Clifford Nelson

And the very same to you, Dave!

The rumour in the week was that Birmingham was after him. We may have negotiated a good price at the time he came here, but with the Premiership interested, whether true or not, and if NC doesn't consider him a regular starter, then what they would like to get for him might not make financial sense. You know what I think of him, Dave, so if he turned up, with NA's blessing, I'd be delighted.

Indeed, that's what I was trying to capture.

Give him a few years to realise his vision, Dave, and then he and Markus will have gone into our history in such an undelible way that they will be forever remembered. The two of them on a plinth on the other side of the entrance from Ted's? Too many people promise the world only to walk away a year or two later. I don't think that is NC's style, and if well be there, nibbliing at the title in a few years time, why not.

Let's remember some of the football chairmen around the country, such as Bates, Ashley, Mitchell, Ridsdale, etc. Listen to that interview, and, OK I give you that he isn't the smoothest public speaker, doesn't chose his words as well as he could, appears a bit paranoid at times (but that doesn't mean they're not after him), and isn't great at spinning stuff, but I wouldn't swap him for any of the seriously dodgy characters with their warped judgements that litters the game.

I was surprised to know that he was Markus's favourite player. I rated him as well, but we didn't have the game for him then, and we don't have now. He belongs on the right hand side of a front three in a 4-3-3/4-5-1 formation. From there he can also bob up in the goalmouth for his little cameos. He could score goals. Since NC has said no, and that Fiorentina would want too much money for him I think we have to realise that he won't be coming back. And let's not forget all the moaning about him.

With five years pay! It isn't a bad deal that!

It is usually a wonder to me why some managers gets appointed. Doesn't anybody take an interest in what type of football they like to play? Or do they think that "attacking" (Pardew today on the radio) or "winning" (in a previous incarnation) is a good enough description in itself? I doubt that the geordies will be satisfied with a game which kicks long, without a real idea about alternatives, so I can't see 5 years of bliss. But then I remember Ian Branfoot. We were brought up on sophisticated, passing football down here, so didn't the Chairman have a clue what kind of football Branfoot preferred? Or even worse, didn't he know the difference? Compared with these examples we should be grateful that a manager was appointed here with a belief in the 'beautiful game' and not just in sweat, guts and mud. I think our current chairman did that one really well.

"mustard mit"???

You forgot "We must send on another striker!" and "We have to play 4-4-2." - Seldom in the history of punditry has so little knowledge been given an airing so often to so many who thinks that he has got something useful to say.

I just wish that people had the good sense to look up a players cv, just to see what he's done over the years. We are in Div3, remember, and Guly, as Waigo before him, is bottom of Serie A/top of Serie B type of quality. That doesn't make either of them "crap", but it doesn't make them faultless superstars either. Both have qualities that can't be found in our division or our team, but it requires them to be able to use those skills, and their fellow players to understand what kind of skills they have, and how to take advantage of them. The last 15/20 minutes at the end of games is not a way to get the best out of them. It is the kind of experience that Adkins hasn't had yet, so I'm not going to blame him. The idea that you can be too good to play at a low level is nonsense. A good player will always be a good player, but only if you are using what he is good at. Our dear club has got a history of buying players good at something, only to ask them to do something else. I defy anybody who saw the Tranmere game to claim that Guly isn't a good player. There hasn't been a performance like it at SMS for years. And for anybody who says differently I show you a fool.

Click where it says "Klikk" and you will have it without having to upload Silverlight.

It was a good performance and I enjoyed it, so it feels a bit like Craig Revel Horwood to offer criticism, but if we are to improve from that level these are my offerings: Dickson needs to involve Lallana more on the left. Repeatedly he turned inwards, making difficult passes to the strikers and ignoring Lallana, who is the kind of player who needs to see the ball a lot. Most people were impressed by Jaidi, but I disagree. He is in better shape than when we started the season, but he lacks so much athleticism so that he sometimes becomes a liability, especially with the ball on the ground. Last season at Saints? Amongst the good points is Chaplow who is now giving our CM a new look. Since Schneiderlin only intends to see out his contract I now feel content to see him go. Then we need to see quickly if Gobern is the third CM in our armoury or if we need to get somebody else. Hammond has risen in stature with Chaplow in midfield, and looks like the player we hoped he would be when he arrived. Guly might not have been as he was against Tranmere, but before we have a go about the chances he missed we must also remember that he shaped those chances. I hope there is much more to come from him, because whilst I enjoyed Barnard's screamer like everybody else, I don't think that he is the future here. Lots of effort but too little danger.

