Rasiak-9-

I do this as well and get a combination of funny looks and bemused reactions, but if you've ever bought insurance on anything, ever, then the principle is precisely the same thing!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman I didn't equate winning a cup with relegation, I'm simply saying that winning a cup does not guarauntee you any form of either status or security in the Premiership and furthermore, doesn't really impress much of the footballing world nowadays. This is a result not a cause of the big clubs not taking the cup competitions seriously and given the nature of football nowadays, the regrettable and unfortunate, but nevertheless understandable focus of finishing in the top four. Why do you support Southampton? To support the football club of your home town that represents the people of the city in a way that no other medium can, just like it has for over a century? Right? Good. Me too. Why do Southampton FC compete? To be successful and achieve success in the eyes of others and we support them in their drive for success. I am simply saying that the definition of 'success' in football has changed and I'm sorry to say that isn't something that the currently smaller clubs like us really have much control over.

I didn't make the rules buddy. The reality of it is that in order to advance as a club with a view to challenging for titles you need to graduate through the ranks of survival, top half finish, top-6 and finally top-4 on a regular basis in order to attract the best players from around the world and become a force to be reckoned with in European and global football. A cup final or even a trophy does nothing whatsoever to contribute to those prospects and isn't even seen as particularly impressive anymore. Birmingham and Wigan are languishing in the champo and look very much like they'll stay there for the forseeable future, with no-one seeing their cup wins as triumphant victories as much as they do damning indictments of how the cup competitions in England aren't taken seriously. Swansea have pressed on well enough but won't be able to grow as a club beyond their current mid-table status until they've survived long enough to expand their stadium, grow their fanbase and compete with the top 6. I'd much rather finish in the top six with a view to maintaining that position for two or three seasons, enough to attract the best players, increase the fanbase and possibly expand the stadium before mounting an assault on the top four within the next couple of decades. Ambitious? Yes. But why support a football team if you're not going to be?

The League Cup has died a death by proxy, stemming mainly from the demise of the FA Cup because of the growing importance for the big clubs of qualifying for the Champions League. As such with the FA Cup losing its importance, then of course the League Cup which has traditionally always been its little brother is considered borderline irrelevant. Wouldn't blame Sunderland fans not bothering to show up and wouldn't bother myself if it were Saints until probably the semi-finals. I'd happily swap the trophy to finish 6th in the Premiership.

Kind of ironic that tackle, as it was Pardew who toughened Morgan up. In his first season the problem was that he could always play but couldn't tackle, and I do mean couldn't tackle at all. Thats the moral of the story in Frankenstein, the monster you create etc.

I truly, honestly believe that the reason Steven Davis is so unnoticed and underrated is because he's a ginger British guy with a boring name. I'm serious. He's a fantastic player, quick and feisty in the tackle, wins it, gives it, sees and executes everything quickly. Awesome stuff.

He had a decent game today in the second half from what I saw (only got back in for the second half so can't comment on the first), but he just doesn't look like scoring. Still, added quite a bit to our game from what I saw. Not looking like scoring though I'm sorry to say. Oh and re. Rodriguez...thats now 6 goals, all from open play. Looks top-notch at the moment with his confidence back and firing on all cylinders especially when playing in a more central position.

I guess the overall question is whether or not you believe its healthy for a country to have a core, common culture which people ought to assimilate to or whether or not you think the host country ought to make an effort to incorporate the cultures of minorities and immigrants. Of course, if you choose the latter, you then have to make a choice about where you draw the lines about what is non-negotiable as clashes (for example between gays and religious groups) is rather inevitable. You can't tolerate everything because there will be direct and unavoidable conflicts here and there and as such, a choice of some kind will be forced.

Haha I'm sorry but I just couldn't resist!

Which is precisely why I'm holding him to a high standard, I expect a fair bit from him! I've just been disappointed with his form this season and I'm starting to worry about him. Like I say, I don't WANT him to fail and I was really hoping that Ossie/Rickie would compliment each other well. Its just a shame it hasn't been the case. @TheCholulaKid: He has quite a bit to prove to Roy Hodgson in terms of dodging the stereotype of being a generic lower-league target-man who had one half-decent first season in the Prem a la Grant Holt amongst a swathe of others, who knows... perhaps that pressure is part of the problem... I'd love for him to have a resurgent revival and get back to belting in a couple against Newcastle on Saturday, but I'm sorry to say I fear his career may be on the slide. What can I say? Hope I'm wrong guys, hope I'm wrong.

You have to laugh don't you? We're criticising our centre-forward for not scoring goals and people are actually replying with responses amounting to 'but that's just not his game".

