Heard it three times now.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'll take issue with your argument just because you were a bit too aggressive. Firstly you can compare Puncheon and Antonio - they play in the same position so that's point one done and dusted. Secondly As you don't know what Puncheon's transfer fee was nor what Reading are asking for you can't then say "ergo the game (not me) already rates a youngster with hardly any starts under his belt as the equal (at least) of a player in his prime" You actually don't know so stop guessing and then presenting that as fact.

 

Thirdly Puncheon is what 23/24? Not quite the prime of his career then.

 

You're so myopic you couldn't see the other side of the fence if you were stood on it.

 

1 - It has always been my view that (as a general rule) a player in his mid twenties is indeed in the prime of his career . Antonio is only 20 .

2 - I did include all the necessary caveats re the transfer fees - pay more attention in future .

3 - Two players who play in same the same position can (and very often are) completely different in style and ability .

 

If you want to critise me for being "too aggressive" than it might be a good idea not to go around calling people "myopic" .

[saint_stevo]

Being young isn't an excuse for failing to deliver a decent ball into the box 7 times out of 10.

 

People talk about MK Dons in the JPT when he scored a good goal, but other than that he was horrific. Watch it back again.

 

Chapel End Charlie- Your post was ****e. I was pretty surprised to see my old mate revolution saint pipe up for me though........

[Amesbury Saint]

Two have said to me today that Antonio has signed and is in the squad for Saturday and someone else has told me he was seen down the training ground today.

Perhaps we will get it confirmed tonight I hope.

 

PINCH OF SALT JOBBIES PLEASE.......

 

missed him today

[revolution saint]

1 - It has always been my view that (as a general rule) a player in his mid twenties is indeed in the prime of his career . Antonio is only 20 .

2 - I did include all the necessary caveats re the transfer fees - pay more attention in future .

3 - Two players who play in same the same position can (and very often are) completely different in style and ability .

 

If you want to critise me for being "too aggressive" than it might be a good idea not to go around calling people "myopic" .

 

1. 28 is generally considered prime of players career - I don't care what your personal opinion is.

2. No, you included what you read on the internet and not fact. Stop pretending you didn't

3. Two players with different style in the same position can of course be compared together if you have imagination

 

of course calling you myopic was a mistake - I meant you are someone who believes their opinion is more important than any other and believes it is probably fact. I apologise for saying you are just short sighted.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

1. 28 is generally considered prime of players career - I don't care what your personal opinion is.

2. No, you included what you read on the internet and not fact. Stop pretending you didn't

3. Two players with different style in the same position can of course be compared together if you have imagination

 

of course calling you myopic was a mistake - I meant you are someone who believes their opinion is more important than any other and believes it is probably fact. I apologise for saying you are just short sighted.

 

You may not care what my opinion is but I'm moderately interested in yours - an insight into the caliber ('Small-bore' I guess) of the person you are debating an issue with is always of interest , oh and 23-28 is a pretty fair working description of 'mid twenties' I'd have thought .

 

With the unstoppable spread of the 'Undisclosed fee' in the game your edict on no further discussions or speculation on transfer fees means this whole area of debate is now out of bounds . I wonder why you think you are entitled to lay down the law to others . What did Puncheon cost us ? - it must be less than Ricky Lambert (£1m) but rather more than £250k I suppose . So I reckon £500k is as good as estimate as any . If you don't care for my 'guesstimating' then you will just have to suffer it because I'm quite likely to do it again in future .

 

And finally , everyone on here likes to put their view across - I'm no different than everyone else in that respect (you included) and I take care never confuse my opinion with fact . But if you were to say I don't suffer fools gladly on the other hand ..........

Edited 7 August, 2010 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[NickG]

on today's showing (although one game is not how to pick a squad!) think Antonio would be way down my priorities to sign.

[corsacar saint]

As he came off the bench for Reading after 75 minutes today,it looks like you are off the mark with this Pilchard. I will gladly take back this comment,if you are proved right though.

[View From The Top]

on today's showing (although one game is not how to pick a squad!) think Antonio would be way down my priorities to sign.

 

Don't think he has the same impact or ability as Papa anyway. Of the two I'd have Papa back.

[Chez]

on today's showing (although one game is not how to pick a squad!) think Antonio would be way down my priorities to sign.

 

strange, because Puncheon was pretty poor and Antonio or someone similar would have been an ideal sub.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

strange, because Puncheon was pretty poor and Antonio or someone similar would have been an ideal sub.

 

Indeed .

 

Although he was by no means our worst player today Puncheon does tend to make square runs across the opposition's back line rather than trying to penetrate it . I thought he also wasted an splendid shooting opportunity in the second half when he chose to pass rather than shoot when on the very edge of the box .

