Martin Samuel p*sses in our pool again.....

Its must really hurt the big 4 sycophantic journos being so, so wrong about...well, just about everything so far this season (so far).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2764344/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Southampton-shouldn-t-fooled-high-life-selling-big-danger.html

To be fair - I read this this morning, and I can't argue with it too much. He has a fair point.

I was looking for an explanation for our seamless transition, i was thinking skilful leadership, good scouting + recruitment, top manager... turns out it was "luck"

Its must really hurt the big 4 sycophantic journos being so, so wrong about...well, just about everything so far this season (so far).

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2764344/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Southampton-shouldn-t-fooled-high-life-selling-big-danger.html

Article summarised. Saints doing really well, but shouldn't sell all of their players again, and whatever happens, will be hit with the inevitable doomhammer of infinite bad luck, because that's just what happened to Leeds and Wimbledon, their situations being exactly the same as ours and all.

For fúcks sake. If I did a shít, stuck a flag in it and gave it a press pass, it'd write better copy than this guff. By 3pm too.

It's a load of bull as it's based on the premise that it was our choice to sell the players, when it wasn't. He says it would have been different if they'd been sold out from under Pochettino, ignoring the fact that MP leaving was the catalyst for a lot of the upheaval. He says we shouldn't put a price on Morgan's head, we should just say no to any offers. Um, isn't that what we did?

I agree with him frankly, I've said consistently that the big worry for me is that the board have the idea to make such wholesale changes every year based on financial considerations.

I agree with him frankly, I've said consistently that the big worry for me is that the board have the idea to make such wholesale changes every year based on financial considerations.

I reckon they've got the idea to sell anybody who gets above themselves and loses the team ethic / demands silly wages. Hard to argue with that.

It is very very simple journalism and I honestly don't know how these guys get away with it. But he's stating the obvious and is right.

1. We sold at the right time for the best prices

2. We've got a good manager who can gel new players

3. The board shouldn't think it's always like this and we can't go on selling half our team every season

So yes, he's right. But it's hardly rocket science.

I think what he is saying makes sense if we sell five players next season it is unlikely that we will get in good replacements

Just say no to tranfer requests something most posters were saying in the Summer although we are second we have not beaten a team which has recently played in the CL

I think the issue is that he see's what happened in the Summer as a strategy by the board which couldn't be further from the truth - it was an unfortunate set of circumstances that led to a mass exodus by some disloyal players. We will not see an exodus like that again IMHO, we may see one or two go a year, but that is due to our place in the pecking order - unless you are City every team is a selling club.

The whole article does seem somewhat predicated on the notion that the Board will look to do the same next summer, when there is no evidence to suggest that is the case. It *could* happen of course, but I am pretty sure that what we saw was a one-off based on the fact that the players that left felt there was a change of ambition at the club because of what they were told by Cortese... any new players coming in to the club now will know exactly what the clubs intentions/ambitions are and so are much less likely to leave IMO.

So yes, the article is correct in much of what it says except perhaps for recognising the unique circumstances that led to those departures, that was almost certainly a one-off unlikely to be repeated.

It's a load of bull as it's based on the premise that it was our choice to sell the players, when it wasn't. He says it would have been different if they'd been sold out from under Pochettino, ignoring the fact that MP leaving was the catalyst for a lot of the upheaval. He says we shouldn't put a price on Morgan's head, we should just say no to any offers. Um, isn't that what we did?

This, exactly. We didn't put the players up for sale, that c*nt hodgson did it for us. And in the same article, the journo points out "dressing room" issues had poch stayed on and seen lallana and lambert flogged from underneath him, so what exactly is he recommending? Keep the players against their wishes, with all the implications that carries?

To be fair, I don't think we will sell half the team in the future. The club have already said it must never happen again. Morgan may go next summer but you would hope he is the only one and we will be able to build again.

Perfectly good article giving praise where praise is due. Very positive on Saints but with an obvious warning that it will not work every time. These were special circumstances as he quite rightly points out.

This time last season we had a warm glow that stayed with us until the season end. An icy blast then blew through the club in the summer but has again been replaced by that same warm glow that should get us through the winter.

