GreenTreeFrog

That might be true but its not really the point I was making. Some people keep saying the reason for appointing JP was because the club claimed we could not afford Pearson's wages. That was never given as a reason, its obvious Lowe felt JP/Woote were better suited to the current set up than Pearson would have been, but it is not about wages. Its not up to me to defend the new system so I will not develop that further but, with respect, its a bit more than just introducing a few young players now and again - our entire future depends on developing those youngsters to their full potential and we will be using them almost exclusively.

With respect Um did you actually read my post at all? I have covered everything you have brought up there. Once again this has nothing to do with defending the plan, all I was doing was explaining the reasons given at the time. These were, as stated, ‘partly financial’ but are nothing to do with managers wages but were about the route the club intended to follow. Wilde did not say Pearson would not be capable of working under the new scheme. Lowe/Wilde felt JP and Woote were better suited to the new system than Pearson and the basic salary of the two combined would not cost any more. That single sentence sums up why they chose JP - at least it was the reason given in public. It’s a simple as that. Maybe they were completely wrong but that was their decision at the time. Where have I said that Pearson could not have worked under the same circumstances? My point is purely about the misinterpretation of the original reasons given. Nothing to do with anything else.

Lowe did not say ‘we couldn’t afford Pearson’. In fact he clearly stated Woote and Poorvliet, were they to succeed, would be on more money than Pearson was due to bonus payments. When Lowe said the decision to appoint the Dutch duo was ‘partly financial’ he went on to explain how we could not afford to continue as we had done previously. He claimed it would be unfair on ‘a traditional manager’ to work within the budget limitations set this year. Here is a quote from Michael Wilde: "We are extremely grateful for Nigel's contribution. He came to the club at a time of crisis and through his hard work and commitment we were able to avoid relegation on the last day. "However, the board have been looking closely at the situation on the playing side of the club whereby we are inevitably going to have to depend to a large extent on the quality of our youngsters in the academy and the reserve team. "Our view on that was we would need to adopt a European-style coaching system comprising head coach, with the objective of linking the academy to the first team. "The board believe this will create opportunities for our younger players, which might not occur within the traditional English management structure." That is what the ‘money saving’ part of the plan was about, nothing to do with managers salaries. That is not to defend the plan, or to suggest Pearson could not have worked under such a system. But Lowe/Wilde believed that the Dutch pair were better suited as they were used to working that way – Pearson was not. I would have been happy enough to keep Pearson but he has gone and I have no interest in following Leicester City results. Before the season even started they were equal favourties for Promotion (3/1 along with Leeds) and the nearest competitors were 12/1 showing the huge gulf in class. Leicester city should get promoted easily - just as Birmingham City should but that would not prove McLeish is a superb manager.

I agree its down to money and am also of the view it is far too early to change manager (and there is no chance of it happening anyway) so would not call for such a move. As you say the new guy would still be limited to pennies rather than millions so it would be too much to EXPECT an immediate and dramatic improvement. But if there is one person who could POSSIBLY get us performing to the maximum, with only the minimum of money, it has to be Billy Davies. He managed to transform Preston on a shoestring, you just have to look at Preston’s form before and since. Preston (who did play some exciting football under him) saw the home crowds 3000 higher than the aveage before and since him so the crowds liked what they saw. Derby had only narrowly avoided relegation in the season immediately before Davies took over. Derby were hugely in debt and so Davies was given only around £1 million to spend. He managed to get Derby top of the league by January, then, in a bid to secure promotion ahead of the 3 year schedule originally planned, the board decided to spend more. Davies warned them the team was nowhere near good enough to survive in the Premeiership and they would need to spend hugely or else would come right back down. They disagreed and the rest is history. If we had to change manager again, and could afford him, then its hard to argue against him other than on personality. This article is quite interesting and I would suggest it means he would not come near us anyway. http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/sport-news/2008/08/17/wenger-gave-me-back-my-pride-says-billy-davis-78057-20700677/