[NickG]

strange, because Puncheon was pretty poor and Antonio or someone similar would have been an ideal sub.

 

thought Puncheon did ok. Width was not the problem today - far from it.

 

He would have possibly got 15 mins today.

[View From The Top]

Indeed .

 

Although he was by no means our worst player today Puncheon does tend to make square runs across the opposition's back line rather than trying to penetrate it . I thought he also wasted an splendid shooting opportunity in the second half when he chose to pass rather than shoot when on the very edge of the box .

 

I thought, when he blazed over, he should have slid LB in.

[Smirking_Saint]

strange, because Puncheon was pretty poor and Antonio or someone similar would have been an ideal sub.

 

didn't think width or indeed delivery was much of an issue tbf.

 

He played pretty well but with such a lack of meaningful movement upfront or around him there was not much he could create, to me he looked frustrated, as i would have been if playing behind the front two today.

 

We need another striker and soon, one with hopefully height we can play in case Rickie is inured again.

 

I don't think Antonio would have changed that much, Connelly and Barnard can't work together

[Thedelldays]

saying we need another striker is poor that is has come to this..

 

this was an issue months before last season ended..

[View From The Top]

We don't need another striker. We need a central midfielder.

[shurlock]

thought Puncheon did ok. Width was not the problem today - far from it.

 

He would have possibly got 15 mins today.

 

Problem definitely wasn't width - compared to last season where balls would be harmlessly lofted in from all areas, today's delivery was fast and flat. Lambert's absence was one problem; another was the tendency of Barnard and Connolly to peel off and run the channels, emptying the box of attackers with the likes of Hammond only rarely providing support.

[RedWillie]

Antonio is not the answer, a decent second striker is what we need along with a midfielder with some imagination. Antonio, although useful, was at times abysmal last season

[View From The Top]

Antonio is not the answer, a decent second striker is what we need along with a midfielder with some imagination. Antonio, although useful, was at times abysmal last season

 

We have a decent 2nd striker in LB.

[Smirking_Saint]

We have a decent 2nd striker in LB.

 

We need a replacement target man, having 3 forwards in total at the club is not good enough.

 

We also however need another cm

[Thedelldays]

We need a replacement target man, having 3 forwards in total at the club is not good enough.

 

We also however need another cm

 

we must really be the only league 1 team to require the need to spend millions to go up...

[shurlock]

We have a decent 2nd striker in LB.

 

We need a proper big man to hold the ball up and get to the end of crosses...

[Smirking_Saint]

we must really be the only league 1 team to require the need to spend millions to go up...

 

Well, probably not, another day we would have won today (i think that makes sense ?)

 

We have the players, but we desperately need a replacement target man for when rickie isn't about, today showed that Barnard and Connelly clearly can't work together, i would have gone 451 myself, but thats just me.

 

We were in a pretty dire situation when we came down, other teams would have replaced as we did, albeit probably with not the same caliber of player if you catch my drift.

 

We have spent the cash to get top quality signings and our talent is there for all to see. I just think in this league you need a big man up top

[View From The Top]

We need a proper big man to hold the ball up and get to the end of crosses...

 

Then we need to play 4-5-1.

[Saints foreva]

We don't need another striker. We need a central midfielder.

 

Why don't we need another striker? We only have three and one of them is injured......

[Chez]

to me I thought Puncheon did the bare minimum. He didn't get to the byeline once, hardly put a crsos in, beat his man only once and that was about it. Far too casual. Oh and he bottles tackles. I like him, he has real quality, but he needs to do more in games when we are on top and to really stamp his authority on the match. I thought he should have been subbed far far earlier. He is Pardews pet.

 

He, like all wingers (apart from one or two) are a bit hit and miss and he is going to be brilliant this season I'm sure. Maybe he needs a run on his natural wing now and then?

Edited 7 August, 2010 by Chez

[dubai_phil]

Then we need to play 4-5-1.

 

Yes but then you are chopping and changing tactics and playing style because of the playeres available, NOT because of the the opposition and the tactics needed.

 

Playing 4-5-1 may work against many teams, but the simple issue today as you said is that we had two "2nd strikers" playing together today".

 

Would you play Connolly alone in a 4-5-1 if Barnard got a knock as well? May work in the PL but in League 1 against teams packing the defence? hmm

[View From The Top]

Why don't we need another striker? We only have three and one of them is injured......

 

So you want 4 excellent strikers with two of them not playing?

 

You do understand we are in division 3?