I blame global warming

Looks like an exercise in self-justification; presumably he predicted that Saints would do badly this season. He has completely missed the central point which is that the board stated quite clearly at the start of the close season that they did not want to sell any of the star players. Whether they could have done more to hold on to them has been argued over and over but the fact is that the sales were driven by the players themselves not by the club. For Samuels to present this as if selling players is Southampton's policy is knowingly misleading. The successful start to the season can be attributed to having appointed an exceptional manager and to signing replacement players of international quality who fit into the existing team. It is helpful that our players are not prima-donnas with massive transfer price tags and that the club is not under the glare of the media spotlight that the so-called big clubs have to endure.

Maybe a player with a £30m price tag thinks he doesn't have to work too hard because he must be naturally gifted otherwise a club wouldn't have paid that much for him. Get up to £50m and that may apply even more. Not in every case, but perhaps in a few. Our players, even though they are internationals, still need to prove themselves.

It's a shame that Samuels has written such a superficial piece when there is probably a lot more that a good journalist could explore with a proper in-depth analysis. I'd give Samuels 3/10 for grammar and spelling but minimal marks for content, accuracy and originality.

FWIW I agree with Jeff and Minty; the club went through a major correction in direction during the summer, and this should be viewed as a one-off. There is no evidence to support Samuels assertion that this is a deliberate strategy.

I view this article as a combination of sour grapes and patronizing, made more effective by trying to appear balanced by sticking a few words of praise in.

'Sports Writer of the Year'

Is "complemental" even a word ? Surely is "completmenting" or "complimentary" ?

Is "complemental" even a word ? Surely is "completmenting" or "complimentary" ?

There's also 'complementary'.

(There's also 'judgmental' but I've never heard of 'judgmentary' )

Edit: yes, Samuel is a tired old hack.

I`m frankly beyond caring what Mr. Samuel has to say about anything.

Keep digging Martin. Give your mate Ashton a spade to help you as well

He's pretty much stating the obvious, that if we repeatedly sell on players then eventually things will fall apart. As for Ward Prowse 'pulling the strings' against Liverpool, that's just a lazy assumption that all out academy products are good enough to be sold on for big fees

The point he makes about MP going was a good thing, I totally agree with him. If we had lost the amount of payers we did and MP didn't go (forget the fact that many believe they left because MP left) then I believe we wouldn't have transitioned to the same place so quickly. With RK being completely new it enabled a fresh start and for us to tap into his football targets.

I think getting RK in will be seen in a few years time as a master stroke. Now we just have to keep him out of the grasp of Tottenham sweaty hands.

Pochettino had brought through, or bought, the majority of the players that were traded in the summer.

Sorry Martin, that is just plain wrong.

I'm sure Kruger said that this transfer window will not happen again. Pretty much a balance the books exercise.

We can keep the players we want to keep IE: Morgan.

I think the board have a plan and are fully aware of what they are doing.

COYS

"I'm wasn't wrong in predicting inevitable failure, I'm just not right yet"

Also manages to insult Swansea I see.

FWIW I agree with Jeff and Minty; the club went through a major correction in direction during the summer, and this should be viewed as a one-off. There is no evidence to support Samuels assertion that this is a deliberate strategy.

 

I view this article as a combination of sour grapes and patronizing, made more effective by trying to appear balanced by sticking a few words of praise in.

Absolutely, he comments on how easy our fixtures have been so far. Thank god we didn't get a tough start of fixtures like Man Utd.

Samuels had indulged himself with most other journos in the feeding frenzy stoked by the departure of many of our best players to three of the traditional glory clubs and now that events have proven that the dire forecasts of doom and gloom have not materialised, he is acting like a spoilt child. He grudgingly admits that he was wrong and credits the beneficial changes to our circumstances as being the result of good luck, which if we attempt the same routine as a policy, will eventually run out.

Well, it might, but it might not. Although the circumstances this Summer were exceptional, the liklihood is that there will not be a repeat set of circumstances which is comparable in the extent of the sales, combined with the loss of chairman, manager and players.

But having replaced the chairman, manager and those players, we find ourselves with arguably better replacements and a surplus of £30 million or so, which could be used to either further strengthen the team, or the infrastructure of the club.

We made our own luck by clever dealings in the transfer market and through having an exceptional academy producing top quality youngsters who were coveted by the top teams and a scouting network able to identify quality players at reasonable prices. What will change to alter that?

How many years back does Samuels have to go to produce two examples of teams like Leeds and Wimbledon, whose circumstances at that time are quite different to ours now?

It's just an excuse.

"OK I was wrong with my predictions about Southampton, but how was I to know. It doesn't usually happen like this. And anyway I wasn't the only one"

I think getting RK in will be seen in a few years time as a master stroke. Now we just have to keep him out of the grasp of Tottenham sweaty hands.

