Wes Tender

There you go again. How do you know that Alpine was deliberately asking questions as a subtle way of criticising? It is purely an assumption on your part, based on the flimsiest of evidence. The more you continue, the more foolish and juvenile you make yourself look.

It hasn't penetrated, has it? Weston quite rightly pointed out that the OP was a series of questions asking for opinions. If you have the right to reply that his search for answers was negative claptrap, then you really ought to read the posts more carefully, otherwise you risk making yourself look stupid.

Come on then, I'll bite. Give us your very own diatribe justifying your assertion that Leicester have a rogue manager. I'm sure that it will make interesting reading.

:smt038 Sensible - adult - mature. And apart from one or two petty little squables an interesting debate from most.

Shush! Now you've given it all away on here, the rivals won't need to send out scouts.

Alpine has asked for an opinion from those who regularly watch games on whether there is a risk of us becoming predictable in the way that we play, so that the more canny managers in the division can nullify/take advantage of weaknesses in our strategies. What is the problem with the OP? There have been many responses from regular attenders saying that there is nothing much to worry about, that they are happy that AP is canny enough to make his own judgement and has got it right so far. Why, even right now, there is an article in the media saying that he has been pondering whether to start 4-5-1 or switch to 4-4-2 from the off. He is right IMO that under Burley and even more so under the hapless Poortvliet, we were very predictable and easy to take advantage of. What is wrong with somebody unable to attend matches regularly asking whether we have changed since then and why should there be all these accusations of negativity as a result? For myself, I feel that results recently have indeed shown that we have employed the correct strategy and that if we were to switch to 4-4-2 from the start, we would need Connolly to be at peak fitness. It does appear that we simply have too much about us when we have 2 up front in that formation, but the imponderable factor is how much of our success is down to the two pairs of fresh legs? That will become more evident if Pardew does give 4-4-2 a try from the start.

I'm not going to vote in the Poll because IMO there is a glaring omission or two in it. There ought to be at least another option of playing the first half 4-5-1 and switching to a 4-4-2 in the second half, as this has been a fruitful tactic in the past few matches. Of course, there are other options available too, such as starting 4-4-2 and switching to 4-5-1 in the second half. And then we could always play three CBs, move James into the midfield with two strikers in a 3-5-2 and not forgetting the Christmas tree formation amongst others. As the past several recent matches have produced a string of successes and no defeats, I feel rather inclined to trust in AP's judgment. Of course, it must also be factored into the equation that when AP makes these changes in the second half, we are often introducing two or three pairs of fresh legs to the pitch to pressurise some tiring players on the rival team. Even then, I suspect that our players are often fitter and leaner than many teams we play against at the moment, if the new super slim Lambert is anything to go by. Although not conclusive as evidence, we seem to be a team scoring a lot of goals in the second half, whereas for the past few years, we were a leaky side later on in a game.

Comic genius. You didn't see Blood Brothers by any chance? I'm sure that Willy Russell could easily write a play along similar lines to the story you have written, but the critics would say that it was too similar to Blood Brothers.

http://www.clown-ministry.com/marx-brothers-videos/video/n4zRe_wvJw8

THE TATTOOED LADY (Paddy Roberts) Well I was a bit of a lad I admit, My past was a trifle shady. Until in the end I went right round the bend And married a tattooed lady. I immediately saw there were pictures galore, On ev'ry available corner As I studied her frame, very soon I became An expert in flora and fauna On one of her feet, you were liable to meet A Master of Hounds in his habit. While right round her waist, in impeccable taste, Was a python devouring a rabbit. On the back of each knee was a small chimpanzee, On her thigh was a Knight of The Garter And just for a laugh they had put on her calf Eight bars of the Moonlight Sonata One evening I found as I ambled around I was feeling an absolute Charlie 'Cos I couldn't be sure if the sketch on her jaw Was Picasso or Salvador Dali I loved all the ships on one side of her hips The view in Peru on the other. But I was struck dumb when I found on her tum A caricature of her mother Well this was much more than a man can endure, Though I made the most earnest endeavour. So I scuttled away, and I'm happy to say It was Ta ta tattoo for ever, Ta ta tattoo for ever, Ta ta tattoo (2 bar run) for ever

Which is the entire point. Yes, people will make judgments based on whether somebody is covered with tattoos, piercings, shaven head, etc. And if somebody judges another by their outward appearance, let's also examine the other side of the coin and ask quite what the tattooed, pierced, shaven-headed individual is trying to say to others too. Until one gets to know a person as an individual, it is outward appearances that make the first impression, what we wear, how we look. Pardon me if for example I make a judgment call on John Westwood that he is a total and utter pillock based on how he presents himself and that isn't just because he is a Skate. I'm sure that if we had our own version of him, my impressions would not alter.

You don't have to read the revue, but I'm sure that the remaining 99% of Saints supporters on here will look forward to it.

Amen to that. I feel exactly the same. There was the lengthy debate, our position or Pompey's. Our position or Coventry's is really no contest at all.

He probably reasons, quite correctly probably, that nobody cares either way, so as you say, what point is there in bothering? Does anybody seriously believe that he brought about our downfall for vindictive reasons? It happened through his incompetance, not his vindictiveness IMO. Most of us dyed in the wool fans have our own understanding of the past that we are comfortable with. Even if the main protagonists were to come out and give their explanations as to events, they would undoubtedly end up being contradictory and dismissable as their own opinions. Is there genuinely anybody out there who could believe that if they knew the precise details of the past decade, that our future would be any rosier than it is under Markus Liebherr and Nicola Cortese? Most accept that we had come within days of going out of existence as a club and therefore our survival itself would have been something. Ownership by such a wealthy individual is almost beyond our wildest dreams, so difficult to know what could be better.

