Dibden Purlieu Saint

But he is up to it, and he's proved this. The only thinking I have for him dropping Lambert is to try to take advantage of James Collins being a plodder and hoping JRod and Guly can outpace him. Still, stupid and frankly reckless decision to make in my opinion.

Obviously not, because he has dropped our best player. We base our game around Rickie and the way he holds and distributes the ball. If he doesn't play, we don't play.

I agree, but I feel that Adkins has already cost us enough points this season without anymore of his insane decisions. If we get a result today it will probably be more through luck than judgement.

Proper had enough now.

Imants Bleidelis.

I think you've misunderstood the thread...

He ******ed on my cat. Note: He did not actually ****** on my cat.

None of them (maybe Burley was at one point). That doesn't make Pearson a 'bloody good manager' though does it? Or does it?

That's not what you said. And Redknapp for all his faults is a better manager.

Why do people still persist with the fallacy that Pearson is a good manager?

To be fair, perhaps we should give Simon a chance to explain what this story adds to the feud. So Simon, here is your platform.

I have no idea what Saint Bletch is on about, all I am interested in is hearing more about fiddy shades.

Wow, just wow.

Which makes you more of a paedo out of the below 2 situations: Screwing a 10 year old who looks 18. Screwing an 18 year old who looks 10. Bear in mind you don't know her age in either situation.

Ah, and here is why the article was written: Despite a bark designed to carry across grouse moors and a professional ruthlessness that earned him the sobriquet “Hitler Hastings”, friends describe an insecure man obsessed with money. “He’s got a perpetual anxiety about money,” said one. “I remember him being furious about Boris (Johnson) not paying a debt to him. I think it’s because his father died in poverty and his family were writers but none made a bean. Max has always been impressed by rich people, and some of those bad values infected his attitude.” http://www.maxhastings.com/battle-honours-for-the-word-warrior/

Why does him being a cheat mean that he's not fit to run the country? I seem to remember that Churchill was a drug addict, didn't matter to him. And also: "When one of his many sexual affairs was exposed and much trumpeted in the headlines, he telephoned a friend of mine who was then running one of Britain's largest media organisations. "It's utterly disgraceful what your reporters are doing on-screen about my private life," spluttered Boris. "It's time you realised that I know all about your private life. If your organisation goes on reporting my affairs like this, you'll be reading all about yours in the Spectator [the magazine he then edited]." My friend responded: "Stop a minute, Boris, and think about what you just said. There is a word for it, and it is not a pretty one – 'blackmail'." Johnson waffled away, muttering that he had never really meant it. But he is much given to making threats, bearing grudges and behaving with malice aforethought." Sorry, editor of paper looks to expose editor of magazine. Editor of magazine tries to limit harm to image by threatening an exposee of editor of paper. So what? If one of my mates told my missus I had cheated on her, I would return the compliment. What's wrong with that?

If people are expecting him to take apart teams like he has in the last couple of years I think they're exaggerating his ability. If he could he would be one of the best players in the Premiership, and worth a fortune. He's good, but he aint Mata/Silva.

What a strange reply, are you saying that we shouldn't expect our players to play well for 2 to 3 years then?

I keep on seeing in other threads people complaining that players need time to settle into our team (even though some of us feel this is what pre-season is for), so how long should we give them to settle? From what I can see our most disappointing player (JRod) has been with us for most of pre-season. Surely these are players who should be able to settle quickly being quite expensive and highly paid players? Should our scouting team have possibly looked at whether they take time to settle with previous moves before signing? How long can we give them until we can reasonably justify them as being bad purchases?

I keep on seeing in other threads people complaining that players need time to settle into our team (even though some of us feel this is what pre-season is for), so how long should we give them to settle? From what I can see our most disappointing player (JRod) has been with us for most of pre-season. Surely these are players who should be able to settle quickly being quite expensive and highly paid players? Should our scouting team have possibly looked at whether they take time to settle with previous moves before signing? How long can we give them until we can reasonably justify them as being bad purchases?

