The answer is simple .... put a striker on the pitch !

[briangreen]

I would play Fletcher up front with Taylor and sacrifice a midfielder. Have Lameiras out on the left and Carey on the right and go for it, defend from the front.

 

[Steve Evans]

I would play Fletcher up front with Taylor and sacrifice a midfielder. Have Lameiras out on the left and Carey on the right and go for it, defend from the front.

:iagree:and furthermore i would play fletcher for the rest of the season,then,if successful which i think he will be sell him for loads of money like exeter do!

 

[Biggs]

I would play Fletcher up front with Taylor and sacrifice a midfielder. Have Lameiras out on the left and Carey on the right and go for it, defend from the front.

We'd either win 5-4 or be outnumbered and destroyed.

The way to turn this around is go back to basics and become organised and hard to beat. Then you can slowly build on that foundation and confidence to be more expansive.

Basically what we did last year.

 

[RochdaleGreen]

Managers everywhere nowadays are ditching the old-fashioned poacher and/or target man, and certainly aren't regularly playing with two up front. Adams is not remotely strange in that respect.

The good build-up play that people are speaking of, may not exist without the increased numbers in midfield and attack that come when you sacrifice an out-and-out striker who doesn't contribute to that build-up.

RG, you're saying DA hasn't signed any genuine strikers since he's been at the club. Do you think we'd have finished higher than 5th, 2nd and 7th if he had? The same system that's being criticised is the same one that achieved those positions in the first place.

The only way you succeed with a 4-4-2 now is when you have the quality of players to overpower the opposition man for man, clearly we haven't got the budget to do that so we've needed to find different ways of winning.

Thanks for your polite reply Biggs, which deserves a response. You ask if we could have finished higher, with a striker and my response is as follows.

I was pleased to get to Wembley in the first season, but with a striker on our side, like Wimbledon's big fella Akiinfenwa, we may have been victorious.

Likewise, I was pleased with, but also expected, promotion in the second season and, with a striker at Grimsby, my ruined weekend could have ended in the glorious celebration of the championship.

So far as last season is concerned, we would most certainly have made the playoffs, if only we had a striker.

Now to this season, I ask: Why did Adams not try to sign Caolan Lavery, who went to Bury; why did we not attempt to attract Henderson from Rochdale (hat trick last week end); why did we not try to sign Accrington's Billy Kee? - the list of reasonably priced /available strikers is longer than Adams seems to think, but you need to know what you are looking for.

Finally, as to your comment on the budget (whatever it is, and no one on Pasoti seems to know), I ask: What sense does it make to waste precious resources on the 5 or 6 players who have not so far featured, and are unlikely to feature? Please answer the questions, as I have sought to do.

 

[RochdaleGreen]

DA is continually telling us what we need (whether he realises it or not), because he keeps on saying that we need to convert the many chances we are creating. And he's right !
In other words, he's saying that we need to have a striker on the pitch !

The definition of a "striker" is someone who can strike, in other words, someone who can score goals, a "finisher" !
This is not the same, obviously, as a "front man", which means someone who can get hold of the ball up front, and bring others (and in particular, a striker) into play.

The problem is, DA doesn't play a striker ! He only plays with a front man (or men).
This is not just my view, it's confirmed by the fact he keeps saying that we are not scoring from the chances we create. In other words, we lack a finisher.

If DA can't sign an experienced striker, then he'll need to give one of the reserve team a chance, because we do have some strikers, some good finishers, there.
Otherwise I think we'll just continue as we are, and create lots of opportunities which we haven't got a striker on the pitch to convert.

To me it's simple really, and it's obvious why we are in the bad run of results that we are, even though our play deserves better.

Excellent post philevs. You are spot on with your distinction between "Striker" (Tynan) and "Front Man" (Taylor).

The trouble is that Adams doesn't appear to know what a striker is. That, presumably is why he hasn't signed any genuine strikers since he's been at the Club. He doesn't even like front men and won't play two together. Instead he wastes whatever budget he has on a plethora of midfielders and defenders and can't decide which ones to pick.

Indeed, I surmise that if Adams was to become manager of Scotland (very unlikely, I know), and if said Scottish team qualified for the World Cup (also unlikely), Adams would probably pick only 2 frront men in his final squad of 23, whereas every other World Cup manager would pick 4 or 5 strikers/front men out of 23.

So, I agree with you philevs, give the youngsters a chance. Play Calum Dyson at Charlton, alongside Freddie and/or Taylor. We have nothing to lose by doing so.

Have you seen Dyson play?. I suspect not.

