Wes Tender

As you're so fully able to get in the mind of Phillips and offer up his thoughts, perhaps you can do the same again and read the mind of the top racing pundit in the country and tell me which horses are going to win at Kempton on Monday.

The wise one has spoken again. All hail the wise one!

You have my deepest sympathies. Is that patronising enough?

You don't know that for sure and cannot prove it either way unless you ask Phillips. And in the spirit of name calling to anybody who has a different point of view to you, you are the bigger idiot if you can't see that there are incentives both financial and mental that do motivate people to achieve different things beyond their professional status.

I'll accept that it is your opinion, but please also accept that my view is different and unless you get Phillip's own view on it, then your argument has no more validity than mine, except that you'll probably find that most sensible people would put some credence on the proposition that sports psychology is not bunk. Just carry on the chants on Tuesday and let's see if he is motivated to rub our noses in it again.

John has probably missed a few of those But what motivated him to get in that position, to almost bludgeon the ball over the line? I agree that he is a bloody good striker though and I wish that we could have kept him.

You obviously don't understand the difference that is introduced by the psychological aspects, so I'll lump you in with those who may well carry on chanting abuse because they don't think it will have any effect. Sports Psychologists are a total and utter waste of time and money, aren't they, as the players are all professionals and don't need it. So all this talk about players wanting to lift their games to impress a new manager, players motivated to play in a higher division because they're in the play-offs, all complete tosh, utter bunk. If somebody broadcast it publicly that they'd screwed your wife (if you have one) you'd not react in any way? You wouldn't feel the desire to go and punch his lights out? In this situation, it isn't possible to go and punch everybody who chants it, but it is possible to rub their noses in it by scoring the winning goal. And having done that, did Phillips then shrug his shoulders and think that he was just doing his job, or did he mentally think YES!!! that will teach the ignorant c*nts? If something along those lines was what he thought at the time, then patently it was what motivated him. But if you can't see that, I'll not waste my breath any further on anybody who isn't capable of grasping a reasoned concept.

I also enjoy watching the youngsters play. What embarasses me is that we are a club run by two failed ex chairmen, foreign management inexperienced in this league playing equally inexperienced youngsters and that we are so pathetically cash strapped that anything that isn't bolted down is for sale.

Yes, of course he'll get the abuse. It was mindless and the perpetrators won't have made any connection with the possibility that it motivated him to rub our noses in it by scoring.

I agree with the sentiment of your argument, but wonder whether the reality could ever be achieved. Ultimately a player's worth is dictated by supply and demand and football is now a global game and players might well emigrate to keep up their inflated wages. The money from Sky has been the root cause of the problem and made it less reliant on bums on seats except at the levels like we find ourselves in whereby there isn't much revenue coming in from televising our matches, making the turnstile revenue vital. The situation has been exacerbated by billionaires buying clubs and obscenely splashing their cash about. Perhaps downturns in their wealth might be helpful, or they might get bored with their toys and some semblance of sanity might begin to manifest itself.

Yes, Gorgie, those players do make a reasonable spine to the team. The possible fly in the ointment apart from your concern, is whether we can even retain them in the team most of the season. There are current rumours that Kelvin and John might go. The other three might well suffer injuries. Where would we be then?

The Superior being has spoken. Everybody take note of he who knows best. We are too humble to even be in your exalted company, oh knowledgeable one.:smt017

I suspect that if some anorak was to analyse which combination of players last season was capable of beating the best teams and which lost against the worst teams, some sort of pattern might emerge. But don't tell me that the players in the team were crap and yet they beat West Brom 3-2 and drew the return. That they also beat Cardiff, QPR, Burnley, Bristol City, Stoke, etc, often over one leg, losing the other. I really can't be arsed to see who played in one leg and who played in the other. But we beat Sheffield Utd twice and had other wins with a 13 wins total and 14 draws. As is typical with Saints, they often beat the top teams and lose to the bottom ones. Far too early to make statements along the lines that this current team would thrash last season's. They'll need some wins under their belt before any conclusions are reached.

Yes, it is a moot point, but worth considering. Had either Saints' older players, or England's older players given the impression that they couldn't really be arsed, but nevertheless went on a winning streak, would they get the flack that they get when they are losing? What would most of us rather see? Attractive, passing, adventurous football from the youngsters, but ultimately a succession of disappointing defeats, or games played by seemingly disinterested older pros who run out winning? In our situation, would the youngsters fill the stadium if they lost each week, regardless of how entertainingly they played, or is there more chance of the stadium filling following a series of boring but winning games played by the older players? I suppose the answer that avoids critical analysis is to play a mixture, a blend of both older experienced players and exuberant youth. I'm worried though that financial restrictions have shortened our options when it comes to decent older players, as their wages are likely to be higher if they're any good.

Most are behind the team and are doing their sniping at Lowe, Wilde and Crouch and nothing wrong with that. The blame for our current predicament lies firmly at their doors and most would wish all of them gone. I have a lot of sympathy for JP who seems to be struggling to keep players who he was told would be kept, cannot play others who were expected to be gone and has generally had his hands tied by the board. Also, as this is a forum, it would be an incredibly dull place if we were all singing from the same song sheet, wouldn't it? I would respond also to the implication that most of our older players were lazy mercenaries last seaon, but Gordon Mockles has done an excellent job there already

I watched all of the home games last season and the one before that too. I struggle to remember long ball footie being the order of the day. Perhaps we played that only at the away games. Mind you, I listened to all the radio commentaries for the away games and don't recall the commentators mentioning it much.