http://www.just-football.com/2012/10/how-to-avoid-relegation-from-the-premier-league-a-statistical-analysis/ The following is a statistical analysis of relegated and promoted teams in thePremier League *over the last 17 seasons. All stats below go back to the beginning of the 20 team era in the Premier League, which began with the 1995/96 campaign. Pertaining to this season it makes worrying reading for Southampton, QPR, Norwich and Reading fans and encouraging reading for West Ham fans, as I’ll explain later. On average, relegated sides during this period have finished with*37 goals scored, 67 goals conceded, and a goal difference of -30. The most goals ever scored by a relegated side wereBlackpool’s*55 in the 2010/11 campaign. The fewest goals conceded by a relegated side were*Birmingham City’s*50 in the 2005/06 campaign. In contrast, 17th placed teams averaged 39 goals scored and 60 goals shipped. The most ever scored by a 17th place team were West Ham’s 47 in 2009/10, the fewest ever shipped were Bolton’s 51 in 2002/03. Statistically speaking therefore, if a team can*score*40 goals*whileconceding no more than 60 or thereabouts, they are a good bet for survival. There will, of course, always be odd cases where a team is exceedingly stout defensively but is so unproductive offensively that even conceding between 50 and 60 goals will not be enough to ensure survival. In the past ten years, that’s happened to nine teams, so a little less than 33% of relegated sides. Likewise, a team can be explosive offensively but so inept on the defensive side of things that they still take the drop. In the past ten years, there have been six teams – so that’s 20% – to score 45 or more and still get relegated. From these statistics, I want to make a few observations: 1) There are two ways to give yourself a very good shot at survival.One is to score 45 goals. In the last ten years, only six teams have been relegated after scoring 45 goals. The second way is to concede 55 goals or fewer. In the same time span, only two teams have been relegated after conceding 55 or fewer. The six 45 goal sides to be relegated are Leicester City (2003/4), Southampton (04/05), Birmingham (07/08), Blackpool (10/11), and Bolton and Blackburn (2011/12). The two 55 goal sides to drop are Birmingham (05/06 – God has something against the Blues, apparently) and Sheffield United (06/07). The basic lesson is that competence on both offence and defence with a slightly above average performance in one of the two areas is enough to guarantee survival, in even the toughest seasons. 2) That said, QPR and Norwich fans should be a bit nervous. Both their sides shipped 66 last season, a figure distressingly close to the relegated side average of 67 goals conceded. Life in the Premier League requires a certain baseline defensive competence. Analysis shows several teams have survived one season while conceding a lot, but most then take the drop in year two. (Bradford in 2002 and Hull in 2010 are good examples.) In fact, QPR would already have gone down were it not for the utterly shocking defensive record of last season’s three relegated sides, who shipped 77, 78 and 82 respectively. To put how bad Bolton, Blackburn and Wolves were into perspective, in the entire 20 team Premier League era only 11 teams have shipped 77 or more in a single season. There had never been a season that included three such teams before and only once had two teams hit such marks of defensive incompetence. If Bolton or Blackburn had*simply been below average defensively, rather than laughably poor, QPR would have dropped. 3) The main takeaway for this year’s promoted sides:*a)*West Ham*should be fine*– their goal difference will be under control which helps in tiebreakers and they’ll steal a couple matches because of their defensive, direct style. Allardyce-ball isn’t necessarily the best way to survive in the top flight for everyone, but it has served Allardyce well over his career. Plus if things do look dicey for the Hammers, they have the resources to make a buy or two in January, perhaps even bringing on a loanee from a top six side. Tom Huddlestone could be a good candidate, for example. Thinking bigger picture, West Ham isn’t the sort of club that should be getting relegated in the first place. The Hammers are one of those anomalous relegated sides rather like Newcastle, Blackburn and Bolton, and like Villa nearly were last season. Clubs of that size never drop because they lack resources or players. They drop because of mismanagement. So the above analysis doesn’t necessarily apply to those sorts of mismanaged bigger clubs. After all, there’s no accounting for stupid. The data is far more useful in assessing how minnows new to the top flight – like a Blackpool, Burnley, Swansea, or Reading – might fare. b) And on that front,*the news is good for Southampton and not so good for Reading. Last season Reading won the Championship with 69 goals and 41 conceded. Southampton came in second with 85 scored and 46 conceded. That suggests one side that plays a more conventional style and won fairly methodically against generally overmatched opponents and one side that overwhelmed the opposition with attacking verve. Put another way, Reading won on organization and a talent discrepancy. Southampton also won thanks to a talent discrepancy, but were much more threatening on the attack, averaging nearly two goals per match. Thus far, through six gamesSouthampton*have already scored 10 while conceding 18 (and if you take away the hiding at the Emirates, it’s a much more respectable 9 scored, 12 shipped). Also note that they’ve already faced both Manchester sides, Arsenal, and Everton. Reading, in five matches including games with Spurs and Chelsea, have scored six and conceded 11. Before I continue, I’ll freely concede that this is very early so such prognostications shouldn’t be treated like Holy Writ, but simply like the speculation that they are. That said, I expect we’ll see Southampton continue to score at a Blackpool or Norwich-like pace. Because they are not nearly as stout defensively as last year’s Canaries, they’ll always be around the drop zone, but their fate won’t be decided until the last day. And as anyone who remembers the last day relegation chaos of two seasons ago can tell you, anything can happen on the last day. On the other hand, I worry that Reading, lacking the goal-scoring ability of Southampton but similarly vulnerable at the back, will have a much rougher ride this season and will probably struggle to break 35 points and will likely drop at year’s end.

This is a golden thread already. Keep goimg and you could publish this.

I have to say Bearsy, you are proper funny. Like laugh out loud funny. I expect hearing this will make you feel good. I'm glad, because you deserve it. I'm not gay by the way.

I think he's a genius and a wordsmith, and I would vote him in right now.

Lambert wasn't playing that poorly though, and he was out of position. J Rod on the other hand was pretty poor. Why not put Lambert up front in his position, and then put Guly on the left. Just trying to shoehorn a £7m player who isn't Prem quality yet into the lineup.