No, I have not, but then, no one has, in a league game. If not Dyson, try Fletcher.

 

[briangreen]

I would play Fletcher up front with Taylor and sacrifice a midfielder. Have Lameiras out on the left and Carey on the right and go for it, defend from the front.

We'd either win 5-4 or be outnumbered and destroyed.

The way to turn this around is go back to basics and become organised and hard to beat. Then you can slowly build on that foundation and confidence to be more expansive.

Basically what we did last year.

We've tried hard to beat by playing mostly defending midfielders and it hasn't worked. How about we get a little more adventurous like we did last season in our glorious rum?

 

[Biggs]

So far as last season is concerned, we would most certainly have made the playoffs, if only we had a striker.

But that logic is completely flawed.

The system you’re criticising is the same one that got us to within spitting distance of the play-offs in the first place. You’re assuming we’d have gone on that same run (or better) with a completely different system and recruitment strategy.

You can’t possibly say we would most certainly have made the playoffs with a striker, that’s extreme levels of conjecture.

 

[Biggs]

Now to this season, I ask: Why did Adams not try to sign Caolan Lavery, who went to Bury; why did we not attempt to attract Henderson from Rochdale (hat trick last week end); why did we not try to sign Accrington's Billy Kee? - the list of reasonably priced /available strikers is longer than Adams seems to think, but you need to know what you are looking for.

Finally, as to your comment on the budget (whatever it is, and no one on Pasoti seems to know), I ask: What sense does it make to waste precious resources on the 5 or 6 players who have not so far featured, and are unlikely to feature? Please answer the questions, as I have sought to do.

Onto these points...

1) poachers like Lavery are a dying breed in modern football because they don’t contribute to general play. Henderson also doesn’t fit our system and is a Rochdale legend so presumably wouldn’t leave them to come 300 miles south at 33, and Billy Kee scored 25 goals in League 2 last season so would command a transfer fee way in excess of what we can pay.

2) signings like Ainsworth, Dyson and Wylde look like mistakes. But that’s hardly a stick to beat Adams with as every signing up and down the country is a gamble. He didn’t sign them with the intention of them not making the squad, they clearly just aren’t impressing. And that’s with the caveat that Dyson has plenty of time to come good.

 

[Balham Green]

DA is continually telling us what we need (whether he realises it or not), because he keeps on saying that we need to convert the many chances we are creating. And he's right !
In other words, he's saying that we need to have a striker on the pitch !

The definition of a "striker" is someone who can strike, in other words, someone who can score goals, a "finisher" !
This is not the same, obviously, as a "front man", which means someone who can get hold of the ball up front, and bring others (and in particular, a striker) into play.

The problem is, DA doesn't play a striker ! He only plays with a front man (or men).
This is not just my view, it's confirmed by the fact he keeps saying that we are not scoring from the chances we create. In other words, we lack a finisher.

If DA can't sign an experienced striker, then he'll need to give one of the reserve team a chance, because we do have some strikers, some good finishers, there.
Otherwise I think we'll just continue as we are, and create lots of opportunities which we haven't got a striker on the pitch to convert.

To me it's simple really, and it's obvious why we are in the bad run of results that we are, even though our play deserves better.

Excellent post philevs. You are spot on with your distinction between "Striker" (Tynan) and "Front Man" (Taylor).

The trouble is that Adams doesn't appear to know what a striker is. That, presumably is why he hasn't signed any genuine strikers since he's been at the Club. He doesn't even like front men and won't play two together. Instead he wastes whatever budget he has on a plethora of midfielders and defenders and can't decide which ones to pick.

Indeed, I surmise that if Adams was to become manager of Scotland (very unlikely, I know), and if said Scottish team qualified for the World Cup (also unlikely), Adams would probably pick only 2 frront men in his final squad of 23, whereas every other World Cup manager would pick 4 or 5 strikers/front men out of 23.

So, I agree with you philevs, give the youngsters a chance. Play Calum Dyson at Charlton, alongside Freddie and/or Taylor. We have nothing to lose by doing so.

Have you seen Dyson play?. I suspect not.

No, I have not, but then, no one has, in a league game. If not Dyson, try Fletcher.

So your solution is to play a player you have never seen. Brilliant. You must be from the Adams school of scouting.

 

[Balham Green]

Now to this season, I ask: Why did Adams not try to sign Caolan Lavery, who went to Bury; why did we not attempt to attract Henderson from Rochdale (hat trick last week end); why did we not try to sign Accrington's Billy Kee? - the list of reasonably priced /available strikers is longer than Adams seems to think, but you need to know what you are looking for.

