Brian: The right decision?

[P!ssed Off]

Favourites arent that important in tye champ because it's so open. When coppell took over we had started the season well and were right up there. We failed to make the play offs and it was a disappointing result. Pepe may have got the points totally wrong but the rest is bang on.

Really?
Before Coppell: 15 points in 11 games = 1.36 ppg
After Coppell: 55 points in 35 games = 1.57 ppg

Under Pardew that season - played 5, won 3, drawn 2 = 2.2 ppg.
Understandable slipping a bit for a month with no permanent manager having had the last one shaft the club.

We lost 3 games 3-0 on the bounce at Xmas that first season under Coppell, with some of the most shambolic performances we've had in the last 10 years.

You're probably a bit young to remember it that clearly. You were what? 8? 9?

I was 10.
Had a season ticket though. You were listening on the radio in your living room, presumably?

As I've said we'd been in the tier below for 4 of the previous 5 seasons.
We had one great season in the Champ with Pards where we massively overachieved.
2 seasons running after that we were in the mix for the top 6 until the final day of the season. That is not bad at all.
If anything Coppell picked up a weaker squad than the one that had got us to 4th. Goater the replacement for both Butler and Cureton.

[Ian Royal]

No we didn't massively overachieve the previous season, as we demonstrated by consistently being in the mix for the play offs at worst since. And starting as one of them form teams the season after.

I was there regularly because I hadn't moved away from Reading at that point. I don't care whether you had regular access to the team talk in the dressing room, you were still a child.

We had indeed spent 4 years in the lower division, not that it is particularly relevant, Saints had spent several down there and they've now comfortably Premier League not long later. For two and a half seasons of that time we'd clearly been a team destined for going back up who just choked it one season.

[P!ssed Off]

No we didn't massively overachieve the previous season, as we demonstrated by consistently being in the mix for the play offs at worst since. And starting as one of them form teams the season after.

I was there regularly because I hadn't moved away from Reading at that point. I don't care whether you had regular access to the team talk in the dressing room, you were still a child.

We had indeed spent 4 years in the lower division, not that it is particularly relevant, Saints had spent several down there and they've now comfortably Premier League not long later. For two and a half seasons of that time we'd clearly been a team destined for going back up who just choked it one season.

Because the club has grown massively since then you clown!
Hence why 7th now is worse than 9th/7th then.

Achievements are measured at the time in line with expectation at the time. You can't say 4th place was not an over-achievement because we did better later. The club grew, attendances grew, playing squad generally improved. Even if we had gone on to establish ourselves as a top PL club, that first Prem season under Coppell would still have been an overachievement.

Did you expect Reading to come as high as 4th at the start of the season under Pardew? If not, then quite clearly we overachieved, given that the definition of overachievement is: "To perform better or achieve more success than expected."


Also, I'm not buying this "you were a child" argument. Granted I remember very little about the games that I attended when I was 5. But I remember fine attending the PO Final against Walsall when I was 8, listening to Brentford away on the radio when I was 9, attending The POs vs Wolves at 10, and attending Watford away at the age of 11.
I had a season ticket over all 4 of these seasons, likely watching just shy of 100 games.
Used to have the Season Review VHS, followed by DVD. on repeat during most of the following Summer after a season ended.
Played fifa religiously from the age of 7. Granted they did not include the lower tiers until I was 10.
I was playing LMA Manager on the PS2 religiously from the age of 9, which included all the lower divisions.

I was fully capable of holding a valid opinion on football during the Coppell years, thankyou very much.

[soggy biscuit]

WTF is overachieving anyway???

Just because they did better than you thought they would based on very limited information (looking in from the outside) doesnt mean they overachieved, whatever the F that is anyway

[kwik-silva]

It's interesting that overachieving is used so much when I thought the point of a league is that teams finish exactly where they're supposed to

[Ian Royal]

Oh dear PO, oh dear.

[P!ssed Off]

It's interesting that overachieving is used so much when I thought the point of a league is that teams finish exactly where they're supposed to

Not sure how people can't get their heads round the concepts of underachieiving and overachieving.
Underachieve = "To perform worse or achieve less success than expected." e.g. Reading and Bolton this season.
Overachieve = "To perform better or achieve more success than expected." e.g. Burnley this season.

How else do you measure success or failure?
Would you just say Relegation = Failure and Promotion = Success?
I wouldn't, that would completely disregard the fact that teams start with varying expectation, ability and potential.

