um pahars

the horse

Just thought that from the minute I saw the teamsheet we would be in for a hard day at the office. When Surman is your most experienced defender (and even he's not a defender) and you have two centre halfs who have never played together before, then I'm afraid it's a big ask for them to get something from a tough away match. I don't mind a blend of youth, but 9 youngsters (including debutants and others with a handful of games) is a few too many IMHO. It needs to be a blend, with some old heads and a couple of bruisers in there to help the youngsters. I certainly don't blame the youngsters for todays defeat, IMHO they should never have been put in that position. JP made a few wrong calls today and showed his naivety.

I was always go by what would I be saying had an opposing defender chopped down one of our forwards. He was off the ground, late, wrapped around his standing leg, so on balance I think it was the right call by the ref. Lancashire was very naive in making that challenge and it was more youthful exuberance and naivety than a malicious lunge, but he had to go. I won't be cricifying him though, he's young and he's got a lot to learn and perhaps more importantly he's been dropped in at the deep end. As I mentioned on another thread, a few weeks back he was due to go out on loan to Orient, so it's a big ask for him to step into a team alongside a back four whose combined ages just about come up to my own age!!!!

Just one point on your post (alot of which I agree with). After speaking to Lowe, Pearson was still very much interested in the job and went away convinced he would be returning once he came back from holiday. I have that from an impeccable source, but it's up to you whether you believe it or not. It came as a major shock to him when it was announced that the "revolutionary coaching system" was being implemented, and he would be playing no further part. Some on here have some good contacts and if you cast your mind back to the summer, it was around that time that we were getting two distinctly opposing views. Those that had a route in to Lowe, Wilde (and even Corbett and Crouch who had got wind of Lowe's plans) were adamant that Lowe was lining up someone else to take over and so those stories surfaced. At exactly the same time, those that had a route in to Pearson, some of the staff, and players were confident that Pearson would be returning as the boss (because Pearson was sure he would be back).

I agree with what you're saying and I also don't think anyone is dissing our youngsters, merely pointing out it's a pretty big gamble to be relying on them to fill such an important position in the team. It wasn't long ago that even Poortvliet was unsure about using them, and as he had arranged to send Lancashire out on loan to Orient!!!!

Even though his first full season was a reasonable success, I never ever took to the idea of our manager only lodging down here. It just didn't send out the right message and I do have to question as to whether it was good for Burley's sanity, because being couped up in a hotel room, no matter how swish, would drive any sane man slightly mad.

Give it up you old woman.:smt075 Burley gets some stick on here for his dismal performance and attitude last season, before he walked out. And in many people's opinion he was deserving of it, because his performances, attitude and demeanour were shocking after the success the season before. But people's criticisms or rants aren't just restricted to your hero Burley (nor your saviour Lowe). Instead you will find that Branfoot and Redknapp also come in for a fair share of stick on here (mostly justified). Maybe because of your blinkered love for all things George (and Rupert) you miss the various Branfoot, Redknapp and others posts :rolleyes: . Have a look here from a week or so ago: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=38420&highlight=branfoot#post38420 So it's not a Burley witch hunt, just some supporters voicing their displeasure at being let down by their manager. HTH

So, if they would never admit it then how do you know that's what they want? Telepathy, private messages (if so I reckon you should out them) or just ****** you've made up. Don't take offence, but I'm plumping for number three.

Aha, so we finally admit that Hoddle was not the only choice we had. Methinks you've seen the light. And I'm afraid you'll have to ask Lowe why he went for Sturrock (and then failed to back him) and then why he went for the Talented Mr Wigley.

I know it wouldn't take long before that lame line got trotted out again.:rolleyes: Feel free to list out all those people who have said as much. I await the long list of names;)

Even bigger than appointing Wigley LOL ??? And then maybe we/they/us/the fringe/whoever: a) wouldn't have appointed Sturrock, or b) may have backed Sturrock over the players, or c) wouldn't have appointed the talented Mr Wigley etc etc etc So to sum up today, first of all we have nickh saying that the only current choice is Poortvliet and now we've got you saying the only choice back then was Hoddle. **** me, this football malarkey must be easy if you only ever have one choice o make. I'm surprised so many people get it wrong as there must be one odained path of rightiousness for every team out there. :smt046

I actually thought it sounded like Lowe, then again we could both be right!!!!!!

I would have thought a different manager would have a massive bearing on how well the Club does. If not, then you might as well just employ manager from the Southampton Senior League if you're saying there is nothing they could do. A different manager could have the same set of players but decide to play them a different way (route one, 4-4-2, 3-5-2 He may have motivated (or demotivated) them a different way. He could buy different players to the 8 or so we brought in. He could have gone for four with the same amount of money on fees and wages. He could have elected to sell Surman, Lallana and any other youngster who would bring in some cash and in their place bring in some older pro's on a free, but pay them bigger wages with the transfer fees brought in. He could have elected to play all 11 players from the Youth Team/Ressies. Of course there are some finanical restraints that any manager would have abide by, and of course there would be a number of players that they would all have to use, but to suggest there is only one alternative that could work with the budet we have is one of the most ridiculous assertions I have read on here.

Without appearing too rude, just what the **** are you on about? Earlier in the thread I gave a whole list of alternatives routes we could have gone down. I have no idea whether any of those would be better, similar or worse, but they are alternatives. Are you really saying picking Poortvliet out of the Dutch League was our only choice. **** me, what about all those other teams out there (many in a similar pickle as us) who were unlucky not to get him? Should they just pack it all in and let us finish Champions? FS you're not equipping yourself well tonight are you?

