norwaysaint

I'd say there is a left wing ideology and a right wing ideology. The sort of person who follows one exclusively is the sort of person who should be avoided. Most people can see the benefits of both. For example, using the graphic above, left wing parents aren't going to say that they absolutely don't want their child to be self reliant and right wing parents aren't going to say they don't want their child to feel fulfilled, that would be insanity. People generally have a mixture of both ideologies, because they both have a place. Choosing a side is a matter of prioritising at a given time and in given circumstances. Right wing voters who sneer at "lefties" and vice versa are just showing a lack of perspective and judgement. If you don't understand the left or right wing viewpoint and have a degree of sympathy with it, it's a poor reflection on you only. Disapproving of a political party is one thing, but deciding you don't agree with any right wing or left wing ideals makes no sense at all.

I've been discussing the meaning of left and right wing with my students lately as we look at politics in the US. It's quite surprising how little people actually really understand what it means and are too easily influenced by stereotypes caused by pejorative phrases like "leftie" or by right wing bigot stereotypes. I found the graphic below was one of the most comprehensive and clear explanations I've seen don't mind admitting it helped me in viewing perspectives too. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/ On the actual subject at hand. Looking back at the UK from abroad, I find it incredible how unbalanced newspapers are. I suppose it adds interest to read something with a strong viewpoint, but when opinions are presented as news, it can be a problem. The news reporting here is a bit more bland, but I have a little more trust in what I read. Obviously there is always somebody deciding what is important news and what isn't though and there's always going to be a level of interpretation in the reporting.

I'd go with Tadic for Pelle, he's got a good record as a sub this season and could put in some good passes for Mane and Long.

I have no idea what this means. Who is it you are talking about that needs to stop worrying about other teams and concentrate on what we're doing? Is it the players? Do you think they are being distracted from trying to win matches, because they're busy wondering about other results? That seems a bit unlikely. Is it the club, not bothering to put out the best team it manages, in the hope other teams aren't? That also seems unlikely. Or are you talking about football fans, suggesting they shouldn't take any interest in our position in relation to other teams, despite the fact this has no influence on anything? That seems an odd thing to suggest. Honestly wondering what you mean. I didn't understand that post at all.

No such thing as a perennial top ten club. If you aren't one of those vying for CL spots, you will be prone to slipping up and down the table. The closest to what you say would probably be West Ham and Everton (Spurs and Liverpool are usually in contention) and nobody would be shocked to see them finish close to relegation.

So many of the main candidates seem so old this time out. Last time we had Obama and Romney, now we have Trump, who would become president at 70, Clinton, who would be 69 and Sanders who would be 75. Two of those would make the oldest president ever, one would be close behind. Rubio and Cruz are in their forties at least, but they both sound just as worrying as Trump. I really hope I've stopped working altogether by those ages, rather than be thinking about the biggest job in the world. I like Sanders, but a 75 year old president sounds nuts.

I cannot see America electing a president who calls himself a socialist. Hilary may be a charisma vacuum, but she'll edge him out. The next president will be a Republican though. It's not a great choice this election. I would vote Sanders, but then, it doesn't work like that. Like most Europeans, I base who I would vote for on experience living in a completely different country. Trump publicly broadcasts how awful he is, but Cruz seems to be at least as bad. They lack a strong moderate candidate, which is all that would seem palatable to most of us over here.

Dodd and Williams were surely only employed because they once played for the club. Seeing as the club had stated it wanted to bring in staff of the highest caliber, it always seemed fair enough that they got rid of the people who had mainly got their jobs through something akin to nepotism. Obviously i I never saw them coach, but it would be quite a coincidence if the best available coaches happened to be two recently retired former saints players. I'd much rather the club search for the best options out there. If we're just appointing popular ex-players to important positions, let's get Beattie in as manager.

Oh dear, not another "None of the decent posters bother any more and you can see why" thread. People have been posting stuff like this since about two weeks after the forum started.

The four favourites comfortably through there, Koeman, Lawrie, Adkins and WGS.

Some odd match ups there now make it a strange one. Wotte vs Pearson makes it a battle of two managers nobody really cares about. MP, one of our better managers, unavoidably goes out with a whimper against Lawrie, Merrington beats Luggy by a landslide, but surely won't go too far in this. I though Souness might get a bit more of the vote, but there are such fond memories of the Adkins years, that he could go pretty far. I loved the Nicholl years, the most amazing attacking football, but the silverware and recency must be winning it for Pardew, who is surely less loved.

http://www.sporcle.com/games/SallyJarvis1990/every-southampton-premier-league-goalscorer Somebody's done a good job keeping this up to date, only Austin's goal is missing. I got a pretty poor 57 out of 98 and missed four current players, but only one of the top ten. Can't believe some of the classic players I missed though. Try not to cheat and try not to name too many of them here.

