Turkish

I didn't say it we got a football lesson, i said it was a good away performance. Do you not agree then? They defended well, ensured that they were difficult to break down, never let us settle into a passing game really so we were resorted to playing into their hands by humping it long to Lambert who was dominated by Samba who is very good in the air. They were then ruthless and efficent on the counter attack and scored 2 goals. They played to their strengths and forced us to play to our weaknesses and into their hands. I dont see what else you can expect from an away performance by a struggling team.

Some might call it a great away performance, soaked up the pressure, minismised our threat causing us to resort to long humps forward which were mopped up by Samba and caught us on the break twice.

Category 759 - the posters that despite living thousands of miles away have had a beer/cocktail/bottle of wine with every ex player and everyone ever linked with buying the club and been told lots of intimate secrets.

We need him to add some bite in the midfield.

Those that hail every positive news article or player linked as a great story, brilliant journalism or in the case of players linked a massive statement of intent. But slam every negative article or player linked moving away as unfounded lies from lazy journalists with an anti Saints agenda.

West Ham are sliding down the table, just like Norwich. They've both dropped one place in two months. Saints are going to leapfrog over them and Sunderland and Newcastle to 10th, because we are rocketing up the table, despite also dropping one place.

And Wigan. Could well be a relegation decider on the last day.

HEre. HTH The stats you used were irrelevant, shots at goal only mean something if the ball hits the back of the net, we only managed it once on Saturday, QPR did twice despite having less, that's why they won, they scored more goals. That's what wins games and that's why Man United, Chelsea, Spurs and the other clubs you list have been successful, they score more and concede less.

You said we'd performed 'much better' under Pochetino than Adkins because we'd had more shots at goal, when Adkins has taken more points from the same amount of games. So what's more important, shots at goal or points? You can't seem to make up your mind as you're slating Norwich on this thread for their not so good current form when they've had more shots at goal than their opposition in over half their last 5 games. Surely they are also playing 'much better'?

I though you were jut slating their current points, surely this is totally irrelevant as in 3 of their last 5 games they've had ore shots than thier opponents, which is all that matters.

In their last 5 games only Man United and Spurs have had more shots at goal than them, they are proving themselves to be an excellent side.

Are you for real? What on earth did Webb do wrong on Saturday? How was the ref to blame for Man U & Wigan?

The Nonse Sense sketch was one of, if not the funniest thing I've ever seen.

Two weeks ago we were going to finish 10th.

Anyone that was at the game will know that despite us having 20 odd shots at goal we only really tested their keeper on 3 or 4 occasions. So shots on target are irrelevant if none of them threaten to go in. You could get one of the half time relay people to take pot shots at goal for 90 minutes, would that make us a better team?

It's quite simple but given your posting history I'm not surprised you don't understand. You claim we are playing 'much better' and quite shots at goal as evidence to support this, I'm saying that this is not nessasairly true and use more amount of points to gained from the same amount of fixtures. Does a team playing 'much better' have more shots at goal or gets more points? Interesting you seem to be claiming that having more shots at goal than Wigan and not winning equates to us being a better team in the future, brilliant bigger picture logic it seems only you canundertand.

Of course it can be, would could average 6 shots at goal a game and score 6 goals or we could average 20 shots and never score. What's more important how many shots we have or how many game we win? Does having more shots at goal make you a better team or is it how many games you win?

Its not irrelevant at all. Reading went up above us last season playing counter attacking football and having a lower shots per game ratio than us, fair to say they were a better team than us based on their league position isn't it. You claim we are playing "much better" under Pochettino because we'd had more shots at goal than under Adkins, yet results were better under Adkins. You used stats to prove this, so why is it irrelvant to ask you if you would rather we stayed up having 6 shots at goal a game or went down having 20? Your stats would say that we've been the better team wouldn't they if you chose the 20 option. Answer the question rather than avoiding it.

Which would you rather though?

stats dont give the whole story. Apparently we had 21 shots at goal on saturday, yet i dont recall us troubling the keeper on more than 4 or 5 occasions.

Yet results are worse. Which would you prefer, going down having averaged 20 shots at a game or staying up averaging 6?

At least read who started the thread FFS. I also disagree with your asssessments of the games and think Chez is more or less spot on with what he says.

Quite, you can quote all the stats you want, the onlly ones that matter are the points you get from the games you play.

Do you think it a long ball forward which no one challenges and the full back losing his man are the result of great, inventive attacking play or poor defending? Cisses goal against us was a cracking strike but it was almost identical to the goal saturday in terms of build up play and defensive sloppiness, a long ball forward which no one attacked, the striker losing the defender easily and it ends up in the back of our net.