So you finally concede there was an alternative and that this was Lowe's choice.](*,) That's all people have been saying, that there were alternatives, those alternatives may be somewhat influenced by finances but we could have done this differently. No one is saying their choice would have been better, (not least because as far as I am aware no one on here can see in to the future), but instead Lowe will be judged on how his choice performs. WTF have you been arguing about for the last few hours?

I wouldn't call it over reacting, just very concerned. Of your list two are out injured and one has never played before (nor has Davies who has been mooted as an alternative). Putting Wotton or Schneiderlin in there isn't really the answer either for me (only as an emergency halfway through a game). We have enough issues playing midfielders as full backs without having to make do with three out of the back four playing out of position. So we have Perry and Cork in the middle of defence, with some rookies as back up. Now of course they could come in and perform brilliantly, but I think it's reasonable to have some concerns as we stand here today.

Two thoughts from me: Firstly, I think this thread is as premature as NickG's thread cooing after winning at Derby and others slashing their wrists after losing to Brum and Cardiff. Mid season, if not the whole season is when we should be saying whether someone is doing a good job or not and ultimately this is a results driven business. As I write this we have 3 points from a possible 12 and are currently in the relegation zone (albeit with games still being played and having a game in hand), so I think its a little too early to be being overly joyful (and also for being too pessimistic). If Lowe keeps his arrogant and condescending rants out of the media then that will only be a minor plus point if overall we are failing and are scratching around the relegation zone come next May. Secondly, the route we have taken is one chosen by Lowe. Whilst finances certainly ruled out a number of avenues (i.e. appointing Keegan and giving him a massive transfer budget), there were an infinte number of strategies to employ, whilst still sticking to the bank's (and other creditors) wishes. A simple alternative would have been to keep Pearson, another could have been to give Wigley a second chance, promote Hockady & Henderson to the first team, sell Surman, Lallana, Dyer and any other youngster and invest in some old cloggers who know this division, etc etc etc. This is conscious decision to go with the "revolutionary new coaching structure" and one that Lowe will be judged on.

Well despite your moniker, I can only assume you're six years old. You conveniently forget that the stats are all for games played in the second where for most of that period we were one of the "stronger" teams benefitting from the parachute payments. He wasn't one of the best, nor was he one of the worst, but your insistence on holding him up as some uber manager is disturbing. And I think you'll find most people were fairly fair in their assessments of Burley. In his first six months he was given alot of slack as he was working through the debacle of Redknapp, Woodward, Clifford etc etc. This was his team building period. The next season he got much respect for taking us to the play offs. However, against that it has to be said he was extremely well backed and had a decent period to settle in and get his team right. However, last season undid any of his good work. Burley's work on the pitch was not up to standard and more worryingly his attitude off the pitch was even worse. He may have suffered from losing some players, but the financial results also show he was still well supported. He massively underperformed and in my opinion he was just wasn't bothered anymore. If he hadn't walked, then I think he would have been sacked. Don't be such a drama queen!!!! "Eveyone's always having a go at my George and my Rupert" :smt091:smt091:smt091:smt089:smt089 I think you'll find Branfoot and Redknapp are regularly ripped apart on here. I contributed to a Branfoot was a **** thread about a week ago. Hoddle & Dalek Burley & SOG Wigley & ????? (does Lowe post) Branfoot & ???? (does Askham post)

This year in Thailand, when I mentioned Southampton, the reply I got back from a local was "James Beattie, great player". Otherwise over there in SE Asia it's normally been Matt Le Tissier, although Anders Svennson popped up a few times in the past. I think Saints are/were quite big over there as a Singapore/KL based football programme over there (maybe Star Soccer Shorts) is hosted by a Saints fan (Andy ????) and he was always going on about us. He even used to have a regular slot on the show dedicated to Saints, but I think our recent demise has rendered that obsolete!!!!

Orcheston, Wilts Newcastle London So not sure we can claim we breed them, but we certainly do nurture some good ones. Wonder which town/city based on population has the best record of producing top flight footballers?????

I would have to agree as well (although there might be a small caveat coming later). Crouch never denied that the deal was done, but neither did he come out and tell us it was done. I didn't think hiding behind Seymour Peirce was a valid excuse for not coming clean as I'm sure other transfer fees were made public during the "takeover period (sic)" and I said as much back a few months back. My only caveat would be if he was holding back information if it was felt it would commercially prejudice the Club, (in much the same way as Lowe told a few white lies regarding not having to sell Peter Crouch, when in all honestly we were always going to shift him and Lowe was just strengthening our negotiating position). However, I think Crouch didn't want to tell the supporters how bad the Club's position was and instead wanted us all upbeat and positive, whereas my opinion is that supporters should be told as much as possible (without compromising the Club in any way) in an honest and open manner.

So to summarise, you haven't found a quote from Crouch denying he had cashed in on Theo.

Considering our predicament at the time and the fact that Arsenal knew we were up against it, I wouldn't be surprised if we waived all future rights in exchange for a couple of million that was needed to keep the wolves from the door.

I tried it and failed to see any quotes from Crouch denying that he had cashed in on the Walcott deal. There's Echo/reporter's supposition and references to the original story (the one in the Mail about a number of items) containing inaccuracies, but no denial from Crouch. You either need to do some more digging or accept that Crouch never denied it.

I have no idea what the early settlement deal was, but I could easily imagine that we may even have given up a sell on clause as well, due to Arsenal having us over a barrel and knowing our dodgy financial situation.