Wes Tender

This would be the overpaid but under-performing footballing fraternity you speak of?

Welcome back Frank. Fair comment, but what was your conclusion as to whether Lowe could be considered as one of the UKs worst Chairmen? You make the reasonable point that had he brought us success he might have been viewed differently, but ultimately he didn't bring us success, did he? In fact, he presided over our decline from the Premiership through two relegations and administration, that is the long and short of it. So why not just assess his performance based on that alone and not on his fan unfriendly personality, inability to attract investment, poor judgement, etc.

IMO, a differentiation can be made between our lowest point as a club and the lowest point from the perspective of football. I agree that the footballing standards continued to decline after the start of the season when we had lost players like McGoldrick, Surman and Dyer and had yet to see the new boys and the remaining players gel together and fully understand what Pardew wanted from them. There was also the consideration that there was undoubtedly a losing mentality especially as we had suffered relegation. On the other hand, from the perspective of the club, the lowest point was when we were in administration, looking as if we might actually go out of existence, or have to start in the Blue Square league. Our fortunes changed with the arrival of Markus Liebherr and although we are in the third division, it can be argued that our position is in many ways better than it has been for many years, as our future is secure financially, the fan base is rising once more, no debt at all, etc.

You might be right that a couple of goals came from mistakes by them, but on the other hand, there were very reasonable chances for us to have scored another 4 goals. Two were when Lambert hit the post and there were also two chances from Lallana and Schneiderlin that were easier to score from than miss.

I've been hard on Wotton, saying on more than one occasion that he is not up to playing even in the third division, but seemingly on his performances during the past two or three matches he is doing a decent job as sweeper in front of the back four, although I wonder whether that is a role that Perry could improve on with his better passing ability and vision. On the other hand, Wotton is beefier than Perry, so perhaps that is why he has been effective in that role. I agree that Hammond would make a very good captain, him or Murty for me.

I understand that you might be a golfer, St. Wills. Are you any good at it?

That's a coincidence. There used to be a poster called Flashman at the Charge on here. Nasty piece of work; deliberately antagonistic and snide and probably modelled himself on the eponymous Flashman. I wonder what became of him.

It is something that I noticed earlier that several of the team had those leadership qualities as former captains and you are quite right IMO as to why things are starting to turn around for us. I don't imagine that there is any problem caused by having so many former captains in the team, as I'm sure that they were chosen by their respective teams because they were mature enough as individuals to also recognise that whoever is chosen as captain by the manager, that decision is for the common good of the team. Perhaps Pardew has already discussed with the outfield players his thoughts on the need to have somebody there to argue the toss with the referee where it is not so easy for Kelvin to do that from the Goal. Amongst the main candidates are indeed Wotton (if the experiment continues to bring success playing him) and Hammond. Lallana is still a youngster learning, Papa has the language problems and is a loanee. But Lambert and Connolly (if he proves to be free of injury) could also be under consideration too.

Many of us share the same experience over many years and are equally reticent to believe it possible. But although unlikely, we can actually believe that it could happen, whereas we have not been able to even harbour those optimistic thoughts since probably the McMenemy days, have we? But I agree that as things are definitely showing signs that we are on the up and there are really no realistic grounds for division, it is becoming increasingly more dull on here as a result. That is why the "freds" that rake over the coals a little are attracting more interest.

If Labour were a bunch of clowns, then you could have a decent sn*gger (bloody hell, the word filter doesn't allow sn igger!) at them. Trouble is, they are not a bunch of clowns, but instead a load of incompetent oafs who couldn't run a whelk stall. The political equivalent of the sort of idiots who used to run this club. There wasn't much too laugh about with them either.

Will there be match fixing revelations to spice up the sales, or does your wise head preclude such underhand dealings?

I agree with most of what you say, apart from the bit I have highlighted. The problem is that there is inevitably an element who are too childish to accept that they might be wrong, or who cannot draw back from somebody else's baiting. Some can't take their arguments being taken apart by reasoned arguments and resort to petty name-calling, thus proving that they have lost the argument. Some have just got to gnaw on the bone ad-nauseum because it is their own private vendetta. I'm not above these failings myself occasionally. With time, the club having been tranformed for the better and an upward trend in our fortunes having developed, things will begin to settle down. But I for one, while relishing our improved fortunes, can see that as a result the forum is going to get more boring, in much the same way that a newspaper would be dull if they had to report only good news.

This would just be so funny if it wasn't tragic. Lowe treated the fans with disdain and contempt. He dished out the same treatment to his fellow board members too. There have been enough incidents over his decade to illustrate that perfectly, but if you didn't notice them, I'm not about to rake over old ground now that the tyrant is gone. You just believe what makes you happy.

Must be a slow news day if the Sun has to print that. As ASFC says, the Sun is a comic and is not to be taken too seriously, after all, look at how long it has taken them to make up their mind that Labour has to go at the next election.

I find myself very surprised to have to contest your first line here, Duncan. I don't disagree with you saying that his hands were tied financially, but your comment that he made "mistakes" on his return is surely a massive understatement. It would be far more pertinent to say that he c*cked things up royally. There was never any obligation to have appointed the double Dutch, or to have dismissed Pearson, or to have played just the youngsters. Had he kept Pearson (or appointed another manager with a track record of success at that level of the English game), the team would have been a balanced blend of youth and experience and the question of the ten point deduction and administration might never have arisen. You believe that it was probable that nobody could have ensured our survival with the overdraft as it was, but my understanding was that an attendance of 17,000 was required at home matches to break even. Now, it could be that there were already too many stay away fans who detested Lowe and the Quisling to have reached that figure, but on the other hand, had the momentum that Pearson had instilled been allowed to continue, I am pretty confident that his ability to spot decent experienced players who could have done a job for us at a price we could afford, would have gained us the wins that would have increased the attendances to the level required to keep us afloat. Of course, I'm sure that you are as happy as me and 99% of Saints fans that Lowe was so stupidly crass in his total idiocy, returning with the Quisling, dismissing Pearson and appointing the Dutch jokers and playing the kids, as ultimately the resultant administration ridded the club of them and all the other charlatans. Regrettably, the main downside was the 10 point deduction that could have been avoided and which is Lowe's legacy to us, Even then, I'd happily take that too if given the choice between those idiots remaining in charge of us in the Fizzy Pop, or having Markus Liebherr and Cortese in the third division.