It would be fairly ridiculous to say that Yeovil Town had a failure of a season. They were widely expected to get relegated. If they had managed to stay up with their wage budget and team that they had then would you just say "they finished exactly where they were supposed to" or would you say "they performed better than expected".

[P!ssed Off]

Oh dear PO, oh dear.

Simple concept really.
If Reading's expectation at the start of next season is 'midtable' then quite clearly winning promotion would be overachieving (performing better than expected) and relegation would be considered underachieving (performing worse than expected).

Is that hard to understand?

[Wimb]

No we didn't massively overachieve the previous season, as we demonstrated by consistently being in the mix for the play offs at worst since. And starting as one of them form teams the season after.

I was there regularly because I hadn't moved away from Reading at that point. I don't care whether you had regular access to the team talk in the dressing room, you were still a child.

We had indeed spent 4 years in the lower division, not that it is particularly relevant, Saints had spent several down there and they've now comfortably Premier League not long later. For two and a half seasons of that time we'd clearly been a team destined for going back up who just choked it one season.

Because the club has grown massively since then you clown!
Hence why 7th now is worse than 9th/7th then.

Achievements are measured at the time in line with expectation at the time. You can't say 4th place was not an over-achievement because we did better later. The club grew, attendances grew, playing squad generally improved. Even if we had gone on to establish ourselves as a top PL club, that first Prem season under Coppell would still have been an overachievement.

Did you expect Reading to come as high as 4th at the start of the season under Pardew? If not, then quite clearly we overachieved, given that the definition of overachievement is: "To perform better or achieve more success than expected."


Also, I'm not buying this "you were a child" argument. Granted I remember very little about the games that I attended when I was 5. But I remember fine attending the PO Final against Walsall when I was 8, listening to Brentford away on the radio when I was 9, attending The POs vs Wolves at 10, and attending Watford away at the age of 11.
I had a season ticket over all 4 of these seasons, likely watching just shy of 100 games.
Used to have the Season Review VHS, followed by DVD. on repeat during most of the following Summer after a season ended.
Played fifa religiously from the age of 7. Granted they did not include the lower tiers until I was 10.
I was playing LMA Manager on the PS2 religiously from the age of 9, which included all the lower divisions.

I was fully capable of holding a valid opinion on football during the Coppell years, thankyou very much.

Good lord, you know you're flailing when you're bringing the fact you played FIFA at the age of 7 into a debate, especially at that age when PES was by far the superior game...

tbf I see where PO is coming from but I tend to agree with Pepe and IR in this. Coppell's first season and a half were pretty lacklustre and about on a par with what we've seen this year under Adkins.

Look at the players Coppell had to select from in 2004/05 and compare them to Adkins lot and you'd probably have to say Coppell had the greater talent to call upon.

Hahnemann, Murty, Sonko, Ingimarrson, Hughes, Little, Harper, Sidwell, Brooker, Kitson, Forster

or

McCarthy, Gunter, Pearce, Morrison, Obita, McCleary, Leigertwood, Akpan, McAnuff, Pogrebnyak, Le Fondre

I'd probably take Coppell's team tbh but whichever you choose it shows that really there shouldn't be any greater expectation on Team A than Team B.

As others have said, being favourites means nothing in the Championship look at how Burnley went up this year or how Wolves went down the previous year. Was our 106 squad expected to win the league? No.

Our pre-season tag was based on early summer eye catching signings and having a fairly fit and healthy squad. Had the bookies (and fans) known we'd have an injury riddled campaign and an owner go absolutely AWOL I doubt we'd have been considered much more than a play-off contender at best which is what we ultimately acheived.

Adkins shouldn't be immune to critisism at all but to absolve Coppell of having a less than stellar first couple of years is a bit naive IMO.

[soggy biscuit]

It's interesting that overachieving is used so much when I thought the point of a league is that teams finish exactly where they're supposed to

Not sure how people can't get their heads round the concepts of underachieiving and overachieving.
Underachieve = "To perform worse or achieve less success than expected." e.g. Reading and Bolton this season.
Overachieve = "To perform better or achieve more success than expected." e.g. Burnley this season.

How else do you measure success or failure?
Would you just say Relegation = Failure and Promotion = Success?
I wouldn't, that would completely disregard the fact that teams start with varying expectation, ability and potential.

