CanadaSaint

We definitely need Stoke to beat Reading, who have 4 Home games and 1 Away game against struggler group in their last 15 games. QPR have 3H and 4A, and Villa have 3H and 3A and Wigan have 2H and 2A. We have 1 H and 3 A. We have a ton of work still to do, so we need these results to go our way.

Unfortunately, Martin Atkinson is fit.

I think you're right. I certainly hope so. Great interview, no nasties, and he still says "us" and "we".

I realize that, um, and I don't have a problem with it. I'm just saying that we shouldn't get too carried away with this "Benali should be treated better because he loves the club" thing when some of his commitment has been purchased. The loss of that income appears to be one of the reasons why he's mad at Cortese - and, if they've suffered the same fate, could well be one of the reasons why MLT and Lawrie are right behind him. That's all. I'm not knocking them, just suggesting that this could be part of the rationale for where we stand today and a reason to keep a more open mind about Cortese. I'm not sure what you mean by the Dodd question - he isn't, as far as I know, taking public runs at Cortese.

Roger, that's fine. I respect your opinion and, from some angles, I agree with it. But he wouldn't be my first choice because, for all his brilliance - genius, even - I prefer players who gave near-90 minutes of high quality effort, game-in/game-out, over a large number of games. But that's just my opinion. And there will always be plenty of different opinions in football. The sad thing is that this MLT debate has mixed the totally different issues of his playing contribution and his recent conduct. I won't let the second screw-up the first, or allow the first to excuse the second.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I also find it a bit weird that people keep trumpeting Benali's love for the club when part of the legal issue appears to be the fact that he was getting paid to show it.

No, it wasn't me - even though I rather agree with whoever it was that did say it. I just find Roger's insults annoying so I took a shot back.

I've asked you this before but I'll try again. How old are you? I'm interested because you seem to think that you've seen enough of our greats to conclude that MLT was our best-ever, and I'm not sure I agree with that. The most talented, certainly, but not necessarily - in my book anyway - the best player we've ever had. I've seen others who made a different and arguably more consistent kind of contribution, so Matty - much as I admire him, for football anyway - doesn't get my nod. And I'm not re-writing any history to reach that conclusion. It's just my opinion, so don't call me "sad", an "idiot" or worse (as is your wont when someone disagrees with you) for voicing it. Still, I'm glad to see that even you are finally reaching the conclusion that, great as he may have been with his boots on, he's been acting like a bit of an idiot lately.

Indeed. And I'm hoping that he's smart enough to have a Plan B for a situation in which he can keep the dream alive despite the fact that the financial rules may well have rendered Markus's provision less usable than it would have been under current conditions. Cortese's as smart as hell so I'd be shocked if he doesn't have a Plan B, but God only knows what it might be. I guess there's always the chance that he'll report back that the mission is now unattainable, and we'll start seeing "For Sale" talk again.

I wasn't expecting us to vote against it because of all the self-sustaining stuff that Cortese has emphasized, and the way he's "put his money where his mouth is" on the academy front. As a football fan, I was happy to see all of that, but sceptical about how realistic it really is. As a Saints fan, I can't help but wonder - after hearing that we've voted No - if there isn't a sh*t-load of dough back there somewhere.

More likely money that we do have but that didn't come from traditional sources, don't you think? All lending credence to the notion that Markus's provision might have been very substantial.

I'm surprised that the "lost ambassadorial fees" comment is receiving so little attention on here. Could it be that Matt and Lawrie have also suffered lost ambassadorial fees (they are more deserving of that kind of role than Benali ever was), and therefore have more than a passing interest in how Benali fares in his court case? Enough of an interest to fan the flames? It doesn't seem that long ago (it was when the club was in dire straits) that people on here were railing against Lawrie for what he was supposedly taking out of the club. There's much more to this than meets the eye, and I suspect that the obscured parts are more in Cortese's favour than the visible parts.

Pretty much this for me, although I think he'd be quite happy with a more stable and progressive Championship club. He's always struck me as a very balanced guy, so I think - and hope, because I really like him - that he'll take some time off, enjoy his family, and make a careful choice. No jumping from the frying pan into the fire. And Forest would probably be a fire.

If we have Clyne and Shaw, and to a lesser extent Ramirez, I fancy our chances of getting something. Perhaps even all three points. But if we lose either of the full backs, and especially if we lose Cork from midfield in order to cover for Clyne's absence, my optimism plummets. The lesser issue is that Corky lacks pace at RB, because City don't quite have the speed on that flank that other teams have; skill in abundance but not so much speed. The bigger issue for me is that Cork and Schneiderlin complement each other so well in midfield, and Davis - though playing quite well recently - is no substitute for either of them. I think we'll need to score three to beat City, though, because it's too easy to get behind Jos and City are very good at those little angled balls.