As there was no mention of Saints here, then why is this on the main board? Or are you employing a broad sweeping generalisation about the football you like to see at national level and at local level? But difficult to generalise at all between England's team and ours, as there is too much diversity between the two situations. Capelli has the choice of any English player from any division or indeed any club here and abroad. Most would think it a privilege to play for their national team. We as a club deep in the financial sh*t, have really hardly any choice at all as to who plays for us. We can only choose the players whose wages we can afford. But as to the rest of your argument, I don't accept the premise that youngsters necessarily play with more heart or spirit than older players. Naturally, the older players were youngsters themselves once upon a time and does it therefore follow in most cases that they somehow lose that enthusiasm or heart and commitment? Not if they are true professionals. Of course most would agree that any player who does not perform to the best of their ability should be dropped from the team and that therefore there is probably a youngster knocking on the door to take his place. But that has always been the case. Competition for places is good for any team. Regrettably, for Saints there is hardly the possibility of the older players fighting to keep their places, as most cannot be afforded anyway. But your second paragraph did not make one thing clear. If the result was failure from youngsters who gave their all, compared with older higher paid glory players with a reputation who didn't seem to care and who also failed, then everybody would agree with you. But what if the choice was between youngsters who tried very hard but failed, compared to the older glory players who didn't seem to put across the same commitment but managed to succeed, which would you go for then?

Seems a decent signing to shore up the defence.

So by your reasoning, the more they are paid, the more motivated they ought to be? On that basis, it rather shoots down your argument that the youngsters will put in more commitment, as they are paid considerably less, which throws up the probability that they will be off as soon as somebody offers them a much bigger pay cheque. I think that Arizona's summary is a far better yardstick, that they were lacking confidence, leadership and creativity. Anyway, if you were put in as the manager of a club in freefall, short of confidence and motivation, what would you honestly do? Play the youngsters, or attempt to fire up again players with experience? JP has had his hand forced on him by financial circumstances, but nobody has put up evidence to show that Pearson was unprepared to go down the same road as JP if offered the opportunity. We might never know. All that is clear in all probability is that it is far better making selections with the widest variety of options available to one, rather than being forced by circumstances into a narrowed selection.

I seem to recall that Dyer was playing for us last season too. Pearson had already blooded Lallana too and would probably have continued using him had he stayed. Whether Safri was ineffective is purely a matter of opinion and I for one disagree with you. I also disagree that Idiakez was never that great. By using ever I'm presuming you actually meant ever in his entire career? His tackling wasn't great, but his ability to pick out a pass was better than average. The jury's out on Holmes and Thomson. And I don't agree at all with your assertion that just because of our midfield this current team would destroy last season's team. Even accepting that Schneiderlin and Gillett aren't a bad combination, this team's strike force is lighter weight and reliant on no injuries and John not leaving. And there are defensive shortcomings now that would have seen the last season's strikers banging the goals in.

Perhaps JP was told honestly by Lowe that the situation was that although we wished to offload players earning more than a certain level, we intended to keep a squad comprising players on a prepared list that included John, Surman and Davies. Maybe it was also made clear that under circumstances whereby some of those players surplus to requirements couldn't be offloaded, then we would have to look at selling others instead. But if this wasn't made clear to him, I'd be expecting JP to be very annoyed. The one point that I'd make was that as a justification of the clear out, much was made of the fact that the team would comprise youngsters desperate to prove themselves, playing with enthusiasm and determintation, proud to wear the shirt. We would be shipping out the journeymen and those looking for a quiet berth in the latter stages of their careers. On this basis, it could be argued that on grounds of motivation and desire, having loanees covering a few positions will not be as good as having our own players and that it seems that there are one or two of these older players starting to creep back into the equation. Personally I'm not against a good mix of youth and experience, but I wonder whether it is actually probable that by replacing one older player with another costing much less, one is able to get a better player? And it had also crossed my mind that this mentioning of prospective signings of the calibre of Cork and Harte is just a ruse to quieten down dissent at the departure of Davies and the rumoured departure of popular players like John and Surman. It will be interesting to see which name appears in the frame as potential replacement for John if he goes. Again, I'd question whether it was possible to obtain somebody on less money who was as good. We may have our doubts, justifiably, but we'll just have to wait and see what transpires.

There's a slight difference between the two cases. Nothing much was known about Bennett and everything one could read about him was fairly positive and he was a young international. In sharp contrast, everything that one reads about young Pulis suggests that he is pretty useless and mainly gets to play because his dad is manager. Bennett did get a slating initially, that's true. But that was on the basis that he had not exactly played very well and made some bad mistakes. When he teamed up with Andrew Davies, the two forged a great understanding together and Bennett's transformation was amazing. If young Pulis did sign, then there's not a lot we can do about it but see how he plays, but if people do get on his back if he's crap, then that was what happened to Bennett too initially. If he turns things around and becomes an asset, then I'm sure that he will then earn the respect that Bennett did, so from that aspect, there would be no disparity at all with Bennett's situation with us.

Seems that he rejected the Wolves deal. Mick McCarthy is said to be disappointed that he didn't sign. Probably didn't want to live in that ****e hole. Surely his wages would be a problem for us, as he still seems useful and therefore would cost above what we can pay.

I was agreeing with everything you said until the very last two words. No. I will not get behind the board. If all of those shysters and charlatans left us today and we never saw any of them anywhere near our club ever again, it would be a cause for celebration for most fans of this club.

What? Just like you used to when Lowe was in the wilderness,Scabby?