up and away

da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da--da-da-dah Bartman

I don't think Pardew does know his best team at the present, it certainly looks like he knows the best payers but that is a different matter. Now with Murty back he may well find his best team, we should know in a few games. Where exactly are you going to play Pitman, drop Lallana? I just cannot see the logic in fans saying we should go for Pitman? Yes he is a good player and scoring goals for Bournemouth, but he comes from the MLT school of putting a shift in. As for putting him as defensive midfield, Schniederlin would stand up better. We definitely need a cloned version of Hammond because we have no one capable of standing in for him, but it's not Pitman.

This is one thing I cannot see the logic in, even if we won the thing I would still have preferred 3 points against Brighton. We did only play Connolly and Schiederlin for a half, but that seemed too much for them on their subsequent showing. The one person that did seem to suffer was Hammond, our one and only engine in midfield. Connolly, Lallana and Lambert are great players, but we can still win if one or even two of them have an off day. If Hammond has an off day or becomes tired, everything starts to fall apart and the likes of Connolly, Lallana and Lambert no longer have a platform to strut their stuff. It would not surprise me if we went up to Leeds and came back with something, equally it would not surprise me to see a midfield selection not turn up in one of the lesser games and cost us. The points we dropped against Brighton and Norwich could be very expensive come the final tally. I still don't rate Norwich as being a great side, they looked very good against us in a very exciting game. If Pardew could have his time again with that one I believe we would have 2 extra points from that game. If an extra season in League 1 does not cost us players such as Lallana then maybe no real harm is done. But at the present I am not sure the priorities anre correctly lined up?

Also, we dont need to sell in order to strengthen, we have the money to do that already.... We don't need to sell at all and that is irrespective of the players wishes. But in the real world we have 2+? years left on Lallana's contract and it would be dumb to let that contract wind down and then try to get the best price at a FL hearing. If we cannot get him to extend his contract we will have to sell him on when the time is appropriate. If we could get promotion to the CCC this season I would expect Lallana to be happy to stay. Forced to sit out another season in League 1 and I am not so sure? The lad is a big Saints fan and would remain so if he moved to another club, but don't confuse money, ambition with the club you support.

That was my view as well but it looks as if the damage has been done now and it's a long hard season ahead with very little chance of the play offs or relegation. The players looked tired following the JPT with Charlton and suffered subsequently, but that damage has already been done so we might as well go for what's left. I can't see us getting past any half decent CCC club but it's a long empty season left otherwise. I just cannot get any enthusiasm for the JPT, even if we were to win the thing. But I am sure many others would like a day out.

Obviously not that bored I see. Any idiot can see that just a slight change in emphasis could have resulted in Newcastle winning the league rather than ManU, but that was never Keegans style. It's rarely about one particular aspect on it's own, but in combination with all the other aspects that make up the team.

This one is mainly down to Pardew. Why, because he chose to use players and a formation that resulted in our midfield not being in control. AP's tactics and comments do not make perfect sense, because it completely ignores our pronounced known weakness in midfield. He knows it as well as the rest of us, otherwise we would not have been playing 451 at home previously. You could see with his exasperation on the sidelines that our players were not capable of following the game plan laid out before hand. This I believe is because of wanting to play all our best players rather than our best team. Pardew gambled that these players would be able to hold the midfield together, it was obvious they could not. What we had was a very open and exciting game similar to Newcastle under Keegan. We did have individual errors but there is not one player on the pitch who was perfect. I am not going to start panning Davis or James for their mistakes, because they have their pluses and minuses, no player we have is exempt from that. But it is not alone down to these individual errors, a system by nature which allows the opposition more control and opportunities by the law of averages will be converted into goals. Although I lay the blame for this mainly at the feet of Pardew, I can understand the possible benefits of what he was trying to do. But in doing so I believe he has lost us points. I look at Brighton and Norwich and consider a tight game, which attackers are more likely to sneak a goal? I would rate our atackers as easily superior to these two teams, but only if you play the game to allow for our weaknesses as well as strengths. I remember when Craig Brown was being interviewed at the end of his Scotland career and was asked what his success was down to with such a mediocre squad. His answer was simple, always have one extra man in midfield over the opposition. Without control everything else will not work. Just go back to the MK Dons game and our level of control was embarrassingly one sided and but for missing sitters would have stormed that first half.

