RinNY

On the one hand, good to get a point away at the league's top team. On the other hand, we surrendered a lead, AGAIN; and we failed to score more than 1 goal, AGAIN! A basic point: if we cannot score more than once in a game, and if we continue to give up goals after getting ahead, we will not win many matches this season, and will likely go down again. These issues HAVE to get sorted. We MUST learn to take more chances & score more goals; we MUST learn to defend a lead more effectively. There are positives to take from this performance, but in the end only one positive counts: points from wins, and we are still not getting those. On to Yeovil, I guess ... let's hope these issues get sorted.

In that case 95% or more of football managers fail every year. Your perspective is, in my opinion, what is wrong with modern football: the criteria of success are so narrow, that no-one is satisfied with having a good season, making progress, playing (watching) enjoyable football: it's all about winning something, winning something! Which means that everyone is constantly failing, there is constant turnover in managers and playing personnel, and fans are constantly dissatisfied. Burley's job was to get the team into the promotion hunt; he did so. That season was thus a relative success: not the complete success we would have ideally hoped for, but a relative success. Other than that one season, the club has done nothing but go backwards since the FA Cup Final season. That is is fact: you can look up the statistics. I don't know why people hate Burley so much, but then I've never been much of a hater. Hate seems to be the emotion of choice for many people around here, however, so I'll leave it at that ...

You list 10 wins, 5 draws, and 11 defeats, which comes to 26 games. If he was in charge for 28 games, as you claim, you need to add two more results. If they were both defeats, your points ratio stands; if not, that ratio will go up. Either way, your statistics as stated are in error.

Bloody hell, folk are still going on about Burley's perceived failings, personal & professional, while he was here?? Amazing! A bit of perspective: Burley's ability to get and hold jobs is simply incompatible with the more extreme stories of perpetual drunkenness one sees. They cannot be true. He may have enjoyed having a few too many on occasion, but most of the time he was clearly sober and responsible, or his hiring record is inexplicable. Our one successful season since the FA Cup final was under Burley, when we got to the CCC playoffs and came within a peculiar rule (away goals not counting double) and an unfortunate penalty shootout of going to the final for a promotion place. Dislike Burley, worship Pearson if you will, but that is plain fact. As to Scotland, Burley has not been less successful than his three or four predecessors. The plain fact is that Scotland is going through a terrible talent drought the past 10 or 15 years. There are really only two truly good players in the present Scottosh team -- Duncan Fletcher and James McFadden -- and one of them was not available for the Holland match. And would anyone pick even Fletcher or McFadden, I won't say for the England team, but even as backups in the England squad?? I doubt it. As Scotland manager, Burley has produced results as good as the talent base could produce, perhaps actually slightly better. If and when Scotland start to produce players of the talent level of the likes of Bremner & Gray & Lorimer and so on, they can hope for better results; but with the collection of second and third rate players they have to make do with nowadays, not the best manager in the world could produce consistent success.

It really isn't about luck or referees, as bad as both often seem for Saints. If we had taken our chances and scored 2 or 3 instead of 1, the last minute penalty would not have mattered. If we had kept the ball in the dying minutes, passing it around in midfield and keeping Stockport out of our area, there would have been no last minute penalty. At the end of the day, luck & refereeing decisions are excuses. We have to be more consistent and deadly in front of goal; and we have to hold the ball better and defend better in the last quarter of the game. If we can learn to do that, we will win games instead of drawing or losing. With the squad we have now, with players like Thomas (who we missed last season), Trotman, Hammond, Lambert, Harding strengthening a team that (despite relegation) at times played quite well in the CCC, there is no reason why we should not be doing well in League 1. Since he is our manager, I support him 100%; but I never rated Pardew that highly, to be honest, and if he can't get the side playing well and winning games within the next 4 weeks or so, then it's going to be a very long & fraught season and questions will inevitably be raised as to whether he is the right man for the job.

He was really disappointing when he came on in the 2nd half against Millwall: constantly either dispossed of the ball or gave it away by a bad pass. He may just have been having a bad day, but he simply didn't look strong enough and composed enough. My guess is he'll have to show something in training and/or a reserve game before he gets another start. Plenty of short players have been successful, but Gillett needs to develop his lower body strength and use his low center of gravity to make it hard for opponents to knock him off the ball; and he needs to be more composed on the ball and play it to team mates, not to opponents or out of play.

