The Left Back

Either way it adds up to the same thing. Why should we be comparing it to anything? #totallyobsessed

That's a pretty clear view. It's a massive no. Have a look at how many times since he's been back since. For someone who was a massive 'no' there seems to be a lot of subsequent sniping at the crowds, the commentary, the players. If it's such a massive no, why keep watching? Masochism? A desperation to be proved right? Vindictiveness?

Agree with this. I think there's more to come from Che; he's definitely improving the longer he stays (with of course the exception of those periods where the whole team looks shit) Also Adams is a good hold up player. If we do end up trying our 4-3-2-1 (think I read it somewhere) then he is a good one to have as the 1.

I remember us winning 8-0 at St. Mary's a few years ago and there was quite a lot of gusto around. Norway are only 3 places below us in the rankings and are a decent side so don't think the comparison you make with the Harlem Globetrotters is a fair one at all. I seem to remember World Cups back in the 70 s where African teams would get a bit of a spanking - it didn't seem to harm the development of the game. There's a lot of nit picky comments on this thread. It's really easy to pick holes in the women's game but you have to wonder about the motivations of those that do (I don't mean you particularly @LiberalCommunist). Those who don't enjoy the game have made it abundantly clear, but they still repeatedly turn up on this thread trying to righteously justify their view. It all seems a bit vindictive and bitter to me. Personally I love watching football at any level. It's summer international tournament which we are hosting, what's not to love?

You sound a little obsessed. Back on topic, I'm struggling to think of a candidate who (a) is not tarnished with being loyal to Boris (b) can unite the party (c) has enough personality to appeal tp the red wall and (d) has a moral compass

I think we need to calm down about this. I'm no expert on academy wages, but I do know that Chelsea aren't paying their 16 and 17 year olds that much. So if it's true (and that's a big if) I don't agree we should match the offer and keep him. It's not sustainable to run a business like ours that way. On the whole it seems to me we do ok in the back and forth of talent between academies. There's so much going on with players, parents, agents that I don't think we are in a position to judge the implications of this move (and I say again if it happens). Dibling looks a decent prospect from the very little footage I've seen but he's a long way off yet. If he is making career choices based on the biggest number at 16 then that's up to him, but it doesn't mean we should play that game. This whole story says more about Newcastle than it does us, so I for one don't see anything to worry about overall.

I agree with those saying for us not to get fixated about his age. JWP was 16 when he made his debut and has averaged over 30 games per season since he was 18. Some on here would no doubt complain if we signed Jude Bellingham

Thanks, very helpful. How long have you lived there and in which state (if you don't mind me asking)? I have family in Wisconsin and was quite attracted to the thought of living there as a lad in the early 80s. One of very few wise choices I made then was to come home. I guess the problem with the voting system out there is that despite there being a gaping (and increasing) hole between left and right, no-one is likely to fill it anytime soon. It needs someone to come and park their bus on the centre ground. Actually we could do with something like that here too probably

I'm sorry probably just me but I have no idea at the point you are making. Would you mind having another run at it?

You might be in a minority but it's at least a minority of 2. I think he has the raw ingredients (technique and pace) to make it at this level. The rest can be coached in with experience. It seems crazy to me we are looking to sign a temporary solution for full back cover when he is here. He's also progressed as a centre back and put in some decent performances. The reality is a club like us needs a squad of 22 and not all are going to be starting 11 material. He is flexible cover for a number of roles and still young enough to improve. So unless we get a silly offer from France we may as well have him for this last year; it's not like there's money to recoup.

Unless there's been an unrecoverable breakdown in relationship behind the scenes I'd be for keeping Armstrong. I still think there's enough in what I saw in the early games to suggest he could make it in the PL. We need 4 up front (I'm not counting Tella or Long) then we should by a good un' to start games and either promote Ballard or get a young one to try and breakthrough. With two new ones, Adams and Armstrong we have a good blend for the season.

Perhaps McCartney's greatest achievement since Hey Jude is his ability to unite @sadoldgit + @Turkish. Personally I'm not in favour of old crusties at Glastonbury, no matter how good they are. I went in 85 and discovered The Men They Couldn't Hang on a side stage while queueing for a burger. Ended up seeing them a dozen times and absolutely loved them. I'm a bit out of touch with line ups these days but not sure this sort of experience is still available.

You're look at the wrong table. If you had looked at that table over the last 10 years you wouldn't have seen Lambert, Pelle or Ings. Whether we can find a striker who can score 10 goals, or get one of our existing to improve in that way, is a different question. But for sure we won't be finding him from last year's PL leading goals scorers. I expect us to sign someone or perhaps 2, whose primary job will be to score goals for us, and I still expect Adams and Armstrong to chip in with 5-10 each. Glad you got your first season ticket in years; enjoy the ride. I'm actually feeling happier today that I renewed than I was on the day I did it. And it's still not July.

Interesting way this is being spun by the tories. The electorate in the two constituencies were distracted. Distracted from what and distracted by what? Distracted from the right wing press, the no.10 spin machine, the relentless sloganeering? Distracted by the economic mismanagement, the lack of leadership, the immigration fascism? What have I missed? And the whole distraction narrative speaks volumes for the patronising and dismissive way the electorate is viewed by those in the cabinet.

