The Kraken

Yes, and what I am saying is that you can't just say "the cups were at fault" without giving a reason why they were. here's another one for you; because we played so many cup games before February, come March and April we have a fixture pile up. So much so that for all but one week we played a midweek game. So the cups stretched us right? And by your reasoning we should have struggled because of that, correct? Our record for March and April was: WLWLWWWDWWWWDW. That is simply brilliant form, and came when we were playing more games that at any other time in the season. So I'm afraid your argument just doesn't hold up.

Don't bother mate; it's a ridiculous accusation using less than sound logic to try to prove a (very poor) point. It doesn't take into account the fact that many games were played away from home, against decent opposition. It doesn't take into account that some cup games were played on Saturdays. It doesn't take into account the cup games played after a cup game. It doesn't take into account occasions where we played a league game during the week and then again at the weekend; surely if weekday cup games are a problem then weekday league games are too? In short, its a very trivial argument to try and make. And as you rightly say, if playing cup games were such a problem it doesn't explain why, having done so, we were subsequently able to give the League champions a hammering on their own patch, turn over Ipswich (from a league above), beat Charlton in the JPT etc etc.

Why cup games in particular? What about midweek league games, do they not count?

Agree totally. Like has been pointed out, 8 of those games were played away from home. The notion that a draw away from home against any club in the division is a "poor" result is ridiculous. There are of course some very winnable away games, but despite what many on here would suggest I would never overly criticise an away draw.

And nobody can prove that he wouldn't have won all three games, which makes it a rather redundant argument really.

I think on this one we will just have to agree to disagree; you say once or twice in the whole game, I can remember more than that many times to Harding alone. We're clearly not going to convince each other so I guess it's best we leave it. As for the rest of you post, I don't disagree with any of it and never have. I was a fan of Pardew, in fact I still very much am; I hope that he is back in football very soon (if rumours are to be believed my Palace supporting mates could soon see him at the helm instead of Whisky-George, which would be good for both parties). I thought AP did a very good job here last year, and I maintain that he would have done a very good job here this year, but of course we'll never know. Like you, if we stick 4 or 5 goals in the net in a game I'm less inclined to care how we do it; while its nicer to play football on the deck in the style of Arsenal, the over-riding factor for me is playing attacking football, and no-one can accuse Pardew of not doing that. I'll always look back on last seasson with thanks to AP for reviving a flagging club so quickly and giving us our first trophy in far too many years. Adkins has started well, and long may our surge up the league continue. It's still very early days, and by his own admission there is plenty yet to come from us. I'm just glad that I'm back to enjoying going to games again, the start of the season was a blip on what has been a great 15 months under 2 good managers.

As the club were so happy to publicise, "bearing in mind the opposition, and the number of other significant home matches in November", I shall be taking their advice and going to the pub instead.

Excellent; perfect timing for a full transfer on 1st January then.

I still think it's far too early to tell how good a job NA is doing. He's made a very good start and the team are starting to play a different, more attractive way than under Pardew. I expect us, as I did at the start of the season (and even up to the point when Pardew was sacked) to get promoted. In mitigation though, we are yet to play the two stronger teams in the division in Brighton and Peterborough; we'll have a much better idea of where we are after that. The game against Huddersfield is obviously a concern as that's probably been Adkins' biggest test and we came off second bect in all departments. I maintain that we have the strongest team in this division, so NA was working from a very strong base already. Bringing in Chaplow was a very good move, Bignall I guess we'll have to wait and see as he's hardly featured. So, while I'm happy with his last 10 games, its no more than I expected of this group of players. He's made a promising good start, but as Adkins himself has stated many times; we need to keep up this form, be in and around the top places by January, and then push on from there. We're 10 points behind the league leaders right now, so NA has a lot of work still to do.

Another anti-Pompey song; great stuff. And what an original song too. In short; no thanks.