That is a good question on its own but is not really the subject of the debate here. I am not even particularly defending the current scheme, but unless I see something fairly concrete and ‘likely’ to be better I don’t know what other option we have apart from a bit of tinkering here and there. I am sure if we get beat by Doncaster on Saturday there will be even more despondency than now (if that is possible) and I can fully understand those emotions. It is hugely demoralising to witness week on week. Yesterdays result was a shocker, but we have been dumped out of the League Cup by Peterborough, Notts Co and Mansfield in previous years, so it’s becoming a bit of a habit now. You said: ‘We will have failed to beat potentially the three teams most likely to be relegated.’ Blackpool are indeed one of the sides tipped for relegation but their current away record is actually very good, only losing one game in 4 so far and beating Birmingham. I know it may not last but on current form (and that is what matters) they are a decent away side. Barnsley, no argument there, poor result. I can’t see another ‘relegation candidate’ we have played so far. If you mean Ipswich then that is highly unlikely. (Edited: Just realised you meant IF we get beat on Saturday. Doncaster being the third relegation candidates. Dont worry there is no way on earth that will happen (winky thing). Trust me it will be 2 - 0 saints win). Here is the odds for relegation from across the betting market. http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/coca-cola-championship/promotion I always said it would take time to adjust but at the moment it does seem we are going backwards rather than improving. But it is still very early days experience does not come overnight. I hope things will start to improve. Why not this weekend?

I have never said we needed to do things EXACTLY AS WE HAVE. Yet that is how you keep interpreting my words. The key is REALISTIC alternatives. There are other choices, but the OTHER CHOICES ARE LIKELY TO BE EQUALLY POOR OPTIONS (as in my £200 car example’). That is all I have ever stated. You don’t need to keep pointing out we could sell one player and buy another and that would be different. Of course it would be but is it likely to be any better? If you were to suggest bringing in 6 decent established players would improve the team I would agree. But we know we can’t afford to do so it is not a realistic plan either. That is my point. When I asked for one example of your alternative plan you claimed I was being unreasonable as you did not have inside knowledge of wages and costings. But all I asked for was a general idea of your plan, which I had assumed would be better than what we have at present (or else why do it?). Here you gave one example, ‘Sell Surman and Lallana.’ Of course we could do that but unless you have an idea of what to do with the money raised it is not a plan at all, it is just weakening the team to raise money. We could get 3 or 4 lesser players [than Surman and Lallana] with the money raised and so expand the squad. That would be a plan but I don’t like the sound of it at all. Alternatively we could keep Surman and Lallana but reduce the squad to 20 and bring maybe one other 'quality player' with the money ‘saved’ on wages. All plans but would we be better off? I don't think we would. I just wanted some idea of what you are getting at. Something more than get rid of one player and bring in another, there that is a plan. Anyway after last nights performance I am too down to continue this. Saturday is my birthday and I have a feeling in my bones. Doncaster 0 Southampton 2 Remember where you heard it first!

My comments in blue. I notice you did not take up my challenge of giving the most basic outline of your 'alternative plan' with general costings involved. By not doing so you are just admiting your so called 'alternative plan' is just pie in the sky. Saying we could have got in an experinced manager and some free signings in the lower rated player category (which it would have to be) is not what i consider and alternative plan. Yes it is slightly different but unlikely to be any better. I rest my case.

I doubt he ever believed it and I have not heard him suggest anything like it being 'the way forward.' When Poorvliet and Woote were appointed they spoke of the importance of a blend of youth and experience in virtually every interview. I am sure neither of them believed at any time ‘youth’ was the primary importance in building a team. They have worked in those set ups though so were considered (rightly or wrongly) the best option if we had to rely on youth. They did say they would not be able to get loan signings in if we already had a player in the youth team that played in that position and was capable of doing a job. They also said he would only keep his place if he proved capable but in reality we knew many established players would be sold so preventing that happening in many cases. In Micheal Wilde’s speech about why they chose the Dutch set up he said: “The board have been looking closely at the situation on the playing side of the club whereby we are inevitably going to have to depend to a large extent on the quality of our youngsters in the academy and the reserve team” Notice even there he has said ‘going to have to’ meaning he is aware it is not ideal.

