The Kraken

What's with talking normally Bear? New leaf?

Yes please. Cracking player, was one I identified at the start of summer that I'd love for us to go for.

Don't give up. Explain it. And also shurlock's point too, it was a good one. You say we have a very definite formation when defending. OK. Why do we not have a very definite formation when attacking? Its not as if deefnders suddenly think "f*ck it, I could score here, I'm off upfield". They're disciplined to know their positions and their role in it. You think our formation is different when we have the ball, and when we attack. I just want to know what the difference is to our defensive formation. Apart from the fact that its difficult for you to give a lable to.

So we don't have a formation when we're in posession?

You didn't answer my question. Nonetheless, will you perhaps respond to shurlock's point though? I believe it's quite valid.

Agreed. Fighting the notion is silly, really. Even in a backs-to-the-wall game, with a setup determined by not having the ball, JWP was (ever so slightly) more defensive than Schneiderlin. Most would agree they played a very similar role, and Schneiderlin's two shots on goal (of a team total of nine) would suggest he got forward very well.

Its as simple as that.

Lets go along with your assessment I haven't understood it. So explain it to me. What formation do we play when we are attacking, or when we are in posession? You've been good enough to explain how it works when we aren't in posession, so how does it work in reverse?

OK read it. So my question stands; what formation do we have when going forwards? Or when in posession?

Can you promise you won't change it again before I respond?

What are you on about now?! I didn't touch your quote!! Did you edit it straight after you posted it, perchance?! You mention that you apparently meant that is our formation when we don't have the ball. What is our formation when we do have the ball? Because, as I mentioned earlier, against Wigan we had the ball more than not, so I'm wondering what we were doing then.

Ha ha ha. You hate being wrong so much, its hilarious.

Yes, apart from justmike, Crab Lungs, Turkish and myself, no-one has mentioned Gareth.

I'd do a similar thing with that sort of money. I'd buy Romsey Town FC and have a 10 - 20 year aim of getting them into league football. Be prepared to just spend the obscene amount of interest earned on the club, which would equate to millions a year. And employ a lot of close friends to "work" with with me (its no good having that much money and not enough people to properly share it with).

Why does everyone have to go comparison shopping whenever there is a criticism levelled at Guly? "Well if you think he was sh*t, what about Sharp, he was poor too." Its such a weird statement to make, as if one other player having a complete mare absolves blame of another who was slightly less poor.

It completely depends what you do, though. If I won the lottery there's no way I could be retired for the rest of my life; I'd need something to do day to day.

You can prove (or disprove) anything with statistics.

Well that's blatantly not true. Back on topic (slightly); the Saints youth team that contained the likes of Shearer, le Tiss, Franny (plus others including Alan Tankard, Mark Blake, Andy Cook etc) are having a reunion this season, attending a match at Saints. What a decent and productive year or two that was.

You're the best

I defer to your amazing contacts

What a claim to fame :lol:

Did you get Man City tickets? I think the club said they would prioritise those who've had tickets for the Wigan game and City game.

Not even a place for Rod Wallace, Theo, Oxo......

I'm giving up on being the MLG of this thread and going with it

He wasn't a youngster with Saints though, he was into his thirties when he signed for us. Ah sod it; this thread title can be read all sorts of ways!!!