You haven't acknowledged whether the path that Lowe took was the only one available to him or not. I accept that things were difficult and that therefore he was hampered, but whereas you accept that getting rid of Pearson was a mistake in hindsight, I thought that it was a mistake from the moment it happened and said so at the time along with others. As you also say, free transfers and loans were an option and Pardew has shown some considerable flair there, as I'm sure that Pearson would have. A more balanced team containing a blend of youth and experience would have been more effective and capable of producing the wins that would have kept us up with bigger attendances also assisting the finances. And here is the point at which I am in accord with Nineteen (shock/horror!) We both had agreed at the time that Lowe and Wilde were taking over again, that the best interests of the club would be served by the three main investor groups working together. That would not only benefit the club, but also protect the investment that the three groups had tied up in the club. But because of the arrogance and egotism of the three, that was never going to be something that they could achieve, so they all lost their money and good riddance too. The problem was that one or the other of them would want to be chairman to prove that they had the biggest ****, but the solution was that an independent chairman be appointed such as Salz. Happily, it never worked out anyway and it must be said that as a result we are much better off than we would have been had they managed to keep us afloat, so I'm delighted that they failed.

You might indeed know some of the inside background to how hard Lowe and Cowan tried to avoid the club going into administration, but ultimately the measures that they took with dismissing Pearson, recruiting the two Dutch jokers and playing the kids, virtually guaranteed the relegation and administration that you claim they tried to avoid. With the benefit of your inside information, can you state categorically that the path that they trod was the only one available to them, or would you accept that there were other alternatives which they chose to ignore because Lowe had his heart set on this outside of the box crazy experiment? Because, ultimately, that is the crux of the matter. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I will accept that Lowe and Wilde had inherited a difficult financial position, but having had an entire season to to try and remain afloat, he was the architect of our demise that season because of his strategy from day one. He shouldn't have appointed Poortvliet and then having done so, he should have sacked him by Christmas. By the time JP was sacked, it was already too late, not that I would have had faith in Wotte to have fared much better. As for you claiming that I might be becoming obsessed with Nineteen, I enjoy crossing swords with him. But in this particular thread, I have offered the option for posters to take the wind out of his sails by declaring that their opinions and memories of LM, Le Tiss are not diminished by his snide remarks. I note from your first line that your memories of them has not been diminished, so I'll take that as an AYE to my earlier post.

When the person/s attacked are icons of the club, revered by many, held in the highest regard for what they did for us, then surely it is only natural that hackles will rise as they are attacked by others. When that attack is not just on one such hero, but also extends to two others held in high regard (although debateable with Crouch) then one begins to suspect, not unreasonably, that there is some sort of agenda at work. The same main culprit also took this stance against Pearson last year when he was lauded by many and called him derogatory names. I'm almost wondering when he will start attacking Messrs Liebherr and Cortese. It becomes even more strange that these petty vendettas are perpetuated against club heroes when there is very little bile spouted by this individual against the pantomime villains like Lowe, Wilde and Askham. Therefore, at the very least, Nineteen can be accused of a lack of objectivity and of being a wind-up merchant at most.

The same right that you have to question his right to ask for anybody to be banned. Any member of a club or association can ask the club hierarchy to ban a member who is disruptive, surely?

I don't know Phil. Did they get fat bonuses and drive around in Porsches?

Right. Everybody's had their say on this. Let's put it to the vote and prove that Nineteen is p*ssing in the wind on a wind-up as usual. All those who believe that Lawrie McMenemy achieved legendary status at this club and who feel that events since have not tarnished their memories of him, say AYE. AYE.

Well, you go ahead deluding yourself that Pardew getting us back to the Premiership with the club under the stewardship of the fifth richest owner in British football ranks alongside the feat of LM when he was manager. I've already made my judgement and to compare the two, I'd want Pardew to get us up to 2nd in the Premiership and win us an FA Cup along the way, sign Rooney and stay here a decade in the process. The game's parameters might have altered, but the club did not have a really super wealthy owner before, so the scales have to be balanced from both ends, not just to suit your perpective.

So here is where you shoot yourself in your foot and are hoisted by your own petard. On the one hand you say how difficult it is to make judgments about the two eras and in the next breath you claim that all Pardew would have to do to overtake LM would be to get us back into the Premiership under the fifth richest club owner in British football currently.

You are entitled to your opinion and I know how much you get your jollies by being the only one who holds that opinion. In this particular case, I don't think that Pardew is going to replace LM as the greatest manager in the Club's history merely by getting us back to the Premiership. As usual, you're talking complete bunk, just to get a rise out of other posters. You might as well say that Pardew will overtake Shankly, Busby, Nicholson, Robson ,etc as by your contention, it was a more level playing field then, where money wan't the main motivator.

Ah! How heartwarming! Misguided still has me off ignore. Pining for the old regime, are we Misguided? People had their own reasons for staying away and those reasons should be respected in most cases as they are personal to them and there is no compulsion to attend. What flies in the face of reason is the fact that despite being in the third division, we have substantially increased attendances over last year's. That was also true at the beginning of the season when we were losing. Why should these attendances shrink if we have a poor run? What also confounds many who belittled the record of Nigel Pearson is that he is doing rather well at Leicester, whereas some thought that he was only capable of managing at this level. And what of the Dutch joker who is Jan Poortvliet? Struggling again in the lower Dutch divisions. So whether attendances fell because Lowe got rid of Pearson, or employed the useless double Dutch, or played a team overful of youngsters, or because people didn't have any empathy with Lowe's social background and his arrogant, egotistical personality is up to those individuals. What is not questionable is that we have one of the largest attendance figures for this division, something that I am certain would not have happened under the previous regime. The thread is right; we can again have pride in our team and our club.