Wes Tender

Fly, I realise that unless you are taking the medication, you can only see one side of the argument but the counter-argument is the one that the rat Lallana would use himself, is that he had served us well through thick and thin and deserved to see out his ambition to play on the biggest stage, Europe. Undoubtedly Lallana is the bigger loss, but then the point made by FF, was about the way that the departure happened, rather than the player's background. As far as I can recall, Kenwyne Jones was the very first Southampton player to actually threaten to go on strike, whereas I don't think Lallana ever actually used those words, and mumbled something about not wishing to play for us again.

Has the way that Kenwyne Jones departed been air-brushed from history then? I seem to recall a lot of ill feeling being generated when he threatened to go on strike to get his move and the subsequent bile he received was very well deserved. Was Lallana's behaviour worse, or is it that it is far more recent and therefore memories of the bad blood with K J following his disgusting behaviour have faded with the passage of time?

You're entitled to your opinion

No. I thought sixth at the start of the season was doable, but having got so far into the season in the top four, that's where I would like us to finish. I still think that the two last places available will be contested by us, United and Arsenal and I think United's position is a false one, as they have the worst defence I have ever seen in a United team.

Different people respond in different ways, even football players. Lambert demonstrated some considerable class in the way he left and nobody begrudged him for his desire to see out his career at the his boyhood club. Lambert will get no stick, on the contrary, he will probably receive warm applause if he plays. Lallana would himself categorise Southampton pretty well as his boyhood club, but was either very badly advised about how he went about leaving, or more likely his reason was pure naked greed. That in itself is understandable, as most of us would have done the same thing if offered to double our salary, but what is unacceptable is the crass way he went about it. The dogs abuse he will get as a result is merely the other side of the coin whereby he received adulation as a fans' icon, so must expect derision from the same people who find that their idol has feet of clay. For myself, I will not be booing him because I feel badly let down by him. I am consoled that he and the others have been replaced by better players. Giving him the bird for me will be much more to do with the entertainment value of seeing him have his eyes opened if he harbours any notion that he is still popular with those fans who chanted his name. He can be my very own pantomime villain, if you like.

Thanks for confirming what I thought had happened, but began to doubt the evidence of my own eyes as it had not been discussed in detail elsewhere, unless I missed it. It seemed likewise to me that Carroll had gone to push Yoshi in the back, failed to make the contact he intended and then went down in a weird way, looking like a dog waiting to be mounted. My immediate thought was that he was feigning injury in a vane attempt to con the referee into thinking that his challenge was 50/50. or that he himself was the victim of a foul. I had expressed the opinion on the match thread that Carroll is a cheating donkey and was happy to see that KUMB site had repeated it on their thread about what we had written about them. But in sharp contrast to the antics of the likes of Carroll, Yoshi is a shining example of how a professional footballer should act. No doubt had he been a WH player, he would have been schooled in the art of feigning mortal injury in order to get a player sent off and the rest of the team would have surrounding the referee baying for blood.

Dustmen like to be called Waste Disposal Operatives. The Rose Bowl ought to be called the Ageas Bowl. If we sold naming rights to St Mary's Stadium, I would still call it that. I never called it the Friends Provident Stadium. Like Richard, I prefer to call things what I have always called them.

Ok, Shylock, so you disagree. Fair enough.

Yes, fair enough. Didn't see it before posting.

Why are people cowards if they put somebody on ignore? I don't follow your conclusion. Sometimes it is better not to respond to some posters. It isn't an admission of defeat as much as an admission that one might be banging ones head against a brick wall sometimes. Why should you also conclude that people put somebody on ignore in order to impress others? You'd have to be pretty shallow to care what others think about you on an internet forum. PS I haven't quoted you, in case it offends Misguided.

By the same token, we know how to play the other top teams, don't we? The reality is that some teams like West Ham and Swansea tried to shut down our style of play by parking the bus and hoped to hit us on the break, but if they tried to play like that at home, they would be murdered by their fans, who would not accept that they did not go for the win. Perhaps that's why our away record is so impressive. But there is a flaw in your argument. There are not too many matches left to play and the teams in the relegation zone have to pick up three points, not one, in order to put clear water between them and their rivals.The draw suited West Ham and to a certain extent Swansea, because both are probably safe from the drop, but had several players out, so their tactics were dictated to them through necessity. Lower down teams will just have to go for the win. Pochettino was sussed by the cannier managers after a while because his style was predictable and he only had a Plan A. Koeman has already proved that he is capable of mixing it up with other strategies to cover players injured or suspended and the number of shots made in both the Swansea and West Ham games would normally be enough to get a goal or two with better finishing. Even if Pelle isn't putting them away, we have had goals from many other players, right through the team. It is only recently that the option of playing Mane and Elia either side of Pelle and Koeman needs to see how effective Djuricic can be and in which position. He has 10 days to work on that and the players have a much needed rest period to come back from injuries and tiredness. Let's wait and see how that pans out before making judgements about where we will finish the season in May.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. How long before he nuts one of their players?

