Graffito

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.

Puts to bed the theory that puel has lost the dressing room. Instructions carried out to the letter but for a breakaway goal, as in the semi final.

It meant much more in those days to win the FA Cup. Euphoria's a good description. I came out of Wembley feeling 10 feet tall.

I don't expect Reading to go up but should they do so it would of course mean Saints, Bournemouth, Brighton and Reading in the PL, leaving another local club conspicuous by its absence. Expect the bitterness to go off the scale.

What were Puel's tactics and set up and what should he have done differently to beat Chelsea?

Agree. Add Fabregas. Costa for diving, as fcking usual.

Harry Redknapp.

A woman in the Gents under the Kingsland at half time a couple of seasons ago.

Beaten by a better side. Disciplined performance by City. Lost in midfield. Look at the spine of their team compared to ours, goalkeepers excepted. As others have said, disappointing we didn't take it to them more but they were tough opponents. Not three goals better but deserved the win.

Puel gets a mention in a BBC article about the future of the much maligned Checkatrade Trophy: Shaun Harvey (EFL) on the problem of developing young players: "It is a concern there is great talent in this country that is not getting an opportunity to experience senior football as early as a lot of clubs would want. "Let's be under no illusions. The EFL Trophy, on its own, is not the answer. But I certainly think it is a big part. What goes alongside it is a manager like Claude Puel at Southampton, who rather than play players out of position, has chosen to give young players a chance, having seen them come through, not just in the academy but also in a real game situation, where winning does matter." Elsewhere the article notes that Jack Stevens started Saints first match in the Checkatrade and finished up playing in the EFL cup final.

I disagree with you, from which you infer that I'm unable to be objective. You've lost me on that one. Look, you may be right, technically, I haven't had the benefit of replays so can't be certain, but even if Long wasn't quite ready, wouldn't it have been in the interests of fairness and the spirit of the game, to allow a few seconds for him to come on? Anyway, it's all a bit futile. The points are lost and I would prefer to look forward to slagging off next week's muppet. Let's just agree to differ.

There was no benefit to Saints dragging out the substitution and every reason to have Long replace Gabbiadini immediately, for the very reason that materialised, a goal conceded. I was at the match and my recollection ties in with what others who appear to have watched on tv have said; for some inexplicable reason the officials resumed play even although Long was ready to come on. Your mental gymnastics in trying to defend the officials is quite entertaining though.

I have to remind myself sometimes that some posters on this form may be of school age. Sadly, I think Larry isn't one of them. Larry12 may not, in fact, be 12.

No doubt. Having said that, his form has dipped alarmingly. I saw only last night's highlights but his defending against Leicester was hilariously bad. He was jumping around like a jack in the box. It was like he didn't know where he was supposed to stand.

Agree. In a misguided attempt to generate atmosphere they kill it. The problem I have with the PA system is more its clarity than its volume though the volume is a problem when they play crap over it.

I was very surprised it wasn't highlighted, analysed or even commented on by MoTD. They generally make a big issue of such incidents. Surely Lineker has no editorial influence? Must admit I didn't see the stamp in real time and I was more or less in line with it. Nevertheless, it was there to see on replays.

The elbow was clearly deliberate and probably, as you say, premeditated. I think it's impossible to say whether the stamp on the head was either deliberate or premeditated and I don't know how the FA could be so certain. Even if the FA were clear that the Mings "offence" was deliberate, how would they account for the difference in punishments. Who can say it's favouritism or just a poor decision. Given Bournemouth's position in the league I can see why they are so annoyed with the decision. It could cost them dearly.

Since you were a referee Whitey, I was inclined to defer to your greater knowledge of the laws. Is this the relevant law? Law 15: "have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline"