortable and most effective in a formation they have agreed on it makes sense. Mind you I know nothing about football, positions, formations etc .
All I can do is read reports form people at the ground. As I said, strikes me that Adkins is getting away with one by talking about leaving. You make FULL use of what you have in a way that makes you as effective as you can be. Patently, HE'S NOT, whether he's been dealt a bad hand or otherwise. The best form of defence is attack and thats what he's done in his interview.
Good post. But where was Growshitski? Came on on Tuesday. I'd have played him. No mention of him been injured. Just batty and Burke injured. Does he have it in his contract he gets a pay rise for playing a league game??? Is that why Adkins was so quiet on the touchline? Not been allowed to pick who he wants.
I don't think of it as funding them, because £21 a month is relative pence to them. I'd rather pay them the 4p or whatever they probably get from it in cash and see my team play than sit at home because they're being ****s. There was a lad I was at school with who was a total ****. But he always threw the best parties at his enormous house. I hated the prick (and filled him in once for trying it on with my then girlfriend) but I still went to his parties. I'm not going to stop going just because the owners are twats, that isn't the fault of the players (except maybe Henriksen and Marshall) or the staff. They shouldn't have to trot out in front of a dwindling crowd, even if they do know why. Everybody is entitled to do as they wish and I certainly wouldn't tell anybody how to support their team. I get where you're coming from, but not going, to me anyway, feels like I'm abandoning the lads. And I won't ever do that.
I see both sides of the staying away / going argument and each to their own . I still go as I enjoy watching the footie on a Saturday afternoon , tho must admit my wife is looking for evening and weekend work and I have told her not to worry if she has to work Saturday afternoons as I will just cancel and look after the nipper. Never would have said that a few years ago .
I'm with him. Everyone who goes to games is seen by the Allams as backing them with maybe a minority of "hooligans" chanting against them. If everyone boycotted and stopped going with like 2 or 3 hundred in the stadium then the message would ring out loud and clear and they would be open to national ridicule. At the moment those fans still attending -putting their own selfish needs before the long term good of the club - are just making us look like a poorly attended club. A proper boycott would shame the Allams and that is our only effective weapon, wholesale shame and embarrassment. At the moment they are laughing at us and rightly so, feeding us a diet of ****e and we appear only to eager to lap it up.
So you think your own reasons for attending are more important than a wholesale boycott of the club which just could result in hounding the Allams out? I think the "No-one is gonna stop me from attending" attitude is like the "scabs" in the miners strike and a bit selfish and to the Allams appears to be endorsing them. IMHO of course.
Whereas an empty stadium would tell everybody...what? The national viewpoint is that they are ****ers, everybody now knows that. If you want to spite the owners by staying away, do it. You don't have the grounds to stand there and say that people are selfish for going. What does that make the players who are out on the pitch? Unfortunate casualties of war? Do they deserve to be boycotted? We're already a poorly attended club. Even if the Allams went, we wouldn't sell out the ground, especially if we went down to League 1. Personally I think the protesting is best done in the stadium (although not in terms of disrupting the team on the pitch), where it hurts. And by your reckoning, it would open them up to further ridicule; great, as if they weren't spiteful enough, imagine what ridiculing them more would do? We want them to leave, that's the bottom line. Not going isn't going to speed that process up or slow it down. They don't care either way whether Seat 54, Row F in the South Stand is filled or not, why would they? You think they think "Oh man, they're not turning up, we'd better leave?" If anything, they're going to stay longer to try and fix the problem (or in reality, spite us further). If you're there calling them out on their doorstep, it hits home harder. If you don't turn up, they could just as easily claim that you can't be bothered to go.
Still amazes me how he hasn't had his head caved in , wish I had the bottle to do it but I don't . Thought some nutjob would have taken one for the team by now
