Turkish

Have we been playing better we've got less points? Are teams league positions defied on points or shots on goal? And nice try but it wasn't me claiming we at doing 'much better' based on the last 6 games. That'll be you. First you say 6 games is enough to judge then you say it isn't then you say it is again because we only have 6 as evidence. Confused?! T As for my post On if we win, is 7 games is now the acceptable benchmark for a long period of games to measure if we are 'much better' or not?

So that'll be Johnson then. More goals, more assists.

But you say six games not a long enough period to measure if we are playing "much better" or not. MP has been here six games, so from your own admission you simply cannot say if we are playing "much better" or not as you havent had long enough to judge this. and again you've failed to answer to the success of teams is measured by shots on goal or points.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Norwich are sliding down the tabe, this cannot be true.

and he's played more. Which one is doing **** all out of the two?

no, no, no. You clearly said at the start of this discussion we are playing "much better" under MP, then listed our shots at goal as evidence of this, dismissing us taking less points. Now you are saying shots at goal is only relevant over a long period of time and 6 games is not enough to be sure if we are indeed playing "much better" or not. You seem to be back peddling, i cant say i blame you.

Quite, so he's played more too, you'd rather have an expensive player on the pitch than in the treatment room, yes?

So now you are saying 6 games are not enough to decide if we are playing "much better" or not. Jesus Christ fella, you really are struggling! This really makes your whole argument redundant now you've admitted your opening point was grossly inaccurate!

I am looking for investment too. I really want to go on a round the world trip for the next 10 years and it would be a great way of spreading the SOuthampton way round the world. I promise i'll wear a saints pin badge when i'm swimming with Dolphins in Bali, shark diving in Cape Town and Gorilla trekking in Rwanda. I really want to make a go of this and a small donation of say £50 per poster would go along way to helping me achieve my goals I'll promise to post the pictures on here when i get back and you can also see how you've funded my dream Dontate here at turkish@livingthedream.com all i need are your bank or credit card details http://www.facebook.com/helpingTurkishlivethedream http://livingthedream.turkish.com/roundtheworld5yeartrip Cheers lads.

but you said this "Regardless. Gaston is cheaper, younger and has more end product" When the facts are using your own stats that he is in fact more expensive, scored less, assisted less and played less. Who do you believe right now, has had the best value for money, us or Sunderland?

Is 6 games a long enough period to judge if we are playing "much better" or not? Using your shots on goal stats as a guage. Are teams performances based on shots on goal or points obtained? Two very simple questions you seem to struggle to answer.

If it's not about points what is it about? Do they award league titles based on who had most shots at goal that season? And now you're contradicting yourself by saying on a long run shots at goal are a guage. When you claimed we were playing "much better" based on 6 games, hardly a long run is it. I think you're confusing yourself sunshine.

I'm not writing him off, like every young player at Saints he has the all important qualities of being young,hungry and guarenteed to improve . Looking at the stats right now though that you're using to back up your case that Gaston is amazing and all the others are so bad Johnson has played more, scored more, created more and cost less. It's fair to say right now Sunderland have had better value for money have they not?

No He doesn't, he's more expensive and has scored less and set up less!!!

There is no way he will be on £120k a week at Sunderland, no way. It was widely reported before he joined that they had a wage cap of £60k and were cutting back on big wages. It was also reported when he signed that he took a pay cut to around £80k a week. Still i'm sure you're mate has given you the full inside story and everyone else is wrong.

If you can cherry pick so can i. If you think its simply goals per game ratio then using your own login Nugget was a better player for England than Bobby Charlton. You say Gaston is a better player, based on what? It seems to be little more than getting your crystal ball out and saying he'll definitely be playing in the world cup and Johnson definitely wont. Did you seriously look at every game this season? Jesus christ, you've got issues!! Still doesn't answer the thing you stated as FACT. You said we are playing "much better" under MP than Adkins, when we have taken less points over the same number of games. Is the yardstick for what a good team is how many points they get or how many shots at goal they have?

according to newspaper reports he is on £80k a week. Gaston is on 2 million euros a year net, plus a 1m signing on fee. About £70k a week, then add on his signing on fee, also net and there aint a lot of difference.

At Sunderland he's on £80k a week. Ramirez isnt far off.

David Nuget has a better goals per game ratio for England than Bobby Charlton, clearly he is the better player for England using your logic.

Bottlejob.

well i for one think it could be a good move. He was outstanding at right midfiled last season so can play the wide role, he has energy so can fit in well into our high pressing game, he can tackle and he can also cover well for Lallana to free him up from his defensive responsibilities. He'd certainly add a bit more bite to the left side of defence.

I dont have the energy to put the idiots right. I just prefer to post on their threads about how crap they are.

You can see why i've got him on ignore cant you.