shurlock

Newcastle have really disappointed in recent years, both home and away. Stoke and Everton too. Chelsea's away support is still very good value, however much I think they're c**ts. Villa's away support is underrated. By contrast, united and the scousers are overrated - they're not consistently vocal. Some of the nonprem sides that come to SMS in the cup are up there - Luton's support was excellent when they played us in 2010.

You can be loyal and not hail from Mancunia. They boast huge numbers that travel from London and the south east.

Made the difference at crunch time in L1. One down at Withdean where Brighton hadn't lost all season, flagging in the Easter sun with 10-20 mins to go, DC came on and completely changed the game. Huddersfield had won the day before and, as it turned out, anything less than a win would have ended our automatic promotion chances. Was then MOTM at Brentford and Plymouth, pushing us over the line. A player that Adkins criminally misused until forced on him (his injuries were overstated), he got the best out of Lallana with his movement and vision and set the scene for our scintillating start in Championship. Ultimately didn't have the pace or power to stop teams squeezing us, especially with Lambert, his contribution was nonetheless very valuable. Also liked that he had an edge and did things his way. Can forgive a brief stint with the skates.

Spitting is a muggy thing to do but the punishment is ridiculously disproportionate - even more so when you consider that it and similar off the ball incidents, insofar as they occur outside the ref's view, can be retrospectively punished whereas most horror tackles can't. Reminded of McManaman's challenge on Haidara a couple of seasons ago. Ditto with Barnes on Matic. Both walked away scot-free.

Not the way the world works. Many comparable jobs in terms of content and responsibility will be paid differently depending on the size of the firm, the sector and the part of the country they're in, among other things.

Not sure why you're even bucketing Long and Mané together.

How do you know they're the same people? Stick to wallowing about the good, old days.

He took on and beat a defender on Tuesday. Don't think I've ever seen him do that.

Really? Many midweekers are dull. The West Ham atmosphere was terrible. What you often see is a lot of people who are sober and can't get hammered in the same way as they do on a Saturday and that feeds directly through to the atmosphere.

Certainly done wonders for you on here...

That's the thing. Could hardly hear the Northam, except for a little bit and pretty sure it could hardly hear Itchen North.

Tonight is made for an accy as an emotional hedge.

Reminded me of the good, old days in Itchen North, the L1 and Championship years, when only block 4 was open.

Djuriric played well and looked more slippery than Tadic. Mané was our main threat, though I'd like him to pick the ball up closer to goal. Indeed, the lead up to his goal showed how much more dangerous it is when you (JWP incredibly) commit opponents in central areas, opening up space on both sides, though we seem fixated with wing play, only coming inside when it breaks down by which time the opposition is nice and compact. We kept a clean sheet, though both CBs were sloppy at times, gifting palace their chances. Elia tends to start games strong, then fade. By contrast, Morgan grew as the game went on, though didn't see many well-publicised runs. Victor wasn't his dominant self. Pelle's lack of aggression or anticipation in the box is infuriating. At least, one occasion where a cross was put in and Tadic jumped quicker and higher to beat Pelle to the header, notwithstanding the fact that both occupied the same starting position. As much as Pelle is statuesque, not sure how much Long changed things. Thought the ball came back a lot more after he came on which contributed to the squeaky bums. No problems with the ref, perhaps because he gave us most 50/50s

Is nonceson starting tonight?

Pretty please, let there be some comedians trying that in the Itchen North tmrw evening.

No Les. The numbers don't mean 21 shots. They are two separate numbers, looking at how many shots it takes to score from (i) central positions inside the area (6) and (ii) from wide positions inside the area (18 ), compared to outside the area (33). So yes in this sense, shooting less can mean more goals if the majority of shots are taken inside the box. Moreover, having run a very simple regression for all prem teams this season, there doesn't appear to be any statistically significant relationship between the number of shots from outside the box and the number of goals scored. Again, more shots doesn't mean more goals in any meaningful sense. Of course, some teams, blessed with a yaya toure or a christian eriksen, maybe consistently better at shooting from outside the box; but we don't appear to fall into this category (ranked 16th in terms of shots required per goal). Nor does your point about deflections, pens, rebounds generated by shots outside the box make much sense. If anything, they're an argument for teams to shoot more inside the box since fouls result in pens, not freekicks. Ultimately, my bugbear is not that we don't shoot more. Rather its simply about decision-making; whether we're shooting at the most effective time, whether that extra touch really creates or reduces space, whether it unbalances the opposition or allows it to get back into shape. At times, it can do more harm than good. The same goes for our passing. Needless to say, Les, this doesn't fit neatly with your agricultural demand to shooooooooot.

No, Les. It's not simply a case of more shots, more goals as the chances of scoring depend where the shot is taken. If you believe the data, imperfect as it is, it takes on average between 15 and 27 fewer shots to score from inside the box than outside it. In other words, fewer shots can mean more goals. Perhaps players believe that taking an extra touch to work a better position is justified by the odds. IIRC, we did try to shoot on sight in the first half against WBA but were hopeless. If anything, we were more effective in the second half when we were a little bit less speculative in our shooting.

Are you serious? It was absolutely cynical from the off; even Koeman, usually pretty mellow in three circumstances, was complaining. Dowd bottled it. Seen L1 refs treat time wasting with far greater intelligence and decisiveness - Brighton's Ankergren was a master of it; but was still cautioned enough times. Still pîśšed off that the replacement ref missed Gardner blatantly punch the ball away as it was being thrown over to them for a free kick.

That's what our lot was doing for most of the game, even if our definition of 20 seconds felt at times like nanoseconds WBA then started to boo us ironically whenever we were taking a goal kick or throw in, as if they weren't the only ones wasting time.

Not saying we should be creating bucket loads of chances - that simply doesn't happen in the prem. What I'm saying is that compared with earlier on in the season, were creating far few chances, looking slower in possession and shorter of ideas. To say the only difference between now and then is Pelle's finishing is way off the mark IMO.

Not sure which games you've been watching. Yesterday and wham are as good as it's got for him. Other than that, the chances are just not there, though being critical, it might be partly down to Pelle's lack of movement in and around the box.

It's not all on Pelle, though his first miss was criminal. We are also not creating much which puts more pressure on him when that fleeting and elusive chance does arrive. Arsenal is the last game where we legitimately created decent chances (which we happened to waste).

We could easily pay it for more than one player; but you're correct in that it would break our wage structure, creating other issues. At some point, we would also be sacrificing the depth of the squad.

That's a horrible line-up.