Graffito

Or no big decisions, in or out, before ownership is resolved.

Southampton born and bred. Big game expert. Does his best work out in the field. Linked with Wolves, lions, tigers, seagulls, foxes, Eagles, wildebeest. Surprised his name hasn't cropped up before.

Well you may know this. I couldn't possibly say, there is too much uncertainty. My guess is that nothing significant will happen on the coaching and playing side until ownership arrangements are clear, and this is being driven by Liebherr not by club officials.

Reported here and previously that it's KL and her team which is progressing the deal and that SFC has declined to comment. The CE has gone (sacked?). I do wonder the extent to which club officials have a handle on any of this, which is a worry. The team needs an overhaul. It's all very well saying no players will be sold (The Times) but what about acquisitions? What's the position with the manager? A lot of unanswered questions.

So what can be done?

Shabby way to treat someone. Very disappointed with the club for doing this. If the club doesn't want him then sack him and pay him off. No way can he stay after this.

And yet: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/15325384.Davis__Saints_can_make_a__huge_statement__with_Van_Dijk/ Is this club propaganda too or may we take this at face value?

In which case, why on earth do you keep responding to him?

Glimmer of hope? http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11700/10901809/steven-davis-says-southampton-should-build-their-team-around-virgil-van-dijk

Read this twice and I'm still muddled. Which of our forwards do you consider to be "proper" forwards? Are you suggesting Puel should have played 3 "proper" forwards, or 4 even? Wouldn't 3/4 forwards be a tad unbalanced?

What a load of old cabbage. So Puel lucked his way to the final, luckily beat Inter and luckily finished 8th in the league. All because the opposition was rubbish. I mean, they must have been rubbish if we beat them.

So here starts the quiet summer LR wants. Business model, quality recruitment etc etc etc. All very sensible, but it doesn't half get on my tits every single time the better players go, especially to the likes of them.

I think it probably was largely for defensive reasons, with the three becoming a five when defending. We have the players for it, if we keep them. I would have liked to have seen Austin and Gabbiadini together last weekend, if only for 10 minutes, as I think two would benefit both.

"It's not only about league position" - agreed. It's about style and "entertainment" and Stoke City is a byword for those. For goodness sake, they are still relying on the lob to Crouch at the back post to score a goal. (And our dim defenders didn't track his movement to the back post - he's big enough that you can't miss him- leaving 6ft 7ins against 5ft nothing. 1-0 and we lose the game). Nonetheless they support their team. Vote with your feet or even boo at the end if you must but booing and singing against players and manager during the match is an own goal in my book. It isn't support, it's pathetic.

Did you boo? Did you sing along to "You're getting sacked in the morning" or that old classic "You don't know what you're doin"? Stoke have had a worse season than ours. I didn't hear any of the above from their supporters. Quite the opposite.

That's a fair point which I acknowledge. I referred to the lack of pace as the single most likely reason for players hanging back. It's true that there are so many variable factors, not least the quality of the opposition. I'm also highly concious of the fact that football fans tend to focus on our team only. My knowledge of other teams tactics is a bit patchy for instance so if an opposition manager makes a tactical switch during a game I wouldn't necessarily pick it up, though it could be a game changer. The upshot is that we tend to blame poor old Claude for everything. Having said that, I've come to,the conclusion that we are overly cautious largely because of lack of pace in midfield and it is CP's decision to play that way. A good example is Tottenham at home, when we dominated for twenty minutes, then inexplicably to me at the time, sat back for the rest of the match. With the right personnel, I would expect to see CP play more progressive football next season.

Good OP. Lack of pace in recovery is the single most likely reason for players hanging back when they should be supporting the lone striker. Gabbiadini really is a forlorn figure and no target man. By contrast we tend to advance as a unit, which is predictable, slow, and easy to defend. This is overly cautious from Puel in recent home games and not sustainable because it renders the striker virtually redundant for long periods. It was a minority view on this forum during the window that we needed a Schneiderlin type player, but it was a correct one.

Are they bullsh1tters?

Was he involved in the second goal as well?

For my benefit, since I am not ITK, would you kindly identify "every ITK (that is) awash with snippets that his position is under threat", and what are their credentials. If you can't provide credentials then just names will do and I'll make up my mind from that.

Horse's mouth or horses arse? Yet wait, there's a lot more to it of course. Let's have it then.

You're forgetting about the fixture schedule. The additional games need to be seen in the context of an unhelpful and frankly quite bizarre fixture schedule. Your judgements may or may not be correct but surely they should be based on all of the facts.

We didnt score because we didn't get enough players in the box enough of the time.

No, and it's not Theresa May either. It's someone else who likes to shaft the opposition. Someone who may or may not be a tactical genius.

1. The game is won by the team who commit fewer errors. 2. Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition. 3. Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes. 4. Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake. 5. Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake. 6. Whoever has the ball has fear. 7. Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.