Adams is derided because he IS a known quantity.

[Canary02 IV 0]

I think the way the manager search has panned out has left the board and Neil Adams in the worst possible light but if things had gone differently it could have looked a more promising appointment.

Had they left Hughton in charge to take us down for the last 5 games and then had a manager search only to conclude that Adams was the best candidate I think there would have been an air of cautious optimism as we waited to see what Adams had in his locker. The problem is that we''ve already had a preview.

Most of the "Holier than Thou''s" who scream at anyone for daring to discuss decisions, deride criticism of the appointment based on the mantra "Give the guy a chance", or "You can''t blame him for being inexperienced, everyone has to start somewhere, Mike Walker etc".

I think most of the fans I have spoken to who are critical of the decision are not against giving a young promising coach a go. It''s the fact that he has had a go and he was fairly unimpressive.

Man Utd and Arsenal were Hughtonesque performances. There were uncontrollable influences to be fair (The Giggs effect and the Dead Rubber feeling) but uninspiring to say the least. Fulham we played marginally better for a half. Chelsea was a well-parked bus, but, as Mourinho so rightly pointed out, it made no sense to not risk going for it at the end. Yes we got a point but it made a more positive effect on Neil Adams'' cv than it did on our chances of staying up which I found concerning when looking at the motives of settling for a point. Liverpool was the one game that Adams did manage well. People moan about conceding two early goals, but that was down to great play from lethal opposition and some iffy decision making from defenders, but the fact that Adams made changes that allowed us to fight our way back in gave me hope that he may be flexible enough tactically to give us a chance. Overall though, in the cold light of day at the end of the season, was it enough? I don''t personally think so. As much as there is potential there, he has already set his stall by the players that he used to get him the job.

When I look at next season, I see Snodgrass (probably installed as captain) as being the focal point once again. However hard he works he is a forward player that has played nearly every game, and has created precisely 2 assists all season despite being involved in the vast majority of attacking play. I''m not blaming Snoddy, but the team clearly tries to get him the ball as much as possible and that clearly doesn''t work. If he is still here next season, they will undoubtedly revert to type and we''ll struggle again.

The other issue I foresee is that Johnson and Tettey were also favourites under Adams but we can''t create when we have two players in midfield that are unable to pass the ball. Tettey has an exceptional pass completion ratio because he only passes five yards to the side or back. Whilst I commend him for not losing the ball by trying to do something he can''t how many times have we seen him nick the ball in midfield (as he does so well) only to fail to slide through a straightforward throughball to a breaking striker or winger, simply because he doesn''t have that in his locker? Johnson can pass on occasion but his distribution has always been abominably inconsistent. We cannot, if we want to play attacking football, continue with the two of these in midfield together. One ball winner who can''t pass you can get away with but not two. My concern, based on the teams he as picked and comments he''s made, is that Adams is already pencilling "Tettey, Johnson, Snodgrass" in as three of his starters next season.

Perhaps I, and the majority of fans, are wrong, and that Adams will be the man the board hopes he is. He has had to manage players he hasn''t necessarily wanted himself and mould a system to suit them for five games, rather than play the system he would want with players that fit that system. If he has a successful summer and can make that squad his own he''ll have a chance. I do worry that he seems enamoured with players who are part of the problem rather than part of the solution however. The team needs to reinvent the style of play, not pick people whose names look good on paper.

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

I do find some of the anti-Adams stuff interesting, and there does seem to be a certain re-writing of what was said by many at the time - after the fulham loss, and indeed most of the matches, nearly all the posts on here were very favourable about Adams/tactics etc, for example being more attacking, willing to make changes etc. I was more critical and in a huge minority - results at the time were far more important than anything - but we were shouted down.

Now everyone seems to have swung into dismissive mode, but I find myself on the other side again! - it is not the appointment I''d have had of choice, but we know very little of what has gone on, and never will.

Now that Adams has been given the gig we have (no real option but) to wait and see what happens - he may well prove to be an extremely shrewd appointment, this is something that only time will tell us. I can''t really see the point in bleating on here about how bad it is when we haven''t even given the guy a chance to prove himself.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,513]

Would you honestly expect any of the other possibilities on the table to have been that impressive going into it with only five games to go with no prior warning and inheriting a squad thoroughly conditioned into playing a certain way all season? Say for the sake of argument we could have nabbed Harry Redknapp and he''d come in with all his proven experience with five games to go and not kept us up, would we still be horrified that he got the permanent job, bearing in mind that he had over half a season and a transfer window with a blank cheque at his disposal to turn things round at QPR last season.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,513]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]I do find some of the anti-Adams stuff interesting, and there does seem to be a certain re-writing of what was said by many at the time - after the fulham loss, and indeed most of the matches, nearly all the posts on here were very favourable about Adams/tactics etc, for example being more attacking, willing to make changes etc. I was more critical and in a huge minority - results at the time were far more important than anything - but we were shouted down.

Now everyone seems to have swung into dismissive mode, but I find myself on the other side again! - it is not the appointment I''d have had of choice, but we know very little of what has gone on, and never will.

Now that Adams has been given the gig we have (no real option but) to wait and see what happens - he may well prove to be an extremely shrewd appointment, this is something that only time will tell us. I can''t really see the point in bleating on here about how bad it is when we haven''t even given the guy a chance to prove himself.[/quote]

Very well said.

[ROKERITE 0]

I would question how much of a known quantity a manager is after FIVE matches.

