Joensuu

Any homophobic chanting is crass homophobic chanting.

By all means defend the right to make jokes about any subject - that's something we should all support. However, when the joke is discriminatory against any minority group it's simply not funny. I can only assume that those defending crass homophobic chanting, find Michael Mcintyre high brow?

Any measure to reduce discrimination has to be a good thing. All football clubs should participate in any effort to reduce discrimination (unless they have very good reason not to do so). The chants in question aren't funny or clever. All they achieve is highlighting our own ignorance. The chants aren't directly negative, they can normally be condensed into a rather simple message of 'you're gay'. The reason many find this funny or clever stems from their assumption that being gay is in some way a negative thing. Which, of course, it isn't. Basically, it's playground humour, highlight a reason why someone appears to be different from others and have a good laugh at their expense. I personally don't find the chanting offensive, and I'm sure many gay people at St Mary's don't either, but I'm sure most find them cringeworthy at best. Homophobic chants are one step down from the most banal chants that some still resort to, the facepalmingly obvious (e.g West Ham fans singing 'Play Up Pompey', or us singing 'You can stick your f***ing bubbles up you a***'). I wonder how many times the respective fans will hear those sung at them this season - will the intended effect of trying to wind up the opponents ever actually be achieved by such base stupidity? Homophobic chants are worse again. IMO, they are little more than a public medium for declaring 'look at me, I'm stupid'. I offer anyone wishing to sing such cr*p my sympathy.

West Ham set out to frustrate. Any team in the league would have struggled to break them down, even Man U or Chelsea might have ended up with a frustrating draw. We should take it as a compliment that teams like West Ham and Sunderland come and try to park the bus. We had opportunities, but we didn't get the rub of luck needed to score. On another day we would have been 2 up by half time. The way West Ham neutralised us is interesting. They had been instructed to close Victor down fast. Obviously Big Sam has noticed that Victor seems prone to misdirecting a pass or three when he is under pressure. As we play the ball out from the back, Wanyama and Morgan are integral to they way we work the ball up the pitch. Clyne and Shaw are our other key players in this respect, and both were closely marked to prevent us using our width. The net effect was in the first half we were struggling to advance with the ball. Our opportunities all seemed to come from moments of individual flair. Porchettino seemed to recognise this, and instructed us to vary our play up a bit. We started introducing some long balls into the mix, which mad it more difficult for West Ham to keep pressing, as the needed to be ready to track back. This change of strategy seemed to lead to a few opportunities, but our luck in front of goal didn't improve. Jaaskelainen simply played a blinder, he pulled off a couple of excellent saves, and without him, West Ham would have lost the game convincingly. Osvaldo looked quite impressive, but no opportunities feel to him. Lallana created and chased, but took one touch too many for his best opportunity. Rodriguez played well, but seems to play best when the crowd are positive - his game seems to suffer whenever the crowd collectively groans at one of his mistakes. Lambert seemed to produce a lot for others. I disagree with those who say that he and Osvaldo can't play together - give them time, they need to familiarise. No idea why JWP was introduced for Lallana. Adam seemed to be playing well - is his fitness below some of the others? I felt that Rodriguez would have been the player to make way. All in all, I'd not get too worried by the result. Last season we'd have lost to a team like this, who set out deliberately to stifle and frustrate. This year we are picking up points from the more combative games. I'm interested to see how we do against Liverpool, as they won't sit back. Will we see last season's high pressing game return? I hope so. Or is our new defensive, lethargic approach, now the way we play against everyone? Certainly in the summer I was concerned that our pressing game was too easy to beat, simply sit back and hit us with long balls on the counter. I'm glad we have a new-found backbone, but can we still remember how to turn over the teams who want to actually play football?

Since I put some of the blatant trolls on ignore, threads like this one are vastly improved. Wonder if the mod's use this: http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=300073 They could then get a good sense of who the posters annoying most others are, and improve the forum for the majority.

Top post. A small element have seen fit to scapegoat Ramirez as they can't seem to look past his price tag and see that he adds to our squad. He was one of our better players against Sunderland. He is young, and has a lot of potential, but yet some people seem to want to drive him out of the club. I find their negatively baffling.

