Lallana's Left Peg

Stephens, Targett and JWP all in the U21 squad too.

But on the other hand it's one of the few things on the board that unifies all posters.

10 pages, 3 bans, 1 death. But honestly, who cares about this stuff? It's twitter. It is not the club officially confirming which religions it likes and does not like. It was a light-hearted response to some news. I don't see how anyone could remotely be offended.

I find this approach puzzling because whilst a players transfer fee is determined by a number of things and not just his ability, the idea that you detach a players transfer fee when determining his value or worth to a club doesn't make sense. Using this approach we can't say that Osvaldo or Ramirez were bad buys because the fact they both cost £12m+ and just as much in wages doesn't matter. They go down as buys that didn't work out and have to be judged in the same manner as say a Juanmi at less than half the price (and likely wages). The money this spends on players is important for two reasons: 1. The cost of a player (including wages) has to be justified against their performances on the pitch, because 2. The money we invest in a player means we can't invest that money in an alternative player or another part of the club to try and improve. As for Shane Long, the one thing that puzzles me is that we purchased players for a very particular system (4-2-3-1) and he doesn't really fit that in any way so to spend £12m on a square peg for a round hole was confusing however when we play 4-4-1-1 or 3-5-2 we play to his strengths and he makes a far bigger contribution. His finishing still undermines a lot of his hard work but I suppose if he could finish to a higher level he wouldn't be a Saints player. I do like the over the top threat as much as I like his hustle and workrate. That said, I would be surprised if he is a starter next season if everyone is fit.

My only thinking is that he knows we're a momentum team and right now we have bad momentum so he's trying to do something different to stop the rot early before it extends into another few games.

Yoshida is on the bench - as is Cedric and Mane. It's all very confusing. I've no doubt there is a plan but I'd rather see Cedric and Mane on the pitch ahead of Martina and Tadic.

So it's either: 4-2-3-1 with Martina at right back and Bertrand at centre-half and Tadic and Long either side of Davis. or 3-5-2 with Martina and Bertrand at centre-half and Davis at wing-back and Tadic behind Pelle and Long. Either way it's a very confusing team when you look at the bench. Don't feel too optimistic here.

Fantastic news. Drastically cut down my away game days this season because of silly ticket prices - I can get back on it next season now.

Two years is a long time to be out it would be great to see him back for the last month of the season just to see if his body can stand up to it even if performances will be very rusty.

To echo the comments of others it appears he has a lot of technical ability as a footballer but unfortunately his physical attributes severely impact his ability to show them in English football. It's not just the physicality of it but also the speed at which the game is played. Add to that he doesn't appear to have a natural position where he fits in our team I imagine at £5m he was a value signing but it just hasn't worked out thus far. I'm increasingly weary of us signing small players who aren't physically robust. The way the game is evolving in this country it will be hard to find ways to play small players who aren't strong or robust.

Without stating names I think we need to strengthen in the following areas: 1. Right back. It's not good enough for me to have a first choice who is only suitable for 50% of the games and his backup to either be Martina or Yoshida. That needs to be sorted. Buy someone better than Soares. 2. Centre-half. It's not good enough for me to have Gardos and Yoshida as first choice backups. Fonte is getting old and I think we need to sign a really good prospect who can contribute straight away if he needs to. 3. Central midfield. A central midfielder who can carry the ball past a player and has physical power. He also needs presence off the ball. Like Romeu but much better. 4. Attacking midfield. Someone who operates centrally and is creative with an eye for goal. Then obviously replace anyone who leaves. But whatever we do buy better than we have got and do not buy backups for backups sake. Buy 3-4 very good players and not 6-7 decent players.

It's a very peculiar season in the Premier League so it is hard to appraise anything right now and know if things are a good result or not. But I don't like how Saints continue to be a momentum team and how when there is any element of expectation on us we tend to meekly fold. As for the game itself some players don't look interested enough and some look like they are playing with strangers. I thought Romeu looked good and at first I questioned his signing but I am happy to be proved wrong I think he plays very consistently and very well. Clasie I am not convinced by, I don't like the way games pass him by and how physically he can be overpowered by many players in this league. Anyone know why we didn't play Soares when this game was crying out for our full backs to push on? Thought Bertrand did well but Martina was rubbish on the ball and it cost us at times. A lot of work to be done in the summer to get the right balance on the pitch along with the right balance in the squad as whilst it is nice to have lots of options sometimes when Koeman tinkers its a bit of a car crash. I think we need to settle on a certain way of playing (or at least be able to identify the right way of playing in each game) as it can be really disjointed at times and the quality of football can be awful to watch.

