Sheaf Saint

Isn't that exactly what's happened with every manager since Koeman though? The common denominator being the players themselves. It seems to me that whoever we appoint as manager, some of them will never be happy. Those aren't the kind of people I want in our squad TBH.

Apologies, I've just re-read my post and can see how it could have been misinterpreted. What I meant by "not in Ralph's plans" was that when he brought Rohl in with him last year, he certainly would not have been expecting to part company with him again before the start of the next season.

If the reports from Manji about the big meeting last week are correct, and we can expect to see a major re-shuffling of the technical department within the next week or so, then perhaps we should all wait to see the outcome of that before making any assumptions on whether Ralph should stay or go. It obviously wasn't in Ralph's plans for Rohl to leave in the summer, and we are still in the dark about the real reasons for his departure. Ralph has not been supported with the people he wants/needs, and has had a coaching team made up of "jobs for the boys" ex-players forced upon him, which is about as far from an ideal situation as you can get. Therefore, I am reluctant to place all the blame for our current situation on his shoulders.

Indeed. This smacks of another J-Rod situation. It's now been over a year since he did his ACL while on loan at Boro. Since then there has been nothing but silence from the club about his recovery and/or expected return date. He's not even listed at all on the Physio Room website.

You can if there is a very simple explanation for that... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/langswitch_lang/in/

OK let’s break this down bit by bit… The theory behind climate change since the world has been here is about the sun's activity Of course, the sun is the primary source of all heat energy on Earth and is obviously a huge influencing factor in our climate.. Numerous satellites have been recording solar activity since the late 70s, and due to the inherent uncertainty resulting from how you combine the data from these satellites, they show either a very slight cooling trend or a very slight warming trend. But either way, this still does not account for the increased rate of warming seen during the 20th century. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/has-the-sun-been-more-active-in-recent-decades-and-could-it-be-responsible-for-some-global-warming/ The earth orbit around the sun and the axis the earth rotates in changing If you are going to refer to the Milankovitch cycles then really you ought to make sure to mention all three of them and give them their proper name, otherwise it kind of looks like you don’t really know what you are talking about. These are well known natural cycles which affect the Earth’s climate over tens of thousands of years, and are assumed to be the primary cause of glacial periods. They are well understood and accounted for in all climate modelling. They do not, however, come anywhere close to explaining the current rate of warming, which is around ten times greater than that which would be expected due to any natural forcings and/or inferred from ice core records. https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/earths-orbit-cannot-explain-modern-climate-change/ Our climate changes and will do it again despite anything we do. You won’t find a single climate scientist who will disagree with the first part of this sentence. But the last bit is completely inaccurate I’m afraid. If you doubt that CO2 can have any effect on the Earth’s climate, then I suggest you read about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period in Earth’s history when runaway warming of between 5-8 degrees followed a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere and lasted for around 200,000 years. The actual cause of this release of CO2 is still largely unknown, but what is known is that it happened at a far lower rate than at which we are dumping it into the atmosphere currently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum The biggest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by far is water vapour, this has a far greater effect than C02 ever will. This is just plain wrong, I’m afraid. It’s true that water vapour acts as a greenhouse gas and is abundant in our atmosphere. But it only has a very short residence time in the atmosphere before precipitating out, and crucially, it does not control the Earth’s surface temperature. The build-up of water vapour in the atmosphere is a feedback effect resulting from increasing temperatures (basic physics – warmer air can hold more water). Water vapour cannot explain the observed warming since the mid 20th century, and it most certainly does not have a greater warming effect than CO2. This is GCSE level stuff, and should never, ever be used as an argument against AGW. Do some research on the work Ronon and Michael Connolly have done, if what they are saying is correct then C02 cannot have any effect on climate change. Ah, the Connollys. The last part of your sentence is utter nonsense. Their whole contention is that the sun influences global temperatures, therefore it’s not possible for CO2 to (effectively denying that the greenhouse effect even exists!). Even a simpleton can see the faulty logic in that conclusion. These guys were invited speakers at the Heartland Institute’s annual conference in 2015, and recently co-authored (with Willie Soon – a man who is proven to have lied about his fossil-fuel funding) an absolutely laughable hatchet job on Greenpeace which was published by Heartland https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/i-rejoice-that-it-is-warm-ars-attends-a-climate-contrarian-conference/ This is the same ‘think tank’ that was hired by the tobacco industry in the 90s to spread disinformation and convince the world that the research showing the dangers of smoking was just alarmist nonsense. No reputable climate scientist would, in their right mind, have anything to do with them whatsoever. They are just like the GWPF – set up by wealthy backers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and using pseudo-science to advance their agenda. If you want to be taken even remotely seriously in climate change debates, then you need to avoid anybody linked with Heartland like the plague. You started this discussion by saying that you like to do your own research on the subject. I can’t fault that. I would strongly recommend anybody seek out alternative viewpoints and test their validity – that’s just basic good science. But from what I have seen so far from your posts, you are looking in all the wrong places. The sites you have linked to so far have been those of either highly partisan conservative commentators or neoliberal lobby groups. You won’t find a single ounce of objectivity or scientific rigor on these sites, and by even citing them as ‘evidence’ to support your position, you are leaving yourself open to ridicule. I don’t mean to be rude to you Scally, but you do not come across as somebody who is open-minded and likes to do his own independent research. Your posting style and language gives the impression that you are, in fact, the opposite. You have shown a clear indication of confirmation bias (a logical fallacy to which we are all susceptible to some degree or another) as you appear to have already made your mind up that you believe AGW is a hoax, and are willing to seek out any sources, however unreliable they might be, to support that position, while blatantly disregarding all others which contradict it. This is the very epitome of bad science. So to re-phrase my question from a previous post – If you have some *credible* sources which contradict the consensus on AGW then please share them with us, because so far you have not.

