BarberSaint

Uses both feet; good. Doesn't strike the ball cleanly. Defending in that league is jank.

Nah. And fewer facts.

How many years do we have to give him before we'll say "He'll be consistently average soon, just give him time"?

The quote was written by someone who knows about football rather than someone who doesn't and has access to the internet of course? Here's how things will go: DS speaks. Saints forum - oooh! We luv you. Season starts - we'll smash em and our team (who we've never heard of but they look good on youtube) will win the league. Then either: we're crap, doom and gloom, Still out. Or we'll win the league, VAR/referees/butterflies in foreign climes hate us. When we get promoted as champions: I told you so! Still for England, but only after we win the league. If we don't. Manager hasn't a clue. My dog could do better and it's from Poopey. Despair sets in. Players' faults are suddenly noticed and there is much talk of potential: 35 is still young and time to improve. Starve them to keep them hungry on their £50,000+ a week. Mercenaries (that bit is actually valid). Sack the board, etc. DS speaks. Saints forum - ooh! We luv you. (Repeat until the end of time). It's lovely to see what a fluff piece, the likes of which are trotted out all over the place all over the time, will do to those who are dare I say 'easy to please'. I wait with bated breath for the pre-season expectations. At least some will wait until we've signed players and seen them play a few times.

Just like BBD?

Potential? Too much Champ Manager.

Better off?

Expect him to do well there. Then. Celtic will still do better though: better manager and players.

We got promoted because we were better than most of the dross we now find ourselves among again.

And then leave?

While that makes sense from a footballing perspective he's a bit young and probably wouldn't want to/like it. It is well-known he likes being near family, routine, etc. That's the angle that a lot of people take: he won't want to go to ... wherever.

Get rid of the dross! Sell the club. Buy a B&B and make sure it's run properly. We did alright when Koeman had to make a number of changes. Let's hope that Will, if he's Still here can replicate RK's good bits and avoid those big losing streaks that cost us the title.

I think we judge them in two seasons' time: when we might have both been promoted and stayed up or been promoted with at least six players who will be good enough in the top league in which case it'll be three seasons.

So the real, tangible, clear benefits are ... ?

Couple of quotes about Edwards: Takes me back to Glenn Roeder when he glides out of defence with the ball. Absolute class When I watch him I always wonder what Southampton was thinking. I mean I have seen a lot of Southampton PL matches and Edwards should in the starting 11 for them, not on loan to us Ronnie has done so well, he’s a class act and I could see him carving out a great premier league career If he considers joining permanently and he continues to Do well until end of season then perhaps I will change my mind. But for me he is decent but no where near a best loan player Edwards has been good but not a patch on Walker, Taarabt and Routledge. They were different gravy. Completely agree on Edwards. He’s been a vital addition. His versatility to play centre mid against Leeds was very important to getting something from that game. For the record, they pretty much universally agree that Kyle Walker was their best loanee signing.

Aren't your balls round, or something?

Does anyone think we can convince the skates to take back their ex-player of the year, Bazinga?

I do wonder if you're right. Three more signings will tell us for certain.

They might get on: both WHU fans.

Rangers need a few players and have a TOTAL budget of £20m if what was said in the press conference by their DOF is correct and assuming they don't sell many to free up and gain a bit more money. As this has been bandied about a bit and it's well known finances in Scotland are lower than here and Rangers got taken over partly because they kept losing money, and, and, and ... I wonder if what an appropriately-scathing response is to someone who just hasn't a clue. Celtic are by far the richest club and what figures do they regularly spend? That thought might be a starting point. I'm now off to see if MLG is somewhere around writing similar comments and to think if I'll give him some credit for not always just blindly shooting from the hip.

Well SU probably just had someone lazily take that off the internet. Might I suggest a simple answer to the question? Either go and stand next to him in Waitrose or look at some photos and see how much he dwarfs (or vice versa) Capn Jack, Janny B, KWP etc. Try to avoid the requirements to draw multiple lines as the VPN lot do as he'll come up as either 1mm or 14,000 miles.

I would rather have WS and think he'll go farther and do better. Either that or I'll be calling him names when bored at SMS.

I'm not especially interested in this subject and think we'll sell Ramsdale for what we allegedly paid for him. But those paragraphs aren't really anything other than marketing spiel: they don't prove anything (other than a lot of people are very similar in disposition to R A).

Very thin skin and quick and frequent and blunt criticism. Wonder how that'll go. 3 games is what he has before they turn? Their forums already show they don't like pass it around at the back and do nothing football and guess what ...

Statistically, if you're talking real statistics as a subset of mathematics, not any old crap that is put under the label of "Statistics, if I use the word it makes me look clever", you have to account for variables, variance, ensure that your statistical sampling methods and methodology are valid and unbiased and relevant. As Haaland =/= Long just as Haaland =/= Yoshida =/= Ramsdale and bar the first two they are sufficiently different to argue that you are not comparing bananas but cars and penguins then you've not really put yourself in a position to prove anything meaningful other than how you've decided to measure what you've decided to measure and how you've chosen to present it shows you're an idiot. You could state that you've measured a number of footballers, ignoring specialism which in this sample is based very much on natural aptitude, and can see which one is better and to what degree in what way but you can't say that the chance presented taking into account (how many variables, in which way are they measured, how are they weighted, what do you do when you have differing variables and so you can't measure exactly like for like, etc) the variables has a weight of 'x' which is what they're trying to show. The methodology is far too simplistic and the reality far too complicated e.g. one factor might be that SL was pissed off because someone farted in the dressing room, this affected his mental state somewhat and so he swung his foot too quickly at a ball he would have swung his foot at quickly had it been Tuesday. Mental state is a very big factor in sport and that can change throughout a game and directly affects performance. So either you measure to the nth degree or you just state in very general terms 'that was a good chance and anyone but Che Evans would have buried that open goal'. As a matter of interest, how many of the sample sizes of exactly that chance do the 'statisticians' have and how many of them have a forward managing to get their hand in the way of their head? You show me how it's measured and accounted for and at the precise moment that the chance presented itself and how that is replicable in order to then be able to be reproduced and then counted and in proper statistical terms (not counting, which a lot of people seem to think is statistics) made of relevance. You could do that to an extent with one person as they're the constant and you remove a lot of the variation but if you do it one day and it's windier than the last when you took your previous sample unless you account for the wind when taking into account accuracy of heading from crosses you've not measured the same thing. Not ignoring that the sun got in their eyes, or ..., or ...