Fowllyd

It's all about definition really, isn't it? One person's criteria for legend status are bound to differ from another's. Myself, I'd choose players who made a contribution and an impact which stands apart from the ordinary. It could be anything from a one-off moment to many years of sterling service to the club. So I'd call Bobby Stokes a Saints legend because of his goal in '76 - and even if he'd done nothing else for Saints I'd still feel the same way, simply because of what it meant to both the club and the city (and to me, obviously enough). Other figures spring more obviously to mind, of course - Bates, Paine, Davies, Channon, Le Tissier, McMenemy... I'd also consider Nick Holmes a Saints legend (pace Phil's post above) and that's just down to personal preference. For many years he was one of those names I always felt happier for seeing on the team sheet (and for many years he was very rarely not on it); he gave everything in a variety of roles; and he provided a few moments I'll always remember - a magnificent winner against Liverpool in '83, a cool-as-ice goal-line clearance at Upton Park (in a match we won 1-0), a goal from halfway against Watford (yep, pity about the second leg!). As I said, personal, subjective preference - but how the hell could anybody be objective about something like this?

By gad, I like the cut of your jib, sir!

I grew up in Bishopstoke and was at secondary school in Eastleigh. My dad had little interest in football (mostly because of being Welsh I guess!), so I didn't have any parental influence. I went to the Dell a few times with mates in the early/mid 70s (my first match was a Texaco Cup match against Rangers, which we won 2-0), but never went regularly. But I wouldn't have dreamed of supporting another team; I just didn't have the real football bug at that time. One Saturday in 1978 I'd met some friends for a few pints in the Eastleigh Working Men's Club (I was still in the 6th form, but they were all members). A bit after 2pm several of them were getting ready to leave and take the train down to Southampton for the match. I decided to go along, in spite of their view that, as a non-attender, I'd be bad luck. We stood in the Archers Road end (the only time I ever stood there) and Saints duly trounced Blackburn 5-0 - the famous "We hate Bailey!!" match. After that I went to every home game I could for many years, through university in Reading and afterwards, doing a few away matches as well, but eventually lost the habit while living in London and then Newcastle. Now I'm back in god's own county I've been going more, but still not as much as I'd like as I have other commitments on Saturdays. But, whatever else may happen and however frequently or otherwise I get to St Mary's, I'm a Saints supporter and couldn't ever be anything else. Excellent thread btw.

Actually, given Sunday train services he may well be right - especially on the return trip. The rest's a load of old bollards though.

I doubt that it's ever as simple as that, to be honest. I've worked for several major law firms (lawyers also charge by the hour, and the rates of top partners in the big City firms make Fry's look like chickenfeed) and for the most part clients will negotiate a fee which they consider reasonable for the work carried out. In practice (if you'll forgive the pun), law firms often write off a significant amount of time before a bill is even prepared, as they know they can't simply charge for every minute spent on the matter by every lawyer involved.

Nope, sorry - I've read Gemmel's post several times, and I still can't see the bit where he mentions McMenemy. But what the hell, don't let that stop you reaching for the old obsession once again. Oh, it didn't.

It was Connolly's first start. All his previous appearances had been as a substitute. HTH

That draw would beg a pretty major question - would we allow Pulis to play???

Just after I've posted something to much the same effect in the post-match thread, here's this one. As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of quality, pure and simple (TDD makes much the same observation in this thread I see). Formation is less important; we've dominated matches whichever we've played because we're better than our opponents. Sometimes it takes a while for that quality to tell, as it did last night and against MK Dons; other times we score early and control the game (Southend being an example). Fitness must surely play a major part as well - I thought Pardew's comments about spending a lot of time working on Lambert's fitness were very telling. Lambert scored plenty last season, but Pardew still saw room for improvement. Now that's an attitude I like to see.

