Rasiak-9-

Problem is, I don't think that the champo has nearly as many immobile target men as we'd like to think. Saints major problem defensively these past couple of seasons has been vulnerability to the counter-attack and Jaidi simply gets it one-twoed past him way too easily. We need a modern centre-back in the Rio Ferdinand mould. An Athlete. Preferably a younger player to grow alongside Fonte and quite possibly form a partnership that could last right into our first season back in the Premiership. Finally, even if Jaidi is ok at the moment, he's still a short-term option because of his age. We need to look to the future.

Season ticket holder. Jaidi will occasionally have a good game on the condition that our opponents do little else than wallop the ball forward to a target man but if they're capable of getting the ball down and playing it Jaidi is a liability; fortunately Fonte did brilliantly at babysitting him last year and since we had a great midfield that dominated most games he rarely came under pressure. The Saints 1-3 Brighton season before last meant that Jaidi was pretty much found out, and its no surprise that Pardew at the time instantly went about looking for new defenders. If the ball is in the air, Jaidi is a great battering ram; unfortunately he adds little else.

He can head the ball like a beast but do nothing else. He gives away soft fouls, can't pass a ball, gets it one-twoed past him like he's not there and just generally gets ****ed on by any two strikers who actually have a bit of movement about them.

Leicester are under huge pressure, well up for the game and will really look at this match as a great chance to get some momentum going; their first home win against the league leaders would be huge for them and they'll do their best to attack from the off. If we can attack them as we have done every other team we've faced so far they'll be utterly terrified of us very early on. Teams simply don't expect to be attacked when they're playing at home and we can take them right out of their comfort zone and blow them away. If we sit back, happy with a point they'll be all over us and grow in confidence as they play, knowing that they'll get a point at worst. If on the other hand we go at them right from the off (and I think this is a massive point) score first they'll be under huge pressure. Keep faith with the attacking mentality and football ethic that has got us this far and we'll win - if we start to doubt ourselves, lose confidence and somehow think that a draw is good enough we'll get nothing. Shock and awe. Blitzkrieg football. Blow 'em away.

Has to be given to Lucky the police dog. Did a superb job and really tore Millwall apart (...literally - I overheard their mob *****ing about how a few of their lads were in hospital after the OB set the dogs on them.)

No. You don't. That's quite correct. I live in South London and know plenty of Palace fans, all of whom care INFINITELY more about their rivalry with Charlton and occasionally Millwall than they do with Brighton. The attempted "rivalry" that you've tried with us was summed up perfectly after the 1-2 when Gus Poyet said in his post-match interview: "When people look back on the league in 10 years, who won the league - it was Brighton, playing football, not just kicking the ball into the box." I'm sorry? Look back on League 1 in ten years? That for me sums up the different levels the clubs are on. I assure you that in 10 years absolutely no-one at Saints will care and a fair few will have simply forgotten about that whole season whilst we focus on progressing through the Premiership, quite possibly into Europe and further expanding our club. The fact that Brighton pipped us to the title will be relegated to the trivia pages of old football annuals and recordbooks for Southampton - for Brighton however, I think he already anticipates that you'll be clinging to that mediocre triumph for an embarrassingly long length of time. You aren't our rivals. We don't care about you and its very cringeworthy that you continue to try and make it so.

I think its mainly because they lack a real identity and for a long time have been quite simply a "nothing club" in the lower leagues. A big rivalry is a major part of a club's identity and presence and I think they feel that if they can cook something up with us then it'll help them have a few more people pay attention to them. Precisely a la Bournemouth last season.

Meh...kind of a shame in my opinion. Great player from what I saw - good pace and work rate and chipped in a fair few goals to boot - definitely don't see what he couldn't have done a job at least off the bench even now.

We should absolutely go for the win here. Their defence is weak and our midfield can easily boss the game - we don't know our own strength! 3 points is very, very do-able. They're not a great side, they're a good side. A side that I truly feel we're slightly better than. That edge, combined with what has become a fantastic knack for turning small edges into winning margins will see us through. We can totally do this.