1. Koeman has the odd stinker as does any player. It can be frustrating but overall his work is good. 2. Both are ok players but not sure they would be first choice with the current squad. 3. There isn't much pace in our team - I think that is more of an issue than fitness. 4. Hardly got a look in with a 4-2-3-1 so never going to get neat a 3-5-2 system. Can't see him staying - low risk signing who has had no impact.

The club purchased players to play in a 4-2-3-1 system. That wasn't working so we switched it up to a 3-5-2 which is solid defensively but a mess going forward. That system relies on nabbing a goal and not conceding. It is not good football to watch as it is essentially full backs providing width and then 6 players defending well (the three central defenders and three central midfielders). The long term future of this team / club is 4-2-3-1 - but it is good to have a 3-5-2 for certain games. Some of our players don't fit a 3-5-2 - Tadic is probably the biggest victim.

Not a game to be dwelled on in isolation but it was a game that seemed to expose all of our issues as a squad at the moment: 1. We are a momentum team. When things are going well we have the confidence and when they are not we look clueless. It is the biggest indicator in football of a mid-table team. We have a good period and then the slightest set-up results in a hangover for several games. It's not unique to us but it is a trait of average teams. 2. We missed Wanyama's presence. We had no grip on the midfield at any time. 3. The 3-5-2 is nice at times but ultimately it is a formation set-up to ensure we don't lose a game. The football is horrible to watch as well - but that is forgiven when we defend properly and draw or sneak a win. 4. We don't have a clue how to chase a game. Seems our tactics, shape and understanding goes to pot when we have to chase a game. Players get too anxious as well. It's a mentality thing and it is quite a fragile line for us it seems. 5. Many of the weaknesses of some players were exposed in the game however these are well documented now. I am not too fussed as I had us down for around a 10th place finish this season but if we are to push on the above needs to be addressed in the summer. On and off the pitch.

If he is available then I think he will have more attractive options than us.

It was delicious.

I suppose it depends on the definition of coaching for the purposes of the discussion. If you mean the mental aspect of nurturing talent and helping them progress then it can make a difference. If you mean coaching a player to be a better player in terms of technical ability etc. then I don't think that makes a difference at all. For me the best teams buy the best players and then their biggest challenge is having the right Manager looking after that talent. They don't buy players and then seek to make them better - they like to buy the end product (or as close to it) and then have them perform immediately. A part of this will be because they need instant results of course, but if it was as easy to just have good coaching they wouldn't buy the finished product and would just continually develop youth players for the first team and save a lot of money. I'm not saying good coaching doesn't contribute, but I just don't think it is one of the most important factors. Buy good talent and play them in the right circumstance and you've cracked it I think.

If coaching made a big difference then good Managers wouldn't spend lots of money on players. Coaching can make a difference - compared to the overall quality of a player in the first place I think it makes a little difference. The player does need the right environment to thrive - the right tactics for starters, but nothing makes a difference in football like ability. So that is why recruitment is so important. Identify the talent and then identify if they fit your club. Coaching is important in order to ensure a player can perform, but it doesn't make a player better. He has to have the potential. If he doesn't you can't coach it.

I don't think we improve players better than any other team. I think we recruit better than most teams. The rest falls into place.

There is no way Arsenal paid up to £16m for a player and he is only on 10k a week.

Well if he could be like David Prutton in any way then if Wanyama is going to get sent off please do it by taking an opposition player out properly and then go mental at an official afterwards. Do it properly.

You can throw many criticisms his way, but I don't think it is fair to ask more goals from him. He's a midfield destroyer. Not many (if any at all) score goals.

He does his better work without the ball, much like Shane Long. But everyone wants to point out that despite Long's shortcomings as a ball player he is important to the squad - Wanyama is the same. Wanyama hasn't made much progress technically, in fact he is very limited. But his presence and the things he does off the ball are very good and important for us. When he is fit he plays, so Koeman obviously agrees as well. We'd miss him if he left but he feels replaceable. And as has been pointed out I'd be doubtful that either of the Manchester clubs, Chelsea or Arsenal would be interested in him. So its Liverpool or Spurs or a move abroad.

Well if a team in China is willing to pay him £75m over three years they'd probably be willing to pay £25m to sign him.