Yes, at least he did last season. Remember he even got JWP into a run of form that got him an England call up. Redmond too - didn't win POTS for his early season form did he. Even Hojbjerg looked good for a bit after Ralph had made his mark on the team. I am at a loss though to understand why those players have regressed so badly this season. Is it Ralph? Is it the coaches/fitness? Is there something deeper going on behind the scenes that is having a negative influence in the dressing room? Given everything that has transpired at the club in recent times, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

I think the cup final was probably the last time I genuinely enjoyed watching Saints, despite the result. Best part of three years ago

While I abhor the idea of us making yet another managerial change and agree that we need to keep one for a while and build something with him, I'm really beginning to question Ralph's suitability now. The players may not be the best bunch we've ever had (far from it), but they just look so utterly lost and disorganised game after game. The blame for that falls squarely on the manager's shoulders, and with the constant experimenting with square pegs in round holes he is very quickly going to lose the dressing room. I think his days are seriously numbered now.

I get that our squad is poor, but Ralph's constant tinkering and experimenting with square pegs in round holes is by far the biggest factor for me now. Armstrong at RWB FFS? They just look utterly lost out there. There's no shape or purpose to our attacking play, and we have a squad full of crap defenders who are seemingly incapable of the basics like marking their man. It's almost embarrassing to watch. I'm just numb to it now. I've completely accepted that we will be relegated this season. At least in 04/05 we occasionally played some good stuff and caused other teams problems. Now we just look utterly toothless up front and like a sieve at the back.

Well there we go. who could possibly have guessed that playing your best attacking player (this season anyway) would make a difference eh?

So Boufal replaces Cedric and Djenepo moves to LWB. And Armstrong stays on at RWB despite being hopeless in that role. I'm sorry but I have finally had it with Ralph. He's seriously lost the plot now.

No shots on or off target. At home, against a struggling team with a terrible away record. Truly awful. Not a single positive to glean from that.

Oh I don't know. Bet365 has us winning on possession with 51%

If it's any consolation to anyone, I've just looked on their forum and they are, to a man, utterly convinced they will pay for not scoring more and end up not winning.

I've defended him for years, but I utterly fail to see what contribution JWP ever makes in open play. He's just sooo weak and ineffective. We might as well stick a crash test dummy out there in a number 16 shirt.

Still no shots on goal, and no indication that we will even get close. Pathetic.

I would much rather go down thanks.

This is horrific.

They are all over us. Only a matter of time before they score again.

Fair enough. I was out the night of the Leicester game, and still haven't been able to bring myself to watch the 'highlights', so I can't really comment.

No shots on or off target so far. Says it all.

You really think Armstrong is a better option?

Jeez - they carved us open too easily there.

OK https://www.eplsite.uk/stream23.html Don't click on the top embedded video - it's fake.