Finally, as to your comment on the budget (whatever it is, and no one on Pasoti seems to know), I ask: What sense does it make to waste precious resources on the 5 or 6 players who have not so far featured, and are unlikely to feature? Please answer the questions, as I have sought to do.

Onto these points...

1) poachers like Lavery are a dying breed in modern football because they don’t contribute to general play. Henderson also doesn’t fit our system and is a Rochdale legend so presumably wouldn’t leave them to come 300 miles south at 33, and Billy Kee scored 25 goals in League 2 last season so would command a transfer fee way in excess of what we can pay.

2) signings like Ainsworth, Dyson and Wylde look like mistakes. But that’s hardly a stick to beat Adams with as every signing up and down the country is a gamble. He didn’t sign them with the intention of them not making the squad, they clearly just aren’t impressing. And that’s with the caveat that Dyson has plenty of time to come good.

Nothing’s is ever Adams fault to you. So how do you explain the signing of Wylde TWICE? Just a gamble thst didn't come off TWICE eh?

 

[Biggs]

He shouldn’t have resigned Wylde, that was clearly a mistake. Happy now?

The reason I’m pro-Adams is fairly simple. He’s over-achieved every season he’s been here, the last three years have been our best period for a decade, we’ve been promoted, witnessed my best moment as an Argyle fan (Hartley v Pompey) and despite an average budget we’ve seen some of the best results and players (Carey especially, obviously) for more than a decade. That’s not delusion or being naive. And it’s plain as day to me that work has been taken for granted by some, when it’s actually been incredibly hard to achieve.

Whereas you’re intent on seeing the negative in every situation, and now delight in ridiculing both Adams and posters who are still behind him.

 

[Balham Green]

He shouldn’t have resigned Wylde, that was clearly a mistake. Happy now?

The reason I’m pro-Adams is fairly simple. He’s over-achieved every season he’s been here, the last three years have been our best period for a decade, we’ve been promoted, witnessed my best moment as an Argyle fan (Hartley v Pompey) and despite an average budget we’ve seen some of the best results and players (Carey especially, obviously) for more than a decade. That’s not delusion or being naive. And it’s plain as day to me that work has been taken for granted by some, when it’s actually been incredibly hard to achieve.

Whereas you’re intent on seeing the negative in every situation, and now delight in ridiculing both Adams and posters who are still behind him.

Don't take any delight in it mate. I've supported the team longer than you it sounds and seen many managers and teams. I believe you are wrong. He definitely is not the Messiah you and some others (less and less) seem to think him . So you finally admit he has made ONE mistake at least! I personally think he is an average manager certainly not deserving of a 5 year contract. If he gets us in to mid table this season thst will still apply. If it's a relegation battle or worse he won't even be that. And the decade stuff you mention as you very well known is nonsense. That was a very difficult period in Argyle's history. But average manager or not his football is negative and I find him arrogant and stubborn.

 

[Steve Evans]

He shouldn’t have resigned Wylde, that was clearly a mistake. Happy now?

The reason I’m pro-Adams is fairly simple. He’s over-achieved every season he’s been here, the last three years have been our best period for a decade, we’ve been promoted, witnessed my best moment as an Argyle fan (Hartley v Pompey) and despite an average budget we’ve seen some of the best results and players (Carey especially, obviously) for more than a decade. That’s not delusion or being naive. And it’s plain as day to me that work has been taken for granted by some, when it’s actually been incredibly hard to achieve.

Whereas you’re intent on seeing the negative in every situation, and now delight in ridiculing both Adams and posters who are still behind him.

Don't take any delight in it mate. I've supported the team longer than you it sounds and seen many managers and teams. I believe you are wrong. He definitely is not the Messiah you and some others (less and less) seem to think him . So you finally admit he has made ONE mistake at least! I personally think he is an average manager certainly not deserving of a 5 year contract. If he gets us in to mid table this season thst will still apply. If it's a relegation battle or worse he won't even be that. And the decade stuff you mention as you very well known is nonsense. That was a very difficult period in Argyle's history. But average manager or not his football is negative and I find him arrogant and stubborn.

i think that is a very fair post balham and i am a supporter of derek and i agree he is stubborn.i want derek to see out his contract and i ask you this question,if derek walks/gets chopped who would you bring in of the managers available?

 

[oldage]

Darren Way, he seems to be able to sign players who can score!

 

[Biggs]

Grass is always greener on the other side, isn’t it?

Darren Way has a 32% win percentage to DA’s 45% over roughly the same period. I appreciate Yeovil are a smaller club, but there’s absolutely no indication that he is someone who can get us into the Championship.