Wes Tender

Nick, I think that you can accept that most reasonable posters on here have no difficulty in understanding the basis for the points you make and you put them across well. There is a handful of posters one here who have opinions so set in concrete that they just cannot accept those of others that are contrary to theirs. An immature part of their personality then has them dismiss those opposing views by use of insults and sarcasm. Best to ignore them, because as you rightly say, in the absence of any lack of clarity in the way that you express your opinions, the only reasonable alternatives are that the respondent is either thick or trolling. And you hit the nail on the head accusing Turkish of deliberately altering what you said in a vain attempt to either make you look stupid, or him clever. Don't worry about that; everybody knows how he operates, but as it is quite clever, then the only remaining conclusion is that he is a troll. And you know the first unwritten rule of forums? Don't feed the troll.

We've already got a team capable of beating most of the top teams of the Premiership, which they've actually proven by their actions recently. Now all we've got to do, is spend millions more on getting the players capable of winning matches against the likes of Wigan, Newcastle and QPR.

So is that eleven you named as the first team /squad good enough as it is to gain a 7th place spot? I've asked for a list of players capable of forming a team which could gain a place in the top 7, so presumably you agree that pretty well what is our first choice team and fringe back ups is good enough. Granted that we need back up to that standard too, but as that list didn't cost the earth, then the expenditure wouldn't be massive, would it, especially if some players were ready to step up from the academy?

And let's not forget that although there might be better players in those top teams than some of ours, that doesn't mean that if they were inter-changed that they would play well together. Sometimes a team is greater than the sum of its parts. Sometimes a collection of individual stars is just that, rather than a team. Swap Cork or Schneiderlin with A/N Other star midfielder and they wouldn't necessarily improve the pairing, because they might not have the understanding of each others' game, or have an empathy with each other. Also it is important that the players have a good team spirit and attitude too, not just ability.

You're the one b*tching about how we aren't capable of playing at that level. Let's have your list of our players capable of playing at top 7 level. I've already agreed with St Garrett's list and the inference as far as I'm concerned is that squad and team should be inter-changeable depending on tactics, injuries, suspensions. And let's not attempt to sidetrack the issue by naming players good enough to get into any top 7 team. What we're actually discussing is players for our team who would be capable together of forming a team which could gain a place 7th or above.

We're obviously not safe mathematically, but in terms of current form, we must be very positive and motivated, having beaten the likes of Liverpool, Man City and Chelsea. We ought to have beaten Wigan, QPR and Newcastle recently too, but which would we have preferred, beating them or the three teams at the top? No eyebrows would have been raised if we beat the three lower down teams and although the loss of points that they would have suffered would have helped us increase the gap over them, I'd still take beating those top teams every time, because of the bragging rights, the pundits' noses put out of joint and the upsets caused to plastic fans all over the country.

I'm pretty much in agreement with your lists. I would argue Yoshida in the first bunch of players who could play at top 7 level, as generally he's defended pretty well against players in the top teams. Your four in the second rank are good cover for the first lot, generally reliable enough to do a good job and not let you down. Of the third rank, Gazza is still a youngster who might be one for the future. Hooiveld could be promoted to the second rank. Lee is a bit like Mayuka and not enough seen of him to decide, although presumably Adkins/Pochettino haven't been that impressed so far. We wouldn't miss the others, so replacing them with cover for the first rank would as you say be the improvement we need. I agree that there is a good crop of youngsters coming through, but whether any of them will be good enough to step up anytime soon remains to be seen.

You could HAVE. We might be only four points off the relegation places, but in case you hadn't noticed, we're also in 12th place. I presume that any other team, like us, will try to improve their squads. But also I presume that they will have a core of players whom they consider cannot be improved upon without much difficulty and expense. They will also have some youngsters coming through their ranks who they will blood into their team when they are considered to be good enough for the step up, which will mean that they don't have to lash out lots of money on players imported from other teams. Strengthening for us has more to do with signing extra depth as back up to existing players in most positions, rather than any wholesale replacement of most of the team. As usual, we will only buy if the player is deemed to be better than what we already have. What would be interesting in light of this ridiculous opinion of yours that wholesale changes need to be made to the squad (and ridiculous amounts spent in the event), would be your opinion on which players need to be replaced and who you would suggest as their replacements. Come on, let's have the list; not the list of players who haven't played for us since the second division, the current squad, please.

