Aardvark

This is simply wrong. Yes, the amount of money wagered has an effect, as in a bookie has to "insure" against potentialy heavy losses from popular (for whatever reason) bets. However the likelihood of a particular event occuring (e.g. Southampton winning the Championship) is the prime factor in calculating odds, whether you consider it to be calculated objectively or subjectively. Hence the position after this weekend's results; i.e. Saints losing coupled with West Ham winning would always have a direct effect on the long term odds for the Championship, however slight.

Isn't 12 points from 9 games 1.33 points per game?

Barking?

Middlesborough was the one where I finally thought to myself, "Sh1t, we really are this good - we're well out in front in this league totally on merit" - I was never quite sure up to that point. Back to back wins against probably the two next best teams was seriously impressive.

Letting Gordon Banks eat a dodgy chilli burger just before the 1970 WCQF.

Calm down, I made it quite clear that this story was in the Echo!

According to yesterday's (ever reliable!) Echo, Barcelona are sniffing round Gareth Bale - a figure of £50,000,000 was mentioned. Ignoring the possible merits or otherwise of this story, does anyone know whether Southampton would benefit from any sell on clause from such a move?

Could be one or two games sooner if we win at home in rounds 3 and/or 4 of the FA Cup.

Richardson.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, but on a similar note, "What has happened to Antonio?" He seems to have disappeared off the radar since returning to Reading (Not to mention Papa Waigo?).

That would be Murty who said that. After all he hates Saints with a vengeance when he's not garrotting small childern or raping OAPs - he IS the devil incarnate. Could you please settle a small dispute a friend and I were having? He reckons you're about 13 years old while I think you're at least 14? Many thanks.

It's a sofa actually. But if you must open that boring "only a real fan if you're at the match" debate, I am a ST holder and get to about 8-10 away games a year, work permitting. If you've ever missed just ONE game then you're a hypocrite. And your statements indicate that you're still a knob.

Take it that you're a knob.

I can see how you got your moniker. Nobody's getting "carried away". I wasn't talking specifically about how well Southampton are doing, I was merely contrasting the level of interest in the two competitions. For me personally, I would "give my right arm" for a run in the Champions League - truly the pinnacle of world football in terms of sheer quality, but I can't get remotely interested in the second rate Europa League (FFS Birmingham are top of their group!) - it is for me the League Cup of Europe - a dull, worthless, time consuming pup of a contest. Without looking it up, could you tell me who won it last year? I'm guessing not, but I bet you could name the top three in last year's Championship?

Interestingly a quick run through last night's Europa League matches shows that of 24 games played only 2 had bigger crowds than at St Mary's against West Ham (and indeed at Derby on Saturday). Neither of the home games involving Premiership clubs got anywhere near the figure - only the games at Hanover and Udinese beat the figure. :?What does this say about the relative merits of "second class" domestic football as against "second class" European football? I know which I'd rather watch.

Without Davis 3 points would have been 0 points. Without Hoijveld 3 points may have been 1 point. Chaplow et al (excellent though they were) - any result was possible. How can Kelvin, with at LEAST 2 world class saves, not have been MOM!!??

This!

Had to laugh at the sickly gushing presenter on Solent just before the Birmingham game, who with an obvious ignorance and lack of affection for football, announced that, "Southampton's football team had made a great start to the season and were currently 2nd in the Champions League". We were actually 3rd at the time.

It claims to be. I can see how we would be seen as well in amongst the front runners (see other threads about our incredible form stretching back to xmas), but 64% seems strangely absurd to me.

Look at today's Times Sport section -page 8. According to the "scientific" Fink Tank" Saints have 64% chance of automatic promotion. Middlesborough and West Ham trail 2nd and 3rd with 36% and 35% respectively. WTF!? See the bit about Saints as a League 1 team last season being "better than most in the Barclays Premier League" - Again, WTF!? Any thoughts?

Agree with all the above. But - please cure him of this habit of always taking short goal-kicks, even when completely inappropriate and downright dangerous. We were lucky to get away without this resulting in 2 or 3 goals against us in both the Forest and Birmingham games. I guess he's just trying to follow the "passing game" philosophy, which is admirable, but there are times when you have to play it safe. Top top shotstopper though which is of course his primary function.

Only for the myopic linesman - it was as clear as day in real time from where I was sat.

I've been doing some indepth analysis of last season's Championship and it makes for worrying reading. It turns out that the whole League is grossly unfair and biased against the lower teams. The proof? You may not believe this but QPR played ALL their games against teams that finished below them in the table, whereas poor old Sfannythorpe never played a single game against lower opposition! This can't be right - we should start at petition to get the rules changed.

Oi! Freda to you!