Torrent Of Abuse

If this forum is indicative of the fanbase (and I really hope it's not) then his worst mistake was not quitting after the stadium was built. Because if he had done, this forum would be filled with people convincing themselves that "we wouldn't be in this mess if Rupert was still here" - whereas we had all that last year and unfortunately he's come back and is showing us why he got chucked out in the first place. We just love looking back misty-eyed and reinterpreting our own history. Strachan made a great decision leaving while we remembered him for the Cup final instead of the years he would have struggled afterwards with no money and limited success, dabbling with relegation a little more as each year passed. Of course, instead of discussing past mistakes, it would probably be much more use for us right now to discuss what we can do right and what we can do right now to stop us from disappearing into the abyss that is relegation and administration. That would probably involve coming up with ideas, though - as opposed to pointing the finger of blame, complaining about how awful things are right now, predicting the exact hour of our eventual destruction and continually telling each other that we're so uninterested in Saints that we're even considering not being logged onto this message board 24 hours a day. So, back to the finger-pointing and reminiscing then...

So let me get this straight... We spent the last couple of months whingeing about how the team has been weakened beyond recognition - even since last year's squad - and yet we see fit to compare Poortvliet's results with that weakened team against Pearson's comparatively strong side. Does that make sense? Surely we can't have it both ways? Poortvliet is either dealing with less or he's not. FWIW, I didn't want Pearson appointed but didn't want him sacked either - but this continual search for reasons to rip into other supporters seems pointless. I'd ask those rubbing their hands together with glee at this thread whether they would seriously think Pearson would be achieving any more with Lowe performing his hatchet job on the playing staff? It's all academic I know but I wouldn't think any other manager would even want to stay beyond Christmas bearing in mind what Poortvliet is currently having to put up with. Bad as things are now, I think it would be far, far worse if we added to this dismal season by sacking yet another manager. While we're taking a walk down managerial memory lane, let's just remember how wonderfully that went last season shall we?

It came from the same fantasy land where the manifesto came from. A land of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. The word "trust" surely shouldn't be used in any discussion about the mendacious Mr. Wilde.

I think the problem is that, in the West, we've learnt to celebrate the finer things in life but lost sight of the idea of earning them. It's all about the reward - not the hard work that gets you there. It's not that I think British people in general hate success but that we hate those who seem to get it cheap and ride it for all it's worth. We respect footballers who have used whatever talent they have (no matter how little or how much) and begrudge those who squander it while getting their chops plastered all over the inside of OK magazine one week or falling out of a nightclub with a couple of strippers the next. Market forces mean it's entirely possible for a player with talent to get 200,000 a week even if that sort of money makes no sense in the real world. If you get paid that kind of superhuman money, however, then people are going to ask harder questions about your personality or behaviour than if you were on a more modest wage, and will be that more readily to crucify you when you screw up. That's part of the payoff you get by taking the big money. You don't get that money for free: It is a trade off. I work on short contracts and had a similar discussion with my agent when I renewed my contract with my current employer. He begrudged the fact that I questioned what he was exactly he was doing for me and why he thought he deserved 3x the cut of other agents. I pointed out that if he wanted three times the cut, then his work would have to be of a higher standard than those taking a smaller cut. If he had the same cut, I wouldn't have been arguing. If he wanted the easy life without being questioned over the quality of his work, then he shouldn't have taken the p1ss with his margin. It's not rocket science. That said, I think ordinary people only have themselves to blame for putting people like Ashley Cole where they are. If people really are willing to buy magazines like OK and Hello just to see a three page spread of Theo Walcott's second bathroom or buy celebrity news magazines so we can see if Britney Spears has spontaneously combusted this week or which brain-dead twenty-something socialite is currently pummeling Paris Hilton's much-rutted mimsy, then we've only ourselves to blame. You only get the heroes and heroines you explicitly ask for. If you celebrate w*nkers, then you can't turn around and complain when that's exactly what you get.

