Adkins: 'I don't think Reading can reach 100 goal target"

[genome]

I wonder how people would've felt/would the backlash have been quieter if we'd signed Bridge and Williams during the off-season and then Drenthe on deadline day.

[Royal Lady]

I wonder how people would've felt/would the backlash have been quieter if we'd signed Bridge and Williams during the off-season and then Drenthe on deadline day.

Would probably still have said we needed a striker desperately - and we would have been correct.

[Pepe the Horseman]

We'd have probably said that Drenthe would provide the assists that our strikers so desperately need...

[Green]

I don't think the thread can reach 100 pages

[RoyalBlue]

Adkins: 'I don't think Reading can reach 100 goal target with the players we have now'

Discuss

I think he's a total moron for even saying it in the first place. You don't need to score anywhere near 100 goals to get promoted - it's rare that a title-winning team will even get 90.

We won the league with 69. Birmingham have been promoted with 54. I'd say 80 goals would be a tough yet realistic target that also gives you a great chance of getting auto.

Why you'd walk into a new job and start banging on about scoring 100 goals is beyond me.

Only he never said that we needed to score 100 goals to get promoted, did he?! IIRC he said he wanted to go up as champions and score 100 goals. He wanted us to score 100 goals because he knows supporters want to see attacking football with the team scoring a lot of goals.

One thing is clear from this interview - and he repeats it several times - the funding wasn't there to allow us to secure the players that he wanted and which he felt were 'reasonable targets'. The Madejeski 'we can succeed by bucking the economies of the game' legacy lives on!

[Mr Angry]

A bit of selective quoting from TBM in the headline at the top of the thread, and then everyone fails to spot the double negative...

"......now at this moment in time I don’t think we haven’t got enough goals in the team to reach that target"

What he is actually saying (badly it must be admitted) is that while he is NOT discounting the possibility that we could score 100 goals with the current team, he would have preferred to have got in an additional striker (who he knows - Sharp??) and that without said striker, that 100 goal target is tougher to achieve.

[Green]

I think it was legitimate para phrasing on TBMs part there Mr A.

[genome]

I wonder how people would've felt/would the backlash have been quieter if we'd signed Bridge and Williams during the off-season and then Drenthe on deadline day.

Would probably still have said we needed a striker desperately - and we would have been correct.

Pepe pretty much said what I was going for.

[bcubed]

I don't think the thread can reach 100 pages

I'd like to second that

[genome]

I don't think the thread can reach 100 pages

Yeah, but can it keep 21 clean sheets?












... I don't get it.

[Super Kevin Bremner!]

A bit of selective quoting from TBM in the headline at the top of the thread, and then everyone fails to spot the double negative...

"......now at this moment in time I don’t think we haven’t got enough goals in the team to reach that target"

What he is actually saying (badly it must be admitted) is that while he is NOT discounting the possibility that we could score 100 goals with the current team, he would have preferred to have got in an additional striker (who he knows - Sharp??) and that without said striker, that 100 goal target is tougher to achieve.

3 pages but eventually someone else was clever enough to spot the irrelevance of the thread title.

[Super Kevin Bremner!]

I think it was legitimate para phrasing on TBMs part there Mr A.

I think it wasn't.

[Esteban]

It’s worth bearing in mind that this has been cobbled together from a number of responses to different questions and we don’t know how those questions were worded. We all know that some journalists try to lead the answers they are given. A lot of people are also looking for someone to blame, so it’s easy from this to decide that Adkins is angry with AZ and it’s all his fault. Adkins also has a habit of answering a question with twenty words, when two would do and he’s tied himself in knots a few times before. Plus there’s the double negative that isn’t very clear.

But nowhere in that transcript, does Adkins’ responses give me the impression that he feels lied to. He says that he expected two players to sign, but they went elsewhere and he also says shortly after that deals have to be right for the club. Whilst he is clearly very disappointed that the deals didn’t go through, he doesn’t go as far to say that they were deals that should have been done. He may well agree with the reasons for us not spending any more on those deals, even if it meant us losing out on them. Without the full transcript of the questions and the exact answers he gave, it’s possible to make it worse than it is.

[P!ssed Off]

I've been doing the maths:
Le Fondre = 25 goals
Karacan = 2 goals
Guthrie = 1 goal
Pogrebnyak = 5 goals (bit generous I know)
Blackman = 45 goals

Still leaves us 22 goals short.
Who am I forgetting?

[Green]

3 own goals perhaps.

And have you included penalties in that?

[P!ssed Off]

3 own goals perhaps.

And have you included penalties in that?

If you think Blackman's getting to 45 goals without 2 or 3 penalties then I think you're being very unrealistic.

[P!ssed Off]

Although tbf doesn't the left back usually take a few penalties.
5 goals to Wayne Bridge then.
+ the 3 own goals
Still 14 short of 100.

[Green]

3 own goals perhaps.

And have you included penalties in that?

If you think Blackman's getting to 45 goals without 2 or 3 penalties then I think you're being very unrealistic.

I'm not the one putting figures to players mate, was only a question.

[P!ssed Off]

3 own goals perhaps.

And have you included penalties in that?

If you think Blackman's getting to 45 goals without 2 or 3 penalties then I think you're being very unrealistic.

I'm not the one putting figures to players mate, was only a question.

I'm not sure you're taking my maths very seriously. I spent hours on my calculations.
Show some respect.

[TBM]

A bit of selective quoting from TBM in the headline at the top of the thread, and then everyone fails to spot the double negative...

"......now at this moment in time I don’t think we haven’t got enough goals in the team to reach that target"

What he is actually saying (badly it must be admitted) is that while he is NOT discounting the possibility that we could score 100 goals with the current team, he would have preferred to have got in an additional striker (who he knows - Sharp??) and that without said striker, that 100 goal target is tougher to achieve.

Actually it wasn't selective - it wouldn't let me put the whole quote in the subject BUT i didn't use it all in the OP