Hamilton Saint

Shaw runs down the left on an overlap and cuts the ball back - nobody there!

To score goals, apparently!

Rodriguez runs past the two centre-backs and has a left-footed shot on goal.

Saints pressing high up the pitch.

Roy Hodgson at SMS, apparently.

Direct move - ball over the top, and Lallana gets in behind and smashes a volley into the net.

Lallana scores. 1-0.

The commentator said so on SP.

Lambert shoots from 50 yards!

Wanyama and Schneiderlin are playing deep, in front of the back four.

It's back!

I had it going for ten minutes, then it cut out just before kick-off! I'll try re-connecting.

I was back in England last week and I found something in a supermarket there called Aussiemite. Is this a renamed version of Vegemite, or something different?

In the early 60s, my younger sister and I went to Hythe Primary. My brother and older sister went to Noadswood. It's weird reading this stuff right now - I'll be in UK for a school-reunion next Saturday (with boys I was at boarding school with from 1965-1969). And I'll be in Hythe on Wednesday (and So'ton from Tuesday to Thursday)!

In this neck of the woods, the phrase "world-class" is often applied to some aspect of Toronto. Its use usually sounds like a form of rather desperate boosterism - if you keep on saying it loud enough, then it must be true. But if something is world-class, then you don't need to keep calling attention to the fact.

Well, that's impressive!

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

I'm from Hythe, too (1960-1968 ). I went to Hythe Primary School and St. Mary's College. I emigrated to Canada in August 1969. I live in ... um .... Hamilton.

You're probably thinking of **** Cheney (former U.S. V-P), who was Chairman of the Board and C.E.O. of Halliburton from 1995-2000.

This thread is a good example of the "whipping boy" syndrome discussed on another thread.

Egos - you don't need an apostrophe to form a plural noun.

The "whipping boy", of course, is another type of scapegoat. The interesting idea for both is that they are not actually guilty of anything; they are punished as an expedience - they pay for the sins of others. It's not quite the same in footballing terms ; one or two players are often identified as the "weak links" in a team - because of continuing deficiencies in their performances. Their mistakes are noticed and criticised. But the "scapegoat" tendency is always there: you recognise that it invariably follows a dispiriting loss. Instead of holding a significant portion of the team to blame, the simple-minded like to latch on to their favourite bête-noire. There really is some important psychological issues at play here, and the current "whipping boy" often tells you more about the critics than you might imagine.

Technically you might call them monks - they live in a community and take vows of celibacy, poverty and obedience. But their religious community is not called a monastery, and they don't live a contemplative life, secluded from the rest of society. They work as teachers. We never called them monks - in Southampton, Shropshire, or Liverpool.

Granted, but it's a vision - or ideal - worth striving for, eh?

Some players are relatively consistent; some are very inconsistent. A player's form in football is a mysterious component in their game. Is it a psychological thing? Or are these phases a natural thing? It's one of the things in football that makes following the sport endlessly fascinating.