St Marco

I think we will win too. A 3-1 win. Have to win sometime. I just can't bare to think about what will happen if we don't win....

Get some wins and keep us up then you can say what you want Mr Wotte. Until then you have done zero for this club, you are not in a position to slag off the people who pay your wages. What i don't get is that this guy is going to make it a lot worse. Saying people are not "real fans" is stupid. What does he seriously expect that people accept paying the vast amounts of money they pay and be happy we are 2nd to bottom? If that was in any other job the person would be out on their ass. If i had a go at the people i do business work for i would probably get fired. I just hope all this warrior talk/fighting spirit pays off for the guy because if it doesn't he could go down as being the manager most hated since Branfoot. If we roll over and die tomorrow then he will be a dead man walking.

The thing i find amazing is that the fans have actually been pretty good. Only a few boos after some dire dire performences. We find ourselves in the lowest position we have ever been, just about to see all the good work Ted Bates did unraveled in the space of 3 seasons under Lowe but yet we are meant to be happy? If we dislike it we are not "true fans"? This sounds like Lowe when he did the lunatic fringe thing. Mr Wotte you are paid by the fans, where do you think you will get constantly having a pop at them? Do you think that will make them warm you to their hearts or make them angry at you? You should be using your time to work with the team not having a snipe at the fans every chance you get, you should be keeping the players under control not let them go out clubbing every friday and saturday evening when we have a match. Your profesionalism is very very poor. Please for the love of god shut up and get on with the job, stop talking like your some sort of big man, you have not even won a game yet. If you keep us up then you can have your say, until then your in no position to have a go at the fans who turn up week after week and cheer the lads on. You really think we pay thousands of pounds a year to travel the country to slag the players off? You need a history lesson Mr Wotte of who we are and where we have come from. If no-one knows why people are angry this is why http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/4140876.Wotte_calls_on_support_of__true__Saints_fans/

Erm SW those figures show he was more likely to drop down into the lower part of the league then go into the higher part of the league. You base your whole argument around "going up the table" which simply is not true. The whole points thing what i was trying to say is that Burley's points per game average was dropping not increasing, he was unlikely to remain near the 1.32 average he was on.. His last 7 games saw just 1 win. From those 7 games he got 7 points. 1 point per game. As i tried to point out his points per game for the whole season was 1.32 but that was decreasing not increasing as you try to suggest. In contrast our last 7 games at the end of the season we had 9 points. A 1.28 ratio, once again proving we were going up under Pearson and down under Burley. Those are facts not opinion.

No SW what i mean is you don't get 1.28 points a game do you, you get either 0,1 or 3. But i really can't be bothered to go through all this with you again. But i will dis-prove this "we were on the up" comment once and for all, just so you can no longer use that as an excuse. For a team to be "on the up" would imply going up the table correct? These were our positions previous to Burley leaving 28th game = 13th 27th game = 13th 26th game = 14th 25th game = 13th 24th game = 13th 23rd game = 13th 22nd game = 11th 21st game = 11th 20th game = 12th 19th game = 13th 18th game = 15th 17th game = 12th 16th game = 15th 15th game = 12th 14th game = 12th 13th game = 10th 12th game = 12th 11th game = 10th 10th game = 13th 9th game = 17th 8th game = 15th 7th game = 20th 6th game = 18th 5th game = 19th 4th game = 12th 3rd game = 21st 2nd game = 23rd 1st game = 24th So then looking at the results and our positions where is this bit "going up the table"? We have gone up the table due to the fact we started last so yes your right. However if you take a closer look your see our average place is 13th, not once were we inside the top 6 but we were in the relegation zone twice. In his last 6 weeks Burley had us 13th for 5 of those weeks and 14th for the other week. Concluding once and for all that we were not only not going up the table we were going down the table due to being 10th on the 13th week. Thus proving that if Burley had finished the season our chances of getting to the playoffs were very low due to his average being 13 and the pattern does not show any evidence at all to show the numbers would change to support your theory. Meaning he was not going to get us to the playoff spots.

Thing is though Burley had a points per game of 1.28, the reality is that was actually only 0.05 better then what Pearson was doing, but Pearson didn't have £12m to do it. Burley should have done better with the resources he had. It will be a very very longtime if ever that this club will be able to back someone like that again. The Slide was there before Dodd and Gorman. Burley was brought to this club to get the team promoted, not languish around mid-table at 14th place. We had an average of 1 point per game with Burley so if we kept that up we would of been going down the table not up it. Dodd and Gorman then came in and went on a run of 4 loses and 1 draw. 5 results which as you say killed us. But as a manager he did very poor last year, we were used to winning games and going up the table, Burley started the transition from doing that to being what we are now in my book.

ah bugger Ah well it is out in a few weeks isn't it so guess i can wait

Ok my bad Yes Yes and No but more No then yes Yes No

I was trying to find the Resident Evil new demo on there last night and i couldn't see it in the a-z, anyone know where it is or if it has been removed?