Where are you getting those figures from?? Even assuming they were in some sense accurate (though the 30 million still owed for SMS pretty certainly isn't), they are irrelevant. You see, such debts were owed by SLH, and Liebherr did not buy SLH and so assume its debts. Instead he bought SFC and SMS from the administrator for an agreed price (rumoured to have been in the 12-15 million range), and the administrator then wound up SLH, paying off the creditors a pro-rated percentage of what they were owed. That's been gone over time and again on this forum and in the media, and I'm astonished that anyone still does not get it! Liebherr got the club fairrly cheap, and can afford to spend a bit on players if he choses. Lambert and Craddock would do nicely to beghin with I'd say ...

I think we have an excellent CM in Morgan Schneiderlin, but he's coming back from injury and I don't think he's fully fit: he didn't really seem in the game any more in the last 30 minutes or so and it hurt us. But that will surely be remedied over the next few weeks in training (barring further injury). Thing is, I didn't think Wotton offered much, and Gillett, when he came on, was much too easily hustled off the ball or pressured into error. And we offered little out wide. If we can get Holmes fit, I think that'll be remedied on the left, but we really need a true RW. I like James, but that's not his best role. And we need size and strength up front. So for me: a CB, a strong dominant CM, a RW, and a big strong striker in the Stern John mould (damn him for leaving anyway). If we can get 4 signings in those areas, that performance today says we can be a very good team in this league!

I think the point is rarther that many signings are not necessarily a good thing: what you want is good signings! We've seen ourselves that quantity is not necessarily the answer. And it can take time to get the quality of players needed to improve your team; and when it does, signing players just to be busy and please the fans is counter-productive.

Seems to me we're still weak in midfield: in the second half we couldn't keep the ball and couldn't pressure Millwall on the ball, which enabled them at times to put our defence under a lot of pressure. The penalty award was bullsh*t in my view: when two players fall down with the ball between them, how can you give handball if the ball hits the arm of one of them? But it came about because of the pressuire they were putting on us. And then the goal: a midfielder not properly covering his man. Maybe as the season goes on Morgan will get a bit fitter, and players will learn their roles; but for me, midfield reinforcements are needed as well as a tall strong CB.

I find it hard to believe that the level of play & competition in the Norwegian League is equivalent to, let alone higher than, that in League 1. You're talking mostly tiny clubs, from very small towns, with small followings and resources. Just because Huseklepp has looked pretty good playing for Brann doesn't make him attractive to the likes of ManU or Arsenal, or even Reading or Boro! If he should get signed by a Prem side, which I doubt, he'd most likely immediately get loaned out to a lower division side to get some more demanding competitive experience. A CCC team might give him a try, but he would hardly walk into their side. Now I'm not saying we will sign him, or that he'd be willing to sign for us: I have no idea or info about that. But I really don't think the notion is as absurd as some people here make out ...

Not necessarily true, if we have the right midfielders. Essentially, with strikers like that, the key is to have pacy wide men running into space down the flanks (Lee Holmes, for example), and/or a central midfielder running past the striker holding up the ball into the space beyond, in the manner of a Gerrard or Lampard -- something that Lallana (though obviously not as good as those two) should be capable of. You need pace in the side, certainly, and it's good to have a pacy striker, but you can do the job with quick midfielders too, if they understand their roles and fulfill them.

Why do you suppose Dailly's wages a couple of years ago are relevant? A hint for you: when you're out of work, your wages are nil, zero, nada. Doesn't matter what you used to get paid; what matters it what people are willing to pay you now. Charlton can afford him, because he's not in a position to make wage "demands": since he's out of contract, he takes what he can get or just retires. Since he wants to keep playing, he takes what he can get, and evidently Charlton's was his best or only offer. See how that works? You can apply the same principle to out of contract players saints might be interested in ...

Oh, if all five of those were out at once, then yes with our current squad we'd be struggling, no doubt. But again, that's exactly why I think we need about 4 or 5 new signings (not 10). And if you look at the 9 who are gone, I think you'll find that only 4 or 5 of them (Surman, McG, BWP, Saeijs) were first teamers who will be missed. And who we could definitely stand to replace, therefore. We aren't going to miss the likes of Imudia and Hatch & so on.