[View From The Top]

Yes but then you are chopping and changing tactics and playing style because of the playeres available, NOT because of the the opposition and the tactics needed.

 

Playing 4-5-1 may work against many teams, but the simple issue today as you said is that we had two "2nd strikers" playing together today".

 

Would you play Connolly alone in a 4-5-1 if Barnard got a knock as well? May work in the PL but in League 1 against teams packing the defence? hmm

 

If we don't win the midfield battle then it doesn't matter who we have up top and that's where we failed, IMHO too often last season and where we failed today in the 2nd half.

 

I'd sooner play two holding midfielders and three attacking with two of them of the flanks coming inside to support a lone striker.

[Badger]

So you want 4 excellent strikers with two of them not playing?

 

You do understand we are in division 3?

 

As one of our current 3 is Connolly, who is 35 and cannot be relied upon to be fit for the season , the yes we definitely need another.

[Smirking_Saint]

Yes but then you are chopping and changing tactics and playing style because of the playeres available, NOT because of the the opposition and the tactics needed.

 

Playing 4-5-1 may work against many teams, but the simple issue today as you said is that we had two "2nd strikers" playing together today".

 

Would you play Connolly alone in a 4-5-1 if Barnard got a knock as well? May work in the PL but in League 1 against teams packing the defence? hmm

 

For me it is easier defending against 2 strikers then 1 with 3 men working around him.

 

451 is better for opening teams up i think.

 

That said i do think we need 4 strikers, not necersarily excellent but with differing options.

[dubai_phil]

If we don't win the midfield battle then it doesn't matter who we have up top and that's where we failed, IMHO too often last season and where we failed today in the 2nd half.

 

I'd sooner play two holding midfielders and three attacking with two of them of the flanks coming inside to support a lone striker.

 

We won the midfield battle in the first half but created one half chance for Hammond coming from Midfield. FFS we had 77% possession in the first 15 minutes but no end product as our two strikers were running away from the ball to create space for - noone or to get flick ons from noone.

 

We NEED the cover or we have to change our style for the wrong reasons. Connolly as a lone striker If Barnard runs out of steam or gets crocked/suspended. Sorry but IMHO after the Reading game Ryan Doble isn't ready yet so going into a League match without a sub striker on the bench is a problem. Connolly & Barnard are more than good enough for this League as the 2nd striker but at the moment with Rickie out we lack balance up front.

 

BUT as I have been saying since last season (along with Alps) we DO need a CM cover as well.

 

I have argued elsewhere on the 3 times thread that the PROBLEM is finding somebody who would be happy to be cover for Rickie they do NOt have to be another RL just allow us to play the same way WHEN we need to play 2 up front.

 

THAT is what I see is AP's problem, NOT that AP/NC isn't trying to find someone

[View From The Top]

As one of our current 3 is Connolly, who is 35 and cannot be relied upon to be fit for the season , the yes we definitely need another.

 

I'll disagree as I feel our priorities lay elsewhere but you make a fair point.

[Smirking_Saint]

We won the midfield battle in the first half but created one half chance for Hammond coming from Midfield. FFS we had 77% possession in the first 15 minutes but no end product as our two strikers were running away from the ball to create space for - noone or to get flick ons from noone.

 

We NEED the cover or we have to change our style for the wrong reasons. Connolly as a lone striker If Barnard runs out of steam or gets crocked/suspended. Sorry but IMHO after the Reading game Ryan Doble isn't ready yet so going into a League match without a sub striker on the bench is a problem. Connolly & Barnard are more than good enough for this League as the 2nd striker but at the moment with Rickie out we lack balance up front.

 

BUT as I have been saying since last season (along with Alps) we DO need a CM cover as well.

 

I have argued elsewhere on the 3 times thread that the PROBLEM is finding somebody who would be happy to be cover for Rickie they do NOt have to be another RL just allow us to play the same way WHEN we need to play 2 up front.

 

THAT is what I see is AP's problem, NOT that AP/NC isn't trying to find someone

 

This

[Saints foreva]

So you want 4 excellent strikers with two of them not playing?

 

You do understand we are in division 3?

 

I never said it needed an 'excellent' striker, just back up for Lambert.

[View From The Top]

We won the midfield battle in the first half but created one half chance for Hammond coming from Midfield. FFS we had 77% possession in the first 15 minutes but no end product as our two strikers were running away from the ball to create space for - noone or to get flick ons from noone.

 

 

What about the 2nd half?

 

We were outnumbered, out fought, out thought and outmaneuvered at times. Against a decent team we would have been murdered.

[View From The Top]

I never said it needed an 'excellent' striker, just back up for Lambert.

