VectisSaint

But where did they get that information that the on-field decision was Armstrong interfering, the linesman simply put his flag up (I think), how can it be told for which player he put his flag up? Or was it the ref that made this call, nothing to do with the linesman? If the on-field decision was Armstrong interfering why did VAR the proceed by looking whether Archer was offside? Surely if the ref said, Armstrong, VAR would have looked first at that incident. It just doesn't make any sense what happened. To be honest its all a complete load of bollocks. Offside was always about whether a forward player was gaining an unfair advantage, and should never have come under the minute scrutiny of VAR. VAR is killing football, not least when it takes 4 or 5 minutes to make a decision. I'm pretty sure that if I were new to football today I would not have fallen in love with the game like I did 60+ years ago.

Was the on-field decision (the lino) for Armstrong interfering, or was it because he thought Archer was offside. I think it was the latter. What no one seems to have mentioned is that the view from behind the goal which was shown just one showed the keeper was at least a yard to the left of Armstrong when he did his little back flick, so from that angle I don't think Armstrong was interfering. I think it was very harsh to give offside once Archer had been declared onside (which was difficult to call live).

Daft, do you think they would have blown the final whistle after the VAR wait if it had been allowed? Quite likely when a team go a goal down they rally, Brighton may well have won if we had gone 2-1 up.

Everyone assuming Lumley will play, he didn't look comfortable after treatment on Friday night. There must be some doubt. We are possibly in a bit of a pickle with goalkeepers.

Should be fit for Glastonbury.

He more likely warranted a second yellow for the number of fouls, not any one in particular.

Most of that time was spent looking at Archer being offside. It was a valid point but was not offside. If he had been offside then they wouldn't have needed to look at the Armstrong action, which only took them a minute or less.

I was going to watch, but not so sure now. Lumley wasn't good enough for the Champ, but now he starts in the PL. TP obviously more injured than Martin was letting on yesterday. We are beginning to build a longish injury list, still only another 2 weeks and Stewart will be back.

or in our case at the moment less than the sum of its players

Think categorising Stewart in "the spine of the team" is a bit of a stretch.

Bazunu can't play for us (in the PL) until January at the earliest, he is not in the registered 25 man squad. It says this in the link you posted. Ironic that Rambo has a fracture, given we didn't sign the Dutch guy in the Summer because of his injury record with regard to fractures. Would suggest it wouldn't have been as much of a risk as thought.

Since when is 1-1 "beating us comfortably" 🤣

My point is that they are hardly setting the world on fire with their style of play, not that much better than us, and until the weekend were winless. That doesn't mean I think what we ae doing is any good, but there are better examples of teams being successful than "one win" Ipswich.

It was their first win of the season, they took even longer than us to get a 3 pointer. Not sure we should laud their high press, high tempo and fast breaks based on that.

As predicted, do reasonably well against a top club and get nothing, we'll be shite against the rubbish teams.

We will probably play well and lose to a late goal. That's the way it seems to go against the top teams, making people think we have got something, then we play a poor team and lose badly.

Stephens shoehorned in.

But changing the style doesn't help if the players are not good enough. You can change the style all you want and we will still finish in the bottom 3, even 18th is a stretch.

I admire your optimism. But I think we could get worse with square pegs being put into round holes. The players we have are simply not good enough, bar a very few exceptions, and those few who are good enough will be off next season when we go down.

I don't think it matters much who it is, (most of) the players are simply not good enough and they certainly don't suit other systems, most have been brought in to play Martin's style.

Maybe he turned down Leicester because he fancies the Southampton job more and was prepared to wait. Maybe he turned down Leicester because they were looking likely to get a points deduction. Really don't see that turning them down makes it less likely that he would come to Saints. Think its more likely he would not come to Saints because he knows the players available are not up to scratch.

I suspect she will have a seat to herself in the Director's Box.

I see Morgan Schneiderlin is back next week to play in the charity match. He is 2 years younger than Lallana, unattached, how about we sign him up to play alongside Downes (ignore the PL 25 man squad rule).

Actually neither of those statements is true, he is not managing at all.

Taylor is on the bench. But why he is benched and replaced by Ryan bloody Manning is beyond a joke.