This is the thing, we're not saying Lambert has NO future at all, we're simply saying that he isn't going to be the first player on the teamsheet like he was in the Championship and that I'm afraid, he has been under-performing from open play for almost a year now. Partly it may be a confidence thing, but I wish we could see Rickie smacking the ball about a bit more especially from distance. More and more he seems to want to drop back and dink in these little through balls (which granted, can be very effective at times) but as I say, teams seem to be cottoning on to the fact that he isn't just a pure target-man and have looked much more able to deal with his general threat this season. Desperately pulling out statistics like a win percentage depending on who starts when Osvaldo has been played at United/Liverpool/Chelsea/Arsenal away and Lambert has started at home to Hull/Fulham/Villa as well betrays a massive lack of neutrality as well as its very obviously not a level playing field. Look, put it this way: remember Palace away in April 2012? Lambert's two goals there were awesome, arriving late to thump in a header, and beating a man before smashing it into the bottom corner with his weaker foot from a good 14 yards or so, absolutely awesome. Trouble is he just doesn't look like doing anything like that nowadays and hasn't for a while. You think we want Lambert to fail? Time and again you find yourself shouting "come on Rickie prove me wrong!" when he gets the ball and "come on Rickie you're better than that!" when he miscontrols the ball or whatever - the fans such as myself who are starting to have questions about Rickie are still hoping that he comes good asap.

The fact that you can't come up with a decent counter-argument (and don't pretend you wouldn't love to be able to or indeed that you can't be bothered; you have 8000+ posts on this forum) highlights the fact that people defending Lambert are doing so down to blind emotion. This entire thread is level-headed people objectively looking at the two players with a degree of neutrality, and others who are putting loyalty before reason. If it were up to half the idiots on this forum we'd have Chaplow and Hammond still in the team because they're good, honest, hard-working English players who aren't afraid to put a fackin' tackle in.

Recent history (and we're talking about close to a good calendar year now) has not been positive for Rickie. Slightly less recent history is concentrated primarily in the lower leagues. Don't get me wrong Rickie will always be a legend and indeed a useful weapon to have on the bench, but this is a massive case of heart-over-head, which I (and a lot of supporters who share my opinion) understand and sympathise with completely, but ultimately have to disagree with. We need to look to the future of Southampton F.C. and that future from an attacking point of view is about getting the most out of potentially one of the best and most well-rounded young centre-forwards in the Premiership in Rodriguez and a starting striker for a top-tier International team with the ability to preface one of the most skillful finishes we've ever seen in the Premiership by plucking the ball out of the air and dancing around one of the best centre-halves in the world.

It was from a set-piece, that doesn't count as open play other than the ball technically being in 'open play' after it leaves the corner kicker's foot. Doesn't mean he's not a useful weapon from set-pieces, but he hasn't scored a stikers goal this season. A free-kick, two pens and a header from a corner. Those are goals that centre-backs can score. Rodriguez on the other hand has scored three brilliantly directed headers timing his run and getting the drop on the centre-halves, and two others from making a pest of himself and having the pace and composure to latch onto defenders mistakes, plus he's had goals wrongfully disallowed from offsides where he's latched onto through-balls and got himself tap-ins, as well as hitting the post by shifting and shooting from middle-distance. Lambert has failed to do precisely any of those things this season. Furthermore (and to be fair this isn't entirely Lambert's fault), the way we use Lambert by hitting him at the back stick for the header back across goal has become predictable and ineffective. Decent, physical teams have cottoned on to how to stop the supply and/or put Lambert under enough pressure to neutralise the threat. Hitting Rickie at the back stick might work against Fulham, Hull and Villa at home (and take nothing away from his assists in those games, certainly in the former two he was excellent); but it doesn't and won't work against the bigger clubs anymore. As I say this isn't entirely his fault at all, but his presence in the team makes the option of delivering from deep far more tempting than the more challenging but effective tactic of getting to the byeline and pulling it back/crossing the ball for a striker to run onto it. There is a limit to how far the team can go as an attacking force when going forward if we persist with Lambert, as I've said on other threads, its not so much that Lambert has suddenly become terrible but more that in order for us to make that next step up to being a top-6 team, we need to start building the post-Lambert Southampton. For all the Lambert-worshippers here for whom he literally can do no wrong, ask yourself these questions; to what extent do you see him being part of our future plans and for how long? and providing what kind of role exactly?

