up and away

If we lose Hammond in midfield for what ever reason, the whole midfield and most of the defence will revert back to as it was. Wooton is still the same player, just operating in a an effective limited role under Hammonds shadow. This was why I was so keen to see a Gillett of old step forward, but sadly no. We need someone in Wootons position that can take up the slack when required. Many have been saying how much the defence has improved, that in the main is down to the cover they are being afforded and I feel would easily revert to their former glories, if that cover is no longer there.

Listening to Pardew at on the fans forum, he was so impressive. Intelligent, articulate and you could listen to him for hours. But there was a period prior to the Bristol Rovers game where everything just sounded like he was in a constant state of flap, more panic than analytical. Worried about the crowd being negative, worried about the psychological effect of the negative points, then lauding the Yeovil game as a massive turn around, where I felt we should be thanking the opposition for creating our chances. If I had to put money on it, I would definitely say his arse had started to go! The Bristol Rovers loss where I thought he was spot on and has been ever since, noting our deficiencies but also the great football we played, only to be undone by some very special goals, I doubt we will see against us again in this league. Pardew does appear slow in getting his point across to the players which maybe the mismatch between atriculate and footballers, but he does get there in the end. A Lawrie or a Pearson I feel would get there a lot quicker. I have noted his views on Saga now seem a complete turnaround. Tactically he is up there with Hoddle, that has been very impressive. But this one can buy a pig in a poke, transfer dealings have been excellent. One point we will have to deal with at some time is Wooton, who will cost us eventually. Doing a good efficient job most of the time but only because of the work of Hammond and the short comings of the opposition.

I have never questioned McMenemy as being the best manager we ever had, even above Ted bates because he took us to the next level. Where I really have a problem with McMenemy, is everything subsequent to him being manager, mainly in the era before Lowe. As to how good Lawrie was as a manager, does not look that difficult to place. Not up there with the likes of Clough, Paisley or Shankly but nipping at their heels. In todays game I would place him somewhere about the same as Brian O'Niel. Would that be good enough to get him into the top twenty? I doubt it but he would not be that far away. The current lack of attendence at games typifies for me all the negative aspects of what he brings, more a question of him rather than the club.

Seems to be a lot of doubt about evolution there, even though you have not grasped the basics of how it works. The big leaps in evolution come about by a forced situation, where the species either adapts or dies. Those apes in a secure environment can continue to exist as they are, when there is no force on them to change or develop. Keep putting them on the open savannah and they will adapt or die. Only recently scientists have found what looks to be the closest yet to the missing link, time will tell on that one but it keeps getting closer and closer. Mammals have shown a basis of understanding not known to other species. Just the basic concept of being able to tell how many young a mother has is calculus in comparison to some species. Look at the astounding steps in comprehension man has made in just the last hundred years, so mammals discovering the basics of mathematics is hardly astounding in comparison, especially when it took milllions of years to do so. When man evolved and learned to communicate, reason quickly followed. But without the scientific skills to explain anything, they just lumped anything that could not be explained into one big bag labelled higher entity. Give them the tools we have now and the understanding to use them and religion as we know it would be all out of the window. The great thing about scientists is if they find something that does not fit with a theory, that theory no longer is valid. It might still hang around with a big question mark until something better comes along, or used empirically, but never on a question of faith. As to whether that all knowing, all seeing entity exists, no one can say for sure. What can be discredited is mans attempts to create such an entity to explain all their fears and unknowns.

Just imagine Noah having to two by two that little lot. There's not a ship big enough today so that poor old sod had no chance then. He took the only practical line, just pretend they don't exist, no one will notice after a few years? When you hear all these theories as to why the dinosaurs died out, I just cannot believe this one is not top of the pile! We may need a third helping to incorporate this one.

Maybe that's the key! Football discussion should be reserved for fora on, for example, flower arranging and bell-ringing. Politics should be discussed on fora about children's TV and insects. Things would be a whole lot more civil! Looks like you have seen the light and recovered from your uncertainty of being involved, or is this some form of purgatory for diving into the sexual aid debate unreservedly?

My main reference goes back to what Robert Beckford presented, backed up by leading American, English and Israeli professors (basically their views, not Beckfords). I cannot remember all the exact details but I would possibly guess that a word representing a small opening may be applied to a wall or a needle. The one thing they were consistent about was that the parable never referred to an actual needle. But as you say, if the term can be used for both an actual needle or something many times greater in a wall, how can you definitively say this was not in reference to an actual needle? I would guess that the exact meaning could be specifically defined by the object the word was associated with, something not uncommon. As to the biblical quote, I have no idea. I don't know what definition of grammer could be defined from the original writings. Whether they were written at the time or several hundreds of years later. If what was quoted regading the "eye of the needle" could not be that of an actual needle, I would assume that what we have today is a later day interpretation of the parable. Either way, it is not a question of what Jesus quoted, just the interpretation that exists today of that parable. Either would serve the same purpose equally well, but the interpretation with the gate looks far more applicable.

