Lord Duckhunter

It gets exaggerated purely because he plays for Saints. A good young keeper with potential will make the odd mistake, but look solid and good the rest of the time. There will be positional errors and the odd misjudgement. With gazza he looks like an accident waiting to happen all the time. Apart from one save against Newcastle the only stuff he's managed to keep out the net is routine stuff, and even then he's either let that in, or juggled it. Bart was the same and I now look forward to monthly threads calling for Gazza to replace XYZ, until he leaves on a free at the end of his contract.

What I really cant see is this "Gazza's got potential", I'm not saying he hasn't but on what basis is everybody basing this on, 1 great save against newcastle? I'm sure even Tommy Forecast has made one or two great saves in his life, most keepers have. At Everton his positioning was all over the place, Swansea he cost us, QPR was one of the most inept performances I've seen from a keeper with not much to do. Yesterday he was poor, the goal was soft and second half the way he stayed on his line a couple of times was comical. I'm sure I could have jumped out the Kingsland ran into the box and picked the ball up before he did. It seems to me that people are saying he's got "potential" because he plays for Saints and because he's playing. I haven't seen much potential, it seems that every time someone shoots, he lets it in or looks like he's fielding a googly. Forget "potential" you're either good enough or you're not...end of. Shaw is young and good enough, Gazza is not and has never been since he came into the side. Maybe he will be, maybe he wont (I remember all the praise heaped on Bart on here).If Nigel persists in playing him, we'll get relegated, simple as that. Oh, and well done to the old women who reported Boruc, that was helpful.

There is also proposal to end BOGOF, 3 for the price of 2 ect offers on any drink. Therefore my 2 for £8 Peroni will have to be sold seperately. Tesco's often run BOGOF offers on cans and bottles. As for wine, there are bottles of wine for less than £4. Surely a minimum wage worker is entittles to a bottle of cheap plonk with his Mrs. But I go back to the principle. It is not for Government to tell shop keepers how much they should sell a legal product for , once they have set the tax. What about booze from abroad, how does charging X amount per unit fit in with the EU, and the free market principle. Are they going to charge us duty when we arrive at Dover? What will be next, banning all you can eat buffet's?

On Daily Politics today, said cheap bottle of wine will go up 80p. I like a cheap bottle of wine once in a while. Also they were talking about an end to BOGOF or cheap multi buys. I prefer to drink in pubs, but take tonight for instance, I have to drive so will sink a couple of Peronis when I get in. Got them up the co-op 2 packs of 4 for £8. Why should this stop because some toe rags cant behave themselves? It's the principle I'm more against. Government should set tax levels, then get the hell out of people's shopping. If a shop keeper wants to reduce the price of beer, to bring punters in, who then buy Ciggies, crisps, nuts, a video ect, why the hell should the government stop him. It's none of their business, it's a legal product for which they set the tax for. What people sell it at should be none of their business. If it's costing the NHS money, then increase the tax and plough the extra into the NHS or drink awareness courses not Tesco or Asda's profits.

How will increasing the price not effect a sensible drinker like me? If it's a health issue, then what is the differance between that and obesity, is anyone suggesting putting the price of burgers or chips up. If it's a public order issue, then let's ensure the laws are enforced. Serving someone who is clearly drunk is against the law, as is anti social behaviour and drunk and disorderly. If you make Tesco increase the price that they have to charge for their drinks, surely you increase their margin. So instead of dealing with people breaking the law we intend to increase the price that everyone pays, including sensible drinkers on low wages.We then pour more money into the large supermarket chains coffers. Strange sort of redistrubution of wealth if you ask me.

Perhaps the Government should insist on police and local councils enforcing the existing laws before interfering with a free market. Serving somebody who is drunk is an offense. Therefore these people who get pre loaded on cheap booze will soon get fed up if they dont get served/let in once they finely make it out. Drunk and disorderly is an offense, perhaps if the police didn't turn a blind eye to **** heads acting like ***s and arrested them, things would be better.Pubs and clubs that continually serve drunks and have trouble should have their licences removed. Underage drinking laws should be enforced 100% including fines for bar staff that serve them. However, the biggest change should be in people's attitudes towards drunks and idiots. For some reason British people seem to think it's funny that people get ****ed and play up. In other countries it is a shameful thing to be seen in public drunk.Until staggering around, pukeing up, mooning and other assorted side effects of drinking becomes socially unacceptable, no amount of price fixing will make a blind bit of difference. And I love drinking and think pubs are one of man's greatest inventions, why should the price I pay be affeced because the police wont enforce the law and the Government want a few cheap headline? One more point, where does the Bullington Club sit regarding this moral crusade of Camerons?

