John Smith

Being an idiot doesn't help your argument. Think about it for just one second and maybe the sun will shine out of your a*se and you'll get a moment of clarity. My daughter is 3 very soon, and my nephew has just turned 2. Now, I'm sure at 3 years old, you were able to go to games on your own, but I won't let my daughter go on her own just yet. Hence, she needs me to take her. I'm not going but at 3 years old, she's hardly in a position to be choosing her own football team yet, and I don't even know if she will be watching football. So, it's all hypothetical (it's in the dictionary under 'h'). But, if you father doesn't 'persuade' or 'influence' your choice of football teams and doesn't take you to games from an early age, you're probably more likely to support Man U or Arsenal than Saints. It isn't about me 'putting her off' supporting Saints, those are your words and your exaggerated interpretation of my view, it's about not influencing her against supporting Arsenal or Man U and choosing Saints instead, how can I, I won't go myself, so that would be a tad hypocritical (again, under 'h'). So, please, get a grip yourself and stop being such a ridiculous idiot. I have my point of view, I stated it, if you have a point of view, why don't you state it, or maybe it'll make you look more stupid than you already do, unlikely, but it is possible!

I live my life.

Well, after reading this thread, the Nick I rallying call and the soap box fiasco that was Steve Grants attempt at understanding the situation, I almost felt compelled to write my reasons for not going, once again, because many, as represented by these 3 outlined examples, do not listen! I gave my reasons for not going anymore when Lowe returned. I repeated myself several times over the summer and into the new season and still, many people do not listen to what has been said. Instead, they resort to sweeping rationalisations and finger pointing in order to what? Persuade me to go against my principals? Persuade me that Lowe is really a nice man if I actually spoke to him? Get a refund on my holiday or my the other articles that I have bought my wife? Maybe return the new clothes I bought my little girl, her toys? Or maybe I should no longer spend Saturday with my little girl having a 'Daddy day' that she never used to get? What these people do not understand is that I now do different things. When I'm not going to watch Saints, I don't sit here, online or watching the vidi-printer, I go out, I'm doing stuff. Replacing Saints isn't about sitting in a darkened room until 4:45 passes and then I rejoin social life. I have made a lifestyle change. Football is no longer a central point in my life, for the first time since I could walk and talk. That is massive, that is huge, that is change that will effect my life forever. And although Steve Grant touched upon it in his own naive, self indulgent manner, that I won't be coming back and Nick I and others on here think that it's just a case of going 'oh, ok, I'll come back because you asked so nicely', it's not going to happen. And like I said, that doesn't just mean I won't be watching Saints anymore, neither will my father, neither will my daughter, neither will my nephew, nor will their friends, who I would also take to make it fun, and then nor will my childrens children, and my childrens children friends, etc etc. And this is sad. Some will try and turn this around and say that this means that Lowe wins and that he can ruin this club and the sport he hates. Well, for me, he already has. Whilst talking about Lowe, just want to clear up that pro-Lowe myth: I DO NOT THINK MY MONEY 'LINES' LOWES POCKETS!!!! How many more times do I have to repeat myself? And whilst I'm talking about repeating myself, I'm going to stop now because repeating myself for the umpteenth time is not why I'm posting. I'm posting because some of those mentioned at the start of this post, just don't get it. As many of you know, I am happy for those that go, to still go. I have no problem with people supporting Lowe, that's their prerogative. And yet pigs will fly before many on here give me that same respect. FWIW, if a product is ailing and needs an injection of cash, a sale is a good thing. It brings back customers that have forgotten why they regularly paid for said product and therefore, with the hope that they will become loyal again at the original price. Reducing prices at SMS will therefore be meaningless because more people will come for that one game, but, unlike sale items that are trying to recapture customer loyalty, our product is not up to scratch. And the truth is, if we have 'one of those days' and play poorly and lose, those extra bums on cheap seats will NEVER return. IMO, Lowe ruined this club and I will NEVER give him my mandate to rule through my money. Passive acceptance or positive reinforcement of that mandate is the only thing that keeps Lowe in charge.