And yes, I do mean highest PREMIER league position. Oops. Sorry Lawrie.

Two tricky ones, two easy ones then. Ball vs Koeman Well, Bally was already a hero and he did a decent job, including getting the best out of MLT, but was a one season manager. Ron has given us our highest league position and has done it in the face of selling the players we'd been building the team around. Probably Koeman edging it for me, due to time spent and position achieved. Jones vs Pards Jones is still the last manager to manage us through two whole seasons. He also brought in a few players who became quite iconic and he kept an average team in the PL. Pardew also brought in iconic players and he won us silverware, but he did it in a lower division, outspending all our rivals, and still didn't get us promoted. Has to be Pardew though, because he won a cup. The other two are no-brainers.

Steven Davis scored against the champions, Man City, three minutes after coming on for his debut.

Didn't Kevin Phillips score on his debut, quite a spectacular one against Leicester too I think.

It really has been odd how so many have achieved less than they apparently should have, after leaving us. It's quite gratifying though. Morgan really was an incredible player, who is struggling to find his game at MU. incredible that we may have survived the loss of the best midfielder, defender and full backs we had seen at the club in many years.

Don't know how you could make a statement like that. He's still by far the favourite candidate for the party that's most likely to win. The moderates are failing to impress anyone and Cruz is failing to get ahead of him. Clinton doesn't have the charisma to win and Sanders just seems too un-American to stand a chance. I think President Trump is a big possibility.

Norway's pretty clearly not included in the survey. Norway is on the cusp of a big financial downturn though. There have been thousands of very well paid jobs lost in a population of only 5 million. Imagine what that does to the economy. This is only because of the enormous drop in oil prices and would've happened under any government. Funny, people have always thought the boom years would end when the oil ran out. I don't think anyone anticipated oil losing nearly all its value.

I remember when Norway used to top these lists, now it's not even on them. That's the death of the oil industry for you.

I can see your point, but I would count Jones a s a young player and not an academy product. Gallagher has a lot of appearances, but very few meaningful amounts of time on the pitch, so I didn't count him and still wouldn't say he'd made it, same as Blackstock, who we tried but who failed to make it. The eight matches I mentioned, I really meant as a sign of which season they actually broke through in (like Baird playing in a cup final, but only three times in total that season), rather than whether or not they actually made it in the PL, but I can see why it wasn't clear. Blackstock and Gallagher, in my opinion, have not become PL players.

Well, Blackstock never made it as a PL player, so doesn't count, Surman is in the list at the top already, so doesn't need adding and Jones was 20 when he came to us and wasn't a product of the academy, but otherwise, good point! He still hasn't really made it though has he? Maybe in time, but we can't claim him as a success yet. Cranie and Mills also never made it as PL players, which is the topic of the thread.

That's a very different kind of list and a very different point, which is just going to confuse what I was pointing out, which was frequency of PL talent produced. That hasn't added anything to my original list and hasn't made anything clearer. I'm pretty sure that under the weight of that flabby post my original point will be lost.

I think it's superb, but I'm fed up with comments about the academy not producing at the moment. It's producing at about the same rate as it always has and that is not out of line with Koeman's recent comments.

Our academy is without doubt a success. It has produced top quality players, as well as others who have had decent careers in lower leagues. However, people seem to have got a bit carried away with what that means and seem to think that it involves producing a couple of new prospects every season. Has it ever been that way? I was trying to think of what our success rate has actually been and how often we have ever actually produced players capable of playing regularly at PL level. I'll randomly take eight first team matches as a breakthrough and I'll randomly start with 1998 as the first player that jumped into my head was Bridge, so for the purposes of having to start somewhere: 1998- Bridge 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Baird (first year he got past 4 appearances, but had played FA Cup final), Dyer, Surman, Walcott 2006 Bale, Best (if we're counting him as PL standard) 2007 2008 Lallana 2009 2010 Ox 2011 2012 Shaw, JWP 2013 Chambers 2014' Reed (If we're taking him as a PL quality player) 2015 Targett 2016 Is that about it? Can anyone fill in gaps with genuine PL quality players that were actually brought through by us? Players like Mike Williamson and Garry Monk didn't reach that level with us. So producing Chambers and Targett in the last four years isn't much different to the four years before that or the four years before that. The only time more have come through was when we were relegated and had little money. If we bring through a player next year, we are as productive as we've ever been. This is the production rate of a successful academy. People need to stop getting carried away with the idea of a "conveyor belt", because it's never really been that way. Koeman saying only a couple of players were ready for the first team means he was saying it's the same as it's always been and was almost certainly in response to people thinking there must be a whole crop of youngsters ready for the PL. There aren't and there never have been.