How do you work all that out then? We played the formation which you prefer last night, but still took over an hour to actually score. Various posters who were at the game have stated that we didn't play as well in the first half as we've generally been playing recently. Perhaps, just perhaps, the flexible formation Pardew uses (4-5-1 or 4-3-3, whichever way you see it) is not quite the defensively-minded anathema you see it as. The last match I saw (MK Dons) we were all over them for pretty much the entire first half, playing just that formation. True, we didn't score in that time, but we created enough to have a comfortable lead. I think the simple truth is that formation has relatively little to do with, and quality is far more important. We're better than most other sides in this league; we just need to ensure that we make that quality tell.

Any money coming in at that time would have been sucked up by the overdraft with Barclays I'd have thought. I don't imagine the tax man would have got any of it - after all, we were hardly a profitable concern.

You'll get all the bitter lemon and whisky sours you can drink!

True enough, but if you dominate most games you play and create a plethora of chances then you'll win more than you draw and lose very few. Unless of course you have no decent goalscorers, which is hardly the case where we're concerned.

To answer the original post, a few observations: First, teams get 'found out' when they're one-dimensional in their play, or overly dependant on a single player. I remember Watford's all-action, long-ball style working well for a while thirty years ago; however, they were eventually found out by better teams who learned how to counter their style of play. We're not one-dimensional in our play, and we certainly don't rely on one player either, so I don't see that getting found out applies to us. Second, teams tend to prepare specifically to nullify better sides than themselves. If you're good enough to beat a particular side, no specific preparation is called for - you just play the way you can and chances are you'll win. I remember an article Gordon Strachan wrote in the Guardian before he took the Celtic job, in which he made this exact point. He said that during his time here he got to the stage where he'd look to prepare us to counter the very top teams (the big four, effectively) but didn't consider this necessary for other teams. So, if other teams are looking to nullify us we can take it as a compliment (and, given the quality of our squad, we should probably expect it too). Third, no matter what your pre-match preparations and match tactics may be, you still have to put them into practice. Any manager in this league will be aware of the threat Rickie Lambert poses, but stopping him from scoring is another thing altogether, as Orient found. And, even if you do stop Lambert, we have other potential scorers. So, in order for us to prosper in this league, we need to carry on just the way we are doing right now - playing attacking, flexible football with a variety of different potential goalscorers.

Phew - you had me worried for a minute there!

The quote from Chris Sutton is about Pulis, who's 25 years old and a midfielder. Who's the young defender you're referring to?

Yes, pavements can be very abrasive.

Call me old-fashioned, but I really don't think players should be taking their mobiles onto the pitch with them.

Ah yes, how right you are!

Nietzsche by any chance? Or maybe Giant Haystacks?

I'd say the best wingers beat defenders with skill, then leave them for dead with pace (or even a change of pace - anyone remember John Robertson?). I'd agree with Nick that Antonio very often looks to put the ball past the player then chase it. A top-notch full back like Mick Mills would take the ball off him every time - then again, he's not going to encounter any full backs of that quality in League One. But the better ones even at this level may well learn to counter him. I think he's a terrific impact sub, as he can run at a tiring defence after they've been softened up by Papa. One other point is that Pardew may well be waiting to see what happens with McLaggon; if he regains the pace he had pre-injury he'll be a pretty hot prospect as well.

I think he'll have a way to go to match Mark Dennis' early career. I remember a match at Brum in 1981 when Dennis (for Brum) and Alan Ball both got sent off - at that point Dennis, at 20, was one sending-off (or maybe two) behind the 36-year-old Ball!

Actually, it was Dave Jones.

That's a valid point - the teams around us at present are losing more than they're drawing or winning, so we'll cruise past them if we maintain our current form. But the higher up the table we get the better the other teams around us will be doing, so we'll need great form to overhaul them - and even then it won't be such a quick process. That said, I really don't think there's likely to be anything in this division to scare us - a touch hubristic perhaps, but having seen the way we brushed MK Dons aside on Saturday I do feel very optimistic indeed.

Yep, I was very impressed by that - Schneiderlin shaped as if to shoot, then played a lovely little chipped pass out wide instead. Great stuff indeed.