Great discussion. I'm really enjoying how we're playing, despite the troubling inability to convert dominance into wins. I hope we stick with it, which I'm sure we will. The two angles that trouble me, though, are whether Ramirez can fit within and contribute to this style of game, and the attrition rate that we might encounter. Ramirez might not be suited to high-pressing but he could still contribute with some "killer passes" in the late stages of attacks, and some quick and accurate shooting from the edge of the box. Neither is happening right now but if that starts the draws will become wins. The attrition will come through the sheer physical demands of playing like this and through the yellow cards that this style can produce. Cork and Schneiderlin are super-fit and can sustain it over 90 minutes, but we'll see whether they can sustain it over the rest of the season. Schneiderlin, in particular, must continue to improve his decision-making when it comes to when to "hold" and when to tackle; although he's improved, he has a habit of picking up rather needless yellow cards, and he's a player we can't afford to lose for even one game.

Hands up with this one - I thought they would struggle a bit this year but they've been excellent. I've watched our go-ahead goal half a dozen times from origin, and Schneiderlin ran almost 100 yards to be on the end of that Rodriguez cross. And that was after he'd already covered more ground than anyone else on the pitch. I hate seeing him get unnecessary bookings because we just can't afford to lose him.

A good point that most of us would have taken beforehand, but it was still 2 vital points thrown away. Rodriguez is starting to look worth the money. I'm beginning to think that we spent 12 million on a player that doesn't fit within - and doesn't contribute to - our high-pressing style. Schneiderlin must have run about 105 yards to score that cracker. Shaw is worth a frigging fortune - to us but, unfortunately, also to all of the Big Boys.

I don't understand why MP moves Puncheon away from his best position - wide right, where he teams up well with Clyne and keeps their left side too busy to push forward. He always loses effectiveness when they do that. And I certainly don't blame Yoshida for the goal - it was just one of those things. How often does a guy heading away from goal get that much power and perfect direction on a header? Still very much in this.

The alternative theory is that Pochettino thinks he can get more out of the current group than NA did - by, for example, committing to a playing style and sticking to it, giving some of NA's un-used signings a chance, making sure that everyone understands their role, applying his own motivational style, and so on. He said he'd only sign players that would improve the squad, so he obviously fancies his chances of turning NA-type draws into MP-type wins. If he's right, or if the right kind of player wasn't available, why on earth would signing new players be viewed as a measure of success?

We need a giant banner that says "Adam - Shoot, Shoot, FFS Shoot"

I think you're dead right - especially as he's exhibited cramp issues fairly frequently. But then we go back to the old problems - Fox is a slow, ball-watching space-marker, so Yoshida (and others) have to cover for him, thus creating problems in the middle - including Clyne having to push in, which leaves us far-post-vulnerable. And then we move Punch to the left to occupy United in another attempt to cover for Fox, which costs us a lot of effectiveness on our right side. Well, half-time is Poccetino's first big test, but we do have instant-improvement options on the bench.

Yes he does, because that might be a bit of an oversimplification. It's not just about keeping our talent, although that's very important. It's also about building a production line. We will, in all likelihood, lose Shaw sooner or later because he's clearly a real talent and the Big Boys' money will still be talking for a long time to come, but we need the Matt Targetts to come through as well so that we're still okay even if we lose the Shaws. That is even more challenging, especially when others are trying to catch up with their academies - and probably will.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that. Those legal challenges are always possible but there's no place in the world where 'principles' such as "unbridled free enterprise", "let the market dictate the price" and "let the weak die" rule life the way they do in the States. Any intervention in these concepts, by government or regulatory bodies, is fought "tooth and nail". And yet it still happened. As it must with football.

TK, the sports themselves are less relevant than the fact that the remedies were implemented to rectify exactly the same kind of problems - the "haves" being on a different planet to the "have nots". The equalization arrangements over here evolved over a period of time - it wasn't some blinding flash of brilliant, problem-correcting genius. And they experienced a lot of "push-back" from the "haves", who were quite happy with how things were. The remedies include things such as the draft system (the team finishing last gets first choice of the upcoming talent), revenue equalization (where the high-income teams effectively subsidize the low-income teams), and salary caps (aimed at making it far more difficult for big teams to corner all the top talent and sign players just to keep them away from rivals); I have never seen any suggestion that weaker teams should have an easier schedule. Yes, teams will always find work-arounds but it's getting more and more difficult. In fact, there has been an increasing acceptance that "it's good for the sport". How remedies like that fit into football, where the PL big-boys might well react by threatening to head off and start a European super-league, an option not open to the NA sports, remains to be seen. My "never say never" point about Saints reflects the fact that the measures over here took quite a while to evolve, and football has barely even started. But I do believe that once this process starts and gathers momentum, there will indeed be a levelling of the playing field. That - more than Cortese's vision, skill and financial backing - makes his and Markus's dream far less impossible than some are saying. We can only hope, but I - for one - think football is always about hope.

You make some good points but ending them with that statement diminishes them. I might as well have said that anyone who doesn't buy into the "FFP will make it easier angle" is just a cynic with a negative outlook on life, but that wouldn't be fair or accurate, would it? FFP is not about widening these gaps but about closing them. How it will actually turn out in the case of PL football is anybody's guess, but I've mentioned before that North American sports suffered from exactly the same issues and has managed to level the playing field quite well. Teams that couldn't compete with the "big boys" are winning things. At least one of them is playing in the Superbowl on Sunday, and hockey, baseball and basketball have all managed to achieve greater equality through FFP-type initiatives. I have an open mind on this.