CheshireSaint

Armstrong? The crux is Armstrong in the Premiership.

Adam Armstrong should be loaned out immediately. He is utterly useless. When he is named on the team sheet, you know he will produce nothing. When he comes on as sub, you know it's a waste of a place. He offers nowt. As mentioned in another post, there is an argument that BBD hasn't really been given a run in his correct position, and whilst I doubt he would have ever made it, Armstrong has had numerous chances at this level and we know he simply cannot do it. He can in the Championship so perhaps get his value up for a sale at seasons end. Keeping him until his contract expires in 2027 will just be another 2 years of him stealing a living (1 play off goal aside). Now we've freed up a loan space, get a striker in that can score at the top level. Ings for example, certainly isn't the player he was, but can anyone deny that he is still a better option that Armstrong?

All from left leaning sources no? Perhaps some articles from the opposite side of the political debate for balance. As we all know, data can be presented or cherry picked in many ways to fit ones agenda. I certainly wouldn't be listening to the BBC or any British educational sources for a balanced presentation of data.

He isn't just blowing any smoke though is he? He is highlighting a positive that directly relates to himself also. That isn't by chance and to not see that is staggering. He is reiterating that sticking by ones convictions, no matter the cost, is laudable. He is doubling down on his own attitude. Conceited pr**k that he is.

Fabrice, you seem to be using the same logic as everybody else but coming up with a polar opposite conclusion. Everything you say is sound. Therefore, the ball needs to spend the minimum of time in our defensive third. Why does that currently not happen? Because RM decrees it so. Yet you seem to defend RM. He is absolutely the reason we are making so many mistakes. Yes these players in defence, are error prone, so recognise it and stop encouraging them to keep the bloody ball. Top step in Hierarchy of controls - Eliminate.

You said 'I think asking them to pass the ball to each other instead is a better idea'. I am countering with that being a terrible idea. Defending is their forte (sort of). Passing definitely isn't. I think I made that pretty clear. Again, if they cannot defend well (despite this supposedly being their strength), then RM needs to instruct them to pass the ball into midfielders or forwards as quickly as possible. Contrary to this, he instructs them to pass to each other, thus retaining the ball in our defensive third, to be exploited by the opposition.

By your own logic if defenders can't defend, how on earth does it make sense to tell them to do anything other than get rid to the midfield, who presumably can play their positions? If the defenders were better with the ball at their feet than defending, I'd suggest they should be in playing in more suitable positions (midfield or forward). Sorry Fabrice but your viewpoint is so odd.

99% of Managers would have got Saints up last season. The fact he nearly ballsed that up (and if Bazunu hadn't been injured, I firmly believe he would have) would suggest that he is, in fact a very limited Manager. Any doubts over his managerial ability have surely been proved now. All his teams concede above average goals. If that was offset by some good, precise play, resulting in a heap of goals at the other end, then that would be an argument but that isn't true. He plays possession for possession sake football with very little thrust. We all know this. He absolutely is in a job and league far beyond his ability.

It is understandable that financial considerations may be forcing SR's hand one way or another. In the interim, what I don't understand is why RM isn't being sat down and told in no uncertain terms that this sh1te style of play needs to be ripped up and a more direct approach taken. If he absolutely refuses to consider any other system, then why doesn't that constitute a refusal of a reasonable request? I know football management isn't the same as an 'ordinary' job but there has to be something the board can do. Relieve the idiot of his duties and get Lallana in with the same brief, with bonus related incentives. Go down fighting at least. Failure to address this will have a knock on effect of season ticket sales for next season, especially if he is still going to be here. It's a mess and simply can't continue in this manner.

He constantly loses the ball. His situational awareness is nil. The amount of times he receives the ball and then turns directly into an opposition player on his shoulder, is unbelievable. He should be constantly looking around and assessing what to do if the ball comes to him. He looks so unnatural also. He has to take a split second to get his feet sorted before playing the ball. Some rate him on here clearly, but I think he is a terrible player and cannot keep hold of a ball.

