Graffito

He hasn't signed yet. Always makes me wonder how and why these things get in the press before they're done, or not done.

The following is from the Secret Footballer. Maybe the what Read refers to when he talks about Chelsea and Man City hoovering up young talent and sending them out on loan. They are making money from it. "If you want an example of this type of transfer, look no further than the career of the former Chelsea player, Kevin De Bruyne. De Bruyne was signed by the higher-ups at Chelsea from Genk, an unfashionable club in Belgium, for £7 million in the January window of 2012. Later, Chelsea loaned him to Werder Bremen, a very capable Bundesliga side, where he played 33 league games and scored an impressive ten goals. Ultimately, Chelsea were able to put De Bruyne on the European map and increase his value while halving his wages by loaning him out, despite the fact that he played only three times for the Blues. In the January window of 2014, Chelsea sold De Bruyne to another Bundesliga club, VfL Wolfsburg, for £17 million. I realise that football purists might balk at the manipulation of a player’s career, especially a young player, or even the fact that the club has traded off its position as a blue-chip football club. But any person who appreciates business will no doubt have to begrudgingly admire a deal like that. There is a side of transfering players that is ultimately about nothing more than making the club more money. When it works, you can’t help but be just a little impressed." I'm not sure how many of the Chelsea and City type loanees out are signings and how many are from their development squads. We may be doing things quite differently two respects, in both growing our own and controlling their development through to first team. The weak point in the approach is the standard of competition the Under 21 s compete in, as Read has identified.

Thanks for a link. An interesting and thought provoking read. The Germans ahead of the game in preserving football culture and continuity with past while we've gone down the entertainment route like the US and lost our young fans and football's traditions and it's links to community. We're destroying something valuable which I was fortunate enough to experience in the 70's and 80's. All is not lost. Aside from the football culture arguments , there is fortunately a compelling business case for safe standing so there's a chance the money men might go for it. He's wrong about one thing though "The magic of that goal was that it ever crept in at all: a diagonal shank from 20 yards that ambled past Alex Stepney in the Man Utd goal ". Crept in? You're joking aren't you.

Very good. There's also methane from all the bulls**t.

Rodriquez couldn't miss. It was a sitter.

On today's evidence absolutely the opposite.

Wanyama was perfect for today's match. Poor pitch, physical opposition and hoofs down the channels or even straight down the middle. He was ideal protection for the back four and did the job well.

Watching Palace is like watching Pulis' Stoke, without the finesse. Watching a match from the Arthur Waite stand is like looking through a letterbox with some **** banging a drum in your ear. I'm really pleased and impressed with that win. Palace are a rough, tough side and we had to match their physical game to win it. Shows me the players are highly motivated which is a major plus. Get off Lambert's back. His form has dipped, that's obvious, but he hit the post with a great flick. And they roughed him up and gave him no time on the ball. He's such a nice lad I sometimes wish he would give it back a bit more. Contrast with Murray, a limited footballer who pushes, nudges, steps in on defenders, backs in... Gamesmanship - someone mentioned the long grass. Good spot. Aside from their physical approach, they also take their time at corners allowing time for all that pushing and shoving nonsense. Tactics to spoil the opposition's concentration IMO. It was a battle and we won it, deservedly.

I think he'll take Cole and I don't have a problem with that. It seems Bains will be first choice so it's about going as an understudy. We're probably talking about group stage matches anyway. Cole is still a class left back and a good defensive one. England have lots of attacking options going forward. Shaw would do just fine if he went but he has a long and successful international career ahead of him and will be a fixture in the squad after the WC (and Baines shouldn't feel too secure either). There's always the possibility of form and fitness issues for Saints next season if Shaw does go. Would probably be the right decision on balance to take the experienced Cole to Brazil.

Yes. I've thought for a long time that he'd be perfect for Saints, but £20m and wages of £150k...and why would he ever come to Southampton?

The stats bear out what we see. I'd add that the build up is often slow so that by the time we get crosses in, the penalty box is defended. With a slow build up we need better quality on the ball to open teams up in and around the penalty box or we get some pace in the side and have the option of breaking at speed. Man City have both better quality on the ball and pace.

Denmark?

Lallana's cross was a sand wedge. Shaw looked born to it.

There are enough Skates on here these days to make up the opposition. I can think of a few I'd like to kick the **** out of.

The theory is that players are less tired when in possession and more tired when chasing after the ball. If this is so, then our high possession stats suggest that we'll have greater endurance than we might have had were we chasing round after the ball for 65% of a match. If the players are tired at the end of the season this may be more because we cannot, without increasing the risk of losing more games, rotate the squad as much as teams drawn from stronger squads, as well as to any number of variables.

Drop an England centre forward for an 18 years old kid or a midfield player? Bobbins.

I would have to subscribe to get access but from what you have kindly copied and pasted it would seem the academics are telling us what we know already, not to pay too much attention to possession statistics (arguably you could broaden that to any statistics). Nonetheless the table does show that the better teams tend to be those that have more possession and the weaker tend to be those that have less.

Whose possession? Which matches? I'd be interested to know how they did that analysis and arrived at that conclusion.

Take your point. First time I've ever quoted him. And the last.

I'll bear that in mind next time we go 1 up. Thanks.

"That a side of Liverpool's calibre should change their formation is a tribute to Southampton's talent and high tempo style. Arsenal, for one, have struggled to cope with the pace and fluent passing of the Saints...". This is from the Sunday Times reporter at the match. Some of us may quibble with the reference to pace, though I take it he's referring to moving the ball quickly which is something we can do, but he makes a good point. Despite Liverpool changing formation to a diamond, playing two up front the whole game to occupy our defence and despite England's captain being detailed to do a job on Lallana, we played well in the first half. Take a look at Liverpool's forums and see what they think. Only on here do you get witless comments like those in the OP.

I know. I was there. Are you saying that will always happen when we go a goal up away from home? Of course not, so what's your point?

Palace, like West Ham and Liverpool, a team with much to play for. An early goal and we'll beat them. Concede early and it will be a struggle to break them down.

Oh yeah, sorry. Goals scored.

Shall we let this one just hang in the air for a while.