I'd love to see some stats on the actual case here. In my mind I can remember at least three times when he bowled it out quickly to Harding on a run up the left (one of which led to a goal scoring chance). I can remember Fonte and Seaborne come to get the ball at least 3 or 4 times each (and I would say more), and I can remember Richardson coming short once or twice. So, an estimated minimum of ten to fifteen times that we passed it out from the back. The assertion that we mainly hit it long would therefore mean than Kelvin put his foot through it at least 20 or 30 times. In Legod Third Coming's 80% figure, that would mean that Kelvin went long with it on around 60 occasions! I'm not even sure he touched the ball that often. I've said before, we were definitely more direct last nigth than in recent weeks. But I'm also completely sure that we mixed it up very well around half the time by playing out from the back, and kept play moving at a decent tempo by doing so.

I wouldn't be so sure myself; like us they've let in very few goals and not really hit their form. They also have a strong squad so should carry injuries/suspensions well. I think they could be a threat come the end of the season.

I think you're over emphasising how below par he is. He's not the player he was last season, certainly, but I don't think your critical analysis of his game last night is fair. I very much disagree with your statement that his headers almost never find a Saints shirt. One of his headers led directly to the cross for Barnard's goal last night. On two or three other occasions his headers and touches off very nearly led to goals scoring chances. Yes, sometimes he was also a bit wayward but in general terms I think using him as a fulcrum in that way worked well. I think when Guly came on he was nowhere near as dominant as Lambert was; with Ricky I often felt that the ball would stick with him, and the balls into his feet allowed Chaplow to push forward from midfield very well. I said all this on the match thread; IMO the difference between this year and last with RL was summed up with his miss in the second half. A great burst through from Hammond down the right and a cross that was put on a plate for RL. Last year I think we would have seen him smash it in the top corner, but he tried to side foot it and scuffed it wide. While clearly not at his best, RL is still a very good outlet for us, and I think he and Barnard are creating a real understanding with each other. The rest of the side are starting to also chipin with goals which takes the burden off the main man. Even out of form, I don't think we currently have a player who can do the job that Lambert does for us. Hopefully he just needs another goal or two to get him kick started and firing on all cylinders again.

You can add Danny Wallace, Rod Wallace and Theo Walcott to the subs bench.

we'll have to disagree about the 80% figure, as I just don't think its in any way accurate. So many times the ball was thrown out to the defenders, though as I've said I thought we were more direct than have been previously. 4-0 was a fair result, but ultimately didn't tell us a great deal. We should be putting teams like this away comprehensively. Like you, I still think there's work to do, Richardson was fairly poor for me and offerered no attacking threat at all, and Harding is only starting to get into forward positions as much as I'd like. But I can see vast differences between our style under Adkins as to under Pardew, particularly in working it out from the back when the time is right to do so.

Disagree; I've said previously that we were more direct on occasions last night than in NA's first few weeks, but would absolutely refute that we hoofed it. Kelvin more than often threw it out to Harding, Fonte or Seaborne, and only sporadically did they launch it up to RL. And more than often when he was in a good position for that. Going direct to Lambert is in no way a bad thing; provided it is done in tandem with a passing game, and it is done in the right areas. A Lambert flick led to the cross for one of the goals in the second half last night, and we were unfortunate not to capitalise on a few other chances. It's all about finding the right balance; if RL is going to win nmore than his fair share of headers up there then it would be madness not to capitalise on that. I think the team are starting to learn when its best to go long and when to keep in on the deck. Edit: As for the pedestrian comment, I also disagree. Oxo was an absolute livewire, no doubt. But Chaplow gave us options in the middle we've not previously had and Lallana (particularly second half) was almost unplayable at times. The move in the second half where Lambert put it wide from Hammonds surge and cross was brilliant football. Also I noted in the first half where we went from Davis out to Harding via Lallana and back and into the box and culminated in a scoring chance within seconds, resulting in a corner. Fast, skillful, breaking football, and nothing to do with Oxo that time. I think your comments are unduly harsh.

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people that still think Giggs was eligible for England. He represented England Schoolboys (as Ryan Wilson), but only because he attended an English school. His family lineage is completely Welsh so there was never an option to play for England, even if he had wanted to (which he has previously stated he never did). As for Bale, his parents are both Welsh though he has an English grandmother so could feasibly have played for us, but sadly the Taffs got in there first.