Yes - Looks like a 2nd relegation in his last 3 years, even Bungle has to say that reeks of failure. Yes and No - Wilde started off so well but couldn't hack it, he was kicked out by his own friends then it started to fall apart. Creating a large part of the financial mess we see now. Yes - Without a doubt. We had actually stabalised. We had halt the increase of money, we had backing from the bank, we had a decent manager who is now going to leap frog us, the fans were pretty much united etc etc the clubs slide was long before Crouch came here and the stats show that. His only error was to appoint Dodd and Gorman, but he fixed that by replacing them, that makes up for it. We were all set to start the new season with the right characters in place. He was seeking investment. No - Lowe came back without a proper plan, he came back for personal reasons not for his love of the club. He came back and made his 1st error by firing Pearson and taking on JP and going dutch. When we look back in the future the couple of games where we have played well will be mared by the 30 or so where we played awful. In a season where we were going to struggle to survive regardless we needed warriors on the pitch, the experienced players Leicester now have. Not players who are learning their trade and are not even that good potential wise. His next error was to stop negotiations with Fulthorpe over investment. If we could of come to an agreement we could of maybe secured keeping a few of our players here for longer giving us better odds to survive. Next error was to have the general meeting and start it with a letter to himself from himself, from that momment i think those who were on the fence changed to wanting him out with a passion. Then came sacking JP and putting in a guy lower down the ranks. That was his momment to make amends and bring in someone who understands english football. If the dutch system didnt work in holland for these guys why would it work for them in England? That in my book will be looked back on and sum Lowe up to a tee, a guy who ignores the obvious.

Did the predictor and was as honest as i could be. Had us win 3, draw 4 and lose 7. Total of 13 points from the 14 games. Which is actually higher points per game then we currently have. Sadly that won't be enough to save us, nowhere near it My table looks like this 18 - Doncaster 53 pts 19 - Norwich 52 pts 20 - Derby 51 pts 21 - Forest 50 pts ------------------ 22 - Plymouth 46 pts 23 - Charlton 43 pts 24 - Southampton 41 pts Which means we could be confirmed down by Fri 10th April (Wolves) or Mon 13th April (Palace). Of course that means we have to actually win pretty much 25% of our remaining games, seeing as we have won once in our last 15 games think that could be a problem....

6 points from safety mate, our amazing goal difference has us 12 goals behind Watford's. The harsh thing is if we lose on saturday and Charlton win we will be bottom.

Lowe could be overseeing 2 relegations in his last 3 years as a chairman and you think he is the better option? ...... Sorry but i just don't think Lowe and Wilde have earnt any "say something positive about the regime" comments. That maybe because i'm one of the "over dramatic people ranting their agendas".

I would not be surprised if this turned out to be true. If things stay as they are and we could be confirmed down by the end of march, start of april. Because we play Watford and Charlton in the few days before this game i can see that being the reason for showing it.

Ironicly Dodd and Gorman had actually won 1, drew 1 and lost 2 from their first 4 games. Which means Wotte is actually doing worse results wise. The good thing is that Crouch realised he messed up and sorted it before it was too late, he will be the first to tell you he screwed up that appointment. Question is will Lowe do the same if Wotte loses say another 2 games? I doubt it.

To be fair though it is propoganda of the highest quality. The reality is that a lot of the players don't feel that way, they won't spill their own blood for the club if you get my meaning. To many have hidden and played when it suits them. If we lose on saturday i have no doubt i will see some of the players living it up in town or in Bournmouth just like they have been doing over the past month or so. We need a guy who will actually lay down the law and make them realise that a loss is not ok, forgeting the lessons of defeat and just repeating the same mistakes is a sign of a poor manager/coach. He should shut up and get on with it, trying to walk the walk is a lot harder then trying to talk the talk. He can talk the talk but it is empty, it means nothing to people, if it means nothing to people does it mean anything to the players? From what i hear the answer is a clear no.

We need 6 points now to get out of the relegation zone. With Charlton playing Barnsley at the weekend we have to win against Preston or we could be bottom. Awful results for us and another nail in the coffin.

If Doncaster win they will be 12 points ahead of us and into that 40 points bracket. I think if that happens they will be safe. I think its the same with Plymouth too really, if they win will mean we would need 11 points to over take them. I think if results go against us it could mean the 3 spots to do down will be between Forest,Norwich,Barnsley,Watford,Us and Chalrton. If Watford and Barnsley win their 2 in hand will take them 10 points ahead of us. If that happens then it is game over for us. So of tonights results i think if Watford and Barnsley win then that will be a big blow to us.

I think we will win this one Said that all season and have been wrong everytime but this could be the one! I think we will win this one and then lose the next game. 3-1 to Saints, either that or a dull 0-0

Doncaster vs Bristol City Plymouth vs Palace Sheff Weds vs Barnsley Watford vs Swansea Some important games there which could really put us in the **** if results go against us. If Plymouth win they will go 10 points clear of us, if Barnsley win we will need 8 points to over take them, if Watford win we would need 6 points to over take them. And they would both still have a game in hand. Lets hope results go our way!