Exactly - but you won't get far on this forum displaying sense like that. He made a change which got us back creating chances (although it left us as weak at the back as ever). It got us back to 3-1 and (if Macgoldrick had converted that bread and butter one-on-one) we could have been back at 3-2, even if we didn't deserve to be. This forum seems to willingly find only the worst in things. We've complained about managers who can't use substitutes properly or change their system. Poortvliet did both and yet we're discussing whether he was making enough noise on the touchline. Bizarre.

He might have felt more comfortable (and therefore recovered quicker) by being back in France. So... it's swings and roundabouts. I think we're splitting hairs if we think it's an important matter while there's so much else at the club which needs sorting out. Let's hope he gets back to match fitness and makes a contribution soon.

So Pearson wasn't any good because we were convinced he just jumped up and down on the touchline all game. Now Poortvliet is no good because he doesn't jump up and down enough. Perhaps we should advertise the job for the next applicant specifying exactly how much jumping up and down would be adequate for us as fans? By all means let's discuss the failings of the players or the tactics - but criticising the manager's reactions when we go 1-0, 2-0, 3-0 down so easily is surely pointless. The 4-1 scoreline (and the manner of our defeat) means we interpret Poortvliet's silence as weakness and Coleman's agitation as sign of a commanding manager. If the scoreline was reversed, we'd see Poortvliet's silence as being in control and Coleman's agitation as a sign of desperation. It's all subjective. It gets a little ridiculous on this forum watching how each defeat leads to painfully self-conscious dissections of what the manager says, how the manager stands, what brand of underwear he wears, etc. etc. The important stuff is on the field. Everything else is just a poor reflection of it - and as such is open to our own interpretations.

I think the problem with the team is that the 4-2-3-1 formation puts heavy pressure on our full-backs but that is precisely where we have the least experience. We will probably have more games like this before they learn how to stop the ball coming in from wide time after time. If we had any more in the transfer kitty, I'd ask for two experienced £3m rated full-backs to shore up the team - and even then we'd probably still give away two big chances every game simply from having such an open formation. The upside for me was the tight passing in midfield. I felt we actually looked good in midfield until the defence committed suicide. More able full-backs would have given the attack-minded players a chance to show what they could do. As it was, we were chasing the game after 25 minutes. The last 30 minutes of the game only improved when we seemed to go 4-2-4 and abandoned even the pretence of defending. I must say that Robertson's touch looked to be suspect today. He'd get two touches and the third one seemed to bobble off his feet straight to the opposition. Still he wasn't the worst by any means. Let's hope the kids' football education is a swift one.

Terrible, terrible defending. It was like Coventry could have scored every time they got the ball in our box. Probably a little unfair to criticise our own strike force as by the time we got chances, it was 2-0 to Coventry and we were rushing every chance. How can a team hope to win matches when its defence lose 2 goals before the attack has a chance to make any impact? Midfield looked capable, and we certainly seemed to have strength in numbers there (and that's not just down to the number of people in there - I've seen Saints stretched in midfield when we've been playing a 3-5-2) but too often it seemed that we'd take one touch too many, fluff our control at an important moment and then be left flat-footed when they sprayed the ball wide. The defence was laughable, with the full-backs most culpable. The 3rd goal us 2-on-2 at the back, and the 4th was possibly worse. I saw enough to convince me that we can pass the ball well, create chances and score goals - but I also saw that we get hurt badly when we lose the ball. I just hope that the poor touches which ended most of our neat passing in midfield was down in part to the bad conditions rather than anything else. Like I say, I'm hoping... I'm a bit lost for a man of the match...

I don't think anyone on here is getting smug, holy or self-satisfied. I think (as usual) some people are getting hyper-sensitive about non-attendance, though - and are jumping to the defensive in answer to insults which just aren't there. Yes, people are grown up enough to decide on attending/not attending by themselves, but also people are surely grown up enough to actually talk about it without resorting to histrionics? No-one is pretending they are a better fan for attending matches, but when the club is this close to administration, surely attendance becomes an important issue - far more important than it would usually be? It certainly seems a strange argument to say that Lowe and Wilde are going to lead us into administration, so we should not go to games and so deny the club income. It's rather like preventing yourself being shot by a mugger by putting the gun to your own head. Can we discuss it without it descending into a slagging match? Perhaps the reason there are so many threads on this subject is because people are trying to find a away in which we can discuss the issue without it instantly dissolving into accusations and counter-accusations? Of course, it probably doesn't help promote a restrained discussion when your own administrator posts something like this...