It only confirmed that his history told a story: A player who finds it difficult to knuckle down and settle and who struggles to take the next step up not just to show promise, but to shine. In the beginning it was fun to see the dribbles, then it started to grate a bit. We have already done better with AOX and if it gives an outing or two for Holmes we might find out if he has anything to offer. Any new manager will make his own assessments about what changes he will need, and will also need to make a statement to the players. This is the latter. Now everybody will be aware that if their attitude isn't right and they don't follow instructions, improve and play for the team, there is an exit door. RL should be warned. On his current performances he isn't exactly putting himself in the shop window, and I don't think it is going anywhere towards a longer or better deal. I don't think january will show us wholesale changes, but another couple of expressions of intent from both NA and NC ought to be on the cards.

I'd like to see Seaborne back in the line up against Posh. I have always liked Harding and whether to play him or Dickson if NA prefers, will not make me too excited. What I want to see is a change in formation to a 4-4-1-1, with three creative players who should see a lot of the ball, like this: AOX-Hammond-Chaplow-Lallana Guly Lambert? My question mark against Lambert is his form this season, but I can't see Barney, or even less Connolly play that role.

I agree completely, and just want to add that he has lost his belief in winning the 50/50 balls and that his foot will get anywhere first. Something has happened to the man, and just keeping on playing him seems more to rub it in than finding him a way out of it. None of the other strikers we've got can play the role of a no 9, which reminds me of AP's calls for signing somebody in Lambert's mould both as cover and competition.

Every time AP played AL in the no 10 role last season he became ineffective, Ron. We know what he likes to do and what he is good at, but he needs a bit of space around him to do it, quite apart from being given the ball. From a position up front or just behind the striker his chances of going for a run will be very limited. The no 10 position is a given, but in a more 4-4-1-1 type of formation. It has to be Guly, since there is nobody in the club who can move the ball around like him, quicky and constantly. The other players have got a problem in keeping up with his the speed of constant delivery. (I can't imagine that anybody suggests that this is a position that either Barnard or Connolly would make their own. Their game is a different one. AOX seems another given on the right hand side. Him, Lallana and Guly are the three players who should see a lot of the ball. One of our problems at the moment is the lack of sharpness from all our strikers. Lambert's shortcomings have been done to death, and we all agree. He just isn't in the form he was last season, so he isn't scoring. Barney's scoring record is not great. I kept banging on about how inferior it was compared to Papa Waigo last season, and I remain of the same opinion. Anybody can compare their playing and scoring record for Saints, and remember to deduct the hatful Barney scored for Southend. He is hard working, but concentrates more on winning freekicks and penalties, with varied success. He is playing a very simple game, with no finesses. Connolly cannot be relied on fitness wise, and apart from that I can't see him playing any other role than the little guy off a big man. In at least one respect AP was right: Somebody has got to be brought in to cover for and give competition for Lambert. The 4-4-2 system stifles us at times because it excludes a genuinely creative player in the middle of the park. The Merrington belief in the 4-4-2 is the belief in a type of football which has shufled off into history. It is really time to move on!

I just want to blast everyone who thinks that the only formation worth playing is 4-4-2; that everything else is defensive; and that the number of strikers you play determines how many goals you score. None of it is correct. The problem we had today were two: Firstly that we let three in. Every time we score two away we ought to win the game. Secondly that apart from AL and AOC, nobody else has shown the sharpness to score yet from open play. That Hammond did today couldn't be predicted. RL has lost his confidence and his sharpness; LB works hard and tries to appeal for freekicks and penalties, but he hasn't convinced me yet that he is a natural goalscorer. All our central midfield players shows no aptitude toward becoming a goalscoring mf, and JP doesn't look like a first choice even, anymore. In spite of all this we have done fairly OK since NA came in. I will not be down hearted in spite of the fact that this was the typical Saints loss of three points, i.e. when gaining three would have made all the difference. Is it merely a coincidence or do we bottle it when it really matters?

