Brief synopsis

[warney]

Tafari Moore was poor but Carey has to take some of the blame as well - his tracking back was non-existent and left Moore woefully exposed at times.

Often a team's performance can be greater than the sum of the individual players. This lot aren't world beaters but I can't help feeling as a team we're playing beneath the sum of the individuals. Is it motivation? Tactics? Has Adams "lost the dressing room" (whatever that means)? Yes, we desperately need some new blood but something else needs to change as well if we're to get out of this.

 

[Rush Goalie]

Adams may or may not be the correct person to spend it, but an increased budget is the only way out of this. Brent could not, or would not, provide it. Hallett must, or we doomed to the 4th Division again.

 

[r4h4al]

I'd play Lameiras at right back to get him a game, he's light years better than most he plays so stick him there, joking of course, but 15 minutes again! It's just an insult, sorry!

Well to be fair Grant got the goal so that justifies Adam's selection. I don't think this was a game Lameiras could have thrived in at all.

I guess next week you could put him in for Carey. Who is out with a suspension.

Why does it have to be Grant or Lameiras? Besides Lameiras has far more in his locker than Grant, anyone who goes to Argyle knows that. One has an end product (when it matters! Not today) the other doesn't. But he's simply got to find a place for Lameiras, our second most naturally gifted player behind Carey and one who plays exceptionally well with Carey. I just don't get his omission, I never do.

I agree. I can't understand it either.

I really like Grant though, but I'd probably go for Lameiras of the two though.
Maybe play Grant up front.

 

[Green Matt]

This board have now to face facts;

1) Argyle cannot stay up with this budget or anywhere near this budget
2) This team does not meet Argyle's fan bases lowest expectation of acceptable
3) Derek Adams is not the messiah and has some obvious flaws
4) Argyle is about football and not a shiny new stand

Why bring the stand into it? Do you suggest we leave it as is for a few years?! It's screamingly obvious that the thing needed an overhaul, which should then help improve funding of the team.

 

[gariboldi]

This board have now to face facts;

1) Argyle cannot stay up with this budget or anywhere near this budget
2) This team does not meet Argyle's fan bases lowest expectation of acceptable
3) Derek Adams is not the messiah and has some obvious flaws
4) Argyle is about football and not a shiny new stand

Totally agree:-

To escape the drop, I'd introduce 4 pts aswell, we need to:-

1) Invest heavily in new defenders in January (sorry Board, invest!)
2) Ensure the Carey, Lameiras, Taylor (getting fit) triangle is reignited (it worked wonders last season)
3) Maybe play Ladapo alongside Taylor, if not drop him (hard decisions need to be made, Taylor plays the system better)
4) Get another Tombs in in January too. We need a ball winner/play-maker

 

[oddball]

This board have now to face facts;

1) Argyle cannot stay up with this budget or anywhere near this budget
2) This team does not meet Argyle's fan bases lowest expectation of acceptable
3) Derek Adams is not the messiah and has some obvious flaws
4) Argyle is about football and not a shiny new stand

Totally agree:-

To escape the drop, I'd introduce 4 pts aswell, we need to:-

1) Invest heavily in new defenders in January (sorry Board, invest!)
2) Ensure the Carey, Lameiras, Taylor (getting fit) triangle is reignited (it worked wonders last season)
3) Maybe play Ladapo alongside Taylor, if not drop him (hard decisions need to be made, Taylor plays the system better)
4) Get another Tombs in in January too. We need a ball winner/play-maker

The new corporate board can only see corporate...they don't do footy that well...

 

[Tony Flags]

This board have now to face facts;

1) Argyle cannot stay up with this budget or anywhere near this budget
2) This team does not meet Argyle's fan bases lowest expectation of acceptable
3) Derek Adams is not the messiah and has some obvious flaws
4) Argyle is about football and not a shiny new stand

Why bring the stand into it? Do you suggest we leave it as is for a few years?! It's screamingly obvious that the thing needed an overhaul, which should then help improve funding of the team.

Because putting all their attention (not saying wasting money) into a stand can distract those charged with governance from the here and now. Without the team performing the commerical value of Argyle goes down before the stand is built.

My point 4 is simply saying that having a much needed beautiful stand alone is not in anyone’s interests. Chesterfield have a lovely new stadium but I doubt they’re happy at the moment.