Mike Dean was terrible when officiating us, and is a clear winner. Kevin Friend was indeed a 'special' friend to Brendan Rogers mind and he is a close second for me.

Not going to happen with Aribo on the pitch. He is absolutely sh1te

I know. Hence my comment 'I suppose that whilst the Asian masses are loving it, it will trundle on.' The sooner a Super League happens the better. Yes, it will reduce money significantly, but it would be across the board. That way, money from gate receipts would increase as a percentage overall with the clubs outside of the top 6 being more or less on par in terms of capacity (30 - 40k with the odd exception) and with equal TV coverage of all competing teams, there should be more likelihood of parity across sponsorship deals too. Imagine a league where all 20 teams could aspire certainly for the top third of the table or maybe even the title. Imagine a league where once left, there was no going back to so if the Super League floundered for whatever reason, tough. You could have all the money in the world but no one to play. Effectively, a massive concert venue. One can dream.

The teams outside of the top 6 are nothing more than fences to be navigated by the top 6 to decide which of the moneybags teams do so the best. Saints are just another fence. Fortunately, we both grew up in what was a hey day of football, where pretty much any team could compete, including Saints. Other provincial teams such as Leicester, Wolves, Stoke, Derby, Coventry, West Brom, Ipswich, Norwich, Forest etc. could all do well and push for Europe. They were truly halcyon days. Obviously Leicester went on to fluke (harsh perhaps) a title recently but generally, we've turned into the Scottish League, that we all used to criticize. If the top 6 went their own way, yes it would be part of an elite league with other top teams across Europe but surely, if the product (what remains) is competitive, then TV rights will reflect that and money wouldn't necessarily disappear. Yes, it may be significantly reduced but its relative across all remaining teams. FFP is sh1te now as it prevents challenges to the top 6 because it has come into place whilst there is such a chasm between us and them. It maintains the status quo. FFP would work without the top 6 as all teams would be starting from a similar financial position, and it would prevent rich owners from coming to any team and creating an imbalance that we currently see. I really can't see why the Premier League is so marketable, given how imbalanced it currently is. City have won 6 out of the last 7 titles (runners up in the only one they missed out on). In the last 32 years, only Blackburn and Leicester have won it, outside of the top 6. I suppose that whilst the Asian masses are loving it, it will trundle on. Personally, I can't wait until it implodes. Get rid of the top 6, replace them with Rangers, Celtic, Hearts and Hibs, introduce some form of financial controls to keep it competitive and go from there.

This. Many people on here are resigned to going down, irrespective of what the Manager does. I don't agree. I believe we have a lower / mid table competitive team. The vast majority of goals conceded, were entirely avoidable. Playing in a more practical way, may have prevented those (we will never know for sure). If that were the case, we could be on 6 points perhaps and looking fairly comfortable. As has been pointed out previously, we 'aim' to play a high risk / high reward game. The idea is to bring the opposition on, create space and then exploit that space with fast, passing and moving. We play the high risk bit but don't even attempt to exploit the very thing we are aiming to generate. We plod up field and then go back. It's actually insane. We play high risk, low reward. It was pointed out last season by all on here and is now being pointed out in the football press. Obvious to all. We wouldn't need a genius Manager to either adapt the current system to include the high reward bit or remove the high risk bit altogether. RM under performed last year (ironically until he scrapped the high risk bit in the play offs) and is doing so this season so far. Worryingly, he seems to be reluctant to admit, the current system doesn't work. Likely because he is defined by it. The system doesn't serve him, he serves the system. It takes some serious self reflection and some balls to accept everything you have invested in, isn't working. Not dissimilar to the Jack Stephens situation. He is too invested in the whole Captain thing, again reluctant to change it, in case of it seeming like an acceptance of failure. The more we as fans, claim that we were always going to be relegated, whatever, the more we infer that RM isn't failing. The less likely RM is to see it as failure, less likely to he will be inclined to change. If he changes it around against Bournemouth and we get a positive result, great. If not, with Arsenal next up, we could be 1 point from 7 games. For me, that would be the tipping point.