It seems like many posters thinks it doesn't matter 'because the Echo is rubbish' or something similar. This is not really about the quality of the paper at all, but about the freedom of the press. Let's remember that the start of the spat between the Echo and the club was that the paper was printing something which, whilst embargoed, was already in the public domain. It shouldn't be beyond a club executive and a newspaper editor to put the past behind them. Nobody needs to like; buy; read; or appreciate the Echo, but it is surprising that so few want to uphold their right to print. Haven't we had enough freedoms eroded already?

Thanks WC.

I completely agree.

By the way, what is the story about Puncheon? Is he only on leave, like Fonte, or has he actually been dropped even from the bench?

By the way, what is the story about Puncheon? Is he only on leave, like Fonte, or has he actually been dropped even from the bench?

Yes, and there are probably one or two others who thinks the same. There is still something missing, which we all are trying to put a finger on. It seems that there is not enough threat from the forward line. Last year RL was as sharp as anything, and we lived on it alone long periods. Now he is off the boil, and I can't honestly say that I see any great improvement in his performances. He seems to give up on the balls where last year one more heave would have crafted a possible chance. Barnard is a mass of endavour combined with theatricals and bad temper. All the hard work doesn't seem to create anything though. I'm not a great fan, and he hasn't won me over. In McMenemy's parlance he appears more like a navvy than a violinist. Connolly was certainly in the right place yesterday, but we can't rely on him considering his injury record, and I also saw him in before his latest injury, starting a few games, and he looked far from convincing. Probably not a starting player anymore. Guly was poor yesterday, but there are reasons for it. He should be playing behind and around the main striker and influence the game by seeing a lot of the ball, flicking it and moving it quickly. Against Tranmere he was sensational, which everybody instantly forget. He isn't a winger. Yesterday he wasn't given the ball and was forced to go around looking for it all the time. This endeavour is sometimes popular, but it takes strikers out of the area where they are effective. Also, Barnard is far from a sharp enough foil for him. It isn't surprising that Guly was often found on the left wing with Lallana and Harding, the only other players frequently playing the short, sharp balls which he thrives on. Maybe his skills will never be appreciated in English football. Whoever did what yesterday, nobody was a poisonous danger in the opposition box, and the way I look at things, that is where the main striker counts. In turn this means that the midfield isn't clear which ball to play and hence no killer balls. This is a coaching matter as much as individual talent. On current form it isn't obvious who to pick as our main striker, but his position ought not to be wide or in the middle third.

Yes, and there are probably one or two others who thinks the same. There is still something missing, which we all are trying to put a finger on. It seems that there is not enough threat from the forward line. Last year RL was as sharp as anything, and we lived on it alone long periods. Now he is off the boil, and I can't honestly say that I see any great improvement in his performances. He seems to give up on the balls where last year one more heave would have crafted a possible chance. Barnard is a mass of endavour combined with theatricals and bad temper. All the hard work doesn't seem to create anything though. I'm not a great fan, and he hasn't won me over. In McMenemy's parlance he appears more like a navvy than a violinist. Connolly was certainly in the right place yesterday, but we can't rely on him considering his injury record, and I also saw him in before his latest injury, starting a few games, and he looked far from convincing. Probably not a starting player anymore. Guly was poor yesterday, but there are reasons for it. He should be playing behind and around the main striker and influence the game by seeing a lot of the ball, flicking it and moving it quickly. Against Tranmere he was sensational, which everybody instantly forget. He isn't a winger. Yesterday he wasn't given the ball and was forced to go around looking for it all the time. This endeavour is sometimes popular, but it takes strikers out of the area where they are effective. Also, Barnard is far from a sharp enough foil for him. It isn't surprising that Guly was often found on the left wing with Lallana and Harding, the only other players frequently playing the short, sharp balls which he thrives on. Maybe his skills will never be appreciated in English football. Whoever did what yesterday, nobody was a poisonous danger in the opposition box, and the way I look at things, that is where the main striker counts. In turn this means that the midfield isn't clear which ball to play and hence no killer balls. This is a coaching matter as much as individual talent. On current form it isn't obvious who to pick as our main striker, but his position ought not to be wide or in the middle third.