I have been reading this forum and Keith Leggs predecessor, SaintsForever, for the past 5 years or more but only post infrequently. I am aware that Um Pahars is a prolific poster with strong opinions and I don’t have a problem with that. What did surprise me was why he decided to pick my post to push his agenda, most of what he said had nothing to do with my post at all. I thought the thread you started was valid and a bit of a different angle to some of the others. Some people don’t like anything they see as ‘positive’ so tend to degrade it into the same old arguments of the past 5 years. But really this thread is not even particularly ‘positive’ it is just asking what is realistic and is a very important question that needs reviewing as time marches on. At the beginning of the season we were all in the dark as to what to expect. We had opinions but no evidence. I predicted a struggle but not relegation and a better season next year. 7 games is too early to judge, even though as um pahars says, ‘the alarm bells are ringing.’ But we don’t need to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet. I think the plan to use the youth players will be good in the long term. In an ideal world we would incorporate them over a few seasons. If we could have kept the best of last years players (including Rasiak and Saganowski) and then blend in 3 or 4 of the younger players each season that would almost certainly be a safer way of doing things. But we don't have the money to do it that way so are forging ahead with what we see now. But being realistic about what to expect is vital. Why Poorvliet said we are aiming for the play offs I have no idea. Why get the fans hopes up when working with such a volatile and untried system? Some thought it was good to hear him being ‘positive’ but there is a difference between being positive and reckless.

I am perfectly capable of understanding things and not agreeing with your points is not the definition of being ‘obtuse.’ In fact your reply argued about subjects that I did not even comment on, if you are now suggesting they were based on other threads or comments elsewhere then why aim them at me? I suggest if you have a problem with either of my two posts on this thread you read them again without bias. I have not said most of the things you claim. As I had already pointed out ‘no alternative’ was not literal I suggest it is you that is being obtuse. Obviously we did not HAVE TO sign Poortvliet and Woote, but any alternative manager would still need to work with the youth and with virtually no transfer budget. Lowe believed the Dutch duo are better suited to development of youth than Pearson was. That much is clear and was his CHOICE. No argument there. Someone has £200 to buy a car and gets a knocked up old Vauxhall Corsa. His mates laugh at him and he says he knows it is shabby but being skint he had no option. He does not mean he LITERALLY had no other options available. He means every car at that price is much the same. Some are a slightly better colour, some a bit less rusty but overall much the same. Think of it that way. The only genuine ‘plan’ you offer is to bring in a bunch of seasoned pros. That is just more of what we have had already. It may work short term but would not be good long term. Decent pros want high wages and how many old pros have we had in the Championship that have absolutely delivered week in week out? Not many. The problem is compounded as to make a realistic difference we don’t need one or two such pros’ – we probably need half a dozen. We cannot afford it. I am not asking for a detailed plan here but what sort of standard of players are you thinking of? How many? How much would they likely want in wages? Again I know you cannot give exact figures but these questions are vitally important if your ‘alternative plan’ is to be taken as credible. Otherwise we could be viewed as little more than a club offering the players equivalent of a donkey sanctuary. You claim not to be judging the players after 7 games yet that is exactly what you are doing. Why not stick to your claim and just give it the season. If we are not relegated we have done as well as the big boys did last year. I am not saying that is the best we should aim for but this thread was supposed to be about setting realistic standards ‘for this team’ and that was the basis of my comments. This team, this set up. I have always believed mid table would be a huge achievement but lower mid is more likely. That would be success and next year we should certainly be be better able to compete. Rather that than the usual treadmill of ageing players out for an easy pay day.

To me that seems to be a perfectly reasonable expectation and a perfectly valid fear. To some though it seems the season can be judged after only 7 games and is over already. I just hope our players have a bit more mental strength than that or else it really is all over.

