CanadaSaint

I think it's a very fair comparison Minty, and I'll go a little farther. Sherringham played at the top level until he was 41, I believe. He did that because he just seemed to get smarter and better with age, so the development/expansion of Rickie's game this year may just be a preview of improvement still to come. And if that's the case we still have another ten years of Rickie to look forward to, as long as we take care of him and he takes care of himself.

There are plenty of people in the world who are far from the confrontational type. Why are they a "coward" or a "weirdo" if choose not to confront someone face-to-face for breaking the law or ruining the enjoyment of others? Especially when the morons who come out with racist crap are often the kind of people who regard a smack in the face as being a reasonable response to someone who calls them on it?

I think Lambert has far more dimensions to his game. The comparison is very flattering to Holt.

I don't think it's the clarity that's in question.

Makes sense for them - it's code for 4 (kick) - 5 (rush) - 1 (look for rebounds).

I hope he wasn't looking at any of our players. I dread him getting his hands on them because I don't think they'd ever be the same again.

I was a little queasy about not having a keeper on the bench (tempting fate and all that) but a look at who we did have on there gave me a buzz. Now that we've got some injured players back and used the transfer market wisely, boy do we have some quality in depth! And not just quality but options. I get the sense that we have the players to shut the game down, open it up, chase an equalizer or a winner, go wider or narrower, or do just about anything we need to do. And Chaplow is still to come.

I'm not looking for him to come in anytime soon, Dave, because his effectiveness is entirely dependent on his fitness - more so than for other types of player. I was talking about when he's fully ready to come back. With regard to the central midfield, Ron's comment probably sums up the problem. Schneiderlin shows signs of real class but he's too often guilty of the "short, sideways and back" approach. What were your thoughts on the full backs, who seemed to play better today?

I can see Adkins using Puncheon and Chaplow to share one high-tempo role on the right, with the substitute coming on to replace the starter when his intensity is starting to drop. We looked good when we had pace and intensity on the right flank - it contributed a lot to our shape and balance and helped the opposite flank to look good as well.

IMO it's not just "a big positive" to have the two full backs playing well - it's absolutely critical to the way Adkins wants to play. Like most people, I've felt that our loss of form dates back to the loss of Chappers, but - far from coincidentally - I think the form of our full backs went down the sh*tter at about the same time. If they're playing well and crossing well, there's not a team in this division that can live with us.

We've just comfortably beaten a team with a 6W, 2D, 2L record over the last 10 - a team that has won at Boro and West Ham. I'd say that's an excellent return to form - just in time for Tuesday. And, boy, our bench looks really good as well.

This is one hell of a good time to be re-finding our form. West Ham aren't as good as most people (especially themselves) seem to think and they're there for the taking. Man, I'd love to hang a licking on them on Tuesday.

Reminds me of when Harry left here to go back to Pompey - the average IQ of both cities increased.

... or the manic depressives and hope-my-dire-prediction-comes-right pillocks.

I thought this was a joke thread until I read this: Now I know it is.

I'd say he has a good chance in either of the full back positions.

Hat off to all of you.

That's a really good point. One of the most dangerous places on the pitch is around "the D" on the edge of the box. It's amazing how many half-clearances end up there, and every one of them is a half chance - don't control it, just hit it and accept that some will hit the roof of the stand, but some will go in. We have nobody in our midfield who's consistently capable of that or even interested in it - Hammond occasionally, Schneiderlin not (other than a bit of a freak against Forest), Corky not. It's a key strategic zone and I think we waste it.

Perhaps we're just arguing/discussing semantics. I'm not saying Adkins has told them not to shoot - that's not an accurate depiction of what I said. I'm suggesting that someone may be telling them to be very selective about when they shoot. Thus, his idea of "when the time comes" might be different to that of many on here. We're long on build-up and short on goals. We should be scoring more and putting sides away earlier. In my mind we have everything to gain by taking a crack more often. Hopefully it will come with Sharp.

I'm not convinced. As CaM said, Lallana would let fly quite often and now we hardly ever see it. And he's not the only one to become shot-shy. God forbid it happens with Billy Sharp. It's almost as though they've been told not to waste the ball with low-percentage shots - "If the clear opening isn't there, let's double-back and try to create the clear opening." But it's good to see that even Adkins is now saying we don't shoot enough.

I think he's a good player, too, but with an infuriating tendency to go AWOL when we really need him - whether it's on a near-post assignment or for a prolonged passage of play. At times I'd like to slap him. However, I do confess to a near involuntary evacuation when Nigel brought him on in a snowstorm.

You back from the dark side now?

BTW Minty, for me it's not just shots from 25 yards (I agree with much of what you said) but also shots inside the box.

Unless you're going to tell me differently, I didn't think anyone (even statto-nuts) keeps stats on "shot opportunities not taken."

I agree with that and admit to being pleasantly surprised because I thought he'd be MIA as it wasn't his kind of day/pitch.