The9

There's no non-crappy shorthand term for "the area within the Stadium in which you can actually see the match but specifically excluding the areas you can't see the match" though, is there? They can't say "pitchside area" or "in the seats" because they'll be in both of those. Stuff like "viewing arena" and "stadium bowl" is all there is, unless someone can think of a better one?

So is it "the Press Conference has always been private so now we've worked out what we need to provide we'll allow some easy questions for a Saints in-house OS-friendly YouTube bit", or is it "we had an open-access presser before and now we're locking it down because the Premier League is insisting on exclusivity for some sources"?

I bought the last fanzine which was being sold on the Northam Rd footbridge a couple of years ago, the first edition completely missed the mark for me, bought the second one out of hope and support, it was even less in line with what I'd wanted to see, didn't bother after that. I query where the market is for it. Generally you're either web-savvy and can get the information you want online already, or you're not and will only read "official" sources.

I don't know if it's a new thing this season, or just because we didn't used to broadcast the press conference so there was never a "broadcast live" but, but we seem to have an "embargoed" press conference as well now (which may have been the whole thing previously), so the stuff happening that we actually see is being controlled much more to allow the "real press" to break stories - which I guess was always the point of a press conference...

I honestly think the only way it could work, even with ad-based revenue and free content, would be to gather all the best Saints stuff from the various corners of the web in one place, with professional production values, and a near-daily editorial and rapid-response to the issues interesting fans. To a certain extent, that would involve SaintsWeb's Greatest Hits This Month on a timely basis to reflect the issues being discussed, plus (possibly) some unique content from a variety of decent bloggers. And even then it needs a USP like the cartoons the old Saints fanzines had. Obviously until I can get the link above to work I don't know if that's exactly what this is...

You want to sort out the sweary filter?

In theory, yeah, might be interested. In practise, there is so much free content out there I can't even be bothered to read, it would have to be really interesting and different stuff and I can't imagine paying for it even then. On the bright side, I think your blog is in that category, so that's a leg up on some of the other stuff that's out there.

"Server not responding 8937614 | 0 | msie 9.0 | 1408631547 "

Have you just crashed their server?

I was saying the "England should follow the Saints approach" thing a year ago, in terms of picking a core of one club's players and building on that, purely due to the limited time for team-building. However, that turned into "actually, looks like Liverpool is a better option" by March/April time and that seed certainly planted itself in the heads of a few Saints players even before they were bypassed in Brazil. In terms of building from the ground up, I see the problems as: cost of coaching courses which reduces the coaching talent pool and means fewer kids are coached skills at all lack of similarity between the objectives of the top clubs and the National Team when players get near the top level (make money, stockpile squad depth and keep players for themselves irrespective of stunting their development, adopt a low risk strategy with unproven young players who might lead to short term defeats at the expense of longer term gain). complete lack of funding for grass roots facilities for the masses who don't get dragged into a club academy at 6 and end up learning from someone's mum or dad on a cabbage patch with no changing facilities, if they learn at all. Competing sports/leisure interests at an all-time high Lack of nutrition and physical development information outside the core academies Less-than-optimum growth/development from food consumption in modern UK society generally The "September effect", still overlooking kids who aren't 6ft at age 10, late developers, the kids who can't hoof 50 yards or use physical strength etc. to varying degrees, and obviously impacting on both numbers of potential players and the ability to maximise benefit from those who do retain interest.

The other interesting thing about this thread is how many of the posters' opinions I am blocking by default.

I'm not sure why, nearly 20 years after the Bosman ruling, people still see people leaving their contracts for nothing as an "embarrassment". Players will see out their contract and move for free if they can because the "buying" club usually funnels the money they saved on the transfer straight into the player's contract or signing on fee, and the club flogging them for a fraction of their value 6 months beforehand is often counterproductive in terms of how remaining players see their value to the "dumping" club - the "sensitive" squad management probably leaned too far towards the players under Cortese, but you can't really argue that he looked after the fringe players and respected their contracts despite the lack of benefit they were bringing to the First XI, and that was either profligacy with someone else's money or a calculated act to keep everyone happy. Players get enough crap for leaving DURING a contract, why the fuss when they go when they don't have one any more?

Fair enough, like I said, it's nice to be able to choose (and I can't see Wanyama getting dropped either FWIW) - if we'd seen more of Taider he might have been in the equation somewhere too. Looked Davis-like with his buzzing about and sharp passing, but that's the least I'd expect from someone on a 20 minute debut in his position and who knows what his match fitness is like?

I'll give you that they may have at least made englandneworder possible, and THAT helped with the mainstreaming, but not much more than that. I guess we all had different personal experiences, I was a huge Stone Roses fan (albeit via single purchases and not gigs, to the disgust of Future Me) but I guess as I was already a football fan and STILL didn't know anyone else in the area I wasn't related to who actually went to matches it didn't have that impact on me.

