shurlock

Liverpool don't deserve to be losing this.

Would love to sign a player like Vargas.

Mata was effectively on the far post, behind all the Liverpool players (except perhaps Moreno). None were in a position to see or appeal for offside.

Neville being a homer - was obvious immediately from the replay and had to take Tyler to point it out.

Fees mean zilch - only on a mongboard. Of course, fees matter. Resources are finite- their size determines how much can be spent on strengthening other parts of the side. In that sense, fees are everything. It's another mongboard myth to assume that pacy widemen have to either be inconsistent and frustrating or absolute world beaters and thus out of our price range. In the real world, there are shades of grey, gradations in between. £10m should be able to get you more than £5m just as £20m can get you more than £20m. It's not an all or nothing. And £10m, especially on a foreigner should be able to get you more than Mané's current levels of consistency.

Would read little or nothing into those numbers given the exercise is flawed. As I said we won many games despite Long, not because of him. In many, he was subbed because he was pretty woeful (Swansea, Hull); in others, we looked much better and more balanced after he went off (Wham, Sunderland) or in fact, he was hardly on the pitch to make an impact (Newcastle). Not all of this is Long's fault - as Koeman has said, Long is playing in an unfamiliar position on the wing but that's also an admission that we're not terribly balanced with him in the side either. Of course, Long's biggest contribution came as an impact sub, so not sure what they mean for your analysis. By contrast, we've lost games with Mané in the side, even though he was our most dangerous player (Spurs) though am not going to push that too far. Never mind the numbers do not adjust for injuries/performances of other players, quality of opposition etc. In short, it's tenuous, tenuous stuff, though as an explanation, it's simplicity will probably appeal to some. While Long deserves to start ahead of Mané on current form (I thought he had his best game up at Arsenal), to say the balance of the side and our attacking play would materially improve as a result of this simple change is pretty unconvincing IMO.

Would be very surprised if there was a pew planned fight at the cricket club which is right next to the ground in full sight. Probably something more spontaneous: either way, hope your son is now OK.

Was just writing something similar. Agree completely. Also think that suggestions that our midfield is compensating for the lack of movement up top is overexaggerated.

Tosh IMO. You make out as if it was some golden period when Long was in the side. The reality is that we were winning games inspite of him, not because of him and he was very much a weak link. By the same token, our good run also coincided with Mané's introduction -and for a spell we were playing our best football of the season with him. When Long did start ahead of Mané (Hull away), we didn't look a threat until Long went off and Mané came on. None of this fits your story. Where I do agree is that Mané has hit a wall of late and the outcome has been darn right ugly (true to a lesser extent of Tadic); Long will always be a technically limited footballer -one reason why RK doesn't seem to rate him; but at least you get a minimum level of performance and consistency -and I would happily take that at the moment. That said, neither Mané or Long should be starting on current form -and it won't be a surprise if RK brings in another pacy player to provide direct competion. In this regard, the issue is certainly one of depth. Of course, depth doesn't explain everything - our style of play/formation should also bear some responsibility. The front three are too static IMO and we're too predictable in the final third which usually involves getting the ball out wide for a cross or relying on the overlapping fullback. Tadic and Mané have looked pretty threatening when picking the ball up in central positions but our play limits these opportunities. One response is that while our forwards play much more rigidly, our midfielders have much more freedom under RK. I don't really buy this argument -rarely do I see midfielders making runs into the box or running beyond Pelle. For all the goals that they have been scored - held up as evidence that the shackles have thrown off- it is worth remembering that most have come from setpieces or games where we were already out of sight and we were showboating.

If anything, those teams would welcome the idea if playing on a Friday instead of a Saturday gave them an extra day to prepare for European ties.

Thought he was disappointing and not imposing in the prem (not least against us), though in his defense he was often played out of position.

Not to mention Reading's smash and grab. Still remember winning away in the rain at Southend in L1 and Bristol Rovers in the cup - great nights out.

Not quite the same is it. Carragher and Neville were both defenders and captains with plenty of experience of organising set pieces. Makes them pretty well-qualified to decide whose responsibility it was clear the danger, based on the flight of the ball, the position of the defenders relative to the keeper and the movement of opposition strikers.

The argument is flawed -in statistical jargon, one of confounding variables. It stands to reason that we are more likely to win our 3pm fixtures since they are against weaker, unfashionable sides. After all, these fixtures are less likely to be moved for Sky purposes or because of Europa league commitments

Funkadelic- Maggot Brain My Morning Jacket- Dondante Neil Young- Cortez the Killer Television- Marquee Moon Any closing track on a Pavement album -The Hexx being a fav but Fin and Fillmore Jive are other notable mentions.

Carragher and Neville were pretty unanimous in laying responsibility for the second goal on Forster's shoulders, sunshine. Carragher even suggested that Forster could have been quicker and more decisive in closing the angle for the first (slightly harsh in IMO). Forgive me if I take their word over yours anyday and everyday.

repeat

Cheers - though those players are only away temporarily, they are areas we need to strengthen regardless, especially as Toby is unlikely to sign permanently (still stranger things have happened) and we have no attacking depth.

Any word on signings, the situation with the loanees?

"Nothing is impossible...Maybe only in the aspect that I think that I haven’t seen until now teams much better than Southampton" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/southampton/11219407/Southampton-manager-Ronald-Koeman-sets-his-sights-on-a-top-four-finish-following-latest-victory-at-St-Marys.html

Can't remember too many hidings, besides the likes of Everton, United etc who always had our number away from home. Recently, got plenty more drubbings in the capital (Arsenal 2002/2003, 2012/13; Spurs 2004/05 etc).

Whoosh Greg Dyke is Brentford, mixed with some United plastic. (I'll assume the rest is horse****)

We are southampton, we leave when we want and all that. People too quick to judge without all the facts. For one, I know quite a few London-based codgers leave before final whistle to get the 10pm train -a walk that can be particularly brutal if injury time has piled up and the car park is closed. Yet their attendance record would put a lot of the sanctimonious ****s on here to shame.

My overriding memory of this period was not the football but Devon Malcolm (and Goughy) smashing Shane Warne and the Aussies all over the park in the Ashes.

Can see us getting turned over - think the intensity of the game will catch a few by surprise, especially since the past week has been pretty draining.