I think Wilde has missed the point, in that, the credit crunch is effecting 'everybody' not just business', but also the man on the street, even the streets of Southampton. And so, whilst the club have been tightening their belt, the man on the street has been tightening his. Therefore, wouldn't it be prudent to lower prices that will allow the average punter to go to games? (yes, I know I wouldn't go anyway, but I'm sure that many more would for £15 or the equivalent offer)

But Nickh, this argument falls down when the person who won't sell because of lack of promised investment, won't raise that investment himself! All well and good claiming that the shares are worth, what was it, 34 pence per share, but where are they at now? And let's face it, anybody who buys this club now is buying a shell. No real assets left, no more trimming to be done, a stadium with a bare minimum squad with a inexperienced manager. Any body that comes in inherits debt! No more, no less. Customer loyalty has been stretched as far as it possibly can be. The bank are apparently making the financial decisions, so the question still remains, what are we paying Lowe to do? I can't make it out. If we are in all but administration, Lowe does not have the luxury to pick and chose his suitors, and that's from a business perspective. IF he really did want to sell, he could get the best price and leave, he's not wanted by the fans (a large portion anyway), he's not needed by the bank (even Wilde could do what they tell him to), his ideas for cost cutting came from Crouch (as per, closing the corners, removing free bus tickets, etc), the selling of players was a given, so why is he still here? Something tells me there is more to this picture than meets the eye as it doesn't make good business sense to keep driving the valuation of this club downward if you are looking to sell?????????? Jacksons farm? Personal Vendetta? First signs of a man losing his marbles?

My message for Rupert would be: If you are only doing what the Bank tells you to do (as many on here state almost as fact), why don't you step aside? And for those of you that say that he is the 'only' option, I'm sure any one of us could do what the bank tell us to do. Rupert wanted Crouch to step aside so that he could 'save Saints'. He was the 'best' option for our survival. Well, I'm still waiting and watching for this Saviour to return us to somoe form of firm footing. The bank control the purse strings, Rupert controls the Player selection, JP controls the tactics employed on match day. Don't think we need to 'pay' someone in Ruperts position to sign cheques, Crouch can do that and he has done it for free. STEP ASIDE RUPERT LOWE, STOP TEARING OUR CLUB APART!

LWS, being that you go to every game, you shouldn't care what others do or don't do. Everyone has their own take on life and structure those lives in accordance. Some, like yourself, see no other way forward than to, in my opinion, doggedly continue to pay your money to people who have openly stated that you are a 'customer' and then when we got the larger stadium and larger crowds, more gate money and more Sky money, p**sed it up the wall and then arrogantly believe they can continue to treat it's supporters as customers. You may see it as loyalty LWS, others see it as bending over and being taken by Lowe and Wilde in turn (metaphorically speaking). I'm sorry, but I've been mugged off by these two 'laughable' characters before, I'm certainly not going back for seconds. Just remember, every time a loyal fan stumps up another 20 odd quid, Lowe and Wide are laughing 'at you'! They know that it's people like you that will pay through the nose no matter what they dish up. I understand where you are coming from, but please don't take the higher ground with people that just won;t take the sh*t anymore that these two clowns deliver. Out of interest LWS, let's say Lowe and Wilde get us back into the Premiership, the crowds return and we're looking strong, do you think we'll still sell our best players? Do you think we'll pay for a highly skilled individual, such as MLT, to ply their trade here? Or do you think we'll end up buying a squad full of journeymen and unknowns? And do you think the board will deserve those dividends and pay cheques? Me, I won't contribute a single penny whilst those to govern the coffers, don't trust them, never will, won't be back whilst they are there, and doubt if I'll ever be back because of this sorry season! And the saddest thing is, I doubt my kids will support Saints either, and I'm guessing therefore, neither will their kids and so on. Sad but true.