It would be fairly ridiculous to say that Yeovil Town had a failure of a season. They were widely expected to get relegated. If they had managed to stay up with their wage budget and team that they had then would you just say "they finished exactly where they were supposed to" or would you say "they performed better than expected".

expected by who though? If you were to say 'we overachieved based on my own expectations' then people could understand that but you didn't, you just said they overachieved as if there is a collective agreement on where they should have finished, which there wasn't as everyone has their own expectations.

[Uke]

Because the club has grown massively since then...

It can rightsize again if necessary, the ground was still there when we were smaller

Brick by brick growth allows brick by brick dismantling

[sandman]

It beggars belief that people still slag off McDermott's style of play, [quote=Woodcote Royal/]
One person says they couldn't bear to watch mcdermott's side again, another says his style was ugly but effective. This statement clearly isn't accurate.

with squads deprived of their best player at the start of every campaign
Yes Mcdermott lost Sig, Mills and Long. Adkins lost Mariappa & Kebe. He went into the season with one left back and two genuine strikers too, saddled with a collection of over paid underperforming players.

Mcdermott was able to bring in players to strengthern his team every window. Adkins was not afforded this luxury and we ended up with either no midfielders or playing injured players for more than the odd game as a result. Adkins went into the season with both Mariappa and Kebe in the squad and say he knew they wanted out so I don't see how that made a huge impact on him. And he chose to move Kanu to a central striking role. Was Brian really able to strengthen with every window? Well that depends on whether you believe Adam Le Fondre is a better player than Shane Long or that Mikele Leigertwood(god love him) is better than Gylfi Sigurdsson.

, following a season of utter dross from Adkin's and his £16m parachute payment.
I don't agree it was a season of utter dross. If you think it was perhaps you have set your expectations too high. Performances were not great, but then they were dire under mcdermott plenty too. 7th is simply not dross. It went to the wire and we missed our lower aim by one measley goal. what the frigging parachute payment has to do with Adkins I've no idea. It's hardly his fault he inherited a massively inflated wage bill that we'll make a loss on even with parachute payments barring massive sales.
You and the other people who were telling us how great Adkins would be set the expectations high the way you talked him up, dont blame others when it's highlighted. Are you really trying to convince us a season where we got trounced 6-0 by a team in the league below, failed to beat two of the teams who were ultimately relegated at home and only managed to win twice all season after going behind was not dross? How many really good performances did we see, three, four, five at the most? The highlight of the season were two cup runs from the youth teams.
His defences can't defend and his tedious obsession with passing rarely produces more than a handful of chances/ shots on target per game.

his defences? When did adkins sign pearce, gorkss, gunter, kelly, cummings, or morrison? The main bright light was a young player Adkins introduced to the defence.
Pearce, Gorkss and Cummings each have a championship winners medal, Kelly is a full international who has played in a Uefa Cup final, he made Morrison captain and Gunter is one of the first names on his team sheet. Who worked with those players all season? Who picked them? Who decided on the woeful Andy Crosby as defensive coach? And whose teams have been notoriously suspect at defending?

Introduced? I think the words you are looking for are stumbled into. A defence which was woeful under mcdermott tye previous season as well.The previous season in a higher league you mean? Yeah, they struggled with the step up. Being 'woeful' against the likes of Van Persie and Aguero is a bit different to being woeful against the strike forces of Yeovil and Barnsley.
And of course we created endless chances under mcdermott didn't we. Criticising adkins for something that was just as much of a flaw in mcdermotts sides if for different reasons?,I sat in a room with last year with Alex Pearce and several others where he said, and I quote, ''we are not looking to score every time we get the ball now". Now if you're not looking to score every time you get the ball how do you know when you are trying to score? Not sure McDermott was touted as some sort of master of attractive football who was going to make us one of the best attacking teams in the League on his appointment. Again, you over hyped Adkins and the impact he was supposedly going to make, unfortunately the consequences of that are that you're going to be reminded of it when that has so far failed to materialise.
Given the numbers here who can't wait to stick their heads where the sun doesn't shine, Nige must have the biggest arse in football.
Just plain meaningless ranting of no value whatsoever.