Please follow the conversation before you criticise: I was asked what team we could put out if Thomas, Gillett, and James were out with injuries! So naturally I offered a team line up not including those three, and putting Harding at CB where I think you will find he has played before now. You may not recall it, but Jason Dodd, a RB, occasionally played at CB when injuries required it; ManU have played Gary Neville -- smaller than either Dodd or Harding I fancy -- as an emergency CB on at least one occasion I know of. The conversation between myself and Arizona is about what cover we have in our squad in case of injuries, and how many new signings are therefore needed; it isn't about what our first team is and who should ideally play in what position.

Well, assuming our present players only, with those three out I assume the team would be something like: Davis Murty ... Perry ... Harding ... Mills Lallana ... Schneiderlin ... Wotton ... Holmes Paterson ... John/Rasiak And I think that's a very competitive team for L1, though short on height at the back. However, in reality, I would expect that there would be several players in there whom we have not yet signed, such as a new CB and perhaps a new RW or CM. Because, just to remind, I'm not suggesting our squad is the finished article, but that we need about 4 good signings in addition to Murty. And that those signings should ideally include a CB, a CM, and a RW in addition to a striker. Worth noting though that Harding can play CB and is a shade over 6 feet (I believe, based on a profile I saw). It's not about whether we have a satisfactory squad as is: I don't think anyone thinks we do. It's about how many decent players we have and how many more we need. I see about 15 or 16 solid outfield players, plus youngsters and some dross, and therefore suggest 4 new signings, give or take. You apparently only see 10 decent outfield players and call for 10 signings. That's the difference; though in talking about actual players you seem to rate almost all the ones I'm rating ...

Well, granting your idea of a squad with 2 players for each position & a third goalie, then: in goal we have Davis with 2 of Bialkowski, Forecast, Poke as back ups ... RB: Murty, James LB: Harding, Mills, Molyneux CB: Thomas, Perry, Lancashire (or Harding, Wotton), youngsters -- need A.N. Other RW: Thomson, Gobern (or James, Lallana) -- need A.N. Other LW: Holmes, Gobern (or Mills) CM: Schneiderlin, Gillett, Wotton, Lallana, youngsters (or James) -- need A.N. Other S: John, Rasiak, Saga, Paterson, White (or Lallana) -- if Rasiak/Saga leave need A.N. Other Based on that I'd say we have a good first team squad of about 18 or 19 players, not including the very young and untried (e.g. Argent, Saville, McLaggon) who may actually contribute, and not counting Pulis or really needing Molyneux ( who is only 3rd choice at LB), but assuming that Murty & John sign up. If we get in 4 decent signings, we will have your ideal squad. QED.

Our first choice left winger is pretty certainly Lee Holmes, not Mills; our second choice LB is pretty certainly Mills, not Molyneux; our second choice RB is pretty certainly James, not Thomson; our first choice CM is pretty certainly Schneiderlin, not James; John would walk into almost any first team squad in L1 as a starting player; and so on. We will never play that second team you list, unless we suffer a ManU/Munich type disaster to our squad. It isn't about having a "second team", it's about having good cover for each position. James, for example, provides excellent cover for two positions (RB and CM), as does Mills (LB and LW). I'm not sure you fully understand the concept of "squad" and "squad players". Quite simply, your "second team" is entirely irrelevant. It contains four or five good players who will do a job for us as startters or back ups; you leave out one or two players who will do a job for us this season; if Pardew adds another 4 players or so who can either start or be good back ups, we will be in great shape. That is only an opinion, of course; but I suspect that it will prove to be a better one than your 10 man theory. Not sure what your eyes or the radish have to do with it, other than providing bit of a chuckle. It's all in good humour, eh? We are but internet warriors here, after all ...