Erm. What are you reasoning for - the level playing field or the cheap match day experience? Because right now the only way we'd get cheap matches would be by being bought out by a rich owner who could afford to reduce the prices regardless of the costs of running the club, or by reducing the cost of running the club (possibly by selling all the first team players and bringing in youngsters - something which you've been complaining about for months). As we've seen in the last few years, there doesn't seem to be a millionaire buyer anywhere, so that leaves the cheaper 'Plan B'. To get a level playing field, we'd either have to all be lucky enough to be bought out by rich, philanthropic billionaires or we'd all have to be playing teams made of youngsters. Or we'd have to travel back in time to the 1980s, probably in a souped-up DeLorean car/time-machine.

Surely it's a case of 20:20 hindsight? Mark Hughes rested Micah Richards for the Man City v Brighton cup game and they went out. I can't help feel that if we had rested Svensson but lost in the cup, the same people complaining about him being played would be making very eloquent arguments about how playing him would have brought about a win which would have kick-started our season. I guess these are the complicated choices which a manager has to make - and it's probably why Poortvliet is the real manager and why his critics are all on here spunking up over the wording of every article coming out of the club instead of displaying their football genius as managers themselves.

I won't settle for anything less than sacrificing the first born of every family in Southampton. After all, anything less than a 5-0 win would be an absolute disaster IMHO. Just out of interest, if we win today what then? Wasn't it Kipling who suggested treating those two imposters of Triumph and Disaster the same? Nah. Scrap that. Whining is probably easier.

What the f**k is going on with this site? Are we all intent on flushing this club down the toilet? We're calling for the manager's head after 7 games - yet if it happened, we'd look back and blame Lowe for dispensing with another manager in quick succession. We know that (as money is non-existent) we're not going to get a big name manager or be able to buy new players - but we'll whinge when Dodd & Gorman MkII get employed and whine when the new manager chooses to sell two players (only the good ones - no-one wants the others) in order to get three loan players so we can play the way he wants. And then we'll wonder why the team seem to find it difficult to bed in and get results. Let's have another reincarnation of the "administration might be good" thread. At least if the club went bust and we sold the ground, it would give the stayaway fans a good reason for not going to the game: "I'd like to go to the game now Rupert is gone, but sadly Saints don't exist anymore. Ah well, it's off to West Quay for me..." F**king lunacy...

Didn't we go through all this cr*p a few years back? Didn't we have thousands of fans saying they'd never come back while Lowe was in charge? And then he got kicked out and... the thousands still stayed away. Will everyone come back when we're still poor but with a different chairman? Will they come back when we go into administration? Or will they only come back when we find a rich backer? Perhaps some kind of arms dealer? Jesus...

If the team give the 110% Jan was asking for, I guess the maximum is 6.6 points (although I hope they round it up to 7) I'd agree that stopping the losing streak would be a good start. Ipswich are playing ok at the moment, so I'd settle for a confidence settling 1-1, followed by a scrappy and hard-fought 1-0 or 2-1 win against Barnsley. Four points from two games would give us a nice, thick layer of encouragement and self-belief: Not unlike when you know you're going out for a heavy night on the beer and so prepare your stomach with a good layer of food.

I'm confused: Are we slating him for getting the free fuel, or punishing him for the night club thing... again? Yes he should be keeping a low profile. Yes it would have been better publicity if he'd given his free fuel to someone else. Yes he does therefore seem to have the intellectual might of a dazed squirrel. Otherwise it's not really connected to the nightclub incident. It's a strange thing about Saints fans that once someone is in our bad books, we'll find any excuse to crucify them. This kind of uproar wouldn't happen if it was another player who earned more than Dyer (not that there are many of those left at the club) - but it's Dyer, and he got off easy last time so it's open season. I imagine this has left him open to much p!ss-taking in the changing rooms. Imagine everyone asking him if he's got enough money for parking or whether he needs people to chip in for the bus fare home.

