Wes Tender

Labour pledged to honour the referendum decision, so leave voters felt safe in voting for them, believing that they were would honour that commitment. They now realise that they were duped and many will be voting for The Brexit Party to punish them. As far as I know, nowhere did they mention anything about a second/third referendum in that manifesto, but no doubt you will correct me if I'm mistaken. A clean Brexit on WTO terms is now the most popular outcome with the electorate, despite the Remoaner media claiming that it will be a disaster, so the swivels are now in a majority. Sit and weep

You forgot thick. You're slipping. And then you wonder why the Brexit voters are deserting the mainstream parties and joining the Brexit Party in their droves. Closer to 40% currently, and it's all thanks to the likes of you. Well done.

Ah, sorry, Whitey. You are obviously upset that I omitted you from the list of anti-democrats, so you felt the need to establish your credentials. You don't seem to know the difference between the obligations placed on Parliament by a referendum, as distinct from legislation during a Parliamentary term. If during a General Election a party put it in its manifesto that they would hold another referendum on the issue, making clear what the ballot questions would be, then fair enough. If the current Parliament, mostly elected on a manifesto pledge to honour the referendum decision decided to hold a rerun before that decision had even been implemented, then that is clearly anti-democratic.

You maintain that you thought that the Referendum vote should be respected and then in the next breath you want it rerun. You seem to be a bit confused. As I said, you are not a democrat. The whole balls up has happened because people like you, Shurlock, Jeff and Timmy and other remoaners on here have their equivalents in Parliament who cannot bring themselves to respect the wish of their constituents and deliver Brexit, so they have fought to delay it at every stage in the hope that pressure would grow to drop it, or think again. 80% of the electorate who voted in the 2017 GE, voted for parties who pledged to honour the referendum decision. Regarding your fantasy of a second/third vote, what would the question be? Remain cannot be on the ballot, as that had already been defeated, so I suggest leave on Mays "deal", or leave on WTO terms. Sounds fair enough, doesn't it? No doubt you not being a democrat, would like to have remain, May's deal or WTO, so that the leave vote is conveniently split by an establishment stitch-up. But there will be no rerun of the Referendum, as it has already been decided, promises having been made beforehand that the result would be respected, a simple majority being all that is required.

Of course it's anti-democratic to ignore the result of a referendum, especially when the result of it it hasn't even been enacted yet. You're all a load of hypocrites, because you certainly wouldn't have accepted any arguments that there should be a further referendum had your lot won. You, Jeff, Shurlock, Timmy, not a democrat among you. Suck it up as the pro-democracy party in these EU elections romps away with a big majority.

I'm a patient sort of guy. After all, I've waited for us to leave since Maastricht. We will eventually leave properly, May's imminent departure will be another step in that direction. For a bit of fun, let's have some indication of which way all you Remoaner anti-democrats voted today

I'm sad for you that your parents' offerings never lived up to your expectations.

Yes. Can't wait for tomorrow. I feel like a kid on Christmas Eve. I bet that you're looking forward to the EU Election result too, eh? Who will you be voting for? Change UK? The Greens? Lib Dumbs? Surely not Labour.

You're not going to be so naive as to believe that the Remoaner media would give Brexit supporting MPs a sympathetic write-up under any circumstances, surely? Let alone in defending our servicemen from prosecution for their actions during the troubles in Northern Ireland? The more unsympathetic they are to prominent Brexiteers, the more support the Leave vote receives, so carry on dissing them, please.

You always wondered? What, you always wondered for the past three months?

It's my money, and I'll spend it how I like. Judging by how the two main parties are crapping themselves with worry about how their candidates in the Euro elections will get a hammering on Thursday, I consider it money well spent for entertainment value alone. They're doing their best to discredit Farage, in exactly the same way that they ran project fear. The trouble is, only the gullible believe it, and that isn't the Leave voters. Sensibly, they ignore all that sort of rubbish, much of it having been discredited before and after the referendum. I must say, I enjoyed watching Sourbry on the Politics programme, claiming that the Change Party (or what they call themselves today) had 100,000 members. And even Hezza has abandoned the Tories for the Lib Dumbs. Will he lose the Party whip in the Lords? Or is it only Leavers like Widdecombe who risk that?

Suck it up, snowflake.

Me too. I gave them my support all my life and they let me down badly. I'm now one of the 100,000 plus who have paid their £25 to The Brexit Party. I'm a member of the Conservative Party until the end of June, so can vote in the leadership elections before then. If for some reason it is later than that, I will just have to renew so that I can vote for a pure Brexiteer successor, not one of those who voted Remain and then decided to change their mind.

Roll on Thursday and the almighty kicking that will be delivered to both of the main parties by The Brexit Party for refusing to deliver Brexit by the end of March. Roll on too the removal van outside Number 10 when the worst PM in British political history finally departs. It will take some considerable time for the Conservative Party to repair the damage that she has caused it.