So 20+ games is not enough! How can that possibly come into the equation after this length of time, money spent and volume of players Pardew has been allowed? Lambert picked up a Norwich team comprised of rejects, freebies and coupon trades when he arrived far later than Pardew. Not only later but collected so may bad habits they were getting walloped regularly. Pardew turned to 451 and Wooton in desperation and it worked to a good degree. It's obvious he does not rate Wooton and would prefer to play his more talented players which is understandable. The problem is if you cannot get them to defend as a cohesive unit, you have an inbuilt weakness that teams can exploit. I am pretty sure from Pardews statements he knows what is wrong but has been placing too much hope in trying to get the better players to take on defensive duties which do not come naturally. With a fit Lambert maybe we would have won that match, but as Pardew has been saying, when you consistently leak goals it is not difficult to see results like Brighton happen. You could see from Pardews reactions that things were far from as he wished against Norwich, something that looks to me as playing the best players rather than the best team. I understand what Pardew is trying to do and really hope he can get it to work with some other combination, but in doing so the slim hope of a play off spot went out the window for me yesterday!

That's about the size of it. But as for hyping this team to be good enough for the CCC is a stretch, maybe narrowly avoiding the drop then yes. Considering we are the Chelsea of this division financially, I really feel we should be doing better than what we have just seen against Brighton and Norwich. We have had big defensive issues from the start, exacerbated recently by the form of Connolly, with Pardew trying to get some form of defensive cohesion around playing him. These are Pardews players and he does not have what is required to make it work against the better teams. Pardew wants his cake and to eat it. Put all the best players out there and try and get those not natural to defending to do a job in that regard. I still cannot get my head round Gillet playing every week and well in a league higher, playing in the defensive midfield position.

A really enjoyable match with loads of excitement, but that's what you tend to get when things are so open. Davis maybe should have done better but in those conditions it is very difficult to be too critical. This may well have graced a higher level as Pardew said, but only if you play scant regard to the defensive aspects of the game. I still cannot understand how Gillet is playing every week for Doncaster and doing well, the football must get poorer as you go up the leagues!

I just support Liebherr and what ever he sees fit to put in place. I don't believe discussing the issue is any problem, only if you take things too seriously and start reacting at the stadium. Pardew's latest article clearly identifies for me he knows exactly what went wrong and how to fix it. Pardew had a difficult decision against Brighton that went wrong. Go with the defensive line up, only to find that Brighton set up with the coach in front of goal and you have the wrong personnel out on the pitch. As it was we went with the attacking line up and Brighton ignored the script and the rest is history. Pardew's decision definitely looked wrong after the event, but I cannot say that convincingly beforehand.

Our problem has been the same for a very long time, a midfield that exposes the defence. To get the full drift, look at all the games. When Wooton was in the 4 man midfield, it really did not work out and resulted in him being dropped. In the 5 man midfield where he just sits in front of the back 4, it works the best we have seen. We have two issues with the midfield, the wingers not tracking back and exposing the full backs and not having 2 central midfielders that are mobile and can defend. Then to compound that you need at least one of them capable of providing the creative touch. Maybe the team has moved on and Wooton can play in that 4 man midfield, but Pardew does not seem to think so and he is the first replaced. It's unfair to single out Wooton alone as you can easily point out Schniederlin for his inability to defend. All the graft falls on Hammond and if he gets over run or is slightly off, the whole pack of cards comes down. Far more readily in a 4 man midfield than a 5 man midfield. The problem we have is that we do not have the perfect personnel for each position and have to compromise. At the moment the best compromise appears Wooton sitting in front of the back four. I do not understand why we never tried Gillet in that position, something he is doing regularly for Doncaster? I am fully aware that Gillet has not impressed so far, but try playing Wooton in that forward position and do you think it would work any better? It seems a total waste to have someone like Connolly sat on the bench, but if it means the midfield does not suddenly disappear, it is difficult to see any other option with the personnel we have? Then when you believe that we can cope with a 4 man midfield against someone like Brighton, they don't look at the script and we find ourselves in trouble.

That's that sorted then, bring back Lancashire and put Waigo into the middle.