Not picking a fight but this isn't right. I have no proof but remember him mentioning it a couple of times during his playing days. The only reason I remember is because I used to get a bit of something similar (albeit in a friendly banterish sort of way) despite being white. My friends referred to me as Winston Popadopolous - you can work it out. As for whether it counts as racism - I guess we're splitting hairs over technicalities. The people calling him it I assume had racist intent and so you could say it is, but agree with you that it doesn't sit right to describe Lineker as a victim of racist abuse

Are you actually a fan? Its a 7 for me, and I'm finding it really hard to choose 6 or 8 so good challenge Golac. If pushed I'll go 8 He's ticked the boxes he would have been asked to tick - stabilise the club, sell off the dead wood, not get relegated (or near it), have some decent cup runs, bloody the noses of the big 6 occasionally. Obviously 2 9-0s and a couple of length god-awful runs are on the debit side, so I'm the first to admit that giving him an 8 feels weird.

I had a Sporting Index account back in the 80s and 90s. They consistently under priced our points total at the start of each season and I did quite well most years. I'm tempted to open another account and have a nibble this year, but probably won't bother. To me the value in the list above seems to be in buying Everton and Wolves (and perhaps us and West Ham) and selling Leicester and Brighton.

Is that it? Is that the quality and quantity of your contribution here? You can't possibly know my assumptions about you, can you? If you can, what am I assuming about you right now? So your logic is flawed. You might think use of 'ergo' instead of 'therefore' or 'so' makes you sound clever or convincing. Good luck with that. And as for the argument about my voting motivations, I owned that myself, so your contribution was hardly revelatory. I'm genuinely interested in this topic and thought, perhaps wrongly, that you might bring something other than flawed analysis of my views. So how about you bring something to the party? Who have you voted for, when and why? For others who've lost track, I'm exploring our motivations for voting the way we do off the back on some earlier comments by someone (Millbrook?).

I make no assumption of who you voted for. My assumption on why you voted was purely based on what you said I’ve edited my last post while you were posting so that might help give more context for my thinking. This is my last post of the day so any more will have to wait. I find it an interesting topic and you an interesting person to debate with. For example, last local election I voted for Labour because I think they will run Southampton better than the tories. I’m not sure how this will effect me personally, I guess you could say my motivation was selfish because I want to live in a better city. But what was actually on my mind was libraries, schools and public spaces, none of which particularly effect me. I’m guessing, but don’t know, my council tax might be more with Labour than Conservative. So who was I voting for the benefit of? Not wanting to sound like a martyr or a hero, just a citizen more than a consumer.

I’m not trying to claim either of those things. I have no problem you owning why you vote. And I’m happy to accept too many are like you and vote like a consumer. But don’t project your prejudice on to the whole of the electorate. it’s possible voters of all colours voted ‘in the national interest’ in their opinion. I’m not saying people wilfully choose the party that disadvantages them personally the most. Just that they had different reasons for voting

I’m no expert on voting psychology so what follows is just a personal set of beliefs. There are people who vote as citizens and people who vote as consumers. Citizens might well vote for policies or parties that make them personally worse off if they think it is the right thing for the greater good. Consumers generally vote for their own benefit, without consideration for others. it’s slightly over simplistic to define this as right v left. But there’s no doubt it’s more aligned with Tory ideology to act/vote for your own personal gain. The think I hate most about Thatcher is not her ideology, it is that she was so effective as a leader. More than any other politician in my life she shaped a country to think and act ‘me’ over ‘we’. When she argued there was no such thing as society she was heartfelt in her belief that personal achievement and ambition would be a cure for the the shortcomings of the collective. Today we see the consequences of that dogma still writ large in many attitudes and behaviours.

You might think you float but the highlighted bits above nail your idealogical colours to the most.

I don't think he's at the Liverpool or Man City level, though perhaps a replacement for Henderson, who's five years older. The next layer down is where I think he could be interested. I could see him at Man U, Chelsea, Spurs or Arsenal. Man U are probably in for a massive overhaul and have a lot of pulling power. Chelsea and Spurs can offer him champions league. Arsenal is the dark horse, all depends how well they would sell the club to him. It comes down entirely to what he wants. If he's happy to stay then I'd be delighted. But if he wants to go then for him (peak and WC) and the club (max value) then sadly this is probably the summer to do it.

I'm all for change but this one sounds like an April fools' prank. I suspect the conversation has lasted longer on here than in any of the corridors of power. It all reminds me of an old school friend who hated football. When pressed on what he would do with the game he said triangular pitches, three goals, three teams, two balls in play. It was 40+ years ago but the idea never left me and I think of it whenever I see ideas like this.

This. In the 409 pages of debate on Brexit on this forum there has been views from across the in/out spectrum. The reason we're now seeing an almost totally unopposed stream of 'anti-Brexit' views is because it's not possible to defend the indefensible. The only benefit I've seen offered by the pro-brexit members of this forum in the last few months is that we'll be able to buy our fruit in pounds and Mosin is earning more money. I'm listening if anyone one on here would like to offer some more positives about our leaving the EU. In the meantime people like Harvey are trying to somehow say that things would be so much worse if Angela Rayner was prime minister - random or what! Yes we've left. No were not going back (not anytime soon). Yes we all have to accept the decision of the referendum. But we don't have to accept the ongoing clusterfuck that are the consequences of that decision.