And yet 'another' political thread! How many more must there be, this board is getting very very dull! So, you can't just say, Great performance, you 'have' to make it political and get something in to poke it at other Saints fans! Then, maybe, you also can hide behind a group, rather than expose your own thoughts and opinions about 'the game' because, I thought that was what the thread was about. But no, it's just 'another' thread that wants to start an argument. So, just like the thread about the moaners and the thread about the seating, your threads 'only' point isn't to rejoice in a great Saints win, but use that win in a politically biased manner. That is disrespectful to the lads that played so well last night. Because you have taken that great performance and turned it into a political tool. Shame on you!

So, you have a thought, decide to post it, and because of your obvious fear of rejection from your peers, you pin this paragraph on the end so that you can rally support from at least some of this board! Why do it? If you have a thought, then post it, don't put the political spin on it when there is absolutely no need. I'm guessing that in your reply, you;ll find a way of raising it yet again, so, to save you time, I won't be posting on this 'Political' thread again, your spin is far too obvious for me.

I find it very sad when some people on here are only happy when Saints win because it means they can start a thread on the SWF and gloat at other Saints fans! Instead of talking about the game and praising the players and talking about your experiences, you choose to take this great win and turn it into a political stick to hit people with. You are no Saint fan my friend, you are not even worth responding to, in fact, don't know why I bothered wasting my breath in the first place on this vile, putrid foam that you call a thread!

Read a bit of this thread and some of the others that claim we are only satisfied when we lose, or us stay aways are anyway. And I get quite knarked at the sweeping generalisations that some posters, either side of the Lowe line, make. First, if you support Lowes decisions, doesn't make you a Lowe luvvie. If you don't support Lowes decisions, doesn't make you a Saints hater. If you chose not to go, doesn't make you softcore, as still going doesn't make you hardcore. Being a Saints fan and admitting it to people you meet is a difficult pill to swallow at the moment. Just to clarify my position as of Saturday, I stated before the game that we 'should' expect to beat teams such as Doncaster. I also suggested that due to lack of confidence and general bad luck, we would probably come away with a draw, and to me, this would've been ok. As it turned out, we got that bit of luck, and rather the opposition getting a penalty and an own goal, SAINTS did! I couldn't believe it, at last, a bit of fortune going our way! I don't care if it was a scrappy performance or if Donny should have won, fact is, we kept a clean sheet and won the game!!! FANTASTIC, made my day! So, why should I feel bad for not coming on here and moaning? I didn't go to the game and I haven't seen the highlights (yet), and so it is difficult to comment on anything, other than what has been printed on the OS, and that to me says we got a bit lucky. Hooray! I say, I'll take luck any day! Because, with that luck comes confidence, and maybe with confidence comes a climb up the table. This would please me no end. However, I still refuse to give Lowe a mandate to run this club by donating to the party funds. I support the Saints, or some may say, I follow the Saints, this does not translate to, I'm glad if we lose, it actually equals, I am disappointed if we lose. My decision to not support a Lowe mandate does not affect my feelings when it comes to the team I support, or follow in some eyes, when we win, lose or draw. My apathy toward the Business grows day by day, the possibility of me returning on a regular basis to SMS grows less likely each day passes. For this decision, I do not seek to sway the opinions of those that support Lowe or vindicate those that don't, it is a statement of fact and a position I have adopted due to my own decisions, which I have stated before. But for those of you that now wish to grade my status as a Saints fan, tell me I am no fan or tarnish me with a brush of whatever, just to let you know, your words still do not bother me. I know you are hurting as much as me, and it is only natural to lash out at others to satisfy that frustration. Doesn't make me less of a Saints fan, just because you think I am softcore. I take NO pleasure in Saints losing, this Saturday was partial relief that we won, it gives me a glimmer of hope that we are better than two teams in this league, and hopefully, we will be better than more than 3 teams come May. Nickh, I know you probably didn't aim this thread at ALL those that choose not to go, but to some on here, they love nothing more than the ammo to throw at stay awayers, because their own frustrations cannot be released in the stupor of victory too often. And so, I post this in acknowledgment of your thread and equally in the curiosity that will I get more abused now because we won? Because, on the flip side of your coin, I get less attacked when we lose. And, just to add, because this was an away game, I still wouldn't have seen us win this season.