They'll then be useful for squad rotation because of the extra CL matches.

Certainly Carroll is a good header of the ball, just as Crouch is a good target man for a high ball. Thankfully he is not as good with the ball at his feet. But he is a loathsome individual when he tries to con the idiot referees who think that as he had been tackled by a 5'6" midget, such a big lump as him had to have been fouled. Fellaini is also in a very similar mould of cheating bastard for such a big lump. Our big players like Lambert was and Pelle is, stay on their feet when tackled more often than not. I'm torn between wishing that we employed the sort of gamesmanship that Big Fat Sam does, or hoping forlornly that eventually it will be stamped on by the authorities.

In view of the number of chances we created and that WH were down to 10 men for the last 20 minutes, it was frustrating to get nothing more than the point from the game. It was obvious from the start that WH were there only for the point from the instant that BFS claimed that they would emulate Swansea's tactics of parking the bus and hoping to hit us on the break. No doubt the donkey Carroll would be their weapon to create their opportunistic goal from a set-piece, but when Adrian was sent off, he was needed to defend from our corners and he cut a forlorn figure isolated up front most of the time. But in typical form, there was enough of a cameo of his range of falling down at the slightest contact to earn the derision of any serious fan that such a big lump as he could be such a pansy. But WH are a team coached in Fat Sam's image; niggly, moaning, cheating bastards. Despite the absence of their chief moaner Nolan, they still surrounded the referee b*tching about anything and everything. Talking of the referee, where do they get these incompetents from? Just when you think that the FA must be scraping the bottom of the barrel, they produce an even worse one. As usual, the rival team got a succession of free kicks awarded to them, whilst identical fouls on our players were largely ignored. A blatant handball went unpunished and also a corner kick was seen by everybody close the the Chapel/Kingsland corner, but was completely ignored by the ref. He also ignored the time-wasting tactics by WH and the time added on was a joke. The team played pretty well throughout most of the match and Reed instead of Ward-Prowse was effective, but deprived us of W-P's ability from dead ball situations. The midfiled outmuscled and outfought WH's for most of the match and the defence was again solid, with Yoshi slotting in well at LB. But we missed the pace of Bertrand, so WH realised that the main thrust would be from Clyne on the right. Having Elia and Mane gave us pace either side of Pelle and they did get behind WH on several occasions, but lacked the finishing touch. Despite expectations that we might produce something when WH were down to 10 men, it is often accepted that a team of 10 players can successfully nullify the advantage by parking the bus and WH did that well. Also, there was not too much disadvantage to WH being able to replace Adrian with Jaaskelainen who is a very good keeper himself. Until quite recently, West Ham were right up there with us and they have suffered a few injuries, but are still a force to be reckoned with. We have also suffered injuries, suspensions and the loss of players to the Afircan and Asian Cup competitions. We still sit in fourth position just one point away from United. We have a break of a week and a half until our next match, which will be the last of the Bertrand suspension, time to get Schneiderlin fully fit, to give Pelle a rest and to integrate Djuricic into the team. Some of our rivals are involved in Cup matches, so risk injuries, suspension and tiredness, so we should have an advantage coming back stronger. We play some of those rival and some of them play each other, so there is plenty that can change yet. We still have the meanest defence in the division, despite losing Bertrand, Alderweireld and Targett for some matches. There is plenty to feel positive about. Most would have been incredulous at the beginning of the season if somebody had suggested that we could be 4th well into February.

I'm thinking of voting UKIP tactically in Eastleigh to get rid of the Lib Dems. I might change my mind and vote Conservative if their manifesto promised an EU referendum immediately after they formed a Government if elected, but I've completely run out of patience with them reneging on their last manifesto pledge of an EU referendum to appease the bloody Lib Dems and then saying that it would only be in 2017.