It's not just McDermott I'd have back in a flash, I'm hard pushed to think of another Champ manager I wouldn't swap Adkins for.
stupidity to say you'd take anyone at all over a man with 4? Promotions to his name and a very respectable career win ratio.As I always say, good manager as maybe doesn'y mean it always works and you fit in at a particular club.
This guy has achieved absolutely NOTHING since the day he walked through the door..........................and in my book that puts him on a par with Burns (RIP) and Bullivant.

he's brought through at least one excellent youth player and finished 7th with a previously relegated team in financial difficulty and ownership issues. What exactly counts as achieving something? Because by this sort of yardstick most managers wikl achieve this nothing or worse if given one season.Yes there were side issues but you have to try and put those aside and focus on the job you've been given and Adkins failed at that despite having some of the most highly rated players in the division. Did McD not have players bought for him by the Russian cretin as well? We know he had to field calls from the little rat telling him about players we should go for.

As for the burns and bullivant comparison its ludicrous. Both had us fighting relegation not to get into the play offs. Burns finished nowhere with one of the best funded sides in the division by buying endless toss. Agreed. Although for someone so keen to absolve Mr Adkins of any blame for a poor season due to ownership issues you might want to think before condemning the late Tommy Burns for his time at Reading when his Chairman was off in tax exile trying to sell his car magazine to some Malaysians.#NoRoyalBlue-o. In fact, there appear to be more than a few similarities with the Burns and Adkins eras

Sorry for the quote fail. That suit you leon?

[sandman]

What do we think were the objectives set by the board at the end of the PL season and start of last season and do we think that those were met or whether we underachieved?

We already know the managers very public statement on what his objectives were for the season.

[leon]

It beggars belief that people still slag off McDermott's style of play, [quote=Woodcote Royal/]
One person says they couldn't bear to watch mcdermott's side again, another says his style was ugly but effective. This statement clearly isn't accurate.

with squads deprived of their best player at the start of every campaign
Yes Mcdermott lost Sig, Mills and Long. Adkins lost Mariappa & Kebe. He went into the season with one left back and two genuine strikers too, saddled with a collection of over paid underperforming players.

Mcdermott was able to bring in players to strengthern his team every window. Adkins was not afforded this luxury and we ended up with either no midfielders or playing injured players for more than the odd game as a result.

, following a season of utter dross from Adkin's and his £16m parachute payment.
I don't agree it was a season of utter dross. If you think it was perhaps you have set your expectations too high. Performances were not great, but then they were dire under mcdermott plenty too. 7th is simply not dross. It went to the wire and we missed our lower aim by one measley goal. what the frigging parachute payment has to do with Adkins I've no idea. It's hardly his fault he inherited a massively inflated wage bill that we'll make a loss on even with parachute payments barring massive sales.

His defences can't defend and his tedious obsession with passing rarely produces more than a handful of chances/ shots on target per game.

his defences? When did adkins sign pearce, gorkss, gunter, kelly, cummings, or morrison? The main bright light was a young player Adkins introduced to the defence. A defence which was woeful under mcdermott tye previous season as well.
And of course we created endless chances under mcdermott didn't we. Criticising adkins for something that was just as much of a flaw in mcdermotts sides if for different reasons?,
Given the numbers here who can't wait to stick their heads where the sun doesn't shine, Nige must have the biggest arse in football.
Just plain meaningless ranting of no value whatsoever.

It's not just McDermott I'd have back in a flash, I'm hard pushed to think of another Champ manager I wouldn't swap Adkins for.
stupidity to say you'd take anyone at all over a man with 4? Promotions to his name and a very respectable career win ratio.
This guy has achieved absolutely NOTHING since the day he walked through the door..........................and in my book that puts him on a par with Burns (RIP) and Bullivant.

he's brought through at least one excellent youth player and finished 7th with a previously relegated team in financial difficulty and ownership issues. What exactly counts as achieving something? Because by this sort of yardstick most managers wikl achieve this nothing or worse if given one season.

As for the burns and bullivant comparison its ludicrous. Both had us fighting relegation not to get into the play offs. Burns finished nowhere with one of the best funded sides in the division by buying endless toss.

Sorry for the quote fail. That suit you leon?

well - it's better. Not sure I agree with everything you've put.

[P!ssed Off]

It's interesting that overachieving is used so much when I thought the point of a league is that teams finish exactly where they're supposed to

Not sure how people can't get their heads round the concepts of underachieiving and overachieving.
Underachieve = "To perform worse or achieve less success than expected." e.g. Reading and Bolton this season.
Overachieve = "To perform better or achieve more success than expected." e.g. Burnley this season.

How else do you measure success or failure?
Would you just say Relegation = Failure and Promotion = Success?
I wouldn't, that would completely disregard the fact that teams start with varying expectation, ability and potential.