I'm sorry, but if we lose today, we have set an all known low for Saints. The way we have been playing of late, losing today will crush the little confidence we have at present. We need a win today. It is a game we should win, a game we should pull out all the stops to get those 3 points. If we do, maybe we can put a stop to the rot setting in. So for me, if we lose today, much of the same. If we win, maybe a change of fortunes. Maybe the ball will bounce kindly for us. Maybe we can win two on the bounce, then we will really be on our way! Today, we should win, but the dire feelings round here mean many expect to lose. If we lose today, I will be surprised. Honestly, a draw will be fine. I predict 2 - 2.

When I started reading this thread, I agreed with one of the early posters. That if loaning Dyer out meant we were able to play Skacel, I would say this was a good bit of business. If we could have added a recognised full-back in on the deal, and still played Skacel, even better still. But now, I'm not so certain that this will be the case and we will have another striker that doesn't receive the ball in the box because we're so happy playing outside of the box. Just to re-itereate what I've said before though, McG would be a good striker for us, if he played the strikers role and stop coming so deep. He has decent presence and decent ability and control and shooting from 8 yards out and scoring is far easier than running 20 yards with the ball and then firing a shot from 25 yards out. McG, get in the bl**dy box!

I think you'll find that Lowe is 'acting' right now and he has been since he came back. At least he had some on here fooled into thinking he gave one iota of smidging of a concern about Saints. It has all been one big ACT. The main reason he's been kept out of the media is so he doesn't cloud the illusion that he cares. And for those of you that believe that he was never in it because he cares and wanted to save Saints for his own sake and thus Saints would be saved, what now? He failed, Saints have no assets left to sell, we are 'scr*wed'. IF Leon Crouch had stayed on instead of Rupert, where would we be, any worse off? Leon was going to shut the corners, Leon was going to scrap the bus tickets, most of Leons money saving ideas have been implemented by Rupert. Yes we would've sold players. But at the end of the day, we wouldn't have to pay 'him' for the pleasure of scr*wing us, at least he did it for free and his love of the club. Rupert loves nobody apart from the Queen, and only when she's on that paper stuff they call money and only when it's in 'his' pocket. Rupert Lowe was in it for the money, there's no money left, time to pack your things and go... Rupert Lowe is a failure (again)!

I take no joy in watching (from my armchair) the sad demise in this club. I am not here to say I told you so, but I would like to point out one thing; Me renewing my ST for this season would have made ABSOLUTELY no difference to the performance on the pitch. I doubt very much whether an extra 18,000 fans would've made that much difference either. Lowe has nailed the coffin firmly shut, for those of you that have a faith, start praying now. For those of you without faith, I hope you believe in fairy tales and happy endings. Administration must now be a stones throw away. Should we take the 10 points deduction now, or when we get relegated and start League 1 on minus 10?

If this is Ruperts idea of 'saving' the club, I'd hate to see what he'd do to destroy us! Is this just the sweet taste of revenge? Or just another helping of incompetence by a man that plays Saints fans like a fiddler plays his fiddle?

When an incapable General takes you into battle, you need to trust him. When he says the extra income will provide us with better kit and more experienced soldiers, we believe him. When the war begins and there is no extra kit a few overpaid mercenaries and the General sits and dithers, gets in more and more Captains to lead his team and we are led to the slaughter, our trust has gone. A new General comes in, we back him, we want better, this time the experience and kit turns up and instead of being slaughtered, we almost win. But, the damage to our reserves have been done. So, then when you combine the over zealous one with the lying cheating one, how do you expect the troops to follow? Following Lowe now is throwing good money after bad. They are not here to save Saints, they are here to save themselves. And just how much is Lowe being paid to save his own money? I followed before and that made me stupid, to follow again would make me an imbecile! Lowe wanted the chance to save his money, don't think for one moment that that includes saving Saints. If we're as close to relegation as Lowe says we are, then he couldn't save us, like he said he could. He therefore, has lied again, quelle surprise!