Significant:- Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy: Quite frankly, it's useless making predictions about what will happen in marginal seats and who the main recipient will be of tactical voting. When it was a Tory marginal and Labour stood little chance of election, then the Lib Dems, or Labour-Lite as they could more accurately be described, were a good home for their protest vote. Likewise no doubt many Conservative leaning voters chose them in strong Labour constituencies if they were the only option to unseat the Labour candidate. Unfortunately, their one-size fits all policies were exposed when they cosied up with the Tories and had to come clean about what they really believed, and having reached their high-tide at the last election, they have badly affected their chances this next one. Although UKIP will take votes off the Conservatives in their marginals and replace the Lib Dems as the vehicle for tactical voting there, they will also take votes away from Labour, especially over the immigration issue. The EU and immigration are two issues which will resonate with the average man-in-the-street floating voter.

Apart from the very valid argument put forward that a significant proportion of their support was due to tactical voting, their vote total will be decimated this next election by UKIP. As somebody else said, would you be happy with PR if half of the Lib Dems were replaced with UKIP MPs? They're currently polling at higher percentages than the Lib Dems and are a viable alternative to them as a protest vote/tactical vote, especially as many of their voters didn't take kindly to them cosying up to the Conservatives.

So a referendum, which is the purest form of democracy isn't to your liking either. There really is no pleasing some people. Perhaps instead of a yes or no option, there should be a "maybe" option for those who can't make up their minds, but depending on the figures for each, there could then ensue arguments that a majority hadn't voted for the outcome and that there ought to be a second referendum with a Single Transferable Vote and round and round we would go again. But as the SNP are still not going to accept their referendum decision five minutes later either, I'm not overly surprised that people are still b*tching about how our electoral system "disenfranchises" those whose opinions aren't shared by the majority of the electorate and won't shut up until they get their way.

That's a nonsense conclusion that the existing system is the "worst option" One wonders how it ever came about that it was chosen in the first place, doesn't one? The crux of the matter is that there was a referendum on the voting system and the majority voted to keep it as it is. Now, no doubt you will bleat about the alternatives not including the system that you deem to be the fairest, but the fact remains that there was a majority in favour of the current system. No doubt you will also reason that the majority mostly comprised voters who traditionally support the two major parties whose self-interest was served by keeping this system,and moan about how unfair that is too.

At the last Skates match, rival fans threw coins at several of the Pompey players. Which means that they will able to continue playing for the next few weeks at least.

PR is also flawed, but its proponents can't see them. Principally, it means that a certain percentage of candidates are elected to reflect the percentage of votes polled for a party, regardless of the attributes or shortcomings of the individual candidates, as one isn't voting effectively for individuals. Voting has to be based on much wider areas, thus potentially meaning that one area is represented by somebody living miles away with no local consituency knowledge apart from where they themselves live. Other systems like the single transferable vote are equally undemocratic in that because a candidate was the most popular in terms of gaining a majority of votes, they might be replaced by another candidate purely on the negative grounds that if say 35% voted for them, they didn't have the support of 65% of the local electorate. If there is a poll at a club to elect a comittee, the candidates with the most votes are elected to those posts. Why should it be that the club members would be unhappy with that system and argue that a majority of the members didn't vote for that person? If you had voted Green in all of the past elections, why wouldn't your vote have counted for anything? Surely it would have counted as an endorsement from you for the Green Party policies. As it is, the other parties are entitled to believe that not many of the local electorate care a fig for Green policies, except those which are contained in the rival parties' manifestos under the heading of Environment.

There were certainly quite a few that said that it would never happen, because we would be deluded to believe that we could break the glass ceiling that was represented by Chelski, City, United, the Arse, Liverpool, Spurs and even Everton. Then there was the contingent that admitted that it was possible, but only conditional on the expenditure of a couple of hundred million £s. We only need to carry on at the current level of perfomance until the end of the season and we will have broken through the glass ceiling and have achieved it without the expenditure of hundreds of millions. Even if we don't make the top four, we have performed at a level that very few of even our own most ardent fans would have believed possible after the Summer of Discontent.

People are only disenfranchised if they are not represented by a candidate whose policies they follow. Invariably the ballot paper is crammed with candidates representing the whole political spectrum including the raving looney fringe. If some wish to waste their vote on a candidate with a minimal chance of being elected, they aren't disenfranchised, they are merely wasting their vote. Our Parliamentary Election system might not be perfect, but it certainly isn't undemocratic or unfair, apart from the Scots and Welsh having their own devolved Parliaments and then being allowed to vote on English matters, that is.

"Osvaldo is in perfect condition" says the article. Physically, maybe, but defective mentally.