St Landrew

Who's the main commentator for Radio Hampshire today, alongside David Armstrong..? He's good. Paints a pretty good picture.

Same here. I had to say it out loud to properly get it.

No. Thinking about writing an article, or set of articles about the dream teams we're voting for on the main forum. That and fixing a computer. And having a few drinks. Oh btw, folks. Let's cut the insults out. Ta.

There's the whistle.

Please don't do things like that if, and until Saints are 4-0 up. Ta.

Not telling you, just in case Wednesday equalise.

Pat Metheny - Secret Story. Actually, I'm listening to Saints Vs Sheff Wed commentary on Hampshire Radio.

Well that's how I see it too. But, for an error in democratic decision making, it's not the worst that's ever happened.

Phew..! Cheers Darren.

Oh crikey, did I miss that one..? Me too peeps. Ivan Golac - The best right winger Saints never had. Isn't that how the old phrase goes..? And I'd have Mick Mills as my other number 2 as well. But only the top nomination gets taken notice of here. Poor old Mick might end up as everyone's second choice..!

What the title says. No cult heroes thanks. Only best quality right-backs need apply. I think this one might turn out to be rather difficult. There's no easy Wayne Bridge vote to plump for.

Claus Lundekvam made it into the B team, after all. So now we have these line ups, so far: For the A Team -----------------Shilton------------------ ---?----Wright-----Svensson-----Bridge and the B Team -----------------Niemi------------------- ----?--Lundekvam---Watson----Dennis I'm already beginning to think which team might win most games out of a best of series. They already have the makings of really great quality. Look out for the odd article on the main site of the teams we're putting together. Coming, in the not too distant future, I hope. In the meantime, let's get this defence sorted. RB nominations are up. Let's have them. Cheers.

That's an appropriate message considering your handle. COYR..!

Thanks for your votes, people. Claus has done it by a huge margin. Can't say he was that much better, if at all, but then we could have all agreed, and he could have strolled it with not a vote against him. Perhaps Deano will be on the subs bench. Pop along here http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=5823 to see the line ups so far.

OK peeps, pop across to the 1st half match thread now, as I've opened it a tad early. You can get it revved up for the start with radio/TV links etc...

Can't help but love stories like http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article5295451.ece provided by GM. The established hierarchy of football can't accommodate clubs like this one. At some point this story will undoubtedly turn sour and boring normality will be restored. Then the Bayer Leverkusen's and Bayern Munich's of the this world can go back to sleep, secure in the knowledge that nobody is rocking the boat anymore. We could seriously do with more of those over here. Both Cities, Hull and Stoke are doing a grand job, but are hardly setting the football world alight, quality wise. There's is a football style which is fundamentally Championship in style, with a sprinkling of Premiership. But we could do with another Arsenal. A total football style sweeping all before it. When it works, it's just the best thing in the world to watch. It's like snippets of that 4-0 pummeling of Spuds, but all the time. So why not Saints..? We do have the setup. In fact, we can't really do anything else now.

In the last hour, The Spinners [folk] - LIVE Performance. Honest, I really have. And now I'm listening to Angel's Egg - Gong. Pretty eclectic stuff eh..? No..? Bet you don't know the lyrics to Liverpool Judies [don't Google for them].

Saturday, Sunday, Monday. I count three days. So, I suspect, does EM above.

Let's face it - anything could happen. Saints could run amok and win or lose 5-0, or run themselves into the ground and get a 0-0, 1-0 or 0-1. I predict anything could happen, and probably will. What's the odds [le god forbid] on a FlyBe plane hitting the stadium, shortly after takeoff, or a train derailing and punching a hole through the chain-link fence before hitting the Kingsland wall..? :confused:

Put those inflamed or delighted comments in here.

Bung 'em in here. Am I going to regret putting the half time and 2nd half chat together..? We'll see.

Get your comments in here. Opening this early as I've got a several things on the go, and I don't want to to forget it.

Chuckle..!

Hmm, I don't know. He's having a hard time describing what it is about analogue that he likes over digitally reproduced sound, but he gets there. And I also think he is right when he suggests the general buying public don't really care about sound quality; only that it is sufficient. Whereas, the performer is a little bit more discerning. That may be true, but I'll always remember an interview done by a respected hi-fi magazine of many years ago, with of all bands, The Hollies. Now you have to appreciate, that the said Hi-fi magazine was bit holier than thou when it came to talking about musical reproduction and recording. So it was a bit of a shock when lead singer Allan Clarke said basically, I couldn't give a toss. There are always exceptions. I suppose, like the confused performer on Youtube, I have enjoyed analogue over digital reproduction whenever there has been a decent comparison. Most people haven't the remotest idea of what is locked up at the bottom of a record groove, or in a CD track, because most equipment sold is sonically terrible. It somehow passes itself off as hi-fi, but has little to do with the term. The Bose speaker example is a fine one. However, in little informal tests that I've done, using my equipment [see my link in post 4 of this thread], where the listener has no idea what is going on, I've had comments like, your CD sounds better than my CD, where I've compared my squeaky clean vinyl record to their squeaky clean CD. But you can't play LPs in the car or walking down the high street. And despite tape reaching some amazing heights in sound quality in the audio cassette, was only really solid hi-fi when it was reel-to-reel. Digital is just bloody convenient and good enough most of the time. And now that I've had tinnitus for the last 5 years, the difference between analogue and digital is barely audible. I can no longer be bothered to take the trouble. So my record collection is slowly, but surely being recorded to my computer, and then copied to another [no sudden HDD failures for me, ta]. I use the best equipment and techniques I can, and it's surprising how the quality level keeps up. Another thing is that, years ago, there was always a slight fight between my listening to the quality of the sound, and the tunes. With digital, I no longer do that. It isn't going to get a jot better or worse, and therefore the music is what I'm listening to. So perhaps I have something to thank Tomorrow's World for after all.

I just want to say that I should get my lardy[?] arse off this seat and go to bed. It's easily late [oops, early] enough. But having read such a brilliant and concisely written post, I just wanted to say what a brilliant and concisely written post the above is, which I absolutely 100% agree with, and now I am going to take my sorry lardy[?] arse off to bed. Goodnight... err morning.