My last post of the day, but I thought your kind response deserved a reply. I also brought you the Saints Society whereby all members make a 'gift' in their will, and on doing so, could be invited to games in a 'box' or some form of annual benefit from doing so. The type of annual reward from the club could easily be managed on a 'threshold' basis. Proof of the bequeath in your will would need to be provided, but this type of donation could easily support Saints into the future. E.g. gift the club a one year ST amount, or for every game you've been to, donate the same again, or just a percentage of your estate. Fans really could then be judged on another level and also be 'thanked' whilst they are still here (annual gift).

I LOL'd at this thread and all the chest beating going on. There is one simple act that will solve the problems AND it will appease those that still go and those that don't - Raise the Ticket Price to £100 per game and then all those loyal fans can still attend AND the club will not be financially crippled. In return, for every ticket bought, those fans should earn 1 share. This way, they are also buying a piece of the club and can have a say. Problem solved.

To pick up on this little part of your 'quote' nickh, as nobody seems to so far, I thought I'd add something. It is this type of viewpoint that irritates me somewhat, and to be fair, I can't quite decide who you are attributing this 'quote' (quote is in brackets as I'm not saying you are relaying verbatim) to. But when people suggest that only money is important when it comes to your opinion is the only measure, is ignoring the human side of the matter, particularly when it comes down to a recreational activity, such as a sport. First off, just to clarify, I accept that investing large amounts of money into a 'business' gives you the 'right' to 'make' those decisions when they need to be made. However, my problem comes when people infer that their opinion is the only opinion worth considering. Just ask the Newcastle chairman how his own opinion has jeopardised his position and his 'love' for the club. Because what people in position such as LC, Wilde and Lowe have and are currently in (moreso Lowe, as he has less personal investment and had a higher degree of responsibility), fail to recognise is that when it comes to investment, money is one measure, a measure that helps create a structure, the other measure is time. The measure of time, largely puts us all on an even keel. No mans time is more important than another mans time (or woman or child). The more time you put into something, the more 'involved' you are. Your opinion is important as experience cannot be bought. The trouble comes with extrapolating day to day business decisions from a mass of experience, and so, by default, money outweighs time as it is a measure of investment which is quantifiable. But, quite often, other 'investments', such as time' are overlooked and devalued. We all have a limited amount of 'time' on this mortal coil, and if we choose to invest that time in supporting a football club, as many of you know, it is a major investment of time and a lot of sacrifices are made. If any of us had the available income that Wilde, Crouch or Lowe have, would we also 'invest' that money into SFC, as these three have done? I think the majority would answer yes. Just because we don't have that available money, doesn't mean we are less committed to SFC than someone who does have the money to invest. I know it is a little off track, but this si a flaw in many people I know that have money. Often they substitute life worth with material worth and therefore, measure you based on your wealth rather than your contribution. This is where 'money talks', however, for those of us that don't have money, we know that power resides with the masses and whereas money talks to the rich, people talk to each other. When people that own 'clubs' start to ignore the masses and their impact on the 'club', they will learn a very valuable lesson. The Newcastle Chairman is currently learning that lesson, my question is, has Lowe? I will only know this answer when Saints recover and have money to invest, only then will I know if Lowe has learned what this 'club' means to us! Not meaning to turn this into an anti-Lowe thread, the original 'quote' was made by Crouch or Wilde or an associate, but those words are the attitude I associate with the SLH board from when Lowe took charge the first time, and todays board (and all those in between).

