um pahars

50/50 for me. A little bit more positive as would be expected after the last two results, but I think this will go right down to the last game.

I think the rewriting of history is by those who are now trying to claim the Poortvliet experience wasn't that bad and was showing signs of improvement!!!! As for your last part, I don't think anyone is claiming all you need is experienced pros, as most know it is more to it than that, not least having a manager more suited to Saints than Salisbury!!!!

Schneiderlin's fees, agents fees, wages & add ons for the various players who have never featured, same again for the loanees, various other decisions to spend money (i.e. not letting Webster go, paying off Poortvliet???). Then of course we have the thousands lost in revenues as attendances fall away as we fail to win, dur to us failing to score giving rise to a false economy!!!!!! Financial constraints certainly dictated things, but IMHO not to the extent that they dictated we had to go down the exact path we did. We had choices, and we simply made the wrong decisions.

Would like to haver another look at that one as my view was partially blocked, but you're right in that it also looked a good shout.

Options, alternatives, trade offs and false economies.

I winced again after watching that link (thanks for the link). Can see why it wasn't given (arguably ball to hand), but also wouldn't have been too upset if it had.

You got a YouTube link?????

Some very, very salient points there.

Yeah, there was a melee in the penalty area and the ball looped up and then it just dropped on Perry's already outstretched arm. Everyone around us were certainly wincing.

As for being a Drama Queen, then maybe you should have considered what the little winky icon was for. This failed experiment was sending us down, and it's legacy still might conspire to do just that. It doesn't surprise me how you try and gloss over it's effect that it had on the Club. This is a football club and the single biggest decision is the appointment of a manager and the system within which he works.

That's not what you were saying when you slipped back in to your old Sundance mode yesterday;). You need to decide whether you're going to come in here and be Sundance and get all uppity, aggressive and idiotic, or whether you're going to try and enter into a worthy debate. It's pretty difficult trying to understand just exactly where you're coming from with all these mood swings of yours.

It certainly looked like a very good shout, the only saving grace could be said that it was ball to hand as it sort of just dropped on his arm (or at least it looked like that from my view). But then again, as others have mentioned on the post match thread it looked as though we had a very good shout when someone got up ended on the edge of the box in the second half.

I'm sure he was aware that the club's finances dictated that he (and others) would probably need to go, but it was more the manner in which he and others were handled was what I was alluding to. In particular the way that his salary details were emblazoned over the local rag certainly didn't please him!!!!

And as Dubai Phil so eloquently pointed out, it is also good if you learn from those failures, something which Lowe has continually failed to do. Which brings us neatly on to: Football is all about opinions, and with the CEO/Chairman playing such a pivotal role at our Club, then criticism (and praise) is all fair game. Indeed, if by appraising Lowe and by pointing out his huge mistake in pursuing this flawed strategy, it ensures these mistakes are not repeated then it is certainly not a waste of energy. Given he was the main driver of this monumental cck up, then i think it is an absolutely valid assertion that he really shouldn't be playing a part in future decisions of this magnitude. Judging him solely by his performance, he has been found wanting and bringing this back to the OP he was a million miles from being right by taking us down the Revolutionary COaching Set Up playing Total Football with ex Academy lads.

And his performances should be judged against the backdrop of the attempts to run him out of the Club and having his salary leaked to the press. So fair play to Euell for being at the centre of this mini revival and fair play also to Wotte for recongnising his importance and perhaps even putting an arm around him and bringinh him in from the cold.

It was not forced upon us whatsoever. The financial constraints certainly dictated what we could and what we couldn't do, but that is not the same as booting out a decent manager and bringing in an a sham of one. Even given our tight financial position, there was still no need to go for this Revolutionary Coaching Set Up playing Total Football, overseen by a manager who was so clearly out of his depth.

I can see what you're saying with regards at least out of this mess we will have a few youngsters who have expereinced the rough and tumble of the CCC and will be stronger for it, but I would also say that I think many of them should hve been blooded in a much more balanced side anyway. I had no problem with the 4 you've named (even 2 of them aren't my favourites) being played this season and I think they should have played anyway. There is a worry that some others have been dropped in the deep end too early, which could actually be detrimental to their development. If a few players come out the other side of this daft experiment, then I will take that, but being honest that's pretty small compensation for putting the whole livelihood of the Club on the line.