When we realise next season that with only four games left of the Premiership to go...we aren't going to catch Man City for the title

Mainly because I was just pulling random possible factors off the top of my head as examples (although disparity in wealth = poverty, I presume you're just annoyed I didn't make a bigger thing about it or make sufficient excuses for the rioters behaviour for your liking) but also because I don't honestly believe that poverty is the main issue when a bunch of young lads black or white rob a plasma TV to go with their £400 Iphones and £100 trainers. BUT! and this is the key point. What I'm saying about race being somewhat significant isn't inconsistent with the idea that poverty is the main factor. Hell maybe it really is all the white mans fault! What you attribute the general demography, profile and background of the rioters to is an open question with many varied answers. All I'm trying to make clear is that whilst race is far from the only factor, its an important factor nonetheless, and simply NOT ignoring it doesn't indict black people in general in the slightest, its simply just a necessary part of the investigation into where the problems in society lie. Anyway - I only get three posts a day so I'll have to close there for now, but I hope that I've persuaded you that I have a legitimate point which I hope you'll consider even if not completely accept.

In short; "Okay, whats the general profile of a rioter? and why are they doing what they're doing?" 1) Age - rioters are mostly young Possible factors affecting young people that should therefore be investigated: -benefits culture that gives something for nothing -lack of job opportunities -greater number of single-parent families -genuine increase in poverty and lack of opportunities -lack of role models and father figures -poor education system -lack of morality -celebrity culture -opportunism and entitlement 2) Race - disproportionately high number of Black people Possible factors affecting black people that should therefore be investigated: -genuine racism from society and potential employers causing disparity in wealth -racist police force -gangsta culture and a the inevitable copycat behaviour as a result -poorer education resulting from a disproportionate number of black people generally living in deprived areas. -a general concoction of materialism from the ghetto/gansta culture as well as the glamourous/trashy world of celebrity in Britain which causes material goods to be so highly valued. So there you see are numerous potential causes that I've just pulled off the top of my head affecting the youth and black people respectively. We need to acknowledge all of the potential factors involving those who took part in the riots in order to understand them and take the correct course of action, burying our heads in sand as to who was doing the rioting is the worst thing we can do for everyone. So whilst I should probably find something better to do with my Friday night than to spoon-feed another grown-up something that should be obvious to anyone, that; essentially, is the answer to your question about what significance I attach to skin tone; and its a factor that I refuse to ignore as I simply have too much respect for people of any race, creed or colour to do so. I'll leave it to the judgment and fair-mindedness of the posters on this forum as to whether or not I'm being unreasonable.

Because skin tone and ethnic/national background very often tend to affect the individuals which comprise them through the cultures that they form. Even the most innocuous facts that Japanese people use chopsticks whereas the French use a knife and fork to the fact that South America is largely Christian and Saudi Arabia is mostly Muslim highlight the fact that ethnic and national backgrounds imply that someone from them will be affected by that respective culture. The news channels certainly had no qualms about noting that the vast majority of the rioters were young, despite the obvious presence of many older people also taking part and immediately began to investigate what it was that was affecting the youth that provoked a massive presence in the riots from their generation. It went without saying that people are affected by the circumstances, culture and influences that affect a particular age group and that such circumstances, culture and influences should be investigated as a result what those subjected to them had done. Likewise, it seems fairly odd that race was completely and utterly omitted from the description of the general profile of the rioters and seems to suggest the idea that underlying such an omission was the idea that black people in particular needed a protection from any sort of criticism; a protection which I am certain would not be afforded to any other ethnic group whatsoever. In the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "Avoiding offense means we don't treat one another as equals." She's quite right. The steadfast refusal to acknowledge all of the factors affecting a disproportionately large representation from one particular group of people in the riots will only lead us to ignore the negative factors that affected them even more. Thing is, what I'm saying makes no qualitative judgement about black people in the slightest. The entire premise of my point is that all people are indeed equal in morality and intelligence and thus; when a disparity emerges involving a particular group of people; it begs the question of what is affecting that group of people to cause it.

