I was just listening to the HOL radio show and there were many different views on how well Jason Puncheon did in the game against boro.

I think he had a good game, although it was about time.

What struck me was that Puncheon reminds me of Ambrose. I still think of him, from back in the day when the Holmesdale had nothing more to worry about than the sale of Sean Scannell to Huddersfield.

As much as I want him to do well, I hope he will step up, because if he is at his best like Ambrose, he will get us points....

At his best.....

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

Ambrose was actually a pretty poor player when he wasn't scoring, he had little influence on most games from what I recall of him. He was sort of a poor mans Beckham; very good on set-pieces, crosses and a bit like a Lampard in his goalscoring from midfield but little else beyond that. Puncheon does a lot more for the team off the ball as well as tries harder to get on the ball. I think I get what you mean in that he's a similar symbolic character for the club and they've scored crucial goals in huge games: Ambrose; Sheff W, Villa cup, Man Utd cup; Puncheon; first year staying up, Spurs home, Norwich home, FA Cup final.

That is what I mean.

Ambrose was called a luxury player, in that he was on big money for him to shine in only a few games a season. Punch reminds me of that right now.

I did like Ambrose and I was saddened when we sold him but in reality the club went onwards and upwards without him. I think your assessment of him was spot on.

Not saying we should get rid of Puncheon though. I still think he has a lot to offer. He just needs to offer it more to silence his critics, if he can.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

Problem with Puncheon, is that he does a lot, that goes unnoticed, but people probably expect a lot more of him than is fair.

Every manager so far has played him, and continue to do so, and the fact is we haven't won a premiership game in which he hasn't played - Which when you consider this is our fourth season is quite scary.

Holloway rated him, Pullis rated him, Warnock rated and played him (even though they hated each other), Pardew rated and played him and now Allerdyce the same.

I can't help but think there is something of a pattern there.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I still rate him but I would rate him more if he at least got us 5 goals a season.

"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead"

Stan Laurel

Let's judge his attacking threat on his performances from now until the end of the season. One thing that has blunted our attacking potency from midfield imo is the fact that we had three number 8's in midfield. Now we finally have a number 4 as it were in Milivojevic, against Middlesbrough Punch and Cabaye were confident enough to push up; knowing Luka was covering behind them.

People will point to the first half of last season as evidence that McArthur, Punch and Cabaye worked as a midfield 3 but I think a mix of a few things and things to remember about that midfield should be considered:

We had Bolasie; most of our threat come from winning the ball in the middle then quickly recycling it out wide. Very little actual goal threat came from the midfield.

Confidence has been way down; that system relied on the energy, discipline and confidence between all three to cover for one another. Loss of fitness has been an issue too, I don't think McArthur's yet recovered from that injury against Bournemouth last season, Cabaye can't finish 90 minutes.

Allardyce might be capable of getting their fitness up to previous levels but that is an aging midfield without Milivojevic. Cabaye and Puncheon have the attacking intelligence to get into goalscoring opportunities but prior to Milivojevic's arrival the system was wrong for their sorts of games; they didn't know whether to stick or twist and their fitness levels were way below where they should have been.