I remember Brian Talbot getting the WBA job some years ago after winning his first five matches in charge.

It all went horribly wrong after that. MO''N won something like 14 of his first 20 matches in charge of us and 7 of his next 40.

ONE whole season is hardly enough to judge a manager on. FIVE matches most certainly is not.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="littleyellowbirdie"] Say for the sake of argument we could have nabbed Harry Redknapp and he''d come in with all his proven experience with five games to go and not kept us up, would we still be horrified that he got the permanent job, bearing in mind that he had over half a season and a transfer window with a blank cheque at his disposal to turn things round at QPR last season.[/quote]To be fair, now that really IS a red herring, LYB. Firstly HR would never have taken a job in those circumstances. And secondly, he certainly IS a known quantity. Years of experience at all levels of the English game . Not Adams''s fault, but he hardly falls into that level of ''known quantity-ness''.

[Canary02 IV 0]

I''m not for a second saying we don''t get behind him and give him our backing. Obviously we give him every benefit of the doubt and start the season in as positive frame of mind as possible.

I just think it''s worth pointing out the reasoning behind a lot of people''s thinking, and it''s not just based on lack of managerial experience or the fact that he''s an internal appointment. There are a couple of worrying points from his short spell (Chelsea settling, reliance on certain players) albeit mitigated with commendable tactical cajones in the Liverpool game in particular.

There''s no reason he can''t put those doubts to bed this summer and I dearly hope he will.

[Ray 111]

Neil Adams took on a team (not his team) that had spent two years dropping to the level it was at, no way could he have turned around all that had gone on in the previous 24 months in 5 games. It''s akin to having a serious illness that had taken a number of years to manifest itself and expecting one visit to the doctors to be the cure all. There is what is known as, the healing process and that can be just as painful as the onset of the illness itself, all the toxicity that has built up has to be got rid of and that can be a drawn out uncomfortable process.

That said I am hoping NA has the atrributes to heal our pain, I think he does. I was quiet excited about that fact we are to get a Technical Director (quite deliberately not called a DOF!), hoping this would be someone with years of experience, with contacts and a name that would command respect throughout the game, someone who NA could turn to for advice and assistance, in short a mentor/sounding board for Neil. However the more I hear from the Board, it appears this may not be the case, it appears, especially as they have stated there are internal candidates, that this is not how they see the role, it appears that this role rather than being similar to a ''mentor'' is more akin to a PA and this person will have even less (if any) experience than NA.

All that said, I have no animosity toward NA or the new TD, whoever that may be. I''m sure they will be giving it their all and I sincerely hope that once NA has had a chance to sort the wheat from the chaff, in other words kept who he thinks has the right attitude for the fight to come, and bought in, or up through the ranks, those he thinks will strengthen our squad, we will be in with a fighting chance, it''s just that I firmly believe if the TD role is more a PA role than mentor then the Board have missed an opportunity.

[Salopian 1]

Canary02 suggested " It''s the fact that he has had a go and he was fairly unimpressive."

I would contest most of that, unless by unimpressive you mean "Didn''t perform an impossible miracle". He had a completely demoralised squad, with leading players who seemed to have given up - Fer and Bassong, for instance, strikers who were the worst in the Premiership, midfielders who couldn''t pass and defenders prone to errors. The fact that having been the better team at Fulham we failed to convert our chances yet again clearly didn''t help. Above all, we had decided early on in the season that the last four game were going to be very difficult, and in the event the four top teams were far from being on the beach, and we effectively finished Chelsea''s hopes of the Premiership.

The team commented on the new training at high tempo, which they enjoyed, and most people saw the new intelligence and real tactics and substitutions. If Mick Dennis is right, that he also had to deal with a couple of disciplinary problems, and the Board felt that he handled things well.

Time will tell how well he will do with a squad of his own choosing. Although in the circumstances he couldn''t work the miracle, he gave a good account of himself and gave me some hope of much better things to come, and I know others on this board who feel the same.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

I''d agree with a good deal of that Salopian.In the end, football wise, we have to start with an essentially blank canvas with NA, as the events of the last 5 games is wholly unrepresentative of what lies ahead.I personally have grave misgivings about the logic behind his appointment. I believe it is short sighted and based on money. But it is an appointment we are stuck with, for better or worse. as you say, we''ll just have to wait and see how things pan out, but the period late April/early May is an irrelevance in that.

[Guest]

[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"]I''d agree with a good deal of that Salopian.In the end, football wise, we have to start with an essentially blank canvas with NA, as the events of the last 5 games is wholly unrepresentative of what lies ahead.I personally have grave misgivings about the logic behind his appointment. I believe it is short sighted and based on money. But it is an appointment we are stuck with, for better or worse. as you say, we''ll just have to wait and see how things pan out, but the period late April/early May is an irrelevance in that.[/quote]

I somehow can''t believe it is down to finance.

Malky, Zola whoever apart from Lennon are out of work.

Even if Adams is on 10K per week, I can''t believe that, in the Championship, the other applicants could have commanded more than double at most.

So in fact another £1M.

I can''t believe they would gamble over such a trivial amount if promotion to £60M pa is the main goal.

[FCC 76]

Neil needs to get the unity back, everyone pulling together would be a big achievement given the apprehension after his appointment.

I hope he can find us a Huckerby or Holt who can become a new talisman!

The one thing Neil was clear on, he wanted this job - not a job. Fair play to him for that - I think he will struggle to understand the players at the club who do not want to be here.