I did say ‘realistic alternative’ but maybe ‘significantly different alternative’ would have better expressed my meaning. You have mentioned in many threads that there are plenty of options we could have taken but never give any form of detail (in those I have seen) of exactly how these ‘other options’ would work. Instead you tend to reply with something like, ‘So the only option open to us was to employ a Dutch manager with no experience and play a team of kids………’ Well no of course no one would suggest it was ‘literally’ the only option, we could have kept Pearson on for example. But he would still be using basically the same players and we would still be screaming out for a proven striker capable of 20 goals or more a season and still want the defence strengthening. But we can’t even afford the wages of such players, no matter the transfer fees, so it is all just wishful thinking and things would ‘likely’ be much the same as they are now. In your post you have brought up many criticisms that are nothing to do with the thread or anything written in my post. You seem to be putting words into my mouth. I never said the older players should not start so not sure what you are arguing about there. You also said: “Just to say the dice have been rolled and that's it, is totally uninspiring, and rather naïve.” Where exactly have I said, or even remotely implied anything like that? If anything that may be used to sum up your belief quite well. We have played 7 games, and from your comments here and on other threads, it seems you believe the young inexperienced players should be up to speed now or they never will be. Isn’t it possible they MAY get better after a few more months? Not certain, but possible? Isn’t it uninspiring, even naïve, to suggest they have shown us all they can ever become in their first 7 games? I would hope that any manager would give new players time to fit in. Even if we had a team of old pros and Pearson was in charge I would have expect all reasonable supporters to give the players time to get to know each others strengths and weaknesses and therefore develop as an effective team. So of course I am going to think a whole host of inexperienced players might just need more than 7 games to reach their peak. I believe the players will improve as the season progresses and the manager gets to know his best team (which will likely include Perry, Moore and Davis) and the best tactical substitutions or changes to try when things aren’t quite going right. Ialso have always thought it was going to be a long hard season but would be a lot better next season – yes in the Championship. Down with relegation!

You are absolutely right. It was always going to be a long hard season as far as I was concerned and while the start has been very disappointing it was not exactly a bolt out of the blue. This season is going to be about learning and the development of players. If this young(ish) team manages to avoid relegation they have done as well as last years players managed. Things should improve as the players get match experience and the manager gets to understand best how to use the players he has available. It’s not as if we have a realistic alternative anyway. There is no one willing to ‘invest’ (a crazy word when related to buying a football club) the money to make the difference needed. People speak of getting in experienced players but we had that last year and had to pay them £10.5 million in wages for the dross they served up. I live near Burnley and the club have put out adverts in the Arabian business media in an attempt to get new money in. Burnley are already part financed by a multi millionaire fan, Brendan Flood, but he says he cannot continue spending £4 million a year to cover Burnley’s annual losses. They have cut the wage bill to £7.3 million and even before the crowds dwindled to around 10,000 and the finance manager said the club is struggling to survive and needs to find alternative revenue steams. They have no mortgage on the stadium and a multimillionaire backing them but are still ‘paddling frantically to stay above water’ (actual quote from finance manager). We are not alone in our desperation and though many think there is an easy answer (investment) it is clear there is not.

I absolutely agree with all you say. I liked your 'smoking a fag' rule of thumb, its seemed valid and made me laugh.

What about synchronised swimming then? Try doing that smoking a fag

I agree - what an insane comment for the OS to make. In fact the statement is not even correct as saying 'continue their unbeaten streak' suggests we had an unbeaten 'streak' previously - when in fact it was one sad little lonely draw. As you say though two home draws are hardly a streak either.