Rickie Lambert has not scored from open play this season. Rickie Lambert got 3 goals from open play in the final 16 matches of last season, against Wigan, Newcastle and Stoke. Rickie Lambert has averaged out at about a goal every ten games from open play over almost a calendar year. Not impressive. However, I grant you that you can't dismiss or ignore his ability with a dead ball, nor indeed his assists, through-balls or ability in the air, yet on the other side of the coin you've got to admit that those are attributes irrelevant to his ability as a goalscoring centre-forward.

A lot of the time this doesn't come without government regulation, which contrary to popular belief very often benefits the well-established and well-connected corporations far better than it does the smaller companies which aren't able to compete in the market playing by the same rules that are made for multi-national corporations that are in cahoots with big, powerful governments. Failing businesses should be allowed to fail, and very often cartelisation/price-fixing could be avoided in a free market where a company making superior products would have no reason not to break rank and sell at a more competitive price, or indeed be able to monopolise any one major resource in a way that prevents any other small company or individual being able to come up with a new, more efficient, more useful and productive way of harvesting or producing said resource. Of course, the regulation that is introduced always ends up being passed off as the government protecting the people from the evils of free market capitalism. Like pretty much all socialist governments end up doing, justified as being 'for the good of the people who know no better'. "I'll be the one to protect you from Your enemies and all your demons I'll be the one to protect you from A will to survive and a voice of reason I'll be the one to protect you from Your enemies and your choices son They're one in the same I must isolate you Isolate and save you from yourself" - A Perfect Circle. (Perfect lyrics for this debate!) I'm just very guarded against that mentality I suppose; my ancestry is East-European so perhaps that has something to do with it! HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT. You guys do have a point and 'The Tragedy of the Commons' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ...is a well-acknowledged problem with free-market capitalism and does illustrate how unrestricted free-trade between agents operating on a purely rational basis can inevitably lead to ruin for all involved. Another argument in favour of the existence of government/a form of mediating/top-down supervision ruling over free individuals is 'the prisoners dilemma'. So I certainly realise that a completely anarchist/anarcho-capitalist society seems a fair distance away for now. I suppose what I'm saying (and what is my general point I'm trying to make overall) is just that a lot of the time, what ends up happening with socialism in reality and in practice away from the realm of debate and ethics, is simply massive expansion of government and government power, which I guess I have (what I feel is) a healthy distrust of. Obviously we won't be able to thrash out a solution on an internet mongboard! (and I really ought to get back to applying for a real job ) but hopefully you guys can sort of understand where I'm coming from even if you might not agree with what I'm saying or even my general outlook.

Does anyone have a video clip of his step-over? He's done it before and regardless of the fact that he's a centre-back, he seems to have one of the best right-footed, single step-overs I've seen! Its not just a goofy, going-through-the-motions centre-back trying a trick or a winger just throwing in an ineffective step-over just to be flash; he's really got the technique and bodyswerve down absolutely solid!

What about Lambert? Who's scored precisely 0 goals from open play this season (although credit where its due for his assist against Villa, FK vs Palace and header vs Fulham) Once Ossie gets a decent run against some of the easier teams he'll get 10+ goals this season which will be a decent return in a first season. I'm sure he'll be able to regularly get 15+ in future seasons.

Pap you're clearly an articulate and intelligent man, but you really need to stop using this method of argument whereby you use nothing but sarcastic rhetoric to manipulate your opponent's argument into something simplistic, pejorative and naive; and trying to create the image that you're the only one who's actually thinking about things rationally. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman Furthermore, your post is evidently an accusation that I'm cherry-picking socialism's repeated failures; yet you then come up with a list of what you feel are successful examples of socialist government policies conducted within a capitalist paradigm and then in essence cherry-pick them as "real socialism." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman This is precisely what I said from the get-go; that when socialism is proven and demonstrated to meet with catastrophic failure and the misery, suffering and deaths of millions, much of the extreme-left will pout their lips, fold their arms, shake their heads and attempt to pawn you off as ignorant by saying that you simply don't understand what socialism really is. Phew! We're getting into some pretty hench philosophy/economic theory here! All I can really do is point you in the direction of an absolute library of books from Marx and Engels on one hand to Rothbard, Friedman, Bastiat, Hayek and Mises on the other (and loads of others between the two extremes.) Ultimately, capitalism is designed to be built on win-win exchanges. If I'm starving and you're dying of thirst, and you have loads of jugs of water and I have a load of sandwiches and we swap, that is in essence capitalism. Money is only designed to serve as a medium representing actual objects of value (i.e backed up by gold/precious metals/or rather, sadly, oil as it is now but thats another story) enabling more flexible exchange to be facilitated (labour for goods etc.etc.). The price of something is variable according to how people value it. If you and I agree on the price of a chocolate bar; we only make the money/goods swap on the basis that we accept the deal once we reach a medium where you want the money more than the chocolate bar and I want the chocolate bar more than the money. Of course, theres a million other issues that affect trade and exchange in the complex world we live in today, industrial restrictions/false advertising/cartelisation/price-fixing/monopolies/wages and minimum wage laws etc. Anyway, the point I'm making is that as long as people exchange things at even the most fundamental levels, we live in a capitalist world. The problem however, is that the global monetary system is really on its knees, and the money we earn and spend isn't backed up by, and as such doesn't really mean anything. This is an awesome documentary and explains the money/banking system very well, and certainly shows that what we're living in is nowhere near what capitalism is supposed to be as a representation of free trade, but a complete perversion of it using a combination of banking and government power. I really do highly recommend it, its only ~45 minutes long and this (the first installment) was actually made back in 2007 before the banking crisis really came to a head. Its just made by an independent filmmaker, but he's evidently very-well researched and presents what he's saying very well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8