Agreed, but I would swap him in for Rodriguez. If West Ham sit back, defend and play long balls, Jay's pace won't be as much of an asset, as he won't have the space to run into. I'd personally start with a front four of Rickie, supported by Adam, Ramirez and Osvaldo.

Yeah, West Ham will defend resolutely, then hit us on the break. Not a game I'm expecting a win from.

Was impressed with Ramirez against Sunderland. Seemed to inject energy and focus into the game. Certainly demonstrated that he is suited to helping to break down a resilient defence, in a way that Jay simply can't. That's not having a go at Rodriguez, I simply feel that Jay is suited to free flowing games, either those where we are playing a top team, or those where we are a goal up and the opposition is chasing the game. That gives Jay the space he needs to run into. Against a team who are sitting back Ramirez (and Lallana) offer us much more. Have to say I was impressed by Ramirez after Sunderland. If he keeps playing like that he'll do very well this season.

I'm still waiting? Alpine?

I gave up reading Glasgow a while back. He posted provocatively, constantly trying to wind people up. He also seemed to regularly big himself up, rarely before the event, normally only with the benefit of hindsight. He may well have some inside info - but his posting style prohibits me from wasting any of my time reading his spam. I wouldn't be surprised if Palace had sounded us out, I mean, Sharp is about as good a backup option as Kevin Philips. However, I've seen no evidence of this, and imagine that Sharp's wage would have proved to have been the stumbling block. I can't see us standing in the way of any offers that meet our valuation.

Think I've missed a few crucial pieces of information. Can anyone provide a link to Palace's offer? (or any other Premier team's offer)? I've only seen Championship interest (oh, and rumours of Celtic), and find it a bit baffling that any Premier team would consider Sharp seriously (even Palace). Can someone point me to a link where we have rejected a reasonable bid for Sharp this summer? Can anyone provide evidence that Sharp isn't allowed to train with our reserves?

That sounds fair. However, I feel the owners will give Cortese more credit for finishing higher in the league, than the would for playing the expensive players. Surely the players deemed to be the best will be played above others?

Right, so your argument is that Saints are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Of course, that makes loads of sense. I can imagine the discussion - 'Billy is doing well, too well. If we're not careful he's going to show up our new signings." "Drat, right, sod relegation, the most important thing here is to save face. We have to keep playing our expensive summer recruits, and not out best player Billy'. Seriously Alpine, that doesn't stack up. There are only two reasons the club aren't playing Billy. Either he has been judged to not be good enough, or he has done something we haven't been informed about that has effected his position within the squad. There is no chance that there is a bizarre face-saving conspiracy going on. If you are good enough you will get the chance to show it.

Evidence for said claim? Do you have any impartial sources for the 'club politics' suggestion? If I were found to be inadequate in my role, would I be tempted to tell my next employers that 'I wasn't good enough' or would I suggest 'The environment was stifling my ability to perform'? Oh, and can you provide any examples of people arguing that Billy "is sh*t and should f**k off and save us the money"? I have only seen reasonably complimentary posts.

Alpine, do you feel that Forte is good enough to start? What about Forecast last season? If any player is considered good enough they will be given a chance, if they aren't considered to be of the requisite quality they won't be. Billy has a fair amount of ability, but appears to have been determined as being lacking in some aspect of his game that our coaches feel inhibits him from playing an active role in our first team. My evidence is that he hasn't been selected. I would like to see your evidence to back up your claim that "He hasn't been allowed to try".

I might be wrong, but isn't egg suggesting that players who are on the bench should be good enough to start? I'd imagine you are both feel that Cork is good enough for the bench, because he is plenty good enough to start; whereas egg feels (IMO correctly) that Billy should not be on the bench, because he, probably, isn't good enough to start.