How can anyone seriously tell who is going to be relegated after only 7 games? I did not see the Barnsley game but the Sportinglife described saints performance as a 'dominant display' but they failed to take advantage of it. We know we need a 'proven' goalscorer upfront but Stern John is not exactly firing at the moment. Many people said Blackpool are rubbish and just the sort of team we should be hammering at home - and yet they have now played 4 games away, losing only lost once, so maybe they are not too shabby after all. It could be temporary but then so is any teams form. Last season Preston also had 5 points after 7 games and in the next 12 games they added only 10 more (3 of those points came from a 5 -1 thumping of an ‘experienced’ saints side). That gave them 15 points after 17 games and obviously in danger of relegation. Preston fans did not think, ‘Oh well its only a blip we will start winning soon’ yet that is exactly what happened. After a further indifferent patch they had a superb run, picking up 19 points in 8 games and moved up the table and out of danger. The previous year the exact opposite happened. They had looked odds on for either automatic promotion, or at very least, a play off spot but Preston then lost 7 of the last 8 games allowing saints to creep one point above them into the 6th spot. Its stuff like that which makes football such a fascinating and frustrating game to follow. Of course the alarm bells are ringing right now, and I am sure some changes will need to be made. The players we are using are not ‘kids’ as many keep saying, but are 20 – 22 years old and only lack experience, which is never realistically going to happen within 7 games. Some of them may never make it but we cannot say that just yet. We spent £10.5 million in player wages last year yet still only avoided relegation on the last day of the season. Unless we can find XX million from somewhere in the next few months I suspect we are stuck with what we have got, mediocrity or even total failure will not change that. .

This is not intended to have a go at anyone – we are obviously playing a lot of young players but these are not ‘kids’ as many keep saying. Lallana, James and Lancashire are all 20, McGoldrick 21, Surman 22 and Gillet 23. Players such as Walcott and Bale are still only 19 and made their saints debuts as 16year olds – 4 years younger than any of the above players. Of course we were not relying on them as the basis of the team back then so I realise it’s not exactly the same. My point is that the current young players are physically more developed than Bale and Walcott were when introduced to first team football so it is only experience, not ‘physicality’ they lack. This is important as hopefully that will allow them to develop very quickly, as they gain vital experience, rather than waiting for a ‘kid’ to grow into a man. I hope they are given time and fans remember how poor we were last season when we spent a staggering £10.5 million on wages, a figure said to be higher than the previous year. That is not sustainable in the championship on anything other than a sell out at every home game and probably not even then.

That is how I see it as well. The goalie is supposed to stop goals going in and to say without him we would have lost 8-1 (or whatever) is similar to saying we only won a certain game 3- 0 as our striker got a hatrick. (we can all dream!) What bugs me even more though is people that say such things (including many media pundits) are actually changing football history yet expecting every single pass that follows to be be identical to before the change. For example, imagine a game in which saints drew 0 – 0 having no chances on goal and with Davis making 4 superb saves. After such a game the only thing we can say for certain is that the opponents had 4 excellent chances to go 1 – 0 up but Davis prevented that happening. That would be fair and factual and based on what actually happened and we can applaud Davis’ efforts as saving us from defeat. No problem with that but…... When Davies saved the first of the 4 chances (in this example) then WHAT ACTUALLY FOLLOWED was either a corner or goal kick; HAD IT BEEN A GOAL then it’s a saints kick off from the centre spot. In either case the players on both teams would be in totally different positions and different players would be involved in the game, and of course they will choose different options. Different, different, different! So it is impossible for the game to continue pass for pass, player to player, in exactly the same way regardless of whether it’s a goal or a save. Yet that is what people who say, ‘It would have been 4 – 0 but for Davis…..’ are saying. We cannot say what would have happened if we change the circumstances but the only thing we can be certain of is it would not progressed exactly as it did.

I think my point was clear enough. I agree the players were over paid but they were also some of the best in the championship and even D&G got some improved performances, though not results, out of them. But fine, if you are impressed with Pearsons 16 points out of 13 games then I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. I have no problem with him, but I dont see how some can idolise him on the basis of what he did at the club.

I don’t recall the bookies making saints the clear favourites for promotion at any point after our relegation. At the start of the season Leicester City were equal favourites with Leeds at 3-1 with the nearest competitors being 12-1, suggesting those two teams are considered to be a class above the rest of the league. It is not fact that Pearson did ‘very well’ to keep saints up, it is opinion. You think he did ‘very well’, some think he did ‘OK’ or just about enough. Poortvliet has got 3 points in his first 4 games, exactly the same as Pearson managed in his first 4. Poortvliet has done that with fewer resources and less experienced players and yet still managed it by playing teams with class and excitement. Of course it’s ridiculous to judge either of them yet, its far too early and it has to be said both are unproven at the moment.

