I have always enjoyed the intelligent approach of Adams, and I have taken his point that in the slump" period we played well enough in all but about two games to have gained sufficient points to be still near the top. We regularly self-destructed, mainly in bad defensive errors and expensive missed chances, even in games when teams profited from parking their tanks in front of us. The margin between what we could have achieved with our play otherwise and what we did actually achieve was a fine one, but it brought us low.
Was the elimination of errors in defence and failures to score the fault of Adams? Ultimately it was, but development or technique and concentration, were primarily the day-to-day responsibility of the coaches. It may be that the cause of the departure of Robson was a recognition that the coaches were failing in these respects. If so, Adams in selecting the squad and setting the tactics was let down to some extent.
Most of us felt at the time that his signings were generally good, but we were disappointed in one or two of them after a time, especially in Hooiveld, perhaps.Outsiders feel that we have a strong squad, so Adams must be applauded in this at least.
He had managed teams astutely before, but he did lack football league management. This is true of most managers when they begin, of course. The big question is whether he has improved as a manager. I think that the short answer is that he has done so, with experience. In fact the "slump" from which we now seem to have emerged could be as much the fruit of his improvement, including judgement of players, as due to to the arrival of Phelan.
