He has his days, but they are becoming more and more infrequent. Presume that owes to his injury problems, and the prescription there is to play him much more sparingly.
Absolutely. But we have to be realistic - as someone (may have been you Beef) mentioned earlier, it'll likely lead to an early retirement. He's not a naturally athletic build, much like Tiss, and much like Tiss and his calf, as a result will go to pasture sooner than others. Some people just don't seem able to distinguish that undeniable fact from criticism of him as a person/the player he was.
Sadly. He has his moments, like the second half against Fulham, but for the vast majority of the last year (since Pochettino came in, really) he's only really been a threat from set pieces.
Being very 'Cortese' about it - as someone who had the ability, unlike us fans, to completely remove emotion from decisions (some people may see this as sociopathic, but it's bloody useful), I'm quite sure Nicola was prepared to sell Rickie for £8m in January. It would have been the sale of the century to be honest.
now you are just finding a way to not agree. No matter how you word it or what phrase you use, a player out for 6-8 weeks or so will not be up to the speed or fitness of a match when playing against other top level athletes.
All comes down to how much we need that money, and how much we value his presence. Said at the time that £8m is well above the odds, taking only his value as a player into consideration, but that isn't the only consideration.
At work so haven't seen the game. Pleased Ramirez did well but it sounds like a typically frustrating Saints game that just confirms what we know already. The squad lacks depth. More specifically our defence is too prone to making errors without Lovren (and Wanyama?) and our forwards aren't clinical/good enough. Hey ho.
Granted, but the great managers (Fergie etc) all knew the best time to cash in on players, even when the fans might vociferously disagree - think Stam, Keane, Ince, Beckham, Van Nistelhorse, Viera, Henry etc etc. That West Ham move, with a good replacement (or even a sane Osvaldo) in place would have been at worst understandable. It was probably the Madness of King Dani that actually put paid to it.
We really weren't completely dominant. Our defense was bad. In the second half, West Ham allowed us possession because they know they defend well and that they could score from a counter. Not that I'm blasting the team but you've got rosy shades on. We were not good, and we're not going to beat too many teams with our defense playing like that.
Disappointed 25 shots to their 10 ....11 corners to their 6. If only we could get them on target Should have got something today but we didn't so dust our selfs off ready for Liverpool. On a plus note gaston looked pretty lively and caused them problems, minus for me is Rickie not at the races lately.
You know how to play us, simple as that. It can never be quiet on here we have too many people bitching.
You don't seem to understand my point. If he can't come back from injury and be capable of playing 90 minutes then that's fair enough. But he's not fit or match fit. He's injury free. My point was just that I think the expression 'fit but not match fit' is stupid. This is getting boring now for us and whoever is reading it. If you fail to understand my point now then we will have to drop this anyway. I completely understand what 'fit but not match fit' is supposed to mean. I just don't like or agree with the wording of the expression at all.