What a shame that they went out at the first hurdle. I was hoping that they would get to the final and lose on penalties. At this moment, it is timely to scroll a few posts up and listen to their tattooed oaf superfan and his knuckle-dragging minions chanting about how they were going up and the scum were going down. It's comforting that in a fast changing and uncertain world, that the one thing that remains a constant, is the fact that Southampton maintains its dominance over them. Even more galling for them must be that they aren't even close to being the dominant club on the South Coast, as there are three other clubs in the top flight, whilst they languish in the third division for another year.

So it seems that Hassenhuttl took advantage of the opportunity to give a last chance for a few fringe players to impress him before the closed season, knowing that there was little left to play for now that we are safe. Well, there are several things that are now clear to him. Forster should even struggle to play for the reserves and gives the defence no confidence having him behind them. Equally, when we play just two CBs and one of them is Stephens, no goalkeeper in the division would feel any confidence. Thirdly, Elyounoussi just isn't good enough to play for us, and every time he does, one is reminded that he was supposed to be the replacement for Tadic, who is setting Ajax on fire. I have no doubt that had we played our usual formation with three at the back and our strongest team, it isn't improbable that we could have won against them. Starting with that team and formation, we were on a hiding to nothing and it is a surprise that West Ham were only one ahead at half time. In particular, Arnautovic managed to place himself between Stephens and Bednarek at will, neither seemingly knowing whose job it was to mark him. Maybe Hassenhuttl could persuade his fellow countryman to come here. He would pose more threat than Ings, especially when Ings will be out injured most of the next season. Although there might be the temptation to meddle with the team selection next week, I think that Ralph owes we long suffering fans a full-blooded display of attacking football against the bottom team. A performance like today's will not be acceptable.

You're the prat, arrogantly dismissing the reasonable opinions of over half the electorate because they don't happen to agree with you. At least Lowe is consistent, having stood as a candidate for the Referendum Party all those years ago, and like many of us, having the sense to wish to leave the EU after Maastricht.

It was one of our best performances of the season. For most of the match we were the dominant team and had several chances to have won the match, but again without the deadly finishing. The table doesn't lie and Watford have been a very good team this year, as have Wolves, who we beat recenty. It seemed to me that instead of Watford improving in the second half, their tactical switch to match up our back three didn't suit their players, and taking Cathcart off left them with less height to defend corners and set pieces. His mind wasn't right having conceded the early goal to Long and he looked nervous there after. I think that apart from obviously setting the team out to stifle Watford's play, Hasenhuttl also got the substitutions right too. It was a pity that Long went off with a knock, as he had made a nuisance of himself throughout. But he was probably tiring and Sims was a good substitute with his pace and fresh legs. Lemina for Romeu also made sense with Romeu's card and Armstrong with Valery was also sound. Good to see Valery back, as although he had done well, Ward-Prowse isn't really a full back. Valery on allowed Ward-Prowse to move up field and he played like a man possessed, one of his best games. The defence was solid and Gunn didn't have much to do, but made a couple of outstanding saves. There was a spell in the early part of the second half where we played some outstanding possession football, and Watford were chasing shadows trying to get to the ball. Redmond was a handful for their defence, but had a couple of chances where a quicker reaction could have produced a goal, either from an early shot, or a pass to a player alone in space. Disappointing to have conceded the equaliser in the last minute like that, but an incredible effort to have not only held our own for 90 minutes, but also to have the best chances to have put the game beyond Watford. Right at the end, their defender should have been red carded for a second yellow when he fouled Redmond, but Mike Dean bottled it having been about to blow the whistle for the foul. That might possibly have given us the advantage to score the winner, but hey ho, such is home advantage with weak referees. As I said in the match thread, no matter that Long is not the best striker, although all of a sudden he has a purple patch of form from out of the blue, he has written his name into Premier League history books with the fastest goal of all time. This is no more likely to be beaten any sooner than Mane's fastest hat trick in PL history. It is nice to have two entries by Saints players on that list of superlatives.

Corrected it for you

He might be a crap striker most times, but of late Long is really on a run of form. But no matter how he does from now on, his name is potentially in the Football history books for that fastest goal, which is going to be as hard to beat for speed as Mane's hat trick. I was worried about the speed that Watford almost equalised and it looked for a short while that they might carve us open with the speed of their attacks. But we settled into the match fast and have been playing some very neat football, creating more chances to score. Armstrong has been immense, Ward-Prowse better at RB than at Newcastle, with Bednarek backing him up. We have been very disciplined and kept possession well. Just an observation; when the ball came off Yoshida's arm in the box, had the ball gone in, the goal should have stood. It stood when Watford do it at St Mary's, so it should stick there too.

As nobody else wishes to comment on it, then yes, it appears that the ball had indeed gone well over the line, so should have been a goal kick. Everybody around me asked whether the lino was blind, as he was in line with it.