Very worth watching these videos (and a fair few others) from a Russian-born, well-educated Youtuber who left the USSR aged 29 and who having lived in America, has seen both sides of the communism/capitalism debate.

I've said this for a long time. For all the talk about us playing good football, passing the ball, keeping possession and so on and so forth, that only lasts up until the opponent's final third. The strike, the weapon, our only successful method of attack is the long ball to Lambert at the back stick for the header back across goal. In the Championship and last season when we were an unknown quantity that worked well, but teams have begun to figure us out. We don't score goals from long range, we don't have players who can beat a man and take them out of the game (apart from Lallana and occasionally Rodriguez), we certainly don't have an attacking midfielder to pick the ball up in his own half and really drive through opponents and in doing so open up the game. Ultimately, the more I think about our team, the more I think that we need to start developing the post-Lambert Southampton, especially in a season like this when we're not going to finish higher than 8th and aren't in any real danger of relegation and can afford to experiment. He'll always be a club legend, but its going to have to happen sooner or later.

Awesome! you sound like you're a very kind-hearted and generous person who's getting his just rewards in life! However; if you're more than happy to pay your contribution to social spending to benefit others, wouldn't you prefer that you were able to make that contribution voluntarily? rather than having it forcefully and violently taken from you through taxation? Oh? Whats that? Oh you'd be happy to pay for social services, donate to charity and suchlike, but most people aren't as nice as you and thats why things wouldn't work on a voluntary basis?* People would make bad, immoral choices if given too much freedom and ultimately a forceful government is needed to impose morality and righteousness from the top-down... Right. ...well...to be honest, you might have a point and be entirely right. But see now we're getting to the crux of how socialism works in practice, and indeed how it has to work in practice. If society as it is, is unjust, despite the fact we live in a representative republic in which there is no reason a socialist party can't be voted in if there was enough public support for it, what precisely is the social change we're looking for? How exactly will things be 'evened up'? Invariably (following on from the taxation example) you have to have a 'vanguard party' to protect the 'will of the people'/'public interest'/'social justice movement'/however-the-entirely-fallible-yet-totalitarian-and-vastly-powerful-new-government-justifies-itself, and impose that perceived notion of justice against those deemed counter-revolutionaries (in pretty much every example throughout history this is how things turn out). Politicians, rulers and positions of power (investment bankers etc.) inevitably attract and create a vile class of power-hungry, selfish, corrupted people, how precisely is the socialist beaureacracy that ends up being put in charge going to be any different? This is how socialism works in reality, it sings and harps on about equality and social justice, but you only end up swapping one class of psychopathic, immoral rulers for another. The difference being that at least the old lot were competing with one another economically and vaaaaaguely morally accountable through what is at least supposed to be an impartial justice system and free press. Whereas the moral justification for taxation (people left to their own devices are generally immoral) can be used for pretty much everything else (censorship, banning free press, banning counter-revolutionary political parties) on account of it being 'for the good of the people'. PS. *(I know that little turn of phrase looks like I'm putting words in your mouth but bear with me! I'm just using the word 'you' for the sake of argument and anticipating the usual response to try and take my point forward within my limit of 3 post per day! No offence meant or anything)

That fact that people care this much is precisely why almost gay footballers would want to come out. In the MLS Robbie Rogers couldn't pick the ball up and play a 10 yard pass without a commentator describing him as a 'very courageous man to be as open and honest etc.etc.etc.' and thats the thing, unless you were an absolutely top-tier top-5-in-the-world-ish player, you wouldn't be known as that pacey winger, that rock of a centre-half or that fantastic goalkeeper, but simply 'the gay footballer' and I think its understandable to not want to have that as your main reputation superceding your ability and career as a footballer.