If you're going to quote an article, you really need to include the full quote. You missed a bit from the middle paragraph: "I like the looks of clubs such as Ipswich, Derby and Southampton because these are the types of clubs that are developing youngster players on a regular basis, especially Southampton who (along with their forward-thinking chairman and exciting management team) have implemented a new system for development whereby the younger players are given a chance in the first team. I would be absolutely thrilled to be involved. Thrilled, I tell you. Tom [Cruise] was bouncing up and down on the sofa when I told him about it."

Thorpe-Le-Saint, I actually think Scooby deserves more credit for posting on this thread than you do for jumping in and calling this a false dawn before the final whistle has finished echoing around the ground. It's a young team. They're learning. Whilst I don't agree with Scooby's wide-eyed school-boy fascination with Rupert Lowe, I think we have to give this new side a little more support than that. Using today's defeat as a stick to beat up Scooby is rather low IMO.

The more I hear from that guy, the more I like him. You can see how he would motivate a team. My favourite bit was "But if you lose and learn why you lose, it will make you better. It will make you a winner in the end. Don't hide yourself". I think the youngsters most of all will understand that idea of playing without fear. That's something which can only come with youth and inexperience.

Wasn't it Lawrie McMenemy who talked about a team being mostly made up of hod-carriers complemented by a few violinists? I'm more than happy if we have signed another (free) hod-carrier given that the youngsters seem to be doing a good job of being the violinists. It's a long season. We need a few more players to make a decent-sized squad. It's clear that people like Skacel and Euell (whilst they can still contribute while they're in the shop window) are too expensive to be here long-term, so we're building a cheaper, leaner squad. If he really is a "safe passer" as someone put it, then I think he'll fit in perfectly. Welcome Anthony! Saints always were a side who picked out exciting young players, older experienced players and players who others had cast aside. We're not focussing on older players now (see how it bit us in the behind in the last few seasons) but aside from that nothing is particularly new. What is different from recent seasons is that we finally seem to be making the right choices again! Long may it continue!

Saints 1 Blackpool 0. Hopefully no injuries.

A struggling Premiership side at home, please. As we used to find to our own cost, the last thing a struggling big name side want is to travel to play someone in form in a lower league. Win and everyone says "so what?" - lose and people are calling it a disaster. Save the big guns for the next round. P.S. Not knocking people who stay away from SMS out of principal but, with the quality of our football apparently improving beyond all recognition, shouldn't we be able to get good attendances regardless of who we're playing or what competition we're playing in?

Alpine took a (not-undeserved) bashing for posting that the sky was falling after we had lost the first two games of the season. If anyone is going to tell me we're going the win the league after another two, then they're just as deluded. It's a long season. We've only played 5 games. As Arizona said, we are a small squad so injuries will hit particularly hard. We also need to take into account that the more successful we get, the more teams will adapt the way they play to counter us - which presents new and different challenges for manager, players et al. One new approach will not in itself get us promoted. Lots still to do - but very exciting at the moment. I certainly thought we'd have to wait a lot longer to see even one win. I'm delighted to be wrong and hope the guys keep proving me wrong. Here's hoping the fans come back to ride this wave and that the board keep their faith too and don't sell off any of these talented young kids.

Which is why I said people should just go to the matches they could when they could. Trust me, it's a longer trip for some people! I'm directing this comment to those whose main contribution is here (where it serves no-one) as opposed to at St.Mary's (where it can make a difference). I understand the idea of football as entertainment and sympathise with the argument that for the last few years, we've received precious little back for what our fans have given through the turnstiles... but if we really are building a good team here, then we need to acknowledge the change and support it by going and lending our voices. If this is the first spurt of new growth at Saints then we need to support it via attendances or it's going to die on its a**e. Crowing, Baiting, Finger-pointing, etc. won't get us anywhere. Judging by the amount of emotion vented on this forum (particularly by the wide range of positive/negative threads after just 3 games), a lot of people need to get to a game and let the tension out.