Matthew Le God

Yes it does prove you are wrong, because we were discussing an alternate reality where Saints had beaten Sunderland and were in the draw for the next round. You appear to think that polar opposite always equal the same outcome and that is quite easily shown to be nonsense.

I've given you an answer.

Was your afternoon yesterday changed by the Saints result? Did it put you in a bad mood? Did you then act differently to how you would have if Saints had won? Did you have conversations you wouldn't have had, go to places you wouldn't have? It all spreads out. Now multiply that and consider all the interactions everyone knowing Saints had won/lost had. It then spreads out across the world and things pan out in a different way even due to a seemingly trivial thing like Saints winning/losing. All these interactions add up and mean Rob Lee wouldn't have put the balls in exactly the same, wouldn't have stirred them the same and wouldn't have picked them out the same.

Yes, we can prove that you are wrong. Lets say your grandfather was shot and killed in a war before your father was conceived, you wouldn't then be born. He wasn't shot, so you were born and the world and everyone you have interacted with is different to how it would have been had the bullet killed him.

I really don't see how this is in the slightest bit relevant. Lets take yesterday, do you not think Saints losing had a negative effect on the mood of pretty much every Saints fan. That would impact on their conversations and actions with everyone they met. Had they won they would have acted differently and had different interactions with the world. Something as seemingly trivial as a football team like Saints winning/losing would effect everyone in the world as people's life would have been different. I really don't see how you can argue against that, and no-one so far has given a good reason why that isn't the case. All people have done is dismiss it.

A theory in science isn't a "guess", it is the best explanation of something with the current evidence.

Correct, the draw would have been different. We still may have got Brighton/Hull away, but it doesn't automatically mean we would have. See this for how something seemingly trivial like missing one tube train can have big knock on effects...

Thank you trousers. Seems its too difficult for many on here to understand.

It doesn't need to be anything major. Rob Lee on seeing Sunderland out of the cup would have even slightly altered his behaviour yesterday, that in turn would mean everything he did afterwards would have been slightly different. Not just Rob Lee, but it would have a knock effect to everyone on the planet even though it seems trivial.

No, I'm just using a mathamatical theory that appears to be flying over some peoples heads.

Being allocated the same number as Sunderland doesn't matter. Saints losing to Sunderland would have knock effects. People's lives would have been altered had Saints won yesterday, including those making the draw. Which would lead them to putting the balls in differently, stirring them differently and picking them out differently.

Its not obvious to a lot of people, many people actually think we would automatically get whoever Sunderland got.

Just because the draw today was Brighton/Hull vs Sunderland it does not automatically mean if Saints had won yesterday it would have been Brighton/Hull vs Saints. Look up the butterfly effect and chaos theory.

Had we gone through the draw would have been different and we may or may not have drawn Brighton/Hull away. For example you didn't do the same things you would have done after yesterday's result compared to if we won, thus neither would those making the draw. Butterfly effect.

We are 8th! Our highest ever Premier League finish is 8th. 39 points from 26 games in mid February and only 3 points behind Man Utd in 7th. Yes, today was very disappointing. But keep some perspective ffs.

I don't recall anyone saying we had a lot of depth (especially in goal and defence), but its hard for someone to justify that our first choice XI isn't a very difficult opponent for anyone in the Premier League home and away. Problems come when we deviate away for the first choice XI and our lack of depth is exposed. So it was bizarre that Pochettino thought he could get away with a weakened side vs Sunderland in the cup for a second time this season.

Pass completion is a nonsense stat to use and it is easily twisted. It doesn't differentiate between a simple to make pass with one that is high risk but creative or a major error and a pass that shouldn't have been attempted in the first place. You could spend the whole game making backwards and sideways passes and rack up close to 100% pass completion rate but does it really mean by default yo have done well?

Our first choice XI will give any team in the league a very difficult game. We have good enough cover at right back, central midfield and thats about it. Take away our first choice keeper, left back, centre backs and we really struggle. Attacking midfield and striker situation is a little better but still need more in the way of quality and numbers. We can just about get away with one of those positions out but if we have more than one of those areas out then it really is a disaster waiting to happen at Premier League level.

Petty, personal and factually wrong insults, top stuff. Goes against your location doesn't it? I have a season ticket and know how we play. Had we put out a stronger keeper and centre back pairing capable of retaining the ball better Saints would have built more attacks, controlled the game better and not given the ball away to the opposition so cheaply allowing them to attack us. That was key to the poor performance, we didn't have a solid base to work from and it restricted the midfielders, fullbacks and attackers from playing their normal game and were often on the back foot due to distribution mistakes from K.Davis, Hooiveld and Yoshida.

They both did a lot wrong throughout the game, short passing was sloppy and both as usual resorted to aimless long balls to no-one in particular. It meant the team wasn't able to build from the back as it would normally. Both Yoshida and Hooiveld simply aren't good enough, even as cover for a top half Premier League side. They are liabilities whenever they are on the pitch. Yoshida less so, and he does do some good things but he is lacking in critical areas which still make him a liability in every game.

It made a huge difference, Saints are a side that play out from the back. K.Davis, Yoshida and Hooiveld kept giving the ball away which meant the team couldn't build a move as they would normally.

Yes it was, they were at fault for the goal. Plus Saints' style is to play out from the back, K.Davis, Yoshida and Hooiveld's distribution is so terrible it has a knock on effect to the whole team's style of play. Kelvin Davis kept kicking and throwing the ball out of play or to Sunderland, Hooiveld and Yoshida's short range passing is erratic and they keep using aimless hoofs. The three of them had a knock on effect as the rest of the team were unable to play its normal style if Boruc was in goal and Lovren and Fonte at centre back.

Not really, we'll finish 7th at best, 9th at worst and probably end up 8th. Such a missed opportunity today.

He hasn't, yes he does some good things but the simple mistakes he makes in every game make him a liability. His distribution, positioning and decision making are appalling at times. A team with Guly Do Prado, Hooiveld, Yoshida and Kelvin Davis starting is a disaster waiting to happen.