 

[gariboldi]

This board have now to face facts;

1) Argyle cannot stay up with this budget or anywhere near this budget
2) This team does not meet Argyle's fan bases lowest expectation of acceptable
3) Derek Adams is not the messiah and has some obvious flaws
4) Argyle is about football and not a shiny new stand

Totally agree:-

To escape the drop, I'd introduce 4 pts aswell, we need to:-

1) Invest heavily in new defenders in January (sorry Board, invest!)
2) Ensure the Carey, Lameiras, Taylor (getting fit) triangle is reignited (it worked wonders last season)
3) Maybe play Ladapo alongside Taylor, if not drop him (hard decisions need to be made, Taylor plays the system better)
4) Get another Tombs in in January too. We need a ball winner/play-maker

The new corporate board can only see corporate...they don't do footy that well...

Oh never mind then , forget it. Tomorrow we could win a series in Sri Lanka and win the Group after the Croatia game, you can' teach optimism. you either make it work or you surrender, it's up to the board.

 

[gariboldi]

I'd play Lameiras at right back to get him a game, he's light years better than most he plays so stick him there, joking of course, but 15 minutes again! It's just an insult, sorry!

Well to be fair Grant got the goal so that justifies Adam's selection. I don't think this was a game Lameiras could have thrived in at all.

I guess next week you could put him in for Carey. Who is out with a suspension.

Why does it have to be Grant or Lameiras? Besides Lameiras has far more in his locker than Grant, anyone who goes to Argyle knows that. One has an end product (when it matters! Not today) the other doesn't. But he's simply got to find a place for Lameiras, our second most naturally gifted player behind Carey and one who plays exceptionally well with Carey. I just don't get his omission, I never do.

I agree. I can't understand it either.

I really like Grant though, but I'd probably go for Lameiras of the two though.
Maybe ply Grant up front.

If it is Grant or Lameiras, well? Most ''would'' go for Lameiras of the two because he's better, simple! Joel Grant should be sub like last season. Not complicated.

 

[gariboldi]

I'd play Lameiras at right back to get him a game, he's light years better than most he plays so stick him there, joking of course, but 15 minutes again! It's just an insult, sorry!

Well to be fair Grant got the goal so that justifies Adam's selection. I don't think this was a game Lameiras could have thrived in at all.

I guess next week you could put him in for Carey. Who is out with a suspension.

Why does it have to be Grant or Lameiras? Besides Lameiras has far more in his locker than Grant, anyone who goes to Argyle knows that. One has an end product (when it matters! Not today) the other doesn't. But he's simply got to find a place for Lameiras, our second most naturally gifted player behind Carey and one who plays exceptionally well with Carey. I just don't get his omission, I never do.

I agree. I can't understand it either.

I really like Grant though, but I'd probably go for Lameiras of the two though.
Maybe ply Grant up front.

If it is Grant or Lameiras, well? Most ''would'' go for Lameiras of the two because he's better, simple! And I'm sure Carey prefers playing alongside Lameiras, they are superb together at times, it's ridiculous! Joel Grant should be sub like last season. Not complicated.

 

[memory man]

And to think we interviewed Nathan Jones and went for Adams instead.

Clearly things are at a low ebb and I thought exactly the same. But after discussing it with my son this evening I think this view is a bit simplistic. If Adams had £125k to spend would he have wasted it on Jake (who Adams brought in for free and quite often got a tune out him)? Would Nathan Jones have been able to polish Blisset, a £15k purchase. As I said, I thought the same but I don't think we are comparing like with like.

 

[Biggs]

Football fans opting for simplistic revisionism?

Never!

 

[oddball]

Memory Man is being very selective...he fails to mention the signing of Dyson..what's he all about or the signing and re signing of Ainsworth or Wylde would Jones have signed them

 

[StevePAFC]

Truth is we will never know who Jones would have signed or how well he would have done for us. Whilst I’m in the Adams out camp there is no doubt he was the right man at that time.

 

[Steve Evans]

Memory Man is being very selective...he fails to mention the signing of Dyson..what's he all about or the signing and re signing of Ainsworth or Wylde would Jones have signed them

that's a fair comment.utterly bizarre that he re-signs wylde on a two year deal :banghead: and ainsworth on a similar deal and both these blokes have hardly kicked a ball for us!the signing of dyson is like the player himself,a complete mystery.