Fowllyd

Interesting you should mention that - I remember talking to a mate back at that time who'd done exactly the same thing (he'd also backed us to win 2-1, so he didn't win that one!). His thinking was that Steve Williams would run into the box and get fouled, and Peach would score the resulting penalty. As it was of course, Peach's goal came from open play...

Just fabulous.

With Poortvliet on washboard that could be quite a combo. Personally though, I'd rather go and see the legendary (in my little world, anyway) Bob Pearce. Interesting that it's being pre-advertised this time; wonder how many will be there (and how big the pub is, come to that)...

You win the annual 'Best thread-bumper' award hands down! And your question's still a valid one...

Good call, and I'd add Nick Holmes to the list. Not his favoured position admittedly, but he was pretty good there. And I'd just want him to be in a best-ever Saints team!

OK, so you were affected by the thread in question in that it made you feel p!ssed off. Fair enough, but that's not what I was getting at. My point was that threads and posts on here don't have any significant effect on the team, on results, on Saints' parlous financial position, etc. I read the thread which Long Shot started; I didn't agree with what he or she put and posted to say as much. On the Saturday I went along to the game and supported the team. If LS's thread had stopped me doing that, then I'd call that a significant effect - but it didn't. I can see the point you're making, but I do think you're confusing an internet message board (totally insignificant in the greater scheme of things) with something - well, rather more real, such as the fan base as a whole. It's worth remembering that there are probably fewer than 100 regular posters on here, many of whom don't go to games for a variety of reasons. So even if 25% of posters here are affected by something, it still adds up to a tiny proportion of the fan base.

Let's be clear about this: people starting threads or making posts on here that are negative have precisely the same effect as those posting things that are positive. That effect is precisely nothing. You say that those saying they wanted us to lose "really aren't helping". As I think I may have asked somewhere further up this thread, do you think that people posting positive things on here are helping in some way? This is an internet forum, nothing more than that. Yes, we do know that Michael Wilde reads it, but so what? Does it have any effect on him? Highly unlikely. Does it affect performances on the pitch? Attendances? Equally unlikely. You can post what you like and you'll get no abuse from me; but please bear in mind that what gets posted on this forum influences nothing whatsoever.

Dylan's classic 'Masters of War' contains the line: "Well I hope that you die, and your death will come soon..." No idea if this was where they got the idea for the Branfoot cover though.

Looked one of our best players on Saturday, pre sending off. And I think his presence makes a difference too - an experienced head among all the younger ones.

I think that's spot on. Billy Davies seems to be remembered by many on here with great loathing because of his Derby team and his behaviour at St Mary's. However, he's managed other teams and, as far as I know, it's only with Derby that he got the reputation of being a hoofball exponent.

That's a fair point. He certainly looked very good last night when he moved into central midfield - a lot better than Pulis, whom he replaced.

Killer went off at half time, replaced by Imudia. Didn't show any signs of injury, so I guess he was only intended to play half the game. Here's hoping he's fit and firing for Saturday then... I left a few minutes before the end; while I don't want to sound overly negative, I thought neither Pulis nor Gasmi looked up to much. Then again, I doubt if either of them is properly match fit yet. Kyle Davies and Imudia both looked good, as did Thompson - he set up the first and was fouled for the penalty. Wotton is a useful older head in the reserves; even if he sees little first-team action he's probably worth having around for that reason. Neither striker looked too impressive, though Robertson took his first goal well.

This may be nitpicking, but I don't think Michael Wilde would have received any payment when he resigned from both boards. His positions as SFC chairman and SLH board member were both unpaid. Still plenty paid out to others, though...

I must have missed the bit where Derry compared our resources to Arsenal's. He merely quoted Wenger's comments about teenage players. Yesterday, Gobern looked like a player who was nowhere near ready for the situation he was pitched into; he may well turn out to be a fine player, but he should not have started that game. He wasn't the best option on the left yesterday; BWP, for all his faults, looked better.

Great news. A true Saints legend and hero, and a top bloke to boot.

Shilton by several streets. He was widely regarded at the time he played for us as being not just the world's best keeper, but the world's best ever keeper. Peerless.

From what I've seen of Gillett, I think he'd be well worth a try at right back. In fact I said just that to a friend after one game (can't remember which game though). I wonder if it's been thought of elsewhere - ie has he played there in training?

Dodgy or not, I agree - in the footballing sense, of course! Pearce and Lancashire were just too green as a centre-back pairing, the freedom given to Iwelumo in particular was shocking. With Perry playing alongside him Pearce looked a far better player. (Note the use of 'alongside' there - avoids all kinds of unwanted nuances )

You don't think he's becoming a rocker do you? Watch out for the leather biker jacket, it'll be a sure sign...

Why so?

I thought he played well, to be honest. Got booked but otherwise had a very good game.

Were you at today's game? If you were, do you reckon the crowd wasn't behind the team? Considering our position in the table, and the fact that we've won once at home in the league this season, I think it's astonishing that the support is so good.

I was at the game today. The support for the team, especially from the Northam end, was unstinting and superb. Wolves brought 3000 along but they scarcely raised a whisper. Bear in mind that this was in the face of Saints going 2-0 down within 20 minutes, and having a player sent off shortly before half-time. That's what the support is like at St Mary's. Do you really think that a few people posting on an internet forum have such a huge and detrimental effect on the team? If this forum had been a hotbed of positive thought and comment for the past few weeks, do you think that we would have won today? Really?

Really? So if, for example, I told you that a film was total sh!te, even though I hadn't actually seen it, you'd consider my opinion to be valid and useful?

Yes, I'd agree with that. He started badly, and by midway through the second half he really looked as if he'd lost any semblance of control.