CanadaSaint

I can't believe this has come from you, of all people! We're barely into February and if the last two-plus months have proven anything it's that even the top teams struggle to put together any kind of streak. Teams from one end of the division to the other slip into and out of form at the drop of a hat. Sure, it's a big week but there will still be a ton of time left at the end of it. And, given who we've been without on and off for the last month, we still have a pretty deep squad at this level - compared to most - despite what's been said. That will become a more important factor with each passing week.

Apparently, Palace have already bid 750,000 (or possibly more) with a loan-back clause.

So Alpine has been right all along?

It's just that your comments haven't been about Vardy so much as the strong likelihood that non-leaguers won't make it. I don't disagree with the generic point but, as I've said, I think the lad has enough about him to be worth a punt. Yes, even at a million because IMO the financial upside of him "coming good" (and he has the tools) outweighs the risk, especially as he's English, and that adds a premium.

Have you seen him play CD?

He's certainly not slow but speed isn't his primary quality. He's two-footed and will go inside or outside, reading the defender as he takes him on. He's also good in the air, full of running, and quite physical - not easily pushed off the ball. I was impressed enough to throw his name out in the "official unofficial January transfer targets thread" back on January 9 so I'm really pleased to read this (unconfirmed) report. We've spent a million or more on players with far, far less potential than this guy.

I watched the whole of the Fleetwood vs Blackpool tie and was most impressed with him. I think he's more than capable of stepping up several levels, especially when he's surrounded by better players than he's playing with right now.

And IMO he's absolutely correct but that doesn't prevent us from signing players to contracts containing a clause allowing for a significant increase should we be promoted. In fact, I suspect that some of our players already have this - Lallana, Fonté and Lambert for example. That's exactly how a Hooper signing would work - a boost now with the prospect of a much larger boost later.

This is looking more like the age-old "We need to play to his strengths" VERSUS "He needs to fit within our system" dilemma. I can't help but wonder whether bringing Puncheon in from the cold is a sign that Adkins strongly doubts that De Ridder can fit within the system he wants to play. It's hard to see the Puncheon decision doing anything other than pushing SDR down the pecking order.

After reading his quotes, I can only hope that his game has improved as much as his use of English has over the past few days. He's gone from "I'm not going no where gonna sit an train with the reserves/kids for 18 months" to "Thankfully Nicola is a forgiving person who has the Club's interests at heart, he has told me that the slate has been wiped clean and I can have a fresh start." Extremely impressive.

I think the point was less about individual players and more about shape and balance - both of which we had in abundance during the good run and neither of which we've really displayed since. That's no coincidence - and yes, put me in the "we miss Chaplow like crazy" school. But these are supposedly high-level professionals and it is possible to ask them to play a role outside of their preferred role so that we maintain shape and balance when key players are missing. Where I draw the line is on things like playing a left footed full back against a fast, line-hugging winger and asking him to give us attacking width as well.

I agree. And I think that there might be an interesting little tactical dilemma within the club right now, one which reflects the outlook differences on here: Group A lean towards spending big money just to secure promotion. Group B feels that the players we acquire now must not only help us this year but also be capable of performing in the Premier league; these players are harder to find and more expensive (fees and wages). I'm in group B because I think we have a finite budget since Markus died, so if we spend it now we can't spend it later. However, there are certainly big risks attached.

He had the resources to play a right back at right back, and it was on that flank that we dug ourselves the hole from which we never escaped. Yes, we were lacking some vital pieces but IMO Adkins made some poor choices last night and the winner of the tactical battle was Pearson. That certainly doesn't mean I'm anti-Adkins, far from it, but that I think he came up short last night.

I'm most comforted by your viewpoint, given that you posted this on August 8, 2010:

You mean this kind of thing, I presume: From August 8, 2010 From August 31, 2010 From September 9, 2010 From September 10, 2010

I don't think it's fair to make a judgment about any new player after a game and an all-round team performance like that. If he'd arrived in the middle of our good run he'd likely be hailed as a budding superstar.

Not picky at all - you're right. It was a half-cleared corner and Harding wasn't trying to get back but marking space in the box while Martin headed out to cover the wide man. Other than that I'll stick with what I said.

For me the pivotal problem was Harding, and it spawned a number of other problems. He was unforgivably beaten on the inside (his "good" side) for the first goal. He was still trying to get back for the second goal, which caused Martin to head out to cover for him, leaving us that crucial man short in the middle. From that point (0-2) we were chasing the game, which just made many of the same problems worse. Harding got caught time and time again, which sucked our midfield (especially Cork) back on covering missions, so no quick counter-attacks. It was not a good tactical decision to pit a left-footed full back against a fast, left-footed, line-hugging winger. I think that Nigel was badly out-managed today but I'm not heading for Alpine territory because we'll get a hell of a lot better with our returning players.

The distinctly un-wired Nigel is probably trying to figure out how to pin a tweet to the dressing room wall.

Sure he will, but thankfully there's a lot more to our selection process than "Is he a good player?" We won't live in an ego-free world (players without egos are usually crap players) but we can certainly choose players wisely enough to minimize the challenges. They're not all self-centered ego maniacs. And there may well be a certain value to having a Puncheon situation inside the club as a warning to others. It's not a one-sided financial equation.

Principles often have a price tag, and when it comes to running a modern football club, Cortese has his principles. We might not agree with all of them but things are working out well so far. He clearly has issues with overblown player egos and I suspect it has cost us some decent signings in the past, but who knows what it has saved us in the long run? If more chairmen were to set and stick to principles like his, perhaps the modern game would be much healthier than it is, at least financially.

He shook his head and mouthed the word "Nooo".

Van Persi's reaction to the substitution was very telling.

But then we need to ask whether we need someone like that anywhere near our developing kids.

He can't be that bright or else he'd realize that all clubs have a chairman and 99% of them have a big ego. Take a shot at one of them and all the others see the warning signs. I can't help but think that they are the tweets of someone who has been drinking.