Goodness, what a strange debate. Sharp seems like a lovely guy. He is obviously a talented footballer, who seems like an honest pro. He is a good Championship player, who has seemingly been judged to be someway short of the required quality for a Premier role by at least two managers. He is currently being paid the most he will probably ever earn in his career, and would be crazy to accept a pay cut. So, currently we are being told in the press that we are demanding that any club wanting loan Billy has to stump up 100% of his wage. It's fairly obvious that a number of Championship clubs would like to have him in their team, but all seem to want him on the cheap. Saints are simply playing hard-ball, and demanding that they stump up. That is the Cortese way - he seems to consistently negotiate superb deals. I'm sure that unless Billy has done something irrational that we haven't been told about, that he will be training at Staplewood with our other reserves. I doubt that there is any truth in the 'banned from Staplewood' rumors, unless we are unaware of something. I would argue that based on what we currently know, we are treating Billy fairly. He is well paid; (almost certainly) able to use our training facilities; able to choose to move (if he drops his wage demands); and probably still able to force his way into our team (that would IMO take a minor miracle, as Billy would need to step up several levels, while simultaneously seeing our squad hit by a injury crisis). I can only conclude that the current press attention is an attempt by one party or another to help Billy get a loan move. Either we are trying to inform other clubs that they have to improve their offers; or Billy's agent is trying to keep him on the radar of other clubs. I'm confident that before long a loan deal will be arranged, that all parties will find acceptable (probably not for 100% of Billy's wages, but probably for a much higher contribution that other clubs have so far been willing to offer).

Of course we can. Lambert as the loan striker, Osvaldo in one of the wide berths.

Wow, so the thread has drifted to discussing whether buying or loaning makes most sense? Seriously, both make sense, but I feel buying often focus' the players mindset slightly more. I'm just chuffed to have a club that has punched above it's weight, and brought in exactly the players that we targeted, with not faffing about. We have certainly improved the squad strength, while offloading players who weren't up to scratch, and loaning out players on the fringes to see if they produce the goods elsewhere. We've kept all of our best players, and introduced three quality additions who all look likely to be either equal to or an improvement on our best players in their respective positions. And to top it off we got in early, with no messing about on the last day. If this isn't our 'best ever' window, it must be damn close to it. I personally doubt that we were ever in the market for a winger - I believe that that is just media hype. I also don't see that we would need one. Generally we will face one of two types of game, either a team is coming at us, or they are sitting back and defending. In the former scenario a winger might be handy, but these are the games that we've hand few problems scoring in anyhow. In the latter scenario, we are generally trying to break through two lines of 4, and crowding the opposition box. A player with pace simply won't have the space to run into. IMO we really need players with flair who can open up defenses, not wide players who are more suited to a counter-attacking team.

I'd assume Clyne is still regarded as first choice. I don't think the article is over-hyping Chambers. He is one of only a handful of players to play premier games at such a young age. If he continues to develop at the rate he has done he will certainly have a very promising future. Hopefully the assured displays he has put in to-date will allow him gain the confidence to press forward and support our attacking play.

Alps, all teams win, all teams lose. Both Norwich and ourselves have strengthened over the summer. We didn't play well, and a loss was probably the fairest result. If we were talking about 2 or 3 months of bad results you'd have a valid point. We are talking about 1 game that despite playing badly, could have gone either way. If we extend your logic to it's conclusion Chelsea, Man City and PSG would never lose a game again. They will. Money being spend improving a team does not make that team infallible. It just increases the likelihood that they will pick up more points over an extended run of games. Or, IMHO, you are displaying a knee-jerk reaction to a single game, and need to calm down until we have seen enough games to form a real opinion. You've returned to your default position of 'panic', and while that in itself is somewhat endearing, it feeds the trolls and WUMs who rigorously peruse every negative thread they can.

To be fair, Glasgow's claims reek of BS. What's up with you today anyhow Alps - you've had an excellent couple of weeks by your standards, and seem to have got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Last week you were so much better.

No, I'd rate the kit an F. I think it's a weak, half-hearted effort, but really not something that concerns me overly as I was never in the market to buy one.

A- for me. Players in A. We've purchased three excellent players. All three will put in superb shifts for us I'm sure. Dejan looks a clear step up in quality. Daniel looks hungry, and I'm sure is only a matter of a few games and a bit of understanding between the front four away from scoring on a regular basis. Victor looks solid (I do have some slight concerns about his pace and distribution though, and wouldn't be surprised to see Cork given some game time soon). Players out A-. Reduced our squad size substantially, allowed a lot of players to move on. Only slight negative here is that we still have 3 or 4 players whom I'd like to have seen moved on if possible. Timeliness A-​. I'm not really concerned when we bring in players, just that we buy the players we want to and aren't forced to make rash decisions. All our business this year was done and dusted with a fortnight of the window to spare. Overall a superb window; not perfect, but certainly not easy to improve upon.