There doesn't seem to be a lot to add to this thread which hasn't already been said, but I'll give it a go. Last season, under GB, people were calling for his head and others were wanting to give him time, after all, play-offs the year before. There were certainly hints of pass and move and some good set plays, but then it became all too clear too quickly that the tinker man liked tinkering but nobody knew why. Players were played so far out of position some had to learn a new language. Was this down to GB or was it down to lack of investment, we all saw the problem of the CB's last season, and yet we stock piled the midfield. This season, I can see good work coming from the team. On SUnday they showed just how much they had learnt and just how well JP has coached them, they are a credit to his coaching. Seriously, some of the passing and movement was awesome, top class. This year however, like I have said on more than two occasions, this seasons position lies with McGoldrick. Not because I have any special knowledge of the situation, but because it seemed like they had pinpointed him, early doors, as our main striker. This being the case and with him being quite often, the loan striker, we will struggle. McGoldrick is loving coming deep and getting involved in the moves and the passing. His youth pushes him toward the ball, but as I have said before, he needs to run the channels, be more direct and poach. Until we have McGoldrick playing like a Striker, rather than a link man, we will struggle. Nothing against the lad, but he needs to push up, even if that means not seeing the ball for long spells. It's pointless moaning about the defence if we can't score, and all the time we are conceding, we are ignoring the fact that Stern John is not in the team and that apart from Stern Jon and McGoldrick, we have no strikers, do we? So, whereas I can see where JP has improved the team, I get this feeling we need TWO strikers this season, because playing with just McGoldrick will not win us enough games. And that is what we must correct asap.

Probably because they didn't turn up for the previous one. Definitely was West Ham away, I remember it vividly because Rod scored after 32 seconds, Paul Rideout got the second, saints won 2-1. And, as we were kept in after the final whistle, we heard rumours and stories coming down from Hillsborough and as we walked back to the Tube, we would stop and look at the TV's in the window to find out what it was all about. First of all we thought it was a riot that had taken place. But that's not to subtract that it was then re-arranged the following season as you have suggested and not taken away the event s that occurred, just saying it was 'arranged' for this day and we turned up in our thousands, they turned up in their tens.

The only time I recall a possible arranged meeting with the 657, was when we were away at West Ham in 88 or 89 and Pompey were away to another London club. They arranged to meet up at Waterloo and were apparently not going to let us board the train without a fight. Saints had taken nearly 3,000 to Upton Park and turned up at Waterloo en mass. At the gate were about 25 Pompey fans, standing around. Up from the tube marched upward of about 500 Saints fans, the 25 Pompey fans moved out of the way and not one punch was thrown. I considered it a lucky escape obviously!

Probably just one of the current shareholders increasing their current stockholding. IMO, possibly Lowe or Wilde. If someone from the Lowe camp, maybe they had some spare cash and at the current price, with no takeover speculation, now would be a good time to 'invest' that money. Those that currently hold shares maybe wishing for a take over and if it comes, the value could be higher than todays prices. Or maybe one of the shareholders wishes to increase their voting rights by just a little bit, Corbett, Lawrie Mac? Doubt if it is a take over.

