trousers

You appeared to imply that there wasn't any difference but offer my apologies if I misinterpreted

Yep, that is indeed the shorter answer

And there was silly old me thinking we were talking about a specific upcoming scenario rather than in general... 🤦‍♂️

It's not just about "avoiding injuries", however.... https://wimbledonclinics.co.uk/blog/professional-footballers-face-much-higher-risk-of-injury-in-matches-than-training/ "Professional football players are far more likely to get injured in competition than during training sessions, according to a new study. Researchers in Spain and the UK found that the risk of injury during competition matches is 12 times higher than during training sessions."

That's more of a sign of inadequate man management and/or lack of player mental strength, rather than it being the wrong approach per se, IMO.... Logically, if it's largely a different team that plays in the 'dead rubber' match compared to the team that then plays in the ensuing important game(s), then the players that play in the latter game(s) have no reason to feel demoralised (if the former game is lost) because they should understand the context behind the decision to play a weakened side in the first place. If the confidence of our better players drops because our 'B team' loses then you've got to question their underlying mental strength + intelligence, and the ability of the management to convey the context and logic to them...

It's a valid fear, but until we get the benefit of hindsight in due course, we can't say with any certainty right now what the best team selection approach for the game vs Leeds will be. All we can do is aim to deduce which approach presents the least risk to our chances in the playoffs, and there's inevitably a degree of subjectivity in doing so.

Yep, agree with that 👍

Pretentious restaurant menus that just use a whole number, rather than proper currency notation, to denote the price of each dish

To my mind, it's not a matter of being "scared to play", it's more about being pragmatic and minimising the risks. There are risks associated with either approach to this game. I just think it's logical and sensible to rule out the biggest risk: i.e. we put our strongest team out and still lose.

Yep, I'm leaning that way too. As you allude to, there are potential pros and cons of either approach to be fair, but I agree that the risks associated with playing a full strength team outweigh the risks of playing a weaker team, in my opinion. I get the train of thought that says we don't want to go into the playoffs on the back of another defeat, but if that defeat is as a result of resting several key players then that shouldn't impact the team's mentality going into the playoff games as they'll know the context behind the defeat and as such it shouldn't be demoralising. What will be demoralising is if we play a strong side and still end up losing... Logic says we should rule out that eventually and playing a weakened side is the only way to ensure that...

Whilst I acknowledge there's probably no manager that sees any job as a permanent appointment, I'm more inclined to agree with the sentiment that Hassenhuttl saw Saints as a long term project rather than overtly as a "stepping stone". I've just listened back at his initial interview (below) and there's nothing in there that even alludes to such thoughts. My overriding impression with RH, especially in the first couple of years, is that he quickly saw Saints as "his" club and everything seemed geared towards a partnership of longevity (the so called Ralph 'playbook' underpinning that philosophy). Anyway, all in the past now and we'll probably never know for sure what he perceived his career path to be upon joining us, and beyond.

I get where you're coming from but I disagree a tad with your assessment of how in contention we were. I believe that first table was at the end of our "club record unbeaten run" (TM).... at which point there was no sign whatsoever that the wheels were about to come off... Our momentum was upwards and going on to secure an auto-promotion place from there was not unrealistic in the slightest. So, in my humble opinion, we very much were "in the hunt" after 30 games and it's only hindsight that suggests otherwise.

Erm...

Indeed... And therein lies the problem....

This is ultimately what it boils down to. People can, and will, obviously spin figures to suit their viewpoint, but the simple matter of fact is that we're one of the top goalscorers in the league but amongst the bottom half of the table in terms of keeping the ball out of the back of the net.

The vast majority of people who left did so straight after the final whistle , at which point we didn't know how long it would take for the players to come back out.... So most people had made their minds up before any waiting kicked in...

If, between us, we were going to go into full MLG mode, we could draw all three matches and still get promoted....

Nee-naw, nee-naw....

I fear my answer might attract the wrath of the forum's much esteemed fence-sitting police...

Indeed.... it's almost as if idioms shouldn't be taken literally....

Get him in the first team FFS!

Yep, fair point.

Ah, ok... "Trousers talking nonsense" it is then..... Supplimementary question in that case: I wonder why he's dropped back down to the u18s having been promoted to the u21s...? Probably just a case of not being quite ready for the step up I guess.

He played, and scored, for England 2 weeks ago.... Bit of a conspiracy theory but I wonder if we're trying to keep him out of the public eye as much as possible in the run up to the close season to try and keep him off the radar of the bigger club vultures, with the plan being to unleash him into the first team next season (especially if we're still in the Championship)? Just me thinking out loud, so probably spouting nonsense as per usual....

Don't know, hence asking