Happy days are here again, we're 2 up and the Skates are 2 down. And by the sound of it, we ought to have had another couple. Confidence is high and Lambert hit the bar from inside the centre circle just in the Oldham half. What a goal that would have been! This squad playing this formation seem to get better match by match because they are growing to know how their team mates play and the level of passing and the innovation of the play is making it increasingly hard for teams to live with us. Naturally, as this is the Saints, there is still the niggling doubt that we might yet still throw it away, but there is also the growing feeling that we might have turned a corner at this level.

5 Could do better 10

I'm abiding by a sensible position of remember the heroes and forget the villains. Therefore I'm perfectly happy to defend Lawrie McMenemy's record against the one or two detractors, but very happy indeed that people like Lowe are gone forever. Indeed, it is fair to say that for some time Lawrie was the most loved man by very many Southampton locals, whereas Lowe can lay claim to being the most hated and despised.

I do believe that I am older than you and therefore as senility has not yet overtaken me, perfectly capable of remembering Harry Potts and Bobby Stokoe. Stokoe did manage to bring home the FA Cup to Sunderland when they were in the second division, a feat that McMenemy equalled. But apart from that, McMenemy's feats outweighed Stokoe's. Again, recalling Harry Pott's career at Burnley, they were a big name club at the time with a lot of history, but IMO although he was undoubtedly a very good manager, I still believe that when you factor in what was achieved in relation to where the individual clubs were at the time, McMenemy still manages his top 20 place. Other managers mentioned on other peoples' lists have the (various) against the clubs that they managed. When you delve deeper into their records, they are a mixed bag, where they did well at some clubs and not others. As a sweeping generality, if a manager is doing well at a club, they want to keep his services. Granted that if a manager does well at one club, he is head-hunted by another often bigger club, but then again often he doesn't do quite so well there. The classic example was Docherty who said that he had more clubs than Ballesteros(?) and his overall career results were like the proverbial curate's egg. As to whether his agent is using poetic licence to sell his standing in the game to encourage people to book him, does this come as any great surprise to you? Should his agent belittle the achievements of his commodity to please you? As the entire thread shows, it is something debateable, but not conclusively disproved. One thing is for certain though, his name is still well known in football circles and not just in the local area. The obvious thing to do if it bothers you that he does not buy his own matchday tickets, is ask him. It is not your prerogative to make assumptions as to why he might not attend matches nowadays and there could be many perfectly good reasons.

This is exactly the point. You've come up with a decent list of 10 and Nineteen has come up with a list of 20 who in his opinion would push Lawrie out of the top 20, but many would dispute half the names on his list as not being superior managers. Sensibly, it also has to be taken into consideration the circumstances of the club, size of fan base, wealth of owners, etc. I notice you have the Doc on your list, who did well at Chelsea, but got Man Ure relegated the same season as us. Indeed, if I recall correctly from being at the match, if either of us won, we might have escaped, but we drew, I think and both went down.

Thanks, Nick, as you strengthen my argument, because as you rightly say, as well as attracting the best players, those clubs attract the best managers who are more likely to succeed because of the money available to them. On that list, there are a few exceptional managers who stand out because they made those teams what they became. Matt Busby does not qualify in Nineteen's remit, as he had already finished as manager of Man Utd before 1970, except for a half season stint in 70/71 season, but he made Man Utd what they became more than any other single individual manager. The same can be said of Bill Shankly at Liverpool. Granted that Paisley and Dalglish also did well for them, but the foundations had been laid by Shankly. Brian Clough is another for his feats at Nottingham Forest and Derby, when neither club was up at the top when he arrived. The other stand out manager in the past 30/40 years for the same reason, is Bobby Robson.

I must confess that Dario Gradi's name also crossed my mind. I wonder whether many on that list would have fared any better than him with the resources he had at his disposal. And Benitez certainly doesn't deserve to be included twice on that list, does he?

After Paisley, you begin to get a bit thin and don't think that I didn't notice that you have included Benitez twice. I didn't say that you busied yourself with my responses, I stated that you busied yourself with trying to bad-mouth Southampton heroes, in particular Le Tiss and McMenemy. Sadly, you have not given reasons as to why you consider those managers to be better than McMenemy, so your response lacks the substance that you accuse others of avoiding. Of course, what becomes crystal clear from viewing the list is that most of those managers managed the top three or four teams of their day. Take out any that managed ManUre, The Arse, Chelski, Liverpool and your list looks a lot thinner. I'm not saying that those people who managed those clubs were poor managers, but they weren't exactly strapped by a tight budget were they? Also, it was naturally far more difficult to attract players to a club like this than any of those four. But I doubt that you'll be able to think about that objectively, as it would mean giving McMenemy some credit and you couldn't do that, could you? The red font especially for you, as I know how much you like it.

Well, compiling his list of 20 alternatives, with reasons, should keep him quiet for an hour or so.

That was also one of Niemi's strengths too. And Southall was hard to beat one on one too.