It would be fairly ridiculous to say that Yeovil Town had a failure of a season. They were widely expected to get relegated. If they had managed to stay up with their wage budget and team that they had then would you just say "they finished exactly where they were supposed to" or would you say "they performed better than expected".

expected by who though? If you were to say 'we overachieved based on my own expectations' then people could understand that but you didn't, you just said they overachieved as if there is a collective agreement on where they should have finished, which there wasn't as everyone has their own expectations.

Yes, the bit about overachieved under Pardew was my own expectation. I wasn't on a Reading forum at that point so I don't know what the aggregate opinion of fans was. I also don't recall what the media's expectation was at that time.
That was why I asked curiously what Ian Royal's expectation at the start of our first season back in the Championship under Pardew was but he declined to say. I also asked about his expectations at the start of Coppell's first season but he didn't offer much up there either.

If anybody remembers what the general expectation of hobnob was at the start of Pardew's first season in the Championship and for the season as of when Coppell took over I would be happy to hear it.

[P!ssed Off]

Good lord, you know you're flailing when you're bringing the fact you played FIFA at the age of 7 into a debate, especially at that age when PES was by far the superior game...

Just saying I think Ian Royal got wrong the threshold age where people become aware/knowledgeable/opinionated about football.
IMO it is below the age of 10.

[Ian Royal]

What do we think were the objectives set by the board at the end of the PL season and start of last season and do we think that those were met or whether we underachieved?

We already know the managers very public statement on what his objectives were for the season.

No one has said the season has been a success. We clearly failed in the club's intention to get promoted, but there are also quite clearly very large mitigating factors that don't mean Adkins did anything less than an OK job.

[Ian Royal]

Good lord, you know you're flailing when you're bringing the fact you played FIFA at the age of 7 into a debate, especially at that age when PES was by far the superior game...

Just saying I think Ian Royal got wrong the threshold age where people become aware/knowledgeable/opinionated about football.
IMO it is below the age of 10.

Everyone is different, but I know that my nephew was not well clued up when I took him at that age and I'd have been totally cluless. Judging by some of the twaddle I hear kiddiewinks come out with at the stadium most of them aren't better. Judgement keeps on developing really quite significantly even into the early 20s, possibly because it's based on life experience. Although to be fair, piss poor analysis of a game is far from restricted to children.

[Ian Royal]

It beggars belief that people still slag off McDermott's style of play,

One person says they couldn't bear to watch mcdermott's side again, another says his style was ugly but effective. This statement clearly isn't accurate.

with squads deprived of their best player at the start of every campaign

Yes Mcdermott lost Sig, Mills and Long. Adkins lost Mariappa & Kebe. He went into the season with one left back and two genuine strikers too, saddled with a collection of over paid underperforming players.

Mcdermott was able to bring in players to strengthern his team every window. Adkins was not afforded this luxury and we ended up with either no midfielders or playing injured players for more than the odd game as a result.

Adkins went into the season with both Mariappa and Kebe in the squad and say he knew they wanted out so I don't see how that made a huge impact on him. And he chose to move Kanu to a central striking role. Was Brian really able to strengthen with every window? Well that depends on whether you believe Adam Le Fondre is a better player than Shane Long or that Mikele Leigertwood(god love him) is better than Gylfi Sigurdsson.

No it doesn't. Not in the slightest. It means he was able to bring in players in every window. And whilst obviously he couldn't replace Long or Sig with players of the same calibre, he was able to replace them.

, following a season of utter dross from Adkin's and his £16m parachute payment.

I don't agree it was a season of utter dross. If you think it was perhaps you have set your expectations too high. Performances were not great, but then they were dire under mcdermott plenty too. 7th is simply not dross. It went to the wire and we missed our lower aim by one measley goal. what the frigging parachute payment has to do with Adkins I've no idea. It's hardly his fault he inherited a massively inflated wage bill that we'll make a loss on even with parachute payments barring massive sales.

You and the other people who were telling us how great Adkins would be set the expectations high the way you talked him up, dont blame others when it's highlighted. Are you really trying to convince us a season where we got trounced 6-0 by a team in the league below, failed to beat two of the teams who were ultimately relegated at home and only managed to win twice all season after going behind was not dross? How many really good performances did we see, three, four, five at the most? The highlight of the season were two cup runs from the youth teams.

Funnily enough, things change over a football season. Expectations were set at the start of the season, then the situation changed and anyone with half a brain needed to revise their expectations.

