St Landrew

Head says a loss, heart wants a win. Normally I go with the head, but today I'll go with the heart. What the hell..? Why not have 3-1 just for a change..? No doubt, I'll look back on this post and wonder why.

OK, I wasn't aware of that clause. If that is true then they are up sh!t creek without a paddle.

Probably not, but it is perfectly possible, and Portsmouth are getting as close to going out of business as any football club is likely to. It happened with Aldershot, Maidstone, Scarborough, and Accrington Stanley. Yeah, all minnows, which is why there is such a big noise being made about this possible liquidation. Those little clubs came back in renewed guises, but Third Lanark never did. As a percentage, I would say Portsmouth are 85% sure to go into administration, at this time, as the least of all evils. If still, nobody wants to buy them, from there it is a short step to liquidation, and AFC Portsmouth. Or Third Lanark and a shopping mall.

on BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/default.stm Have fun UK fans. Sorry overseas peeps.

Presenter was Steven Berkoff. He of the hair-trigger temper and slightly avant-garde actor style. Best known for being the really nasty gang leader in Beverley Hills Cop. Saw him in a West End production of Oscar Wilde's Salome, about 12 years back, which he produced and directed. It was awful, IMO. Which was a shame. You're right about the explanations. And they did wander around the subject without actually getting there, too. I put it down to the programme makers thinking it was a terrifically difficult concept for people to grasp, when it wasn't actually. Of course, scientists would bloody hate it, especially when one of the Maths guys basically said why not infinite universes [all without any proof]..?

And I removed it. Jones.

No, no, no. He means using a periscope to look out to sea, under the water. It's so obvious.

Hmm, very, very good indeed. Sounds like a cross between the late John Martyn and Nick Drake. And neither, if you get me. About the DJ - his accent was throwing me completely.

The heavy Northumbrian/Newcastle accent, I suppose. Tonight, I've been watching a pretty good Horizon programme on the iPlayer, about Infinity. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qszch/Horizon_20092010_To_Infinity_and_Beyond/ First of all, let me say that I'm lousy at Mathematics, although I'm pretty much OK with Arithmetic. Anything with mathematical variables, and I go from slightly uncomfortable to totally unhinged. However, I've always liked the Infinity concept. I remember my Maths teacher at Junior/Middle School asking me how big I thought the Universe was [this was in front of the class, the sh!t]. He expected me to say something like millions and billions of miles, but I didn't. I'd thought about the question before, and so straight away I said something like, Sir, I think the universe is the size of where mankind's understanding of it ends. And it bloody well floored him, because he didn't have a better answer. I was already prepared for the finite universe answer, if he gave it, because I could say, well what's on the other side of that boundary..? Actually, that's a slightly flawed comeback, because you can keep going infinitely around the Earth, yet it is finite. At some point you come back to where you started, but set off again. You could say the same about the Universe, but I don't think it's that way myself. The programme talked initially about the Infinity concept, and you could see several of the talking head mathematicians squirming in their chairs as they didn't like [one couldn't even accept] Infinity as a number, because it doesn't behave itself, as a number should. For example: ∞ + 1 = ∞ or; ∞ + 51, 342, 071 = ∞ [it doesn't matter how big the fixed number] therefore: ∞ + ∞ = ∞ but; ∞ - 1 = ∞ - 1 or ∞ - 51,342,071 = ∞ - 51,342,071 ∞ - ∞ = 0 [zero] Then, after pussy footing around the subject, they came to the biggie. How big is the Universe..? Most said Infinite, which was really brilliant to hear, as I have been thinking that way for many years, practically ever since those school days, and I thought they'd duck the answer. One or two even said pretty much what I said to my Maths teacher, all those years ago. Then, horror or horrors, they even nudged at the concept of Big Bang not being the start of all things [well not this time around anyway]. In fact, they sort of said that the last Big Bang was one of Infinite Big Bangs. This was excellent. I thought of all the mates I've spoken to over a pint in a pub on this subject [at least 3 or 4] who laughed in my face. The Mathematician who gave me a condescending look when I suggested it, but then went slightly grey when I suggested he then disprove it to anyone's satisfaction [there were about 15 students in the room]. He did have a go and failed. I've always been intrigued by that little flaw in the Big Bang which says something about the energy and matter for the Big Bang formed from the coalescing of gases. As the Big Bang has been given as the Start Of Time, this coalescing was before Time. Now, with that kind of squirming, anyone can handle Infinity any day, and you don't need two heads to do it. The trouble with Science and Maths, is they like to have a Beginning and an End, because it's neater. So what is Infinity..? As a number, it is the only one capable of having more added to it, and being exactly the same afterwards. As the Universe, it is a space or area without boundaries, and perhaps without time. Time may go tick-tock, but it doesn't mean anything. Infinity means that that there are infinite copies of ourselves on infinite identical planets, or indeed some that are slightly different, or infinitely different. There are even infinite copies of me writing this, with the infinite Saints going to infinite Wembleys. Which means that we are every bit as successful as the most successful football clubs. I like that.