McMenemy did indeed use this system, which is why I think it resonates with so many Saints fans (then again I'm sure we're not the only club to have used it well). Which is also why I cringed when I heard that Poortvliet had said that the older players couldn't play with the youngsters because they're not on the same wavelength!!!

Very sensible and balanced post. I don't think anyone had any problems bringing youngsters through, but like you I thought it was madness to be relying on the likes of McGoldrick, Lancashire etc etc etc for the whole 46 games in a team where they would be surrounded by youngsters. Throw in some experienced players, and as you say in key positions, then augment that woth youngsters. James looks a different player now he is the only youngster in a back 5. Even McGoldrick looks more sprightly now he doesn;t have the pressure of having to socre. You're right in that we got to where we are now by default and hopefully the current set up will pull us out the relegation zone, but like you I think we need to address how we ended up in this mess come the summer. One worry is your point about the inability to learn from mistakes, because my worry (which has been heightened by those on here trying to suggest the experiment almost came off) is that come the summer a certain individual will be smarting from getting it wrong and perhaps determined to try it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but IMHO we had a little spike when we had back to back wins against Doncaster and Norwich, and a glimmer of hope after Reading and Derby, but the vast majority of that 28 game period was very, very poor and we would do well to remember that in order not to repeat the same sorry mistakes. I am acutely awarte of the historical and financial context in which this season is being played out, but that does not excuse the sheer number of poor decisions that have been made throughout this season.

I'm sorry, but it didn't "nearly work", it was an unmitigated disaster that left us second bottom with less points than games, etc etc etc. Sorry, if it's broing, but we need to accept that those first 28 games were an absolute shambles, and if they weren't then we wouldn't have booted out the manager and undertaken a massive U turn. We were heading into Divsion 3 and administration and in my book, that's not "nearly working". We need to stop looking back in some romantic way that we almost pulled it off, because that was not the case at all (IMHO of course).

Sorry, but too many IF's in there for me. We were second bottom, 26 points from 28 games and going backwards (1 win in last 10, won once at home etc etc etc). You can gloss it up as much as you like, but to suggest we were 2nd bottom after 28 games because of the reasons above is somewhat rewriting history (I'm sure the same reasons/excuses can be said for every team in our division, but ultimately the table does not lie). Those first 28 games were an unmitigated disaster. The league position, points tally and the fact the manager got the boot are a testament to that, so we would do well to steer clear of trying to see it through rose tinted glasses. You're more than welcome to your opinion, but I never saw any evidence that it would have succeeded eventually, nothing whatsoever. And what is worrying with such a viewpoint is that if it is mirrored by those in power, then there is the risk that we could be repeat these mistakes next season if we stay up. I worry that Lowe will be accepting dropping the Total Football & Revolutionary Coaching Set Up due to our precarious position, but what's to say he won't be dusting it off and re-issuing Version 2 come the summer!!!!!!!!

I find it very hard to agree with anything in that statement and others have put it better on this thread, and on the madness of the Poortvliet experiment thread, as to why your OP does not resonate with me. We have bombed out the manager who was used to working with youngsters and no money (how I loved that line of that infamous CV), we have thrown out the idea of going with youngsters, we have dropped the Total Football approach, etc etc etc. What we have seen is a U turn of epic proportions, but then again what we are doing now is no more than the majority on here were saying months ago, and no more than what other teams have been doing for years. The whole idea that we would take a different and innovative approach and be the leaders in our field was blown out of the water in a matter of months. I'm really gald we recognised the failure of the experiment, but, like others, I worry we may be saddled with the fall out for some time.

Something I posted in my post. IMHO both he and Gillett hit the wall at about 75 mins. Didn't look like a knock (but could well be wrong) and you're right in that there was a patch when he passed to the opposition 4 or 5 times on the trot. We was kept on a bit too long, but no harm done. A question I would have is why these young lads run out of steam at this point??? I would have thought that these are close to their prime (being 23 & 21) and although they have still to develop fully, I would have thought stamina wouldn't be one of the problems. Is it because this is their first season playing at this level and playing such a run of games and they're not used to it? Was our training regime, particularly pre season, poor?