I think there may be a bit of this; on occasions we are looking slightly more direct than in our first games under NA. Playing it up to the head of Lambert is of course not necessarily a bad thing; but only provided we don't do it all the time, and it is in the right areas. Lamberts clever flick yesterday set up one of the goals in the second half, and there were a few other occasions where his flicks or headers almost put us in. IMO the difference between this year and last with RL was summed up with his miss in the second half; a great burst through from Hammond down the right and a cross that was put on a plate for RL. Last year I think we would have seen him smash it in the top corner, but he tried to side foot it and scuffed it wide. While clearly not at his best, RL is still a very good outlet for us, and I think he and Barnard are creating a real understanding with each other. The rest of the side are starting to also chipin with goals which takes the burden off the main man. Even out of form, I don't think we currently have a player who can do the job that Lambert does for us. Hopefully he just needs another goal or two to get him kick started and firing on all cylinders again.

Considering more than half the team that started in the away game didn't feature in the home game, I'm guessing you don't have to be a Pardoo lover to realise that it was true.

Nick, lets not discard the MK Dons defeat just because it doesn't make as pretty reading. It would be in there if we had won, so lets not run away from it. Much more accurate to represent the true facts. Which are: P10 W6 D2 L2. 2 points per game, championship winning form.

Let's be clear that it was a minority of posters that were saying that; the majority still considered that it would a failure if he didn't take us up this season. And there's definitely some perspective needed. Yes, we were good tonight and yes, his record so far is excellent. We'll have a much better idea of where we are after a tough trip to Carlisle and then taking on the top two. I still think, as I have done all season, that we have more than enough about us to go up. Give Adkins a transfer window to add one or two of his own choices and it should be bolted on.

Just back from the game; obviously very happy with the result. Performance was sketchy first half but totally dominant and controlled in the second half. Player ratings: Davis: 6. Only because he had very little to do; flapped at a cross in the first half but otherwise solid. Richardson: 5. Looked very rusty indeed, caught in posession a few times and didn't offer much at all going forward (but didn't really need to). Harding: 7. Very, very good defensively. Tried to get forward more than of late, on one occasion in the first half should have set up a goal but delayed on the ball enough for the keeper to block. Fonte: 8. Very solid defensively, and good to get a goal to cap off a very good performance. Seaborne: 7. A few shaky moments but otherwise did well, looked to pass out of defence rather than hoof. Chamberlain: 9. Wow. Just, wow. Looks like a real prospect, at the heart of our best moves and goals, and just had far too much for them tonight. Less of a threat when on the left but D&R's left back will be having nightmares tonight of the torrid time he was given. Should have set up Lambert for a tap in second half but chose to shoot, but forgivable in the circumstances. Lallana: 7. Some excellent trickery with his feet, after a quiet first half (when he should have scored) he was much more lively in the second half, lovely move for Barney's goal. Hammond: 7. Quietly efficient, did what he needed to do. Chaplow: 8.5. Fantastic display, energetic and strong in defence, and supported the strikers very well. The point in the first half when we were attacking, lost the ball and he sprinted 30 yards to win it back summed his game up. Sign him up please. Lambert: 6. Maybe generous, fluffed a great chance second half, but was a decent aerial outlet at least, his flick led to Barney's goal. Still a way short of what we know he can produce. Barnard: 7. Typical industrious performance capped by a well finished goal. Starting to get a real understanding playing with Lambert, if RL can hit form I think we have a fantastic strike force. Subs Bignall: 6. Willing runner, had a good shot on target punched away. Looks like Papa Waigo on roids. Guly: 6. A decent show, obviously has talent though still overly casual at times. Will only get better. Schneiderlin: 5. Struggled to get inot the game; on tonight's performance will also struggle to get back in the starting line up.

The irony of not caring about anything other than results, whilst taking the effort to come onto a football forum to post on a thread that has nothing to do with results. It's like ten thousand spoons...

This is exactly it; he's pretty much always spot on but has confessed that he has a complete agenda against Cortese, Reed and Hunter. So sometimes his postings get lost between the desire to denigrate the above. He's much better on the board than not, especially once you can see past the agenda and just examine the facts (which as I've said are usually spot on).

Christ, the amount of Echo bashing really is a bit sad on here. Get over yourselves, they're a local newspaper and provide coverage that their many readers need and enjoy. Strangely enough not everyone who buys the Echo is also a member on here and checks the Official Site every day. If you don't like the paper (and there are clearly many who don't) then simply don't buy it; it's a very simple equation.