I cannot believe people want to drop him. 4 goals in 5 games.....thanks David but we dont really want you playing week in week out !!! Jeez...... Couldn't agree more , Connolly is a class player who ran himself into the ground for the cause without ever looking very likely to score on the day - credit for which must go to Brighton's excellent (& sizable) back 4 rather than some deficiency in DC . Anyone claiming some lack of effort on his part needs to pay a visit to the optician as a matter of some urgently I'd suggest . By the way can any of the usual suspects explain why Gus Poyet didn't need 2 months of uninterrupted preseason to get his team playing well on Sunday ? :confused: Lambert and Connolly could easily be the best front line in this division. I think that is easy to see for most fans. But what happens when you do not have control of the midfield? Will they get the service to be the best strike partnership in this division? Will they score enough goals to offset what is happening at the other end? Get control of the midfield and we can easily find out without shooting ourselves in the foot. If we can now do this with Hammond and Wooton in midfield, excellent! But I have not seen anything impressive from Wooton in a 4 man midfield, just bypassed in space. Maybe we have someone else who could work in that position and I would not argue about giving it a try. The big trouble is we know 451 works and that means either losing Connolly or Lallana to the bench for part of the game. It may seem ridiculous in having one of our best players sat on the bench for the first half but until we can find a midfield that can take control, it’s very difficult seeing any other way to go. By all means look for that illusive midfield set up that will do the job, but do you want to do that at the expense of points?

Do thirteen goals for and four goals against not convince you? We all know Wotto's limitations, but his strengths (and AP's coaching) lie in that quite reasonable run of results. This is very true and if you are looking for the best outcome from what we have available, it would be Wooton in a 451. The problem arises when you are not required to defend and you are playing a 433 nearly all the time, for which it may not be the best selection of personnel. I get the feeling this is where Pardew came unstuck and assumed Brighton would not put up too much of an attacking threat and thought it best to start with 442. By the time he realised what was happening, there was no way back. Everything made sense beforehand with the way Pardew was lining up against Brighton, but they found our known weakness very easy to exploit. Going back to the MK Dons game, they hardly got anywhere because our midfield was so dominant in the first half. Come the second half when we changed things around, they had mainly worn themselves out making it even more effective for the 442. Starting 451 and switching to 442 just makes the most sense for the personnel we have and the problems we continually have. As we saw yesterday, if you do not have control of the midfield it's extra pressure on the defence and the attack does not get the supply. This is all about control of the midfield and what ever system and players we have to achieve that. It does not neccessarily follow that by starting with 451 we would have fared any better against Brighton, but there is a good indication from previous games that this would have been the case.

We have had an issue with defending as a team for a long time. This can easily be identified by wingers not tracking back and giving the full backs cover to only having one person in the middle capable of both moving and defending. The reason we went to 451 was to over come these deficiencies and it worked well. Just because we have been playing a lot better attacking wise does not mean these problems have disappeared, just masked temporarily. 451 works for us because it helps nullify the issues we have defensively but it can easily be seen there can be issues when teams only come to defend. As far as systems go, a lot of the times it's about the opposition but for us it is mainly about the abilities of our own players. Pardew got caught out on this occasion because he never expected Brighton to play in the manner they did. Wooton is no where near our best player but he can do a job sitting in front of the back four. Try putting in him in a 4 man midfield and it all becomes a bit too much for him. Start off with 442 and if the damage gets done, very little chance of salvaging the position. Start off 451 and you can readily do something about it if things are not working out and far easier to contain the opposition when they are tired. There is the issue with playing 451 against what you expect to be weaker teams in that the system gets distorted into some form of 433 which again may not be the best for the personnel we have on the field. The question of James and Murty is a tricky one and although James has his issues he does bring several positives. I just cannot see James working in the middle, he does not appear to have the nous on when to stay and when to go, but I could see Murty doing a job there? I firmly believe that we are one player short of making 442 the far superior system for us, but without that player it will always give us moments as we saw against Brighton. The wide players have to be more disciplined but we cannot rely all the time on Hammond covering others shortfalls. The decision to play so many players for so long against Charlton certainly looked to have an impact. Schniederlin has had a stamina problem since he first came and Connolly is only just getting back to full fitness. Alot of the others were made to look bad by the pressure being applied to them, mainly by the lack of midfield control. The defence were immediately under the cosh and the attack was not getting the service, making us look far worse than things should have been.