Ultimately it was the absence of two key defenders which turned the match in favour of Newcastle. J-WP is not a right back, he lacks the pace and Sims ahead of him made our right flank the weak spot which Newcastle exploited. Benitez is a clever old dog, but it didn't take a genius to work out where we were vulnerable. We also missed Vestergaard too and had they both played, it is not inconceivable that Newcastle's goals would have been better defended by us. The first half was Newcastle's, but the second half was certainly ours and we dominated them without having the ability to put the ball in the net more than the once. Hasenhuttl's substitutions were spot on at half time, both Armstrong and Lemina making an immediate impact, shoring up the midfield, taking the pressure away from the defence by winning the majority of the 50/50 balls and forcing Newcastle onto the back foot. Lemina's goal was very well taken, giving us hope that we could turn the match around, but although we had several chances to level things up, we had a succession of shots over, wide, or well saved by their keeper. I'm not sure why Vestergaard and Valery were out and hope that they will soon be back. But it will have become clear to Hasenhuttl that had we started the match with Armstrong and Lemina we were a team with some bite and with hindsight, Sims would be a better late substitute. I also wonder what he would think about midfield options that now include Lemina, as well as Armstrong, Romeu and Hojbjerg? It remains the defence and the striker where we are short not the midfield. Yoshida is long overdue for a goal. He has been a real presence up top at set pieces and has been unlucky not have scored at least one today.

As you say, Ings got an honourable mention from the pundits on MOTD for those parts he played and would probably have scored had Sims passed to him when clear through.

I'm not sure that washes. As I said, invariably Gunn's kick into the crowded area conceded possession. There is then the possibility that an opposition pacey player could run into all of that space onto a diagonal kick from their player who has won that ball, leaving our entire defence exposed. That is balanced by us leaving a player out wide inviting them to mark him, thus clearing up space for our players to be able to have more chance of receiving the ball from the goal kick. Or how about a training ground routine whereby the players bunch up in one half of the pitch lengthways, but on a pre-arranged signal, Gunn kicks the ball wide in the opposite direction into those acres of space for somebody like Bertrand or Redmond to run onto it high up the pitch?

When I heard the team selection, my main question mark concerned the midfield, where leaving out Romeu for Sims suggested that we might lack a bit of muscle there. However, Sims produced a superb cross from near the right hand corner for a tap in for Redmond, giving us a lead in 1 minute 40 seconds. But once the match settled down, it was indeed the midfield that looked weak, with Wolves winning most of the 50/50 balls and increasingly forcing us back to sitting deeper. They looked threatening on their corners and it looked only a matter of time before they equalised, which they then did. But that goal conceded seemed to galvanise our players, who lifted their game, bringing the reward of a quick second goal from Redmond to dumbfound Wolves. We weathered the continued storm against Wolves' domination of midfield and I was glad to hear the half time whistle having maintained our lead. I felt sure that Ralph would soon make the changes to strengthen the midfield, but as Wolves continued to dominate, I was surprised not to see any of our subs warming up. A series of misplaced passes from us and tackles lost, meant that we were unable to make much forward attacking progress, whilst Wolves looked to threaten at corner kicks, as they had for their first goal. Thankfully, Ralph eventually did make the substitutions that swung the match our way, taking off the largely ineffective Ings for Long and the effective but lightweight Sims for the solid and more muscular Romeu. Right away the midfield was winning the 50/50 balls and Long was his usual industrious self, putting himself about, tracking back and winning some free kicks, whilst offering the option of the ball over the top to chase, pressurising Wolves' defence. Just to make Hasenhuttl's substitutions look inspired, Long scored his second goal in consecutive matches, and his confidence must now be soaring. The whole dynamics of the match were now firmly in our favour, the stadium was rocking, and we didn't look like conceding our two goal advantage from then on until the final whistle. The third substitution, Valery for Stephens, was presumably because Valery had only a short while before sustained an injury. It was quite an achievement to beat a team like them, they are well managed, play attractive attacking football and have done very well indeed this season. But their style of playing suited us much better than a team coming here to park the bus and invite us to open them up. It has been clear for several weeks that we are also well managed, that we too play good attacking football and arguably, had Hasenhuttl been here from the start of the season with a pre-season to prepare the team, we might have occupied the place in the league that Wolves currently hold. Once again, it is worth pointing out that several players who were ignored or played badly under his last two predecessors, the Clown and Hughes, have been transformed into effective and valuable members of the team under him. It now looks that not only will we survive, barring an awful run of losses, but that potentially we could finish the season ahead of both Bournemouth and Brighton, to re-establish our South Coast eminence. OK, Bournemouth had a good result today against a Brighton in freefall, but we remain just 5 points behind them and play them here. We can now start looking optimistically towards a summer of Ralph's transfer market dealings and I look forward to finding out how the hell his 4-2-2-2 formation works. Just an aside; a couple of times again in this match, all of the players from both team were crowded into half of the pitch, top to bottom when Gunn was kicking upfield from a goal kick. Why isn't it a good idea to have one player out wide on the other side of the pitch in the acres of space that he would have? That would force one or two opposition defenders surely to come over to mark him. Instead, Gunn is forced to kick into this congested area, invariably ending in us losing possession. Does anybody have an explanation?