:lol:

Should HAVE! Or even should've, at a pinch. But not should of. I sometimes feel like a teacher on here.

No, definitely no chance of employment as an English teacher. So they are a wealthier club because they expend more money on wages? Warren Buffett is one of the wealthiest men in the World and yet he lives in a comparatively small house and drives an old jalopy. So perhaps the level of expenditure is not necessarily a yardsick of wealth, or indeed the quality of players in a team. But I'm glad that this significantly higher expenditure of theirs enabled their team to beat us last time out. Doh!

Definitely not an English teacher, nor Maths. Woodwork?

They have more money than us? Prove it, teacher!

Schneiderlin is destined for future greatness in the French National team and has just got better and better for us. Thankfully he has gone under the radar of the big clubs in England and Europe so far, but that cannot last long given his stats. All we can do is hope that he likes it here with us and that if he gets offers to go elsewhere, we will match them. His journey these past few seasons has been ours too, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for the part he played in it.

You must be talking about resources other than financial ones. Otherwise you have contradicted yourself in a few words. What exactly do these resources comprise?

Yet another thread covering much of the same ground as several others. But as it seems popular and several claims have been made by some that need contesting, I might as well join in. Chelsea obviously didn't play well against United as they were probably still recoiling from the shockwaves from being beaten by a small provincial team of youngsters and nobodies, whose rightful place is to be ever in the relegation zone or the lower divisions. And yet again, as in other recent threads, dear Mr Sanchez persists in his nonsense of us having to spend megabucks replacing the bulk of the team if we're to stand any chance of beating the likes of Chelski, Citeh, Liverpool, United, Arsenal and Everton. This view is rather contradicted by our record since the New Year, when United were the only team amongst that group to have beaten us and that being a tight match too. Wins against Citeh, Liverpool and Chelski and draws against Arsenal, Everton and Chelski are obviously no indication that we will be capable of beating them again next year, even if we strengthen the team in the Summer. The usual red-herring is raised yet again, that the sort of players who we will need (to enable us to beat the likes of those teams that we have beaten this year), will prefer to go instead to those glory teams, who are a bigger attraction to them. This doesn't take into account that their squads can only contain so many players and that when those squads are full, they will have to look further down the division. Neither is any account taken of the products of our academy, which has produced players of sufficient calibre that several of those glory teams look covetously towards buying them from us. So presumably if we can keep them, we will have those players of a standard sufficiently as good as some in those teams and already in-house. And how many other "Michu"s are out there available for relative peanuts? The hierarchy of the top teams has already altered quite significantly in the past few years. It used to be the exclusive preserve of Liverpool, Arsenal and Man Utd. Then came Abramovich and Chelski advanced, subsequently the addition of Man City because of their newly found wealth. Tottenham have advanced because to quite a large extent they have benefited massively from buying one of our academy players. Liverpool have been going backwards these past few seasons and Everton are there because they have a very good manager, but are not a wealthy club. We are wealthier than them and who knows whether Pochettino might yet prove over time to be the better manager? Nobody knows what circumstances might alter that hierarchy in the coming couple of years? Managerial changes might affect any of those clubs significantly. Ferguson won't be at United forever. Abramovich might tire of his toy, or might have some other fate befall him that means he will no longer bankroll Chelsea. But if we survive this season and build in the Summer, then provided that nothing significant changes our ownership or management, there is no reason why we should not look at the future with optimism.

Funnily enough, when I saw the title, I thought of the Delap goal too. Crap player generally, but any player in the World would have been happy to have scored that one.

