Jump to content
lumuah

Telegraph: Saints players are complacent, arrogant and disinterested.

Recommended Posts

Not even going to read it

The telegraph...so bound to be the "club" defending it's corner so to speak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even going to read it

The telegraph...so bound to be the "club" defending it's corner so to speak

 

There is a clue in the op. It is not defending the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even going to read it

The telegraph...so bound to be the "club" defending it's corner so to speak

 

Don't think Luke Edwards (the journo in question) is on the payroll, unlike Sam Wallace and Jeremy Wilson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a clue in the op. It is not defending the club.

 

Where did I say the article is defending the club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT has been so obvious for weeks. IMO the day I accepted we were finished was when we lost to Palace at home, the body language after the game said to me we were finished.

 

The behaviours since then have been astounding with players coming out saying "we are too good to go down." When clearly we are rubbish. 5 wins all season and you are not worried? 5 wins all season and you think you have earned a pay cheque?

 

TBH there are only a handful of players I even like at our club now. Most of them, I could not give a **** if they were sold, they appear to have no affinity with the club or the fans. They have no self respect even to put in a shift on the pitch.

 

Absolutely, collectively, the worst group of people ever to grace Southampton shirts IMO. (Led badly, granted, and not bad players but the telegraph have it right..I honestly believe they could not care less if we go down.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even going to read it

The telegraph...so bound to be the "club" defending it's corner so to speak

 

Pulled no punches whatsoever. Damning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article also summed up the ex-manager and I wish the ex-Vice Chair as well. Get Silva in, double training sessions, running, running, more running. They might not like him for it and be puking their guts around Staplewood but to be vaguely fit professional athletes will do them good.

 

Would like to see some reality from the club and new manager for the remaining games as for me, even at Wigan, we are big underdogs. Let's fight like underdogs do and cause a few upsets. The only players for me this season who have played at PL standard are McCarthy, Austin and Lemina. Would question if the rest have the quality or bottle to be top flight players any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not even going to read it

The telegraph...so bound to be the "club" defending it's corner so to speak

 

Maybe you should read it then its pretty spot on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This article also summed up the ex-manager and I wish the ex-Vice Chair as well. Get Silva in, double training sessions, running, running, more running. They might not like him for it and be puking their guts around Staplewood but to be vaguely fit professional athletes will do them good.

 

Would like to see some reality from the club and new manager for the remaining games as for me, even at Wigan, we are big underdogs. Let's fight like underdogs do and cause a few upsets. The only players for me this season who have played at PL standard are McCarthy, Austin and Lemina. Would question if the rest have the quality or bottle to be top flight players any longer.

 

I'd make a case for a few but generally take the point. Think Stephens has done okay all things considered and has at least shown some bottle - even if he would benefit from being part of a more assured backline.

 

Sims has shown enough in cameos to make me think he could give something too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did I say the article is defending the club?

 

Go back and read what you wrote. You said you would not read it because as it was in the Telegraph "so bound to be the 'club' defending its corner."

It isnt at all. But even if it was, perhaps reading something that challenges your built in prejudices occasionally wouldn't hurt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back and read what you wrote. You said you would not read it because as it was in the Telegraph "so bound to be the 'club' defending its corner."

It isnt at all. But even if it was, perhaps reading something that challenges your built in prejudices occasionally wouldn't hurt?

That's pretty ironic given the amount of time you spend metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly when someone tries to present some facts or opinions you disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the Telegraph was supposed to be a quality paper. I think they probably mean "uninterested".

 

Not so: disinterested and uninterested have a fluid history (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinterested).

 

Note the last paragraph: "Still, use of the "not interested" and "no longer interested" senses of disinterested will incur the disapproval of some who may not fully appreciate the history of this word or the subtleties of its present use.". I suspect most on here are uninterested in that history though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not so: disinterested and uninterested have a fluid history (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinterested).

 

Note the last paragraph: "Still, use of the "not interested" and "no longer interested" senses of disinterested will incur the disapproval of some who may not fully appreciate the history of this word or the subtleties of its present use.". I suspect most on here are uninterested in that history though

 

That's "interesting" ! Thanks for this. The OED also indicates that both are used more interchangeably than I thought : "Nowhere are the battle lines more deeply drawn in usage questions than over the difference between disinterested and uninterested. According to traditional guidelines, disinterested should never be used to mean ‘not interested’ (i.e. it is not a synonym for uninterested) but only to mean ‘impartial’, as in the judgements of disinterested outsiders are likely to be more useful. Ironically, the earliest recorded sense of disinterested is for the disputed sense. Today, the ‘incorrect’ use of disinterested is widespread: around a quarter of citations in the Oxford English Corpus for disinterested are for this sense". I would take it up with my English teacher but I suspect he's probably no longer with us.

 

Anyway, Mark Hughes now odds on with Betfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})