"Originally Posted by Arizona All the more reason to build a decent squad, d*ck the lot of them and go straight back up IMO. At the moment I see a slightly worrying resemblance with 05/06. Selling a couple of decent striker (DMG and Saga / Phillips and Crouch) hanging on to a top 'keeper (Davis / Niemi) and a few old favourites (Rasiak, John, Gillett / Prutton, Oakley, Pahars). Then add a few bargains (Harding, Murty / Hajto, Belmadi) and hope to go up on the basis that this league is crap and we will walk it. We're still 4 wide midfielders, 2 central midfielders, 2 centre halves a right back and a striker short of a complete squad IMO." Quite the pessimist ... or perhaps optimist if you think we're going to sign all that! If we sign Murty, we're in fine shape at RB with Murty as starter and James (who did a decent job in the CCC last season) as cover. With Harding and Mills (who played well in this league with Scunny on loan) as well as Molyneux we are strong at LB. We need another CB as cover for Thomas & Perry: Lancashire alone and then young or emergency CBs won't do it, as I'm sure Pardew knows. People seem to forget that Schneiderlin (assuming he stays) is a damn good player: just because he hasn't figured this preseason because of a niggling injury doesn't mean he no longer counts! With him, Wotton, Gillett, James and Lallana we are not bad at all in the CM dept. though one would still like to see one more brought in there, preferably one with a bit of flair and/or size. Again, just because Lee Holmes has had a few injuries doesn't mean he isn't a very good LW! He is, and with him and Mills we are not bad on that side. Unless Thomson shows much better form though, we seem weak on the right, having to play people there who aren't really wingers, like James or Lallana; so I do think Pardew will (or should) be looking for a right winger. Up front, Paterson and White are promising, and Lallana can do a job playing off a big striker like John. If both John and Rasiak stay, we should be ok for goals. More likely Rasiak will go as will Saga, and we will then need to sign another good striker. So, I reckon with a strong CB, a decent CM, a RW, and maybe a striker depending on what Rasiak/Saga do, we will be looking very good. Three to four quality signings that is (in addition to signing up Murty & John of course), not the ten you suggest. You seem to be following the old model of quantity over quality that got us relegated from the Prem in the first place!!

I'm admittedly an optimist, but I have always thought that we have a very strong side for League 1, on paper, when our best players are fit, playing to their abilities, and properly organised. So I'm not totally surprised at this result. Very pleased, to be sure, and glad to see that Pardew (who I was not originally much in favor of because of the way he left reading) is getting the team organised and focused. We do lack depth, and need a couple more good signings to cover some key areas in case of injury (CB, midfield, striker), but the season certainly looks a lot more promising after a result like this against a pretty strong side!

The fact that 6, 7, 12, and 16 are open certainly seems to hint at new signings planned to fill those numbers. Also, surely 4 and 9 will become vacant before very long: or does anyone really expect Rasiak and/or Saga to stay? So those numbers seem to me to hint at 5 or 6 more players coming in over the next few weeks, if all goes well. Here's hoping!

It's a hard fact that under Wise Leeds had by far the best record in League 1, had barely even lost any games, and were comfortably on track for automatic promotion even with the -15 points. It's also a hard fact that they went off the boil badly when he left. Someone else pointed out here his winning percentages as a manager: percentages that we'd take in a heartbeat! I'd add that Wise is a far more realistic target for us than some of the names being bandied about as possible manager, such as Curbishley, KK, or even (in my view, and maybe I'm wrong) WGS!

Odd lists. I really don't see WGS going from Celtic and Champion's League games to taking on Saints again. Why would he? Not like he's a Saints fan born and bred: he'll have bigger opportunities if he wants to manage again, I should think. As to KK, does anyone really think he still has the passion and desire and commitment the Saints job will need? I don't. I wouldn't want him as manager in our current circumstances. Alan Pardew? I wouldn't want that overrated and disloyal so-and-so within a hundred miles of our club. But Curbishley? He'd be a fantastic choice, except that he's looking for a big Prem club to manage, not us. And why Dennis Wise on the "no thanks" list? Does no-one recall the fantastic job he was doing with Leeds and their -15 point srtarting position, until he was lured away by Mike Ashley's moneybags? Had he stayed at Leeds (as I suspect he wishes he had) they'd almost certainly have won promotion in spite of their dire financial position and negative 15 starting position. He did a good job at Milwall too. I can't think of many managers I'd pick over Dennis Wise for our current position: knows the league, knows how to get it done at this level, hard-nosed little bastard, just what we need I'd have said!

There are different kinds of great goals: the one you've picked is a fantastic team goal, with the passing from player to player building the goal just outstanding. But there are also fantastic individual goals, where a player just crafts a goal out of nothing, and I'd have to say the greatest Saints goal of that kind was MLT's against Newcastle in '93, where he back heeeled the ball up & over one player, lobbed another, and then calmly slotted home. That has to be one of the great individual goals of all time, not just saints' goals. But then, as we all know, MLT scored so many magical individual goals that seemed to come out of nothing.

Whatever he paid, he paid to take over the assets (SFC and SMS) of a bankrupt company. The money that he paid will be parcelled out to the creditors of that bankrupt company. Since he did not take over SLH but simply purchased its key assets, he will not be responsible for SLH's remaining debts.