Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YellowNets1901

Did Adams use his games in charge to showcase himself?

Recommended Posts

A few people I''ve spoken to share this view, especially at Chelsea and against Arsenal. At Chelsea we needed the win, but Adams set up for the draw and seemed happy with a point.

Same against Arsenal. It was time to go two upfront and just absolutely go for it, for the fans, a bit of entertainment in the final game of what was a horrible season. However, we went with Johan upfront on his own. The only reason I can see for this was Adams wanting to show what HE could do, not what the players could do.

To a certain extent I feel you can''t blame Neil here, but it also gives off a sense of desperation too. In my eyes, he didn''t just have the clubs interests at heart, he also had his own. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don''t understand the comment about Arsenal, he set up the team to maximise the chances for City to get a win or a draw, what else should the manager of a sports team do ?  Maybe some people would have preferred a nice open game with them winning 6-2, but not me.

 

As for Chelsea it''s just a different view on what would have maximised our chances of winning. 

 

The approach he took of keeping it tight to the end gave us a couple of good chances which unfortunately the players didn''t take.  If he''d opened it up by throwing on a second striker, it would certainly have created plenty of chances for Chelsea to score.  I personally doubt it would have created more chances for City to score (while the score was still 0-0) than we got with the approach NA took.  So I think it''s naive to say we should''ve "gone for it" more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm? [^o)]

 

I''ve never looked at it this way, it seems harsh tbh,  but I will give it some more thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, because the most effective way for him to "showcase himself" would be winning games and keeping us up. I think he set up to give us the best chance of doing that, in his opinion. I don''t blame him at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he got the tactics spot on against Chelsea and he blindsided Mourinho. Jose expected him to go gung-ho, it is why he played the team he did. But when at half time he realised he was going to need to unlock a tight defence he made the two changes and applied the pressure. Had we gone for it as many were calling for we would almost certainly have got a round thrashing. We could have nicked it with those half chances, but had we lost we would have been relegated there and then. There is maybe a case for strengthening up front in the last 10 minutes but again we would have left ourselves exposed in midfield- exactly where Chelsea like to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interestingly I have been told that was the accusation of the panel on the ''Unbelievable Geoff'' show on Sky when reviewing our performances under Adams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it is harsh. It''s just something I''d been considering since Sunday. And to the person who asked if I''d prefer to see us lose 6-2 rather than watch the game we saw - yeah I''d have preferred 6-2 to be honest. Excitement is something we haven''t seen at Carrow Road since PAUL LAMBERT (the manager who many fans feel they can''t mention) left the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely Yellows. I thought the attitude and performance in general was a disgrace. It was like watching a Hughton team. Slow build up, Howson not used to his strengths and wingers used so crosses delayed and going behind our one striker. Any pace we have not used effectively.

Apart from that I thoroughly enjoyed the game !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who knows?

I would only say that the "defensive" strategy nearly worked at Stamford Bridge. With a ref who couldn''t see what happened before his eyes and a right winger who can''t shoot with his right foot, we came close to grabbing three points.It was defensive, but from Mourinho''s reaction it succeeded in stifling the Chelsea rapid counter-attack policy. With such a slow defence as ours, we could have been cut to pieces?

The Arsenal game was disappointing, and Adams admitted that he couldn''t explain why they were so flat. I was surprised to see only one striker, and that Elmander, but given that neither Hooper nor RvW were likely to score the only options were Elmander and Becchio. It has to be remembered that players other than the two main strikers have scored five times as many goals this season as the two strikers, I could see a logic. Elmander was a target man to provide chances for the rest of the team, - not so extreme as, was it West Ham?, who played games with no strikers at all earlier in the season.

If Adams is not appointed permanently, it will be down to lack of experience, I think. His tactics and selection were understandable, and in some ways brave. I''m sure that he was and is hoping to get the job, but I doubt that everything was about self-promotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my view, there is certainly possibly to claim that Adams was trying to show what he could to as a tactician, to show he is man enough for the job.

I suspect he knew we would go down all the way.

Unlucky at Fulham, but should have tried more in the last 10 at Chelsea. Playing Elmander and Johnson against Arsenal was hapless, and insulting to the fans. Elmander is a loan player, will not be here next season, and he leaves out contracted player in the final game of the season, in a meaningless game.

What other than being egoistic is the explanation? What other than "this is Neil Adams trying to stiffle the great Wenger" can be the explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no he didn''t ,when he was celebrating at the end of the chelsea game he just looked like a fool. not good enough get rid. should have had a go against arsenal but set up for a draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has been suggested before, and if he did, then he failed miserably didnt he......as he actually probably achieved less than CH would have done when looking back over the games he was in charge (oh controversial).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Merson said it so it must be true...

But it''s nonsense. If ''really going for it'' is the way to beat a team like Chelsea, why don''t all teams do that all the time? He set us up the most realistic way by defending well and trying to nick a goal - and almost succeeded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he did about the best he could do, under difficult circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KC....but its not about going for it from the start of the match. Sure his tactics were spot on for the most part, BUT we needed a win to stay up bar a miracle, and with ten minutes to go it was clear to everyone, well almost everyone, that we should have gone for it big time, even risking defeat........he failed and didnt have the b a lls to go for it, something CH was often accused of. Better going for it then playing for a draw, which it did appear we were doing, all a bit bizaar really. 

But, I too feel he did do his best under difficult circumstances, and it just wasnt good enough, which was unfortunate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The character ''Splutcho'' reckons we''d have picked up at least fifteen points if Adams had worn women''s clothing during his short stint at the helm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...