Saint Pete

Koeman did bring on Cork for Davis when he got injured before half time against Leicester, in preference to Long. So, he must have thought it could work with all three of Wanyama, Schneiderlin and Cork on then? Personally, I was surprised when I saw the team and Cork was not in, and although he's not a natural for the no.10 role, I think he would have linked up the midfield and the forwards better than Long.

Maybe, but we still had plenty of time to turn it round after that mistake. We just didn't play well enough.

Strange, poor performance that. Glad to get a point in the end. Even after we scored, we still looked edgy and disjointed.

Sorry, but Forster ain't as good as Boruc. Terrible flap there.

Good work from Bertrand there.

Get the **** in!!!!!

Surely Reed and Cork could come on? Why wouldn't you at least try something?

I don't think we should make the team selections based on the perceived quality of opposition, but more by just assessing when each player needs a rest. Our improved depth in most positions means that we should be prepared to rest players if they look/feel jaded or are carrying knocks, and should be able to cope with that better than we did last year. This is where the expertise of the manager and the coaching staff is crucial in spotting which players really need a rest rather than flogging them until they eventually get injured or lose form.

Eh? He was only on for 10 mins and was involved in 3rd goal, didn't look too bad to me. And how do you work out he was forced to move by Cortese and Poch when both had left the club?

Yep, good England performance that, and great to see so many "Saints" out there! Forster, Clyne, Shaw, Ox, Lallana, Lambert. Can't help but think that had something to do with the improved display

It would still be a major surprise to me if either Spurs or Man City are prepared to take a gamble on signing Jay until he has come back properly and proved that he can still be the player he was last season after such a serious injury. I know they can do medicals but surely they do not tell the whole story about how his body is going to react to tackling, playing 2 games in a week, etc? Only when he is back playing regular premier league football will they truly know what they are buying. So I think a lot will depend on the timing of his comeback for us, and how he looks when he does come back. That said, I suppose you can never rule anything out with Spurs - if they are desperate enough, they may still take the risk?!

Leans politically to the right and reads the Guardian - a little contradictory, this average Saints fan?

Who says he can't get in our team? He's injured FFS! He seemed to be doing pretty well getting in our team last season when was fit.

They drew away to West Ham in their last game who are 4th in table, so hopefully the team won't be taking such as complacent attitude!

We've played 11 games and we've done great so far, but there is still a hell of a long way to go. No amount of pouring over stats and who plays who will tell you for sure what's going to happen from now on - that's why we turn up and watch to find out! I still feel it will be very tough for us to maintain a top four position throughout the whole season because the likes of Arsenal / Man C / Liverpool have way more squad depth than us (although I accept we are a little better in this department than we were last year). But, if the usuals suspects keep faltering the way they are at the moment, our chances will keep improving. For now, we just have to keep doing what we're doing, playing each game on its merits, don't get ahead of ourselves and see where it takes us.

Definitely due a goal the number of times he's gone close this season! Maybe Saturday's his day?

If Hull is such a lowly backwater, surely he should be good enough to force his way into their side? If he was judged to be too far down the pecking order at Saints, it seemed liked a fairly reasonable idea to loan him to a club where in theory he should have a better chance of playing. I guess if it doesn't work out at Hull, a loan or permanent move abroad will be the only way to go, but will probably have to be someone who will cover his wages (unless he agrees to take pay cut).

To be honest, I'd be well happy if we just come out of the January window keeping all of our current squad! Given the way we've played, it's reasonable to expect the usual suspects to be eyeing up a few of our players for bids in January, even if just to try and unsettle us. Hopefully, the board will have a strong strategy prepared for this though - I don't think we can play it like we did in the summer, as would be too unsettling mid-season to see several players go (or be unsettled like Morgan was) and then have to try to sign new ones, even if we had good targets in mind again.

Yes, and it's also down to composure on the ball. You never see him just "play the ball into an area", he is always aware of the runs other players are making and if no-one's free to begin with, he will hold it and wait for someone to make a run (Cork's goal against Sunderland was a great example of this).

Watching the highlights, Tadic involved in pretty much all of our best moves - he really is a class act. Will be interesting to see how we cope when we need to give him a rest.

My main worry with this one is potential of tiredness creeping in. Was a bit surprised we didn't make a couple of subs earlier in the second half and hope we don't pay for that on Saturday.

Get that man a season ticket !

So, are you saying that whenever anyone makes a late tackle after the ball has gone, it should be ruled as a "collision" and no foul? Forster was trying to get the ball first, but he didn't, Fletcher did, and if that incident had occurred anywhere else on the pitch, the ref would have given a free kick to Sunderland. You rightly state that the ball was going out of play, but that does not dictate that it wasn't a foul, only that it was not a goalscoring opportunity (therefore no red card). You are right, it's a matter of judgement, but I think in this case, Poll's got it right in his analysis.

I agree with you that it won't be the board's intention to sell the heart of the team again, but it's fair to say that if things continue to go as well as they are on the pitch at present, it's inevitable that the board will face a lot of the same pressures that we had in the summer again. If the players that we have brought in plus Morgan, Clyne, Rodriguez, etc, perform well and we finish high in the table again, they WILL be targeted again by clubs who can pay them more, and we will be faced with the same hard choices about whether to sell if they express a wish to go. For me, Samuel's original article was pretty fair in giving credit for the job done in replacing the players that have left, while warning against anyone thinking it will be easy to repeat the trick again - can't really argue with that. What he doesn't recognise enough though is the difficulty our board face in keeping our quality players happy when they know they can earn way more elsewhere. It can be done as evidenced by the Schneiderlin episode, but is much harder when 5/6/7 of your first team are attracting bids from bigger clubs. I think the only thing the board could do better next time is giving a more consistent, clearer line to the players on where they stand (i.e. if certain players are judged too key to be allowed to leave, they should be told this clearly at start of window and that's it, end of discussion). The reason Samuel is getting so much negative reaction from Saints fans is not so much about what he is saying now, but more about the constant stream of critical and negative articles about Saints produced by the Mail throughout the summer.

Really? You'd have to seriously question Dave Watson's judgement if that's the case