Your opinion on this is all quite reasonable, but there are certain posters who do not appear to see the parts that debate aspirations based on what are seen as feasible under certain circumstances. You can qualify an opinion all you like with caveats about extra investment in players, or the academy, factor in all sorts of possibilities like players gaining experience, etc, but that goes in one ear and out of the other with some posters. All they see is the ultimate highest position predicted and because they do not have the imagination to see the possibilities themselves, their only response is ridicule. And then in true troll mode, they hit you with it again and again. In the absence of moderators realising that most posters are sick to death with it, one can only ignore them, or hope that these things come to pass, so that they end up making themselves look ridiculous.

I agree with those who say that the journey back from our lowest position has made our current situation all that much sweeter. That and the fact that the pendulum between us and the Skates has swung so emphatically to our favour and that it still potentially has some way to go. Additionally though, it is also worth mentioning that these changes were fundamentally because of ridding the club of Lowe and his fellow parasites and being taken over by Markus Liebherr and subsequently his family.

Why? This is Reading we're talking about, not one of the top teams.

I'm surprised that you didn't immediately conclude that anything he said in response to your posts was inevitably trolling or in wind-up merchant mode. That's more usually his MO, rather than trying to debate something that contradicts his own entrenched position.

Yes, you're right that if we are to pursue a policy of bringing through the future academy stars as an integral part of our future plans, we need to be able to tempt them to stay with us. I don't know whether we would refuse an offer of £17 Million for Shaw. Certainly the impression is given that unless we receive a ludicrously high offer for our most talented players, we do not need to sell for financial reasons. Naturally our position is weakened by the players themselves wanting to leave to play for clubs after their services and strengthened when several clubs are after the same player. But if such a player commanded a really stupid fee, then there comes a point when you say that with that sort of money one could replace them with somebody equally good, or with two or more players who could strengthen the team in other areas.

I'm versed sufficiently well in the social graces to know enough about the etiquette regarding the correct way to address people I meet, or those who I have not met, when discussing them with others. And I have rather more years of this experience than you. And there is plainly a distinction that can be made between how one would address people that one is familiar with as a fan or admirer, when discussing them with others who share that interest in them. A simple example would be a discussion between fans of pop stars, film stars or footballers. Would fans of Elvis Presley call him Mr. Presley? Of course not. Nobody discussing a Beatles concert would describe the performances of Messrs. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison or Starr as everybody that admired them would be entirely comfortable with John, Paul, George and Ringo. Would you really find that over-familiar? So why is it different for Saints fans discussing their favourites on a Saints Forum? Frankly, I find your opinion on this to be a bit bizarre. There is a good reason why commentators do not use their surnames, which if you gave it a little thought, might become clear to you too. Apart from the impression of bias that it would give, there is the increased probability of there being more than one player sharing the same Christian name. Our squad for example, currently has 2 Jacks and also 2 Steves. Not long ago, we have had 3 Dans. Unless there are players on the pitch who share the same surname like Davies/Davis, no confusion arises.

I just made the point that because we have been producing some players who could play for any English team, there is not the necessity to spend as much on buying players in as there would otherwise be. Certainly not more than the top clubs spend to get us to the next level, as Barry suggests. (Oh, I forgot, he doesn't like familiarity; Mr Sanchez.) How do you think that a team would fare comprising former players like Bale, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Walcott, Dyer, and others currently at our disposal like Shaw, Schneiderlin, Cork, Clyne, Lallana, Lambert, Ramirez, Rodriguez? OK, that cannot be, but if we produced the equivalents of those academy players in the next upcoming batch, it is not impossible that in the future we could be in a similar position. That appears to be Cortese's thinking. How does our academy compare against those of the top teams in recent years? We are surely the equal of any of them at least, aren't we?

I didn't say that we wouldn't invest significantly. I was questioning your assertion that the top teams would strengthen, so we would have to spend an awful lot more than them to improve our position. Because of the success of our academy, that isn't necessarily the case. We could arguably have a team now that was capable of challenging for a top 6 place, had we been able to keep the best players from our academy in recent years, together with the core of our current team. Furthermore, massive expenditure on players doesn't necessarily equate to improvement in a team. There are too many examples of costly players who have flopped to show that.