You seem to be implying that Puncheon and Shaw coming good wasn't planned. Punch's emergence was far from miraculous; he'd made his amends and the manager put his faith in him. Shaw was clearly ready to be introduced into the first team, and so he was. A big part of management is getting the best out of the players you already have, and we did that very well. How you've managed to put a negative spin on that I'll never know.
At the end of the day, any signing is a gamble. But the Saints backroom staff have proven that they have the necessary skills to bring the best out of a player. I have a feeling Lovren will turn out to be class for us.
For me it was boruc and shaw. And subsequently Hooiveld's quasi redemption when Fox wasn't in the team. I think they really dropped the ball on those two positions. It was a risk taken and it came off. If Shaw had suffered more cramps at any time in the season or got injured like he does every time he went on U21 duty we'd have been screwed at LB and CB on many more occasions.
As usual, it is not as simple as that. It is not that Sotonist had a different opinion, it was the way he expressed it and defended it, which got people annoyed. This forum is very special, in that it happens to be a football forum without arguments breaking out left, right and centre. That isn't because we all agree but that we respect others opinions. Now, I didn't see the catalyst that sparked off the more established members here, but knowing them from experience, they won't have become annoyed easily. When Sotonist learns how to express his opinions in a manner that doesn't put people on edge then we'll all be able to discuss our different opinions together. Indeed, I believe he's getting the hang of it already anyhow, so this is just a retrospective comment, and I welcome him to the forum.
I wasn't trying to put a negative spin on anything. Obviously that was down to the coaches and Adkins, especially the Puncheon thing. But it was still a risk. In my opinion we spent 12million on a player we didn't truly need last season, when that could have been spent a lot more wisely. That's all I was trying to say. For what it's worth, I don't believe the Shaw thing was planned. I think they realised soon into the season that they had made a massive mistake in not signing a new left back. Relying on a 17 year old in the top flight is what can only be described as a massive gamble.
For the record I don't think I ever poo-pooed anyone's opinion about football or told an individual they know nothing about football. I may have taken umbrage at the way they took me to task, but they were rather aggressive and in numbers. I remain at a loss to the point at which people took offense at my posts and It's my opinion that it's just a bunch of people who can't accept that I wasn't impressed with their pet players. Oh and paranoia about WUMs. which is their watch, not mine.
The manager and his coaching staff watch the players train every day. I think they might have a decent idea of how good they are. If you're watching someone as talented as Luke Shaw training daily, I don't think there's much doubt in your mind that he's good enough. Not a risk at all.
Can't disagree with that. No way did they plan on starting Shaw this year. We were chasing Buttner don't forget, and we did start with Fox. I don't see anyone saying that Shaw isn't good enough, he's been superb but it was still unplanned. It has paid off though.
They did that with JWP though. I'd say starting him against City was throwing him in the deep end. If they'd spotted that Shaw was better than Fox then surely that wouldn't have mattered?
I'm often in a minority of having never rated fox from the beginning, in the championship. So I see it as a big failing that they carried on with him as the only back up to shaw Others won't. Of course the buttner thing didn't come off. so there was some effort.
I would argue that that's pretty much exactly what they did, albeit just a few games later. It became glaringly obvious that Fox was nowhere near adequate, so then we relied massively on Shaw. I get your point that they see Shaw every day, and will obviously know how good he is, but 17 is exceptionally young. He was too young to even sign a professional contract! I don't think that they knew he would have to be first choice from the start. I think they expected Fox to be better, which in my eyes was a huge mistake.
Because Cork was injured. Nerves. Fox had played in the Prem before, and he's not as bad as some people on here make out (though he can be bloody frustrating at times). There's no way Adkins could have showed up every day and not noticed Shaw's talent, but chucking a 17 year old straight into the action against Man City when he's never played a first team game before could be a little too much pressure. He would have preferred not to start JWP as well.
And Davis had a hernia op. though he played and scored in the first game so... not sure what my memory's doing there. He is. he really is. I'm in contact with Burnley fans. The last time he wasn't **** was at Coventry. He's got abilities to be a footballer. But not a left back.
I think Saints had a very good idea of how good Shaw was and they didn't try as hard as they might of to get Buttner. As it turns out, it alerted ManU to up their interest anyhow, and it's difficult to compete against that influence, at this present time. Posters seem to forget that Saints have always given a good quality youngster a real chance at the big time, and so they did with Shaw and Ward-Prowse. In truth though, they weren't taking huge risks. Anyone can now see how good both are, and they are all the better for being given their chances early on. They'll now be real assets, next season, rather than eternal bench warmers.