Yes he was still involved so could not buy the club. However a property deal for the stadium did not break any rules. There was the small problem of money still being tied in with Birmingham. If Yeung does not complete or another buyer cannot be found, he is stuck in limbo. He was the guest of **** Knight a couple of times, but even he reckoned Saints were more likely than Brighton. When you consider what we have now, someone as good as Sullivan hardly registers.

In the previous post, you set out comprehensively several examples of history being rewritten in Japan and Germany as recently as after the last great war. It is therefore not a great leap of imagination to assume that exactly the same thing has happened here, where over centuries a myth has arisen over this gate, to fit the Bible quotation. As the article and Stephen Fry said on QI, there was no evidence of this gate's existence and it only came to be mentioned at all since the 9th Century. Undoubtedly crowds of visitors since that time have been regaled with the tale and it has mistakenly become legend. Easy to see how these things come about and illustrated well by an example I had personal experience of. In a mocked-up village in New Hampshire, local volunteers had formed an historical society and acted out the parts of the storekeeper, teacher, banker, etc in the authentic period costume of the early settlers . In the store, we were told that they stocked Denim from India. I had to correct him and inform him that it came from Nime in France, but there must have been several thousands of visitors who believe that it came from India. There is a lot of confusion over this "eye of the needle" gate, mainly because of the interpretation put on it in the middle ages. The interpretation put on it from the middle ages was discounted, but obviously originated from local culture. There was an excellent program on C4 with Robert Beckford, where although discounting the middle age version, current digs had unearthed a gap in the original wall going back to the time of Jesus. One point discounted was that the original term could not have referred to an actual eye of a needle, this comparison would have absolutely no significance to the people of this time and be totally alien to their manner of thinking.

This was debated by no less an authority than Stephen Fry, the most learned man on Earth on his IQ programme and he agrees with your conclusion that the Gate at Jerusalem theory was a myth. The Israeli Antiquities Authority have found evidence that narrow gaps in the wall existed. Such that you could possibly squeeze through, but absolutely no chance with a laden camel. The other major point being that the concept of comparing a poor man with no goods, to that of a trader with a fully laden camel trying to go through an actual eye of a needle, was totally alien to this civilisation at this period. Whereas the gates "eye of the needle" would be a totally acceptable in those times, appropriate and known before the time of Jesus. The comparison between a poor man and a wealthy trader going through the eye of a needle is totally ridiculous, as neither has the slightest probability. Whereas the alternative is totally plausible!

The "eye of the needle" was referenced before Jesus and was indeed referring to one of the gates of Jerusalem, so that's not a difficult one to sort. No one seems to mention James, the elder brother of Jesus, but that does not seem to fit too well. Along with the writings of many other apostles which got totally discarded, only to be replaced by others written hundreds of years later. Palestine at the time had more sects than you could shake a stick at, all claiming prophesies for the coming of the Messiah. With the "Life of Brian" being the most apt descriptive I have seen of the situation at that time. As for Markus, I don't think we have to worry.

Play Wooton in the forward midfield role and how do you expect he will get on? I think we should be able to get an easy majority agreement here that it would not work out well. Unless you play Gillet in the defensive midfield role, I feel you get nowhere near the best out of him. But I do agree it certainly looks the best at present for Gillet to go out on loan. Wooton is doing what is required, Gillet has shown nothing to get excited about and the loan is for such a short period it should not cost us. Wooton has done a very solid job for us sitting in front of the back four and his peformances have merit. But I have seen enough from him to know he will cost us if tested under pressure, or he is not afforded the cover supplied at present. Gillet I feel can add a lot to that position, but only if he can regain his previous form. If Gillet is not the answer then I feel we may need someone else. At the present there is absolutely no requirement for change but I believe that time will come.

I am not going to get into the ins and outs of what Alpine said, because I do not know. The one thing I did notice was certain posters were more than happy after the Yeovil result, followed by severe doubts following the Bristol Rovers game. To me this was all arse about face, with very little in the Yeovil match to demonstrate things were progressing apart from the result. Against Bristol Rovers I thought there was definite room for optimism, even though the result never favoured us. I believe up to the Bristol Rovers match Pardew was deserved of any mild rebuke given the amount of time and money he had, very slow to come to the boil would be appropriate. Some of his comments I found very ill judged, such as the springboard of the Yeovil match, where he seemed to be watching a different game. The main disagreement was over the psychological impact of being on negative points, this should never had been allowed to raise its head and was poor management, sounding like a manager looking after his back than anything else. We now are left with those psychological hurdles of being bottom, then the relegation zone, then so far from the play offs, just where does it stop? Following the Yeovil game I have been very impressed by everything Pardew has said and done, but it certainly looked like the pressure was getting to him prior. One thing he cannot be faulted for from the beginning is the players he has brought in, sometimes as important as all the other aspects required from a manager.

He did look a very good player at the start of last season, went off the boil, possibly through injury. Came back and actually gave me hope we could stay up, then out injured again. This is not a slight at Pardew (because he has far more factors to consider), but I cannot see Gillet being of great value asking him to play a more forward role or out wide. I still believe Gillet will be a very good defensive midfielder, but at the moment he is not able to demonstrate that form for what ever reason.