The fact is, come January, we were in touch and reasonably well placed having had the financial support we, and Adkins had been promised vanish before the end of the summer window. Instead of then injecting more quality into the club and dealing with the weakness in numbers upfront and the midfield injury crisis, we did nothing because we had no money. And yet we maintained that challenge for the play offs right until the final minutes of the season.

No we didn't play particularly well for most of the season. Yes, Adkins didn't perform as well as he should have done and neither did most of the team. Most people recognise that. It's the blinkered Adkins haters like you and Woodcote who keep claiming that people have their head up Adkins arse. Actually, we've just got a sense of perspective.

His defences can't defend and his tedious obsession with passing rarely produces more than a handful of chances/ shots on target per game.

his defences? When did adkins sign pearce, gorkss, gunter, kelly, cummings, or morrison? The main bright light was a young player Adkins introduced to the defence.

Pearce, Gorkss and Cummings each have a championship winners medal, Kelly is a full international who has played in a Uefa Cup final, he made Morrison captain and Gunter is one of the first names on his team sheet. Who worked with those players all season? Who picked them? Who decided on the woeful Andy Crosby as defensive coach? And whose teams have been notoriously suspect at defending?

Introduced? I think the words you are looking for are stumbled into.

This passage just highlights how one eyed you are. You won't give Adkins credit for anything, even the fantastic development of Obita. He was playing well when given the chance on the wing and in midfield. Adkins then saw the potential for him at left back and did it. He could have played Kelly or Cummings.

Having a Championship winners medal from two seasons ago means nothing for playing now. This is all pretty desperate stuff.

A defence which was woeful under mcdermott tye previous season as well.

The previous season in a higher league you mean? Yeah, they struggled with the step up. Being 'woeful' against the likes of Van Persie and Aguero is a bit different to being woeful against the strike forces of Yeovil and Barnsley.

You are aware we kept a clean sheet against Yeovil in one game and conceeded 1 goal in the other right? Yes, the standard was higher the previous season. The point is, it wasn't Adkins defence, you use what you've got the best way you can and he had very little choice other than at right back for most of the season. It was not some sort of anomoly that the defence was crap under him. It was a combination of no midfield, injuries and a weak selection available.

And of course we created endless chances under mcdermott didn't we. Criticising adkins for something that was just as much of a flaw in mcdermotts sides if for different reasons,

I sat in a room with last year with Alex Pearce and several others where he said, and I quote, ''we are not looking to score every time we get the ball now". Now if you're not looking to score every time you get the ball how do you know when you are trying to score? Not sure McDermott was touted as some sort of master of attractive football who was going to make us one of the best attacking teams in the League on his appointment. Again, you over hyped Adkins and the impact he was supposedly going to make, unfortunately the consequences of that are that you're going to be reminded of it when that has so far failed to materialise.

Good, that's not the smartest tactic in the world by a long shot. And that was exactly why McDermott got the sack. Because he placed too little emphasis on retaining possession of the football and just went for surging forward every time we got it. We weren't good enough to do it and it needed to change.

The players should be smart enough, with the training in place to judge when to go, when to sit and when to move the ball to create space. Adkins record prior to taking over is excellent as was the way his teams attack. You're right, he hasn't produced it here yet. We're clearly a work in progress. So lets progress, with Adkins. Because barring new owner upheaval or a better job, he's not going anywhere and rightly so at the moment.

Given the numbers here who can't wait to stick their heads where the sun doesn't shine, Nige must have the biggest arse in football.

Just plain meaningless ranting of no value whatsoever.

It's not just McDermott I'd have back in a flash, I'm hard pushed to think of another Champ manager I wouldn't swap Adkins for.

stupidity to say you'd take anyone at all over a man with 4? Promotions to his name and a very respectable career win ratio.

As I always say, good manager as maybe doesn'y mean it always works and you fit in at a particular club.

Well that's hardly a fountain of wisdom exclusive to you, in fact it's so obvious as to not really be worth mentioning to most people. Adkins has hardly failed here and will rightly get the next six months minimum to show progress.

This guy has achieved absolutely NOTHING since the day he walked through the door..........................and in my book that puts him on a par with Burns (RIP) and Bullivant.

he's brought through at least one excellent youth player and finished 7th with a previously relegated team in financial difficulty and ownership issues. What exactly counts as achieving something? Because by this sort of yardstick most managers will achieve this nothing or worse if given one season.