 

I could be back up for Lambert but it doesn't mean I'd be any good.

 

We've three good forwards but if we don't supply the service they won't score.

[Smirking_Saint]

What about the 2nd half?

 

We were outnumbered, out fought, out thought and outmaneuvered at times. Against a decent team we would have been murdered.

 

I do agree with a lot you say mate, but honestly i didn't think that at all, each to their own and all that though.

 

They had one big hoof which ended in a mistake and the target man winning a header in the box (something we couldn't do) which they scored from, as the commentator said about 100 times it was smash and grab, they just defended well and at times luckily.

[Smirking_Saint]

I could be back up for Lambert but it doesn't mean I'd be any good.

 

We've three good forwards but if we don't supply the service they won't score.

 

Service was fantastic, sadly the movement was shocking

[dubai_phil]

What about the 2nd half?

 

We were outnumbered, out fought, out thought and outmaneuvered at times. Against a decent team we would have been murdered.

 

Yep or we could have been 4 or 5-0 up at Half time IF we'd had a cutting edge in the final third.

 

Which did we miss more? Lambert's presence on the box of Lallana's final ball/creativity?

 

Mute point both ways.

 

The REAL problem today was

 

When the 1st half didn't work and Plymouth tweaked things and pressed us (and got a goal from a defensive error) we had no plan B available from the bench. Not many managers ever switch to 4-5-1 early in the second half when they go a goal behind at home.

[Saints foreva]

I could be back up for Lambert but it doesn't mean I'd be any good.

 

We've three good forwards but if we don't supply the service they won't score.

 

You're correct about us having three good forwards but two of them cannot play together. There were plenty of decent balls going into the area today, the type Lambert would have got onto.

[View From The Top]

Yep or we could have been 4 or 5-0 up at Half time IF we'd had a cutting edge in the final third.

 

Which did we miss more? Lambert's presence on the box of Lallana's final ball/creativity?

 

Mute point both ways.

 

The REAL problem today was

 

When the 1st half didn't work and Plymouth tweaked things and pressed us (and got a goal from a defensive error) we had no plan B available from the bench. Not many managers ever switch to 4-5-1 early in the second half when they go a goal behind at home.

 

I would have started with it, not switched to it.

 

Last season we looked much better with our midfielders breaking onto and beyond the front man.

[View From The Top]

You're correct about us having three good forwards but two of them cannot play together. There were plenty of decent balls going into the area today, the type Lambert would have got onto.

 

1st hald Lambert would have had a hatrick but that's not to say a lump of a replacement would have. Would have Patterson before we offloaded him?

[Chez]

 

BUT as I have been saying since last season (along with Alps) we DO need a CM cover as well.

 

you say it as though you are the only ones. There isn't a Saints fan around that doesn't think we need another CM and some of us were saying it just a few weeks after Hammond got here (and not because we thought Schneiderlin wasn't up to it). I just wish I knew who. Edited 7 August, 2010 by Chez

[View From The Top]

I do agree with a lot you say mate, but honestly i didn't think that at all, each to their own and all that though.

 

They had one big hoof which ended in a mistake and the target man winning a header in the box (something we couldn't do) which they scored from, as the commentator said about 100 times it was smash and grab, they just defended well and at times luckily.

 

2nd half our midfield was AWOL and exposed the back 4 on more than one occasion IMHO.

[View From The Top]

you say it though you are the only ones. There isn't a Saints fan that doesn't think we need another CM.

 

Spot on. We all know we need one, but getting one that is really going to make a difference is always going to be tricky.

[Saints foreva]

1st hald Lambert would have had a hatrick but that's not to say a lump of a replacement would have. Would have Patterson before we offloaded him?

 

Paterson was hardly a lump.

 

There are not many Lambert types going around in the lower leagues, which is clear but we still need another option for when he is injured.

[Saints foreva]

Also can someone tell me what is happening with this forum?

 

For some strange reason I am no longer restricted to 3 posts per day?

[Badger]

I'll disagree as I feel our priorities lay elsewhere but you make a fair point.

 

Yes, I'd also accept that a CM is probably top of our priorities.

[Chez]

1st hald Lambert would have had a hatrick but that's not to say a lump of a replacement would have. Would have Patterson before we offloaded him?

why didn't we loan him out for the season?

[Smirking_Saint]

why didn't we loan him out for the season?

 

No idea, i can't help but think he would have had provided more upfront for us today and probably would have been happy sitting behind Lambert, i just can't see who we are going to get.

 

Akinfenwa scored today BTW

 

Also, who we gonna get in midfield ?? Hammond i don't think is good enough for the step up