Fowllyd

Let's not forget the times when we've had both right and wrong players of the same name - and in the same team, too... Armstrong - Dave and Ken Williams - Steve and Osher (or was it Oshor - long time ago) Baker - Graham and Steve (not totally sure they played in the same team though) Wallace - Danny, Rod... and Ray!!! And I think I can safely say we had the wrong Dixon. Hmm, seven hundred Gs. Where's that coming from then?

I dread to think of what would happen if Lowe and/or Wilde decided to grace any Southampton pub with their presence! Good to see Poortvliet and Wotte getting out there and talking to fans though - hats off to them for that.

Yes, they even have the phrase 'drawing the foul' in basketball - which is a strictly non-contact sport, of course. I can't help feeling that more cards need to be brandished at divers; the problem is that some players are so adept at doing it (a certain Mr C Ronaldo springs - or indeed tumbles - to mind) that the dive can only be spotted for certain on a replay. But I think a useful rule of thumb would be to say that if no foul is given, but the fall/roll was spectacular, a booking should ensue. Refs may need to get a few wrong (inevitable anyway) and risk managers' ire in order to discourage the practice. So it won't happen then!

Wonderful post from Therese's Boy - really did bring a tear to my eye. Along with all the other things I loved about watching Mick was his reaction when fouled - no rolling around in mock agony, just sat there shaking his head with a slight smile, as if thinking "When are they going to stop doing that?" They never did - he was too good for them!

Spot on.

It's OK - I was agreeing with you!

True - I was thinking more in general terms, rather than specifically for Saturday's game though. Pearce in for Surman, Cork to midfield does sound good for the Charlton game.

This raises another question. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we play James, Pearce, Perry and Skacel at the back (leave aside questions about whether or not James is up to it, though I thought he did OK last night). If we then have Cork and Shneiderlin in the holding midfield positions - which I think is a very good pairing - who goes where ahead of them, and who gets dropped from last night's team? I'd be inclined to put Lallana in behind (or alongside) Robertson, with BWP and Surman in the wide positions, interchanging as appropriate. Robertson didn't impress me last night, but I think we need a player who can battle with the heavy-duty centre backs you always seem to get in this division, and he's our only option for that. Lallana then needs to be encouraged to shoot a whole lot more.

More of an understatement I think.

Judging by what I watched tonight, he should be recalled in time for Saturday!

I'd generally agree with those ratings. I feel that Schneiderlin often looks that bit too casual on the ball; he was nearly caught in possession a few times. Cork can have the same air about him when he brings the ball out of defence, but he always seems to evade the lunges. BWP I thought had a decent game, put in the effort and linked well with Rudi. He also made two excellent runs followed by good crosses in the first half, the second of which (on the stroke of half-time) really should have produced a goal - McG headed over. First half especially we had the lion's share of possession, corners and so forth - but we didn't make it count. I felt the second half was much more even, with Argyle seeing more of the ball and looking threatening at times. Having the solid experience of Perry in the back four makes one hell of a difference; let's hope Jan keeps him in the team. All in all, hardly a game to remember; was glad to get home and warm myself up with a glass of Jack Daniels!

I think he will be for the Charlton game.

Looking forward to freezing my nuts off in the Kingsland. My heart tells me we'll win 3-1; if my head thinks otherwise my heart's telling it to stfu. And quite right too.

After a result like Saturday's (and, by all accounts, a performance to match) I'm delighted to see there are no changes. I can see that a case could be made for Pearce, with Cork moving to right back, but I'd rather see Saturday's starting eleven retained.

Why would I think that you have a messiah complex? You didn't write that stuff. If you wish to believe it then that's up to you. I'd expect a chairman's statement to give a summary of the position and prospects of the company; no more, no less. I wouldn't expect comments about former chairmen or chief execs, just a straight statement of the current position. Lowe's statement is nothing of the sort.

I've felt for a long time that Lowe has a king-size messiah complex. No, I don't know the man, but his actions and statements, going back several years, point in this direction. This statement simply reinforces that view. If I thought that the statement was nothing more than spin and froth then it wouldn't really bother me too much. What really worries me is that I think he actually believes every word of it.

It seems to me that numbers and systems are all well and good, but what counts most is playing a formation and style which gets the most out of the players you have. I've only managed four games so far this season, all of them at home; in all of those our formation has looked to me like two holding midfielders in front of the back four, then four players in front of them, each of whom has a nominal position but who interchange throughout the game. This gives a fluidity which can be just great to watch. However, in three of the games I've seen we've lacked a real cutting edge - our build-up play often looks fabulous, but we don't do enough to really hurt the other team where it counts. Judging by many of the comments of those who were there yesterday, this wasn't the case yesterday. So perhaps it's the case that having a straightforward striker such as Robertson up front, supported by the other three more attacking players, is what really works. Of course, if we can build from this and get a few more results, we won't care too much about whether we do it playing 4-4-2, 4-2-1-2-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1 or whatever...

To judge from this and many other comments, it seems that today we had a team in which round pegs fitted nicely into round holes. Let's hope we can keep doing just that, but it does rather beg the question of why we've spent so much time this season attempting to force square pegs into those same round holes. Yes, I know I shouldn't quibble - I'll shut up now.

I'll go along with that, albeit with rather fewer years of support to my name. The only season I can recall when we played with any real consistency was 1983/4 - and look what happened that season! Mind you, even then we lost a couple of silly home games to sh!te teams...

My but that was fun to read. :) Interesting division among the opinions on there - several say we were good, the better team etc; others that we weren't up to much but Reading were even worse! But what the hell, the score remains 2-1 to us!

Fan-bloody-tastic!!!!!!!!!

More imploring, but it's a fine line...

Good post. I agree that a great deal looks completely inexplicable at the moment, the decision to play Lancashire rather than Perry against Wolves being but one example. We looked far better defensively last week with Perry on the field, even though we were playing with 10 men by that time. I think, though, that the decision to loan out all three of our experienced strikers is easily explained. It was a purely financial decision, and therefore had nothing to do with JP. The worst of it is, of course, that the two things you point to which would dramatically improve matters will pretty certainly not happen.

I'm sorry, but if that's aimed at me (and I assume it is for pretty obvious reasons) then you've lost me totally.

How many times, and in how many ways, can one say the words "Lowe out" or "Rupert is a tw*t"? However many it is, I can't see enough material there for one thread, let alone lots of them. If there's something new to be said, fair enough; if not, what's the point? Of course, it would be possible to fill the forum with thread after thread all about how nasty Lowe is, and all saying the same thing. But then I think that's been tried before, on another forum - can anyone remind me how that turned out?