It's nice to come into the first game of the season not knowing who we're going to pick for reasons of squad depth (admittedly this doesn't apply to the defence, but...). I'm surprised to see people thought Davis played poorly, I thought he was his usual hard-working driven self closing down, breaking play and shifting the ball well - think he might be a victim of "High Profile Incident Syndrome" where he's getting pelters because he missed a sitter, rather than what he did for the other 81 and a half minutes. I certainly didn't think he was obviously better or worse than Ward-Prowse or Schneiderlin for instance. It's difficult to know if West Brom will come to attack or park the bus, so as we're at home and we've tried it before, I'd be inclined more towards 1 fixed central DM holding (front sweeper ) rather than the 2 we used against Liverpool, so I'd take Wanyama out despite his performance at Anfield, because we'd expect to have a lot more of the ball and passing isn't his forte. So ahead of Forster; Clyne, Fonte, Yoshida, Bertrand I'd have Schneiderlin, with JWP and Davis in the middle with him, Long on the right (playing against his old club), Tadic on the left and Pelle up top. Davis' role for Saints has been underrated for too long, he's been instrumental in both intercepting and retaining the ball, and he's rapid on transitions as well as being able to shoot. Even the bench is a tricky one: Boruc* (Davis if necessary), Hooiveld, Taider, Wanyama, Cork, Isgrove, Gallagher. It's not our best remaining 7 but covers all positions (assuming no Gardos or Gaston). You could easily make a case to put Stephens in there instead of one of the THREE defensive midfielders for a RB that doesn't necessitate putting Hooiveld on the pitch, and it does show why there have been rumours about Cork going - we're stuffed with players in there and short elsewhere. Makes it clear why Taider wasn't involved at Anfield too. I'd assume Isgrove and Gallagher in case we need attacking options, as without them we don't have any who aren't already on the pitch. Had we not looked like we were building the attack around Pelle, you could easily make a case with the strength of our squad for us playing 4-6-0 and in that arrangement Long and Davis would probably be the furthest forward attackers most often. Would be an interesting watch if West Brom set up to counter.

Yeah all that is true, but their interest in football had little to no impact on football going mainstream, they weren't known in the mainstream for their footballing passion and it didn't make the general public think "ooh, that football looks like fun/safe/normal" like the other things listed. As for casualwear and scousers in tracksuits, I remember it well as a teenager going to Anfield in the 80s, but again, it was a thing that happened within itself that had no impact at all on football becoming popular with the middle class or women or suchlike.

Boruc has SIX YEARS before he gets to 40. Comfortably long enough to justify a new contract at the level he's currently playing without any concern for his performances tailing off. David James hit the wall around 39: England keeper at Euro 2008 at 38, still playing internationals in 2009 and 2010 (albeit not first choice after April 2009) and Championship keeper by 2010/11 start. Add to that Carlo Cudicini, Edwin Van Der Sar, Jussi Jaaskelainen, Maik Taylor, Hilario, Marcus Hahnemann, Dean Kiely, Carlo Nash and Mike Politt, all of whom have played Premier League football aged over 35 in the past 10 years... It's not the outlier that it is for outfielders over 35.

Based on actually having seen them play there in competitive matches for Saints, in cases of emergency I'd recommend Fonte at right back ahead of Yoshida (was awful on his debut when put at right back, showing the kind of dismal reading of long high passes he's since become notorious for), and Cork, who was awful every time he played there including at St Mary's for England U21s, mainly due to not being able to pass longer balls up the wing accurately, lack of pace and some dubious positioning, including the one where we drew 1-1 with Arsenal and someone claimed he was Man of the Match despite a match report in which his only mention was for a handball in the box. Of course that leaves the RCB position for someone, and oh how we should have kept Calum Chambers (but wait, if he was in the squad he'd be RB and there wouldn't be a need for the RCB to move), etc.

My Best Man and I have had two notable disagreements on Saints - last year there was a discussion about Chambers and Clyne which was SO convoluted that 6 months on both of us thinks the other one might have been supporting a different player in the argument and I can't even remember who said which was good at what or likely to start against whom for which reason. The other thing he brings up regularly is that "I said Schneiderlin was rubbish in L1". I didn't, I said he was clearly a good creative player but might not be suited to L1 and needed to harden up a bit and learn to tackle. My wife did say that, frequently, though, and I'm more than happy to deflect the p155-taking on that one her way. I haven't even managed to fall out with anyone over Lambert IRL, probably because I try to support my arguments with examples. I can't think of anyone with more polarised opposite opinions on Saints than Pat From Poole, but we're still mates. Even the one-time Greenwich Saint's Leandre Griffit love was treated with sensitivity. Long and short of it, is unless they're a racist or total embarrassment to be around generally, I'd rather be talking about football to people than anything, and it's a game of opinions (with mine always right, obviously).

I can also add him to the pile of "Cork can play right back despite all evidence to the contrary" people, thus supporting your "coming out of the woodwork with daft opinions" point above.

Wasn't it you saying a while back that all good managers have an instant impact, hit the ground running, and there's no gelling period needed? Doesn't that go for players too? NB: I think Tadic had a good first game and looks like he could be decent, but the "might get found out" thing is a valid concern, he looks like a pretty straight line player at the moment and hasn't yet shown the types of twisty-turny unpredictability Lallana was successful with - but you'd assume he wouldn't have got this far without the ability to go past people, by whatever method he uses.

As a massive Stone Roses fan I can confirm that's the first time I've ever seen them linked with football, especially in terms of the glamourising of it. Now if you want to throw Italia '90, Gazza's Tears, Fever Pitch, and All-Seater Stadia into the mix, I'm there with you in the participants in the revolution, backed up by the Premier League formation and Sky coverage soon after. You're giving FourFourTwo a bit too much credit though, they were very late to the party in 1994.

Best thing to do is NOT call the club and ask them, see what you can get before inevitably being told to put it away or get chucked out.

I just keep reading "Boruc is 34 now" and wondering what universe of goalkeeping the people who think that's old for a keeper live in - that's basically their prime and he could have another 4 year contract without showing any signs of deterioration. As he isn't on the bench, I'm wondering if he's got an agreement with Koeman that he won't bench sit but that he'll start if there's an injury to Forster. I'm assuming he's still training as normal, anyone know? His instagram stuff is honestly the behaviour of a 13-year old though. Seeing as he signed for us in his 30s, I'm not sure you can blame Saints for the primadonna attitude. By all accounts we churn out well-balanced kids, Lallana possibly being the exception (and who'd have thought that a year ago?).