Professor

I admit to being a Long fan, disappointed by some of the chances he missed last year, but I certainly wouldn't write him off for that. I doubt if we will see Gabbi and Charlie start together today, or very often, for example against Wolves, when Gabbi came on, Charlie was taken off. But if we are to play a more attacking style, having two strikers would make sense but then I'd like to see Long playing with Charlie or Gabbi to feed off his speed.

One thing I'm personally vey happy about is that I stayed at home tonight and listened on Radio Solent. DM seemed to be saying all the right things about selection, formation and tactics and it wasn't case of hindsight as he was being constructively critical well before half-time.

It's going to take some winning now. Poor performance, sloppy play and failure to refresh the team when it was clear it wasn't working. Not making a change until the 70th minute is horses and stable doors. It's not yet too late but the job is much harder.

If you think Lemina and Hoedt were told that 5 years in the contract doesn't mean 5 years but just until you want to leave, then it's you who are daft.

While Virgil is up in the nursery breaking his toys, the grown-ups are downstairs letting him know they are there for him when his tantrum expires. They've even got his friend, Wesley, for him to play with. Last year, in May 2016, when he signed his 6-year contract and became Saints' highest paid player, Virgil was able to say, “I’m so pleased, I’m so happy. Me and my family have enjoyed it a lot this year. It’s been amazing. It’s only positive. The club is growing and I definitely want to grow with them, that’s how I feel. Hopefully we can make it happen. That’s the plan, to get a lot of achievements going.” The only change following his injury, is that voices off told of untold him of greater riches elsewhere and that breaking a contract was OK. Southampton helped him with his recovery and continue to offer him first team football in a defence packed with international players so it's difficult for him to blame the club for his change of mind. Little boys who throw tantrums often finish up hurting themselves and that remains a possibility for Virgil if he fails to see that the voices don't have his own interests at heart.

Classie's spot could be the space in the 25 but I haven't checked whether the numbers work out before Hoedt can be signed.

After scoring that cracking long range goal last season he must have expected to be given more of a chance but I think he was dropped for the next game. Not sure if Lemina is really a like for like player but can't dispute that overall we do have surplus in midfield and Lemina improves the balance between defence and attack. With Davis, JWP and Højbjerg to compete with his chances of a place do look limited. Tend to agree that a move would be in Jordy's own best interests as well as creating a space in the squad.

Still the writer at insidefutbol still couldn't resist the journalistic virus of plugging the Van Dijk story again. Saying it 'remains to be seen' if Southampton will change their position on the refusal to sell isn't very different to saying it remains to be seen whether Donald Trump has actually been hiding a liberal personality behind all his bluster. 'Remains to be seen' is an extremely dishonest phrase in reporting.

If the club's action is not taking a stand, we now have an alternative strategy that could have been used. The club could have told Van **** it had learnt through the media that he'd been talking to Liverpool and that Saints just wanted to check whether he did still wish to play for Southampton, or not. He could have been shouted at, like Brian Clough might have done, but if the answer was 'No' the player could have been asked to hang on for a few days while Liverpool were asked how much they would like to pay. The whole thing would have all been over in days and we'd have had a few million to spend on someone else. Then, when other players on long contracts did the same thing, this new policy could have been used every time. In making his suggestion, SaintRichmond may have an advantage if he's seen that part of the Chairman's statement which said the player will be sold in January. The rest of us missed that and just thought Ralph Krueger was setting out policy based on present facts on the basis that committing yourself to future decisions BEFORE you have to make them is not good practice. Forecasting the future is an uncertain activity but there seem to be grounds to think that a few weeks out of the game will begin to focus the player's mind on needing to make something of his short career. He'll be 31 when his Saints' contract expires and his career will be considerably shorter by then.

Do these journalists ever do any research? Rhetoric question as it's obvious they don't. All they want is a story about one of the big city clubs because it sells more papers. Truth doesn't come into it. What is the truth? Saints' chairman has repeated this week that no player will be sold that the club does not want to sell. Fans should stop taking the bait thrown out by these overpaid hacks.

Difficult to have confidence in what is said about The Lying Dutchman's training as reasons accumulate; no contact as foot not recovered; the virus; frame of mind; etc. But 8 months without playing, limited pre-season and not working with the first team is hardly good preparation for international football. He surely knew that so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Good idea from Redknapp. Liverpool do not have permission to speak to van Dijk so this would be a good way of getting banned from transfers. Well done, little Jim, thick as the old man.

Agree with Jermaine Jenas that Liverpool should let Coutinho leave. Not just retaliation but a player going to one of the top clubs in the World and competing in a different league is completely different to trying to steal players from other clubs in the same League.

Good to see both new boys on the bench. If Lemina comes on it could be exciting.

Some good insights from Chez and I'd think most of us on here would agree with it. It's a shame that some mindless rubbish does get broadcast to whole football audiences but ultimately what these people say doesn't actually make any difference to the game. It's just background noise and can be ignored. What is annoying is that people such as Redknapp, Savage, Wright and others get paid for doing no work at all. There doesn't appear to be any preparation, insight or analysis, so that all the audience get is the first thing that comes into some empty heads.