No-ones claimed the opposite but both Sky and BBC very noticeably ignored the obvious and frankly quite striking demographic of the rioters, almost seeming to take it for granted that riots and looting in London would inevitably be largely comprised of young blacks and that it was nothing noteworthy let alone surprising. Leaving out such a clear point (regardless of making any sort of judgement call about why this was the case) but simply in terms of description and describing the whole story as a whole seems quite a pertinent omission - an omission which I don't believe for a second would be made for frankly any other ethnic group whatsoever, and you have to wonder why. I personally hold black people to the same standard as whites, asians, eastern europeans, orientals/whoever and in any case in which any of those groups was a minority in a society and yet was the most active in a riot such as this; I'd immediately find myself confronted with the question of why? What had affected/happened to that group/what was going on in that community to make it so? That to me sounds like the only genuinely non-racist reaction

Maynards a scorer of great goals but Ebanks-Blake is a great scorer of goals, so I'd prefer the latter but both would be fantastic and frankly would walk into our first XI ahead of Connolly or Barnard.

Look; here's the deal: To pretend that there wasn't a huge majority of blacks involved in the riots especially in London where they nevertheless make up a minority of the population is probably the most racist thing you can do. If it was Chinese/Orientals, Jews, Poles or Pakistani Asians for example people would clearly make comment on those particular ethnic groups having a large presence among the rioters but because its the blacks - a lot of people turn a blind eye. Why? Well I think its because an awful lot of people on the left are more racist than they think. They'll never admit it, but they hold black people to a lower standard and secretly expect/take this kind of behavior from them for granted and think that the definition of "racism" is pointing out such bad behaviour and not politely ignoring what they think is simply standard behavior for black people. I personally think that the fact that there was such a huge black presence among the rioters shouldn't provoke us to condemn black people and attribute this behavior to their supposed inborn nature (pretty much whats being implied by the proper BNPesque proper racists here) but we can't simply ignore it either. Instead, we need to take a good look at what it is that is happening in the black community to cause such a massive disparity in terms of crime. Is it police racism? Is it the ghetto/gangsta subculture thats formed and a case of monkey-see-monkey-do? (and in fairness a fair few whites take after that as well) Is it something else? Whatever it is, to pretend that there isn't a problem in the black community when they had a disturbingly large presence in the riots is really not helping anyone.

mehhhh. disagree... I thought their fans were pretty decent to be fair - although I'm in block 5

Decent defender. Dreadful footballer. Loan him out and get Gorkss in asap.

I heard that Leeds had an ex-skake in their lineup. He'd have been playing but he didn't get Hammond's permission to do so.

Tell you what, these playoffs sure do show 1) how good it was that we managed to dodge them and not drop into 3rd 2) how on the other side of that particular coin, if we can nick 6th next season we've got every chance. Kind of obvious points I know but these playoffs really have demonstrated them perfectly

We thoroughly deserved to be relegated in 2005, we finished on 32 points ffs. Pathetic showing all season and it was an awful way to go down.

Danns would be an outstanding signing, although we may well need to think about changing the captain, as Danns would replace Hammond rather than Schneiderlin

Probably all we need to add for our current front line is a pace merchant to bring off the bench - stereotypical skinny, quick, black fella - Bolasie would be the perfect player.

Allen West could have a chance for the Republicans if he got a good campaign going, but other than him its Obama for another 4 years almost certainly

This, really happy I went to that game. Honestly thought a win could be the turning point. 1-0 vs Sheff Wednesday - got things started, boosted the morale and confidence and got us going under Adkins. Proved we had the mettle to grind out results like that away at the big teams 6-0 vs Oldham - showed just how good we could be when firing on all cylinders and genuinely showed that we were a class above the rest in this League 3-1 vs Bournemouth - going a goal down to your local rivals and coming back to win comfortably really showed that we could well go up automatically and not just settle for the playoffs 3-2 vs MK Dons - for obvious reasons 2-1 vs Brighton - ditto. Those I'd say were the most important/defining results of the season