I agree with that. It would also be at best unhelpful and at worst could actually damage the club. Why do some posters insist that we need to know all the ‘dirt’ of the past? Yes, Wilde criticised Lowe’s methods and ousted him a few years ago, but it does not follow that he must hate or resent him now. I’m sure at the time he did think he could do things differently, bigger, bolder and better, but maybe once in power he realised running the club was a lot harder than he thought and he has learnt from that experience. It is possible that, although they may never be best mates, he now respects certain aspects of what Lowe can offer but still feels he can make a worthwhile contribution of his own. Along with his obvious business experience maybe he offers a bit of balance to Lowes 'extremes' and an alternative viewpoint in various discussions. Maybe they can work better for the club as a pair than they could individually. Brothers in arms!

The International break and closing of the transfer window will have dampened interest in posting (it has been quieter the past week) but this forum has not recovered from the introduction of membership fees. Although it might be truer to say it has not recovered from limiting non members to only 3 posts a day. I am not criticising the idea of the scheme (funds were needed) but it does appear to be by far the biggest factor in the lack of postings over the past months. Do the mods have any stats of before and after? I do wonder if the old way (voluntary donations) but with ‘high profile’ pleas for donations would have been better. I never donated previously even though I truly valued the forum and would have happily made a donation - but I just never got round to actually doing it. I suppose many were the same. Some argued that ‘the dross’ would stop posting if the fee was imposed and this would be a good thing. In hindsight it does seem that 'the dross' may have helped keep the forum alive and interesting. As I am a positive person I finish by adding it is still easily the best saints forum out there.

I have responded to this bit separately as it was not really my main point but as you bring it up, here goes. You say Pearson gave us a team that, results taken over a season, would show ‘mid-table’ form, but that statement is a bit misleading. Results taken over a season (applied to last table) would have saw us finishing ‘mid table’ but also 3 points above 20th and 5 above Leicester. It was a very close league. Did Pearson really take over a ‘team in freefall?’ I know the results were poor but was the spirit really that bad? In D&Gs first league game we lost 1-0 against Norwich but the team missed many chances and hit the post 4 times, we really should have won that game. We then lost Skacel and Rasiak to save money on wages (demoralising to our players maybe?) yet days later the team fought to decent draw away to Palace. Stoke was a story of two halves; the fight back from 3-0 down was well praised and many said the team fought tooth and nail for pride and D&G. So there were some decent performances just before Pearson. D&G got 4 league games only. Results wise compare the games either side of that. Burleys last 4 games 2 points D&G 4 league games 1 point Pearsons first 4 games 3 points None of those are exactly impressive. It proves little except that the points haul was similar taken over the short term results. I REALLY AM NOT intending to defend D&G or to criticise Pearson, I just want to put some perspective on it. Yes, he did a decent job, but I don’t think it can be convincingly argued the team spirit was non existent before he arrived and was immediately transformed.

My opinions are not based on love or hatred of Lowe/Crouch/Wilde or any politics at the club. I would also add I have no anti Pearson feelings at all but he is in our past and I have more interest in our current set up. My comments about those that look to Leicester City results as proof of Pearson’s ability were not aimed at you, Arizona. My main gripe is with those that keep repeating this myth Pearson was removed as the Dutch were the cheaper option when it has nothing to do with managers wages, but was about ‘the new system’. It may be a mistake but it’s not a mistake about wages. I did not say Pearson would ‘waste money’ or that he had ‘wasted money.’ The point I was hinting at was Pearson brought in 5 loan signings but Pericard, Lucketti and Pearce started a total of 6 games between them. I was wondering if Lowe may have considered that. At the infamous ‘two for the less than the price of one’ interview Lowe said one of the main reasons he decided against ‘a traditional British manager’ was that they need to rely on money to buy new players and bring in expensive temporary loans. I wonder if he may have looked at Pearson’s 5 loan signings and decided he could have got by with some of the youth players we had available and just two or three loanees. Maybe he saw it as a sign of things to come? I don’t know that of course and it could be Lowe just wanted the new guys regardless and nothing was going to stop him. But its not about wages.