A very good way to look at things. I think the Lads are perfectly capable of seeing off Pimply, but I have one slight reservation, and that is that they managed to get a last gasp draw against Sunderland. It sent their morale rocketing, and Grant made the very most of it by gathering them all round in a circle just after the whistle to drum the lesson into them. So my only worry is that Grant will have done his job too well. If they play as they usually do, I feel they could well be there for the taking.

Agreed, but I think there will be a bit of both. Remember, the new training facilities are NOT a loan, but Markus is paying for it completely, because he wanted to. There will undoubtedly be other occasional gestures of this nature.

Hammond to lift it in the JPT, and Kelvin the lift the FA Cup. Nicola or Markus can lift the playoff trophy.

Indeed. This is one club which will never need to go a bank for money while Markus is around. Here's hoping the long term is verrrrrry long.

Hmph..! What do you mean, old..? I still keep my rolls of 35mm in the fridge. And I checked out my Pentax ME Super the other day to make sure its metering battery was still in fine fettle. Yes, I've got a digital camera, but it's crap.

Or 32,683.

Here you go. Click on the thumbnail:

How about that. Now I can't see them..! Ha. I'll see if I can do something about that.

Not only were there, but they are there. Your quote has even carried them over to your post. Here are the links: http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Southampton/images/southampton_2008-2009-d.gif and http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Carlisle_United/images/Carlisle_United_2009-2010.gif

Are we actually going to play in the red & white this time..? In my lifetime, in every cup competition final we've played in the second strip. The FA Cup of 1976 and 2003, the League Cup of 1979, and even the ZDS in 1992. It's about time we played in our first colours. I suspect there's a realistic chance, this time: Us Carlisle United

I'm sure he did. But what I don't want is anything to damage the united status the club has. We don't want a hint of the manager being played off against the owner and exec Chairman. They are ALL important, ALL responsible, and ALL deserving of our praise.

Aha, the old Sky Sports News chestnut. Promise something is next up, then make everyone wait for an hour. It wouldn't be the same if they did what they actually said they would do. It would actually be watchable.

Of course. I think the odd swap here and there, where appropriate though, will bring benefits. However, I don't want to see wholesale changes when they are not needed . But it has been said before that some key players do need the odd rest so that they can be at their very best. Let's face it, where would you put Barnard otherwise..? For me, he's Lambert's occasional stand-in or competition.

Pretty much did start with that line-up, although with Puncheon cup-tied we had Antonio in on the right, with Lallana in on the left. Think Jaidi and Fonte were in reverse order to your line-up. You got Bart and Holmes right on the bench. Not bad at all considering you were asking for your line-up for last Saturday.

According to Dave Merrington, Antonio was, with Papa Waigo, our most effective player.

Unless they are completely knackered, in which case, make some changes.