Yes there were side issues but you have to try and put those aside and focus on the job you've been given and Adkins failed at that despite having some of the most highly rated players in the division. Did McD not have players bought for him by the Russian cretin as well? We know he had to field calls from the little rat telling him about players we should go for.

Yes the manager has to put those issues aside in doing his job. Which Adkins did. He never complained. He got on with it. But it's stupid for everyone judging the season to ignore them. Your second sentence has nothing to do with anything, yes McDermott had Anton interferring by the looks of it, although he usually denied Anton did anything but make suggestions.
McDermott also had the opportunity to buy his own players. Unless you think Anton was attracted to the big names of Akpan and Blackman. It's not clear Adkins chose any of our permanent signings this season.

As for the burns and bullivant comparison its ludicrous. Both had us fighting relegation not to get into the play offs. Burns finished nowhere with one of the best funded sides in the division by buying endless toss.

Agreed. Although for someone so keen to absolve Mr Adkins of any blame for a poor season due to ownership issues you might want to think before condemning the late Tommy Burns for his time at Reading when his Chairman was off in tax exile trying to sell his car magazine to some Malaysians.#NoRoyalBlue-o. In fact, there appear to be more than a few similarities with the Burns and Adkins eras

Hardly the same thing at all. Burns had plenty of money to spend and did. The problem was there was not enough oversight to challenge his shitness. There's sod all similarities.

[P!ssed Off]

Look at the players Coppell had to select from in 2004/05 and compare them to Adkins lot and you'd probably have to say Coppell had the greater talent to call upon.

Team A: Hahnemann, Murty, Sonko, Ingimarrson, Hughes, Little, Harper, Sidwell, Brooker, Kitson, Forster

or

Team B: McCarthy, Gunter, Pearce, Morrison, Obita, McCleary, Leigertwood, Akpan, McAnuff, Pogrebnyak, Le Fondre

I'd probably take Coppell's team tbh but whichever you choose it shows that really there shouldn't be any greater expectation on Team A than Team B.

Firstly, I will assume your inclusion of the pair of Akpan and Leigertwood, over the much better and more involved pair of Guthrie and D.Williams was unintentional?

Secondly, how are we judging the likes of Shorey, Sonko, Sidwell and Kitson? At their ability at the start of 2004/5 season, or at their peak ability? That is why I often take issue with those who claim Coppell failed early on, citing achievements later on as evidence. The fact is that all of Team B, bar Obita, have had significant top flight experience. Sidwell and Harper at the start of 2004/5 season had 4 seasons of Tier 2 football between them. Guthrie at the start of this season had 4 seasons in the Prem (of semi-regular playing time) and a Championship winning season. Danny WIlliams at the start of this season had two seasons of German top flight behind him as well as numerous international caps.

Team B is far more experienced, with many players the finished article, or near enough.

Thirdly, it is a 46 game season so it would be foolish to look at just the starting 11. Look at the subs Coppell had at his disposal: Martin Keown (38), "feed the goat, and he won't score" Shaun Goater (34), Lololyd Owusu, Bobby Convey (who was oxf*rd during his first 6 months), Les Ferdinand (37), Ricky Newman (34), Ady Williams (33) and Dean Morgan.

Players not in season's starting XI who made 5 or more Champ appearances for Adkins: Gorkss, HRK, Drenthe, Akpan, Bridge, Kelly, Baird, Blackman, Cummings, Karacan, Sharp, Hector, Taylor.

Many people do not rate HRK or Nick Blackman. But compared to Owusu and Dean Morgan they are bloody world class.

Squad B now > Squad A then

The squad in 2004/5 was threadbare, with the only backups either seriously shit, or 30s and past it.

"Coppell went 11 games without a win, that's crap", people say.
Well no, it is not great but it's worth remembering that 7 of those games were draws. We weren't getting hammered every week. And, oh look what a surprise, how many games did our preferred pairing of Kitson and Forster start together: zero times is the answer. Kitson was injured for the first 7, and coming back from said injury in the last 4.

11 winless league games; striker starts (sub appearances):
Forster = 7 (1)
Owusu = 6 (2)
Ferdinand = 4 (1)
Morgan = 0 (6)
Goater = 0 (1)
Kitson = 4

Is it any wonder we couldn't bloody score a goal?
And yet Adkins gets a pass whenever he can't start his preferred pairing in centre midfield?