But if Spurs sack Pochettino before he's had a full season to show his worth, which with historical precedent they might well do if he hasn't got them into a CL contender position, then what message does that send out to future potential managerial candidates?

Koeman is likely to be a lot more circumspect than Pochettino was and realise what everybody here does, that Spurs are a poisoned chalice. Do well here and he is lauded by the fans and the likes of Samuels, albeit grudgingly. But the expectations at Spurs are top 4 as a minimum, with the likes of Man City, Chelski, Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Everton to displace along the way to achieving it. Yes, Spurs are a bigger club than us, but if Pochettino gets sacked before the end of the season, his CV will have taken a massive knock compared to if he had stayed here and got us even just one place higher in the table.

Sorry Martin, that is just plain wrong.

Pochettino had brought through, or bought, the majority of the players that were traded in the summer.

Is it though?

Shaw - brought through

Chambers - brought through

Lallana - brought through

Lambert - brought through

Lovren - bought

Samuel's argument that Lallana and Lambert were brought through by him, is that they got into the England squad. Maybe this isn't really applicable to Lambert, but Lallana last season was a lot better than the season before. Same really for Shaw. Chambers - MP is considered to have brought him through by giving him his debut. And Lovren he bought - apparently.

Samuels is entitled to his opinion, as am I of his opinion. My opinion of his opinion is not very complemental (sic) to him.

Sorry Martin, that is just plain wrong.

No its not, majority is 3 out of 5, that means Shaw (brought through), Chambers (brought through) and Lovren (bought). Technically absolutely correct.

All in all there is nothing wrong with the article. But its not exactly insightful or in-depth or anything that would be written by the sports journalist of the year. Any average hack could have written the same and would probably have looked a little more in-depth into the circumstances etc. Truth is that if the Board, inexperienced as they are, believe this way works then they could go down the route of disaster that he sees. We have to believe that the experience of some members of the Board who were here previously (i.e. Les) would hold sway in case any of the newbies think this is an easy game. I hope Ralph does not get sucked in but as of now there is no evidence either way whether he would or would not (not just Ralph of course).

Comparison with Leeds and Wimbledon is entirely false as well. Leeds had to sell players due to their massive overspending so could not reinvest in replacements

It's a load of bull as it's based on the premise that it was our choice to sell the players, when it wasn't. He says it would have been different if they'd been sold out from under Pochettino, ignoring the fact that MP leaving was the catalyst for a lot of the upheaval. He says we shouldn't put a price on Morgan's head, we should just say no to any offers. Um, isn't that what we did?

Exactly right, Samuel is a loose cannon frankly, if you are reading this Mr Samuel (highly unlikely of course) SOUTHAMPTON DID NOT WANT TO SELL ANY OF OUR PLAYERS, all down to financial unfair play system, which I believe you were against.

Samuels is entitled to his opinion, as am I of his opinion. My opinion of his opinion is not very complemental (sic) to him.

What exactly do you meany by that? Is it short for 'completely mental' by any chance?

The article is accurate.. Samuel is just re-iterating what all sensible fans know; in that we have started the season well, but have had an easier start than most teams.

In terms of players leaving, we all know MP made some of our players look better than they are in another team set up.. so we were raided and its to the club's credit that we have a team that can compete at the top level again.

The article falls down on one aspect - the replacements. If you sell for £90m but then go to L1 to get replacements, then that is sheer folly. But we have, in Morgan's words, possibly a better squad. Certainly it is deeper. One area of concern last year was CB and how exposed we were with injuries - Lovren being off games left us struggling a fair bit. This year - JF, TA, FG & MY (and I have always rated MY higher than many others, albeit he can be prone to mistakes) is on the face of it stronger than JF, DL, MY and JH

yep - tbh i don't see much wrong with the article (but then i am not a bed wetter and wish alpine was banned)

i think it is good to have a positive article with a very sensible warning to the board embedded - to paraphrase 'we have been very lucky to have a team working so well after such an up upheaval, we probably won't be so lucky if we let it happened again...'

who disagrees with that...?

The article is accurate.. Samuel is just re-iterating what all sensible fans know; in that we have started the season well, but have had an easier start than most teams.

In terms of players leaving, we all know MP made some of our players look better than they are in another team set up.. so we were raided and its to the club's credit that we have a team that can compete at the top level again.