Our defensive weakness has always been there, we are consistently conceding goals and this is no different. We only have Hammond in midfield to hold it all together, when he fails or the burden becomes too great that pressure is then directly transferred to the defence. This is no sudden surprise, this is exactly why we had all those problems initially and only cured when we went to 451. Hammond cannot do everything himself and if it had not been Charlton in the week he may well of got a rest. Our midfield has always had a defensive issue and why we keep conceding even when on top. Either get someone else in to help Hammond spread the load, play Wotton in a 451 or it will continue. It was dumb to commit so many players for so long to the JPT, this is not where our priorities lay.

Beat them 2-1 at SMS, think Blackstock scored. Crainie brought the ball out from LB, great interchange of passes leading to the goal at the Northam end. I keep thinking this was the game where Walcott scored with a great lob of the goalie from the LH side, in front of the Northam? Was that game against Millwall?

Pretty sure that something is quite not in place otherwise he would still be there. But I don't go along with all the made up ****** that has been put against his name, more in line with Nick Illingworths bit on the UI. Looking back to the point when he first came to the club, the fractious atmosphere and unpleasant job that had to be done. It would give little chance to Mother Theresa coming out with even a smile in the popularity stakes.

I just cannot see it working like that. It would have been a straight price / £ on the company with the money being distributed to a set formulae laid out by Fry after his meetings with the creditors. You cannot be having the apples and oranges situation where you are trying to get the best possible price as a going concern with a myriad of deals in place, rather than let it go to liquidation where you are then bartering over individual aspects. One of the main functions of the administrator is to get the best and fairest deal for all the creditors. A scheme as you are suggesting could easily marginalise the smaller creditors, which the administrator would be trying to avoid. Pretty sure this would be a straight best p/£ deal for what was on offer.

I have listened intently to a couple of Charlton fans I know over the months and I find it difficult not to believe that Pardew made several errors at Charlton. One of the main reasons I was cautious upon his appointment, but his history with Reading in getting out of this League and some good things at West Ham (along with some bad) made some sense. But we have a completely different set of circumstances here at Saints along with the time Pardew has had to sort out his life and come back stronger. I still feel there were early indications that Pardew was flapping when things were not going so well in the early days, but that's all over now and he looks to have regained his composure and confidence, with us being the winners all round. I was very sceptical when some were saying it was good to have a manager who could take us all the way to the Premier and keep us there. Now it would not surprise me if that was the case. The turning point for me came at the home loss to Bristol Rovers, where it was not difficult to see he could easily get us out of this mess.

Fry was obligated to take the higher bid as you say, but the £500k was more to avoid liquidation according to Fry's quotes on how close it had come. The one area where Fry let himself down was taking a position on the League ruling over administration, something he should have stayed clear of. We have been very, very lucky over this whole affair. Liebherr could easily have switched his attention to Charlton for example after feeling he had just missed out on Saints. Or does anyone know it was only Saints he was prepared to buy? I appreciate that Pinnacle were doing their best to aid the situation, but as soon as they knew their backers were disappearing at an early stage, they should have come clean to minimise the possible damage they could be doing. Luckily, Liebherr stuck around and the rest is history.

Victor Meldrew makes his entrance. How do you think administrators get appointed when no one wants the job? They just let it fester until eternity makes an entrance?

Let's make this very clear, Barclays action in deciding not to honour Websters cheque is the action which directly led to administration. We had been in all effect in voluntary administration from 18 months previous, with accountants overseeing the finances on Barclays behalf. From the moment that cheque was bounced, Saints were insolvent and Lowe was just a passenger. What appears to cloud things is that Barclays initially tried to continue on a similar vein as before, but this could never function. Lowe could not authorise anything without the possibility of being personally liable and Fry could not act until he was installed. If no one was installed the court would have forced someone to take on the job. As soon as Fry was appointed the board immediately disappears and Fry decides alone what is to be done and who does it within guidelines. I cannot see any reason why Fry should get any award for getting in the way of Liebherrs cheque, any court appointed administrator would be able to manage that.

Actually lowe does play a part in this. I am certainly not sticking up for Fry as I do think he fooked up, but Fry only agreed to take SLH on, if lowe and the other execs resigned. As Alpine pointed out, this was hugely important on many levels, not least Crouch's funding that got us through the worst bits...... Do you really think he would have done that if lowe and his train were still there All Lowe did was start the process by applying for administration, once that was under way he had no further influence. Failing to do so would have made him personally liable. Once Lowe has pressed that button he had no further influence and the administrator is appointed by the major creditors or court, the board of directors no longer exist and is replaced by the administrator. So this was not hugely important on any level.