trousers

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?t=48699

RIP

No wonder this country is going down the pan if 40% is/was considered a pass in anything... I digress...

Oh yes there is.... put off paying the ex-players wages (yet again)....

http://www.thefa.com/news/england/development/2014/feb/blake-names-u19s-squad-for-turkey Good to see Gallagher following Targett's example and choosing England over Scotland. Reed named as a defender though....?

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/video-frost-and-wilson-s-post-match-verdict-1-5897707 #tinpot

If that's possible we should all start to get very worried about the stability of the space-time continuum

It's "chairman's vote of confidence time"... http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/pompey/chairman-issues-backing-to-barker-1-5896409

Ok.

I can't see many people saying that the story is "made up" or that MP "didn't actually say that". All people are doing is highlighting the way newspapers take an answer to a question and turn it into a sensationalist headline. MP might have said what's reported, or he might not. What we do know is that there is no context surrounding the quote. As you say, it's not a difficult concept to grasp but what's the harm in highlighting something that's obvious? I think in a roundabout way we're all in wild agreement here: Newspaper embellishes story shocker...

Someone has either thought that through and put "don't know" for comical effect or it was written by a clueless numpty. Can't work out which.

I'd like to think Krueger would be working more with the development squad than the first team. After all, "the project" is all about accelerating the progress of players from the academy into the first team squad so injecting some motivational and confidence boosting effort at that level would seem most beneficial. No danger of stepping on MP's toes that way either. IMO of course.

[video=youtube_share;XJonGASrEac]http://youtu.be/XJonGASrEac

Cheers for sharing. I think your hunch is correct... The article follows journalistic principle number 1: Don't publish the wording of the question that was used to extract a juicy quotation. Reporter: "if/when you leave [insert current club] sometime in the distant future, would you ever consider managing [insert a former club]?" Manager: "Of course, why not?" Of course, if PSG came knocking tomorrow he'd consider it sooner rather than later as well

Agree with that analysis Steve. Sums things up nicely.

There are different ways of imparting an opinion. Take your "won 4 in 17" mantra for example. Another way of phrasing that might be: "We've only lost 'x'in 17 games, which isn't bad considering the bigger picture of us sitting comfortably in 8th/9th, but I wondered if anyone else was concerned about the fact we've only won 4 games in that timeframe?" Or, another approach would be to bang on about "only winning 4 out of 17" games without reflecting on the positive sides of our season at the same time. Putting it another way , IF someone was trolling the forum, which way of putting it would you go for? I would venture that you'd recommend going for the more provocative "boo hiss, we've only won 4 games" approach rather than the more pragmatic "we've only lost 'x'games and are sitting comfortably in 8th/9th" approach. Both different ways of expressing the same "opinion"...

Yep, either scenario fits.

I was thinking this yesterday whilst watching MotD. In several of the other games the defences seemed relatively fluid, whereas teams' defences seem to go very 'rigid' against us. I guess this is what is known in the trade as a backhanded compliment but it obviously puts us at a disadvantage if teams are tightening up their defence to combat our 'uniquely' dogmatic style of play. (Some of the above observation/opinion may be me using Saints tinted glasses.)

Yep - Adkins priority was to score more goals than the opponent whereas Pochettino's is to concede less than the opponent. Yes, a different means to the same end but a significantly different philosophy IMO (which may of course be shot to pieces by the stats!)

Agree with that Faz. The club often reiterate that we are part way through 'a project' and that we will always play the same way...regardless of who we are playing,where we are playing or what the score is at any moment in time. In other words, we don't have a "plan B" because we don't WANT a Plan B. It's a bit like the Tories' approach to dealing with the financial crisis.... They've got a Plan A and they're gonna see it through.... ( sorry, possibly not the best analogy...) Some might view that as blinkered dogmatism.... Others might see it as a conviction of principles. It doesn't surprise me that our results reflect an "all or nothing" approach to our club's philosophy. When it works it works rather well, when it doesn't we come unstuck. Barcelona, whilst on a different planet success wise, have the same philosophy - they play their way regardless of the opposition and the circumstances of a given game. We're following the same philosophy. Yes, we're a million miles away from where Barcelona are but the theory is that if we persevere with this "Dogmatic" approach for a few years we'll start to see the fruits of out labour in time. All of which requires patience....which, given the fickle nature of football fans, is where the philosophy struggles most to succeed...

Interesting stats posted in a rational and constructive manner - cheers for the research (That wasn't meant to sound patronising if it did - just highlighting that there are ways of putting over negative stuff in a different way to some on here!)

A good troll stays just below the detection radar...and then plays the "prove I'm a troll" card... (Just before they play the "they're all out to get me" persecution card...)

It was me that brought about the collapse of the Berlin Wall...

Scenario 1: I go down the pub one day Someone asks me what I'm drinking. London Pride I reply. Oh, I don't like ale, I much prefer lager says the bloke. A civil discussion about different types of beer ensues. The next day I go to the pub again and meet the same bloke and we have a chat about something else that we have different opinions about. Scenario 2: I go down the pub one day. Someone comes up to me as says: "Jesus Christ! What the **** are you drinking there? London Pride? What a load of sh*te that is. You should drink lager like me yer cardigan wearing dullard!". Yeah, but I like it, I reply. It's rubbish! You should drink lager like me, said the chap getting louder and louder. The next day I walk into the same pub and the same bloke comes up to me and says the same thing. This happens for several days. Both scenarios are a bloke offering an opinion. Highlighting that someone is "just giving their opinion on here" is missing the point somewhat. But you already know that of course.