After playing the next 2 games it will mean that 4 of our last 5 games were at home. If we fail to get 4 points at bare minimum from the 6 available we will have to say that is that. While miracles can happen the remaining 12 games will see us play just 5 at home. Which even if we won all of them will probably not be enough to save us. The boys have to win these games, especially the Preston game, if we lose it will get ugly for them i think.

Indeed and thats why it makes the other table even more laughable. After spending a bit more time trying to figure out how the CCC website got to their figures i can only conclude they must include things such as corners and errors of play that result in goal kicks i.e miss passes. The other interesting this is if you look at that table Watford should be miles away from what they are because they have a over 30% shot to goal ratio. The problem is they also have a over 30% shot to goal conceed ratio to which is very high, 10% more then ours! I wonder if those stats would of been different if we had John and Saga playing instead of DMG, i think they would be.

Here you go SW http://www.footstats.co.uk/index.cfm?task=Teams They have us at 216 shots on target and 185 off target. 401 shots. Just like i said. We have a scoring record of 7% of our shots, meaning 1 goal every 13 shots. Of course they are just some wierd site, could just make it up

I don't think you quite grasp what it means SW. It does not matter how many people are in the team to take shots. What it means is that the club should score once every 12 shots for their stats to be correct. The total of shots divided by goals = 12. If we are having 12 shots a game as their stats suggest we should be scoring at least once a game. We are not. We are scoring 10% less then what they suggest as we have a 0.9 score ratio. To kill it off all together we have failed to score in 12 of our 33 games which means 36% of our games we have not scored. Thus proving the stats are wrong as it would mean an additional 3.3 goals would of needed to be scored, so as i said before the stats are wrong.

Sorry SW but i will call Bull**** on those stats. Anyone who has been to watch us this season knows we are not shooting at goal with any conviction/class. Aimless non-threatening shots which softly fall into the hands of the goal keeper. The table you should be looking at is this one http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/glsfor.html The one that says we are 3rd to bottom in goals. Just to show how laughable the stats are They say we have had 419 shots from our 33 games. That means our average for shots is 12 a game. Of those shots 227 were on target. Meaning 54% of our teams shots are on target. Now if we have the highest amount of shots with minimum of 12 shots a game why do we find ourselves 3rd to bottom with a massive 0.9 goals per game average or to put it better just 29 goals? So then if we look at the stats a little more closely. If we have 227 (54%) of our shots on target that means for every 7 shots on target we score 1 goal. So then we then look at the player shooting stats. http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/DivisionalShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html At the top of the list is DMG with 93. So of our 419 shots DMG has contributed to 22% of our shots total. So because there is an additional 326 shots un accounted for you would assume there to be more Saints players in the top 20 right? And indeed there is. The next Saints player comes in at number 18 and is Adam Lallana with 55 shots, meaning Lallana has taken 13% of our shots total. So then Lallana and DMG combined have taken 148 shots between them, which is 35%. For these stats to ring true must mean that for the clubs shot to goal ratio of 12 shots to every goal must mean combined these 2 players have scored 12 goals (148 shots divided by 12 shots per goal ratio = 12 goals). So lets look at the goals totals! DMG 7 goals Lallana 1 goal Total = 8 goals 4 goals less or 33% out. Which means for every shot those 2 have had (148 shots) they must shoot 18.5 times before they score a goal (148 shots divided by 8 goals). Which means their goals to shot ratios do not match, it is 33% over what your link says it should be. So then now that we know that, that means that the rest of the teams contribution must be 65% of the shots (271 shots). So lets look at the rest of the goal contributers Surman = 6 goals Saga = 4 goals BWP = 4 goals Pearce = 2 goals Peckhart = 1 goal Skacel = 1 goal Perry = 1 goal Robertson = 1 goal Mclaggon = 1 goal Total = 21 goals So for the shots per team per goal ratio of 12 shots to a goal to be true must mean that they have combined scored 22 goals (271 shots divided by 12 shots before a goal = 22 goals from 271 shots). Which as you can see is a goal out. Thus meaning 5 goals are missing for the links stats to be true. So then we then look at the whole teams shot record (everyone who has played this season) http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/Shooting/0,,10794~200810280~7,00.html Add up their league shots on and off and you get a total of.......395 shots. 24 shots (6%) LESS then what it says in the table. Of those 395 shots 217 were on target and 178 off target. So then if we take out DMG and Lallana's shots (148 shots) the rest of the team account for 123 shots on target and 135 off target = 258 shots. Combine those shots with DMG and Lallana's = 406 total team shots. Meaning 13 shots LESS then in the table. Soooo those who have been paying attention will see that not only do our goals to ratio % not fall in place with the stats provided in the table; you find that the shot table total does not match the club player shot total. Meaning they have given 2 sets of data that do not match. Thus meaning the stats have to be wrong But then again anyone who has been to the games could see we haven't been having 12 shots a game anyway..... Now i just hope all that makes sense and doesn't come across like some mad scientist or something