Oh c'mon. One of his big bold claims to whet people's appetites is utter shíte.

The board need to realise the club are bucking a trend through unique circumstances, and the luck could run out soon, because it always does

Who the fúck is this guy? Mystic Meg?

Why does he even bother reporting about football? If it's all about luck, he should just become the Mail's craps correspondent.

Is it though?

 

Shaw - brought through

Chambers - brought through

Lallana - brought through

Lambert - brought through

Lovren - bought

 

Samuel's argument that Lallana and Lambert were brought through by him, is that they got into the England squad. Maybe this isn't really applicable to Lambert, but Lallana last season was a lot better than the season before. Same really for Shaw. Chambers - MP is considered to have brought him through by giving him his debut. And Lovren he bought - apparently.

No its not, majority is 3 out of 5, that means Shaw (brought through), Chambers (brought through) and Lovren (bought). Technically absolutely correct.

Personally think it is grossly simplistic to say that Poch brought the likes of Chambers/Shaw through when they have been here since age 8 (before even Cortese!). The club brought them through, he simply picked them when ready. If we are going on debuts then obviously only Chambers applies, and in that case the media should be giving praise to Adkins for bringing the likes of JWP and Shaw through. We certainly bought Lovren when Poch was in charge but was it just his decision, or was it not a combined effort from Cortese, Les Reed, Paul Mitchell and MP? The only player Poch looked to have clearly identified from experience of coaching him was Osvaldo, who turned out to be a disaster. Get a bit peeved when Poch is given credit for assembling a team of which the only quality additions he helped identify were Wanyama and Lovren. Of course we can say he improved players that have left - as in the case of Lallana, Shaw, and Chambers - but in terms of those he brought through or bought, then I just don't agree with Samuel. We can also say that Poch trusted in youth and was brave enough to field them - as did Adkins to a large degree - but it was the clubs decision to pursue a manager that fit that philosophy, not the other way around. Poch was also very fortunate that we had such a gifted age group coming through at the same time - which the club was well aware of before appointing him. Samuel's article smacks of focusing on individual contributions to our rise and ignoring the strong foundations/coaching infrastructure that have enabled that success.

MP didn't buy or bring through Lallana, Lambert or Shaw - they were all established first team players when he arrived.

You didn't really read what I wrote. did you?

You didn't really read what I wrote. did you?

I think this all proves our board, manager and staff know more about football than the journos and internet experts

The headline is far worse sounding than the actual article. (Daily Mail? Sensationalising headlines? NEVER!)

"The Southampton board shouldn't think they can sell their best players EVERY season and remain successful, because history has shown a number of times that it's unsustainable in the long term" - is the basic gist of his argument.

I agree with him frankly, I've said consistently that the big worry for me is that the board have the idea to make such wholesale changes every year based on financial considerations.

I thought we all trust the board now and that Les was getting a statue next to ML and NikNak? Is this not the case??

I thought we all trust the board now and that Les was getting a statue next to ML and NikNak? Is this not the case??

I'm a cynic at heart Frankly, the noise coming out of the club through the changes was less than encouraging and while I am ecstatic with the way things turned out I remain cautious after the hellish start to the window.

This is a man who recently wrote an article criticising FFP and claiming it prevented clubs such as us (I think he directly named us as well) from keeping players and competing towards the top of the league, and yet now he slates the board for selling players

He's a moron

Samuel is one of those journalists who still uses the term 'fire sale' to describe Saints summer dealings without really thinking about the true connotations of the phrase.

At the outset, that just seems like a piece of lazy journalism. A true fire sale would not have seen those players sold replaced. The fact they were tells you it was not a fire sale. But the insertion of the phrase into the piece puts the idea into the reader's mind that that was what took place.

He does attempt to be objective and balance out his criticism and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the article as an opinion piece, which is what he paid to write.

You don't have to agree with his opinion, and The Mail are happy enough if you don't providing it provokes debate.

But whenever a journalist writes a piece you have to try and race right back through the thought processes as to why he wrote it. What prompted him? What sowed the seed of the idea in his head?

Why hasn't he written a piece about Hull? Or Stoke? As a Hammers' fan, why wasn't he lauding their efforts to the skies?

OK, he's looked at the table, seen we are second and as such warrant comment.

But are there not any bigger stories out there this weekend?

As much as the article is pretty inoffensive, I find Samuel's sudden interest in a club he has steadfastly ignored down the years as it falls outside the M25, intriguing.