The Kraken

Surprised to see Wanyama coming under the spotlight. True, he was thoroughly poor in the first half but I thought he was excellent in the second half and dominated the midfield. Rodriguez had a bit of a stinker IMO; well, maybe not a stinker but just anonymous. Morgan didn't look at it either; our CM partnership in the first half was over-run and made far too many simple errors. Osvaldo looked bright at times and Rickie did very well. The defence looked fairly solid throughout. A bit of a meh performance all round. 5 goals in the last 10 games tells its own worrying story.

Plus it must stick in throat somewhat to pay £40 - £50 a time to watch a very depressing brand of football.

Blimey, very surprising, they normally travel well.

It'll be surprising if there are. This game last season saw one of our highest attendances, just a shade under 32K. West Ham should sell their full allocation.

That one did make me laugh. "Let's not just go along for the sing song every now and again." [video=youtube;1hB7ErOuH-s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hB7ErOuH-s

I'm pretty sure Osvaldo implied that some of his problems with Roma stemmed from that he wasn't played as the central striker. I didn't see the Norwich game, but certainly against Sunderland it looked as if he was being deployed as far forwards as possible. I can't see that he'd make such reference to it if he was being lined up again for anything other than a central striking role.

I always stay away from Saints on accys, its just a recipe for disaster! Even in L1 when we were overwhelming favourites for home games I couldn't bring myself to bet on us, thinking that I'd somehow jinx the team

If you don't ask yourself why that is, and why that's the headline, then perhaps you're missing the point a little.

Sorry, I'm a bit mystified how you think I'm bullying MLG. Which bit was it? The bit where I asked MLG to clarify the interviewer's question? Or the bit where I answered MLG's direct question to me about a previous statement I had made. Which part of that was bullying? Or perhaps I was being too sensitive? I really don't know.

What on earth are you on about now? He asked me a direct question. I provided a direct answer. ericb also seems to share my opinion on i, so its clearly not a totally bizarre personal viewpoint. I'm not sure why you felt you needed to come wading it into with the swearing accusations and angry tone.

Also known as the Gaston Ramirez type answer.

That's my point though. Without the constant rhetoric from the club there has been (and lately from the manager also) the question probably doesn't even get asked. But that then gives the journos a benchmark, a target to hit of sorts and a chance to get the CL dream as the headline again. It was this way with Lovren, and with Wanyama. I may be wrong but I don't think i see similar clubs signing players with such regularity of short term CL ambitions (Lovren's headline was CL within 2 years, without him actually saying it). Personally I'd prefer the club as a whole to be equally ambitious but slightly more toned down in the public declarations of intent. That's just me though, to each their own. I just feel teh club have made a rod for their own backs and the CL question will get trotted out every single time.

Matthew; I know you don't to hear any disparaging words about your heroes, but I'd simply prefer to hear less of the champions league rhetoric coming out of the club. The manager and the players know how the press work and that a simple statement like that will end up being the headline. My preference for them would be to play a straight bat and just go with the oft-trotted out line of going into every game wanting to win. I'm not sure why you care so much what I think about it, mind.

That's a good thing then, Clyne especially. Especially in the Sunderland game we lost a good deal of our attacking penetration without Clyne bombing forward. Chambers is clearly a talent but simply doesn't give us the array of options going forward that Clyne does.

So what was the question then?

What was the question he was asked?

I cringed a bit when I read the article. Much better to see statements of intent on the pitch rather than the constant rhetoric of Champions League aspirations.

I'd attempt a comment at irony and a general lack of self reflection but, goodness me Fanta, you've got it covered already

Just wondering; but is EastleighSoulBoy actually trolling himself to get a reaction? Is that irony? Or is it ten thousand spoons?

From skate media bias to a Saints infused love-in within the space of but 20 online posts. Mongboardery at its very finest. It bring a happy flutter to one's heart.

Who actually said that they are or aren't? And why is it such a defensive mechanism for fans when the definitions of "open play" and "dead ball" are put in front of them? English teams in general have been very adept at making use of set plays to score goals. To some it seems as if its shunned upon to acknowledge this. The simple of thinking can only associate direct play with the 80s long ball theory and that alone, ergo set piece goal = bad. Odd.

Jonno Quick was perhaps up there with the latest brigade.

Depends who you speak to, really. One or two on here seemed to think that Fonte's goal against Sunderland was actually from open play. Strange times. Edit: oops, more than one or two it would seem.

This is my enduring image of the Milton Road End, where I spent my formative years before moving to the Lower East terraces and subsequently Archers Road seats. Loved the atmosphere in there and the surge when a goal went in, ending up miles away from everyone you went with.

I was visiting relatives in Italy last year and caught a pre-season game that Astori played in. He scored an own goal, conceded a penalty and was subbed off after 50 minutes. I'm not sure if he's as good as you say.