If he was anywhere near full fitness or about to be soon, there would be a host of CCC clubs knocking his door down. It's a gamble which I can fully understand, because if he does not get fit we will still be developing the younger players. If the gamble come off we really have hit it big:).

I can understand why everyone, including the players are confused about the system we play. But it really is not as complicated as everyone makes out, we simply have 5 in midfield when defending and subsequently circumstance and players preferences then come to the fore when attacking. Most of our players are struggling to put in an effective corner, so to believe the playing positions they end up in after a "to and fro" is completely deliberate is a little unrealistic. When 4 in midfield is good enough to boss the opposition I imagine that will be the time we stick with 2 up front, either by design or fault. I have been impressed with Pardew of late in that by having 5 in midfield when defending has gone a way to plugging those holes we previously have seen. The big trick being able to maintain a very effective attacking option to compliment it. Agree about Holmes as previously his tracking back really helped shore up the left side, while still delivering an attacking threat. Wooton will always cost us if put to the test, but he can be effective when others nullify his weaknesses. I am not sure Gillet will ever get it, in the position he has been asked to play, but he should have done enough by now to show he has a place somewhere.

Pardew said at the Fans Forum that we rejected Prem interest in the summer and that he persuaded Lallana to stay a while and win stuff here, early in his career. I'd assume that the same will be the case next summer (assuming we don't get promoted). It's not that difficult to keep hold of young players, if you have the money and a couple of years on their contract. Lallana can clearly see now that there is no substitute for playing and is going to be very cautious of moving to somewhere he is not guaranteed a regular place. If we were to get promoted this season, I can easily see him extending his contract. He's very pally with Drew and I can easily see Drew's amount of games with Wolves having an impact on his thinking. Chelsea have some of the best young players going, but unless like Arsenal you are prepared to play them, they just seem to go backwards.

I fully agree with that, the only issue is Wooton. He has and will cost us again, of that I have little doubt. We need that type of player, just not this one. I would have thought Schneiderlin could do an even better job there given the discipline, but seeing is believing. It would not surprise me that Wooton could do a good job in several games but he will get found out if he has to come out of his hole or put under pressure by a decent forward. I'll leave this one to Pardew and watch with interest.

Like DellDays has said, I find this a really tough one to call. Play Wooton in that position against a team like Gillingham and he looked very comfortable. Praise here goes to Pardew for player selection, tactics and formation. What I cannot tell as yet is if one of the other midfielders was slightly off, would Wooton step up and level that out? Equally if it was not Gillingham and it was not this formation, what would be the outcome then? Don't want to be negative towards Wotton because praise is deserved but we had exactly the same problem with Wright, when he was exposed to pace, the performances disappeared.

Wooton really was a surprise for me yesterday, but that is about only the second time I can say that from his appearances. Previously not even happy to have him as a reserve but he did his chances no harm at all. Time will tell on this one and Saints.

This has been our main problem both going forward and defending, sort that problem out and we really could go forward. I was impressed with what Holmes did last season, both going forward and defending. We were good and had made improvements over the Rovers game, but Gillingham were not as good as Rovers. Thought Pardews comments were very honest and a good analysis of what was going on.

I had been disappointed with Pardew, but against Rovers we played well and a lot of the good things there had obviously come off the training ground but more is required defensively. Performance wise I was much more disappointed against Yeovil, where we hardly created anything and Pardew lauded this as THE stepping stone. Against Rovers we created plenty and he made no excuses after the game, just an honest summation. One comment I do agree with, is for all the talent the Academy has produced it does lack that edge of steel. Gillet may change that viewpoint but he has not caught the eye in training yet, so that one may well be a way off. The diciding factor will be Gillingham and those teams that follow. If we continue playing well and tighten up a little, then the future looks bright. If not, I shall revert back to disappointed.

We should have kept them all, paid them their playing bonus every week and got ourselves into administration immediately. We all knew playing that volume of kids were going to cost, but if we could have got rid of more senior players we may have avoided administration. Anyone would think that administration was never an option and all we had to do was hide behind the sheets and everything would be ok!

What is it with Schneiderlin? I have never seen him look strong at the end of a game and gets subbed by every manager he has played for. Great performance tonight, but I get the feeling there is some issue here for it to happen so often. I really felt we may have missed a trick by not having Gillet as an option later in the game and Holmes has shown in the past he can track back, maybe tonight was too soon?

Disappointing result, some great play from Saints. Our biggest weakness at the present is the midfield give virtually no cover to the full backs and they have to struggle alone. This has to be addressed and may require sacrificing the best players for the best team. Remembering what Billy Davies did to Bale that time and shut him out of the second half, I could easily see him putting Gillet on and taking the back of Williams ankles out, leaving the rest for the full back. Not Pardews style and I am ****ed if I want to watch a Billy Davies team over a season but certainly would not be averse to a bit now and again. Would like to see Waigo play in the middle more, just to see what effect he has there. May seem strange when we looked at our most effective for ages in the middle, but just get the feeling it could unbalance the opposition more, such that it makes it more difficult for them to counter. If we had played like this all season we would have several wins on the board now, I take this as encouraging but still am desperate for points.