I find it strangely odd that England's success or failure, largely mirrors Saints. When we are doing well, so are England, when we are doing badly, so are England. And I think this is represented on here that people (some) prefer to get behind Saints after last years lack luster performances than get behind England after theirs. There appears to be many parallels and people seem happier to deny or turn their back on their Nationality rather than their local team. As a footballer, many of those 'men' that wear the shirt, were boys once, running round a field with their mates, all fighting over who was going to be Gazza or who was going to be Waddle or Hoddle, Lineaker was always the goal hanger and so on. Those boys also had dreams of playing for their country and wearing the 3 Lions. But, what happened? Sure, you can blame money, lack of desire, lack of ability, but really, are these substantial 'excuses' to under perform again and again? Surely, they have enough money to make International appearances nothing more than a little bonus, they want to be in the England team as a matter of pride, just look at the reactions of Owen being left out and those of Bullard being included. These are not the reactions of 'men' that don't care, they are the reactions of red-blooded Englishmen, wanting to play at the pinnacle of football. Ability, we know they have the ability, we know they can play well, so where do those that hate England so much, get their venom from? From the constant poor results, year in, year out! Wembly has been rebuilt to house the most historically famous football team in the World. Let's not forget, we gifted this great game to the planet. England even refused to enter the 1st and 2nd (I think) World Cups because we were far too good to compete with everybody else, no need to prove it! Then, when we did 'join in' we were soundly beaten and these 'boys' from Brazil (who Saints gave football to) and the rest of the South American Nations, were playing football, our game, like an art form, a display of skill and panache that we could only dream of. To top it off, the Eastern Europeans, who were, let's face it, seen as the backward lot of Europe, 'kicked our butts' at Wembly, our home! And to lay that final boot in, ze Germans became one of the Greatest footballing nations in the World, winning more and more World cups, and yet, it was us who beat 'them' in the war! So where does this leave us, it leaves us exactly where we were over 60 years ago, believing that we are better than we actually are. Believing that in order to beat the rest, all we have to do is reproduce that English league mentality and desire and we will wipe the floor with anyone, right!? Wrong! What we see as great entertaining fast flowing football is the fastest and easiest way to lose the ball and not see it again for 20 mins. Chasing our ars*s round a field for that time, getting tired and exhausted, so that when we do actually get the ball, we're too exhausted to make a 5 yard pass! Over all these years, teams have learnt to treat the ball like the most cherished possession in the World. They play with pride because they believe that the ball is 'theirs'! Their country owns the ball, and it's more like a game of chess or a strategic war in order to maneuver your players around the enemy, with that prized possession and the ecstasy of release when you stick it in the opponents net! They don't like it up 'em, they really don't. In order for England to compete at International level, we have to learn to treat the ball with respect, wear the shirt with pride and not treat our opponents with so much contempt. I pray that Coppello can give us this, if he can't, nobody can. But, if we do learn to play the International way under Coppello, then future England (english) managers can add a flavour of England to our style. Notice how even Andorra will pass the ball around today, even the worst footballing nations in the World know they have to keep the football at this level! And defend with honour and in formation and to the death to prevent the other team from scoring. Currently, I am in Istanbul, and if anyone was to write what some of you guys have written against the 'National' anything, well, I think you'll be exposed, hounded out and beaten to an inch of your life. However, 10 or 15 years ago, it was a different matter, Turkey were often roasted by other National teams and their supporters weren't quite as vocal as they are now. But, they never questioned the players desire, just understood their wanting ability and their lack of experience. And isn't this where the England team (other than in 1966) have always been? We believe we are the best, we believe we have the ability and yet we blame it on desire that we don't win? RUBBISH I say, we don't win enough, because we're not good enough and we NEVER will be whilst we as fans and the media demand results BECAUSE we are England. We have never learned how to play 'International' football but our expectations are that we should win every game! And when we don't win, we don't blame our ability (cause we could always have selected someone better and therefore blame the manager and the players), or our experience (because we invented football and we won the World Cup once and therefore blame the manager and the players) we balme the manager and the players because they're over paid over hyped desireless, passionless fools who never wanted to play for England as boys, it's just the money. Well maybe, just maybe, the problem is in OUR attitude and what OUR expectations are, and until we stop expecting to be the best whilst questioning those players who pull on that shirt in their 'desire', we will always be International footballing Wannabe's. Until we find our level, can we improve. Isn't that what Saints are doing now? Are we critical of our players (booing against Blackpool, or after last seasons poor poor display), of course we are. But we can never 'deny' the Saints, because all around us would mock and slate us, and anyway, our pride would never allow us to walk away. BUT because it's England, it's easy to say this stuff and bad mouth other 'men' that are clearly very good players, because it satisfies our blindness that open eyes would see, ENGLAND'S STYLE OF PLAY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH ON AN INTERNATIONAL STAGE!