% possession is ********, a side knocking the ball from keeper to full back to centre half to keeper will rack up the posession %. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the game, particulary when they're 2 down. In both games we dominated the ball in the areas that matter. They were both comfortable performances where we could knock the ball around at will. My concern is when we are penned into our own half for vast amounts of the game. Not being able to catch a side on the break will mean that the pressure will just grow and grow. If you look at someone like John Terry, take away the opposition's ability to catch them on the break and he'll be able to play with his cigar out.

Pace is important in the modern game. We've been ok without it the past 3 games because we have dominated the ball. I worry that the better sides will keep the ball and be able to pen us in as their back 4 can squeeze up and not get worried about being caught on the break. As well as we played Sunday there were a couple of occasions where our breaks could have been quicker, and against better sides they'll need to be. Pace is also important defensively and we're going to get exposed with lallana and Punch's lack of it defensively. Ditching Fox for Shaw has addressed the back 4's pace, but our midfield is still a bit one paced. Long term we will need to get some more pace in the side. Jay Rod is obviously being earmarked for the SRL role and hopefuly Mayuka will kick on once he's settled in. We dont need headless chickens like De Ridder or going back a few years Chicken George, but we will need a bit more eventually.

I had never heard any of their stuff but watched the clip with an open mind. Personally I would say if that's one of their classics, then rather than be under rated I would have said you over rated them.

What a great message the people of Rotherham could send out. Macshane is the worst type of Euro nutter around.Completely out of touch with the majority of the public. He should be chucked in clink for his great fiddle, but watching UKIP win his seat would be pretty sweet as well.

I guess you didn't see the bit when one of our midfielders stood like a statue insted of tracking Holliet's run for their only goal. But then I guess slating Adam lallana for poor defensive work is not on. Much easier to have a pop at the new bloke.

I think Chris hughtons sacking at Newcastle was "harsh", but I don't think pardew owes him anything even though he inherited a good side

Dawson's a pretty much nailed on signing now. No doubt Redknapp would have already told the chairman what money he requires and had it agreed. He didn't really do that with us as: The move was really about putting one over MM, and his stock wasn't as high as it is now. With us the players were'nt really good enough. Personally I think they've got a pretty decent side that are underperforming. In those circumstances he is the ideal man. Typical of the Twitchy **** that he's avioded Man Utd and starts with a run of winnable games.

Seeing as the poster asked, "Why do people think he didnt come to us with Redknapp?!" I dont really need your consent to post an opinion.

Time for our support to show their class. I would rather we just get on with supporting our side and hope there's no stupid chants about the Ref.

He wanted the Skate job.

Sounds great to me.

Which saves were they then? There was one when Taarabt got through and he stood solid to make a fairly routine save at the near post, one from Holliet that he shovelled round the post, when in reality he could have chucked his cap on it, it was so poor, and another one where he looked like he was fielding a googly. I cant recall any save that any keeper in any of the 4 professional leagues couldn't have made. There was some good keeping Saturday , but it was their keeper doing it. Our end was just routine.

I bet Pardew is not in sole charge of transfer dealings at Newcastle, and he certainly wasn't at West Ham . And why did he only pick Mascherano 5 times, was there outside interference or did he just not rate him?

So it was just a coincidence that this coincided with his return to full fitness. I get it now..........

Perhaps Turkish could post on here after the side is announced each game whether it's a committee side or an Adkins side. I would hate the thought of someone deciding after the game ie Win-Adkins, lose- committee, draw-mixture of both.

Perhaps "the committee" told Adkins to drop Fox and bring Shaw in.

Quite clearly Nigel decided that things couldn't continue the way they were. He obviously decided it was time to drop Fox and bring Shaw in. At the same time Cork was available again, and we played poor Swansea and dire QPR sides. A combination of those 3 things, a bit of tightening at the back and hey presto we have 4 points. I dont really understand what your trying to say.

I would have thought there will be a lot of S/T holders who cant go, that would get you a ticket. That way they get the points and you get to watch from the away end.

Here's an idea. Perhaps Nigel wanted to go with Fox at the start of the season. Not wanting to chuck the youngster in and also the fact that he wasn't fully fit played a part in this decision. When Nigel felt he was fit, this coincided with Fox having a couple of poor games. therefore NIGEL decided Fox should be dropped and Shaw replace him. I believe this happens up and down the country at every level of the game.