V D was in the party that went to Austria where we were told he was held back from some activities for medical reasons but that he did participate in 80% of training activities. It was said he was not able to play in the St Gallen friendly because full foot contact was still to be avoided but we know he did take part in training matches in Austria because he is pictured playing. After the return to Southampton and before the second training camp a week later, the Sulk had begun. If that is because he was told Liverpool still wanted to sign him despite their statement to the contrary, that could indicate a further illegal approach. He wasn't taken to the training camp in France a week later because by then he 'wasn't in the right frame of mind', which might suggest that something had occurred. The agent-written letter with the transfer request attempts to cover that up by referring to "interest from top clubs should it still exist" intended to indicate that he didn't know if Liverpool still wanted him. He should, of course, believe they don't want him because that is what they said in their statement. The club will obviously respond to the transfer request but may simply reiterate what they have already said. We shouldn't assume that their will be a running commentary on any discussions so as fans, we may have to be patient, perhaps until 1st September because passing that date, if nothing changes, will put the player under more pressure and by then he may also have lost his place in the Holland squad.

Claud Puel was of the opinion he could play Tadic and Boufal together. Before and after he said that in January both have overcome injuries that limited one or the other at times and since then they have had over six months to become accustomed to each other's play in training. There is no reason why they should be treated as an either/or, especially when the alternatives do not carry the same goal threat. As for Lemina, agree it will be interesting to see if Pellegrino has seen enough of him to include him amongst the subs because you have to be sure that all the subs are worth their place in the team on the day. As always of course, whether any substitute comes on depends on the state of play at the time.

Even though Mario Lemina and the Lying Dutchman would, when match fit and available, be in my strongest XI, I don't think a change of two players is the difference between us and the Swans. Feeling confident we will win this to be followed by something of a meltdown on here from those who prefer to have things to moan about.

I don't often play the selection game but this week is fascinating because (1) New manager with a new plan and (2) some players may have developed more through the close season than others. This is my guess, excluding subs: Forster Cedric; Stephens; Yoshida; Bertrand Davis; Romeu Tadic; Boufal; Redmond Gabbiadini I'm expecting that Lemina will soon be challenging Stephen Davis for a mid-field spot but not expecting him to go straight into the side as yet. As two of our biggest money signings, Boufal and Lemina could be the source of more goals from midfield, which is where Davis and JWP sometimes fall short.

No such thing as 'selling club' in the Prem. Clubs will sell a player if the money is of more value to them than the player but otherwise will only sell when forced by the impending end of a contract period. We all know that, so why do some people who think they know about football, fail to understand how the system works? The lying Dutchman can only play for Southampton for the next five years or until such time as the club decide to let him go. If he tries to avoid playing by lying about his mental or physical condition or playing badly, the club should consult the lawyers about a player's contractual obligations and stand firm to ensure other players are aware that a contract is a legal commitment.

The ill-informed comment by Ian Wright on Radio 5 Live, that Southampton are a selling club, is exactly why the club must not concede to a player whose contract still has 5 years to run. Wright is apparently unaware that the players Southampton sold that he is referring to, were enforced sales where contracts only had a short time left and the player would not agree to renew. It appears that Wright isn't aware of the circumstances around those sales and has made a simplistic statement that creates an inaccurate picture. The fact that Southampton has refused to sell Van Dijk gives the lie to any claim that this is a selling club because if it were true, Van Dijk would not still be here. It is important for the club to stand firm in order to show the football world that its players cannot be picked-off. The mealy mouthed statement released on Van Dijk's behalf changes nothing but it does contain evidence of the tapping up. Since the player is not for sale, SFC can reject any approach unless it meets the club's own valuation, which for a player on a 5-year contract will be exceptionally high. In particular, it should be hoped that SFC will refuse to have any discussion with Liverpool in retribution for their illegal approach having been the cause of unsettling the player. Being told to train alone does not prevent him from training and is the consequence of his own actions. To claim otherwise is a lie. Like many other people, I have no wish to see Van Dijk in the Southampton first-team again and I don't care if he rots in the reserves until such time as he makes a grovelling apology or a club we are prepared to deal with comes in for him.

Agree. His choice will be to move to a club that want to sign him and that Southampton is willing to deal with or to see his career slip away without first team football for as long as he remains stubborn. As for Liverpool, Van Dijk shouldn't know whether he is still wanted by them or not. Their last stated position was that they had ended any interest in the player. If Liverpool have been in touch with him since then, directly or through his agent, that would be a further illegal approach and would presumably result in sanctions against them.

If an anyone but Liverpool bid is available I'd be surprised if the club didn't take it as a solution to the problem while also showing players and the big clubs that a club making an illegal approach to one of our players will not get to sign him. It's entirely up to the club what figure they will take for Van Dijk and makes little sense for fans to think they know better than the club management as to what deal can be done. If it happens, we should just hope that it is enough to improve the squad before the window closes.

I'm not sure the club does need to sell Van Dijk in order to move on. He can just be left out in the cold until a suitable solution arises. The team played without him for half of last season, and since then, one more CB has been added to the squad anyway. As long as the club holds his registration, his value remains on the balance sheet, which in the absence of any bid is based on the 13m we paid for him, not the speculative figures in the media. If the club stands firm until the window closes, it's going to be a very long Autumn for Van Dijk because it's his career that is at risk. If this goes on beyond the transfer window, or the club think he might be a disruptive influence, the club hierarchy might decide they don't want him to play for us again even if he says he will. It's possible he may have to find any club except Liverpool in order to play again. By standing firm, Southampton can deter similar situations in the future by showing the wealthy clubs that our best players can no longer be picked off while under contract.

Yep, worth it because we'd be under no more obligation to sell him next year with 4 years on his contract than we are now.