mrfahaji

It's just funny how the people who 'fall' into the people in front also happen to be the biggest d1ckheads in the vicinity though. In these recent experiences it was honestly like they did it deliberately to show everyone how "mental" they are. Except when it really comes to it, their support is found wanting. There's a marked difference between everyone going crazy in a moment like Anfield and one guy wanting to show off how passionate he is by landing on you while everyone else is capable of remaining in their row - which most of the time is a big enough space to jump around in without toppling over no matter how vociferous you might be in your celebrations.

Agree. But I also find there is always someone near me whever I go to a game who seems to want the world to know what a d1ckhead he is. At Wigan and at Fulham I've had the people behind (aged approx 18-30, so not massively different from me) fall/jump forwards and land on my dad or me in the process. The fact that they could genuinely hurt someone through their stupidity is one thing, but just the simple fact that when some oaf lands on you, you can't enjoy celebrating a goal - the most rare thing for a Saints fan! - is utterly stupid and selfish. Funny how it's also the same people who feel the need to incessantly swear like they're trying to show off (especially if they are sat near women and kids I've noticed), who before the game are aggressively singing and shouting and yet when the game is underway suddenly aren't as vocal, and invariably miss half of the second half because they're still at the bar. Most of the fans who go to the games are decent (though I find the lack of singing and atmosphere at home a bit rubbish), but there are a small minority who have a tendency to ruin the experience for everyone else (or at least annoy everyone else), from opposite ends of the spectrum - whether it's crying into their snapchat filter or simply being offensive and generally vile human beings.

Madrid and Barcelona might be bigger in terms of draw for a player, but I'd say Manchester United eclipse both in terms of world profile. Apparently Mourinho, who had been at Madrid previously, was taken aback at the level of scrutiny/interest/coverage United got when they travelled around the world.

As many of us said during Hughes' reign, the bizarre thing was not that Austin played, it was that he started. He isn't fit so runs out of energy and any meaningful contribution after 15-20 minutes. So why not bring him on for the final period of the game when he can run about and the defenders are tiring? Comes on against Spurs near the end - looks lively, gets chances, scores. Starts against Cardiff - looks ok for the first 10 minutes but spends the rest of the game pretending to be a footballer before being subbed. Comes on against Arsenal near the end - scores the winning goal. Some things are quite straightforward. Incredible that Hughes never got it.

I'm not too worried. I'm more worried about whether United will try to tempt Pochettino and whether Pochettino can be tempted. I say worried, I mean hopeful.

All those years of him playing on the left and you'd never noticed this?!

Well I was shouting at Long just to run towards goal, did not expect him to pick that cross out!

True but if Austin is going to be useful then it's for the last 10-20 minutes. At least he can start tiring at a similar rate to the defenders now...

Expect a dirty game from here on out then

Great play. Makes such a difference when Redmond gets his head up and plays positively - helps being centrally/right as well (like most people have always said/thought...)

Having now seen it back, that does seem a bit harsh, Vestergaard is marking him but leaves him to pick up someone else.

Didn't see enough of the move to be sure, and perhaps it's a little harsh to apportion 'blame', but we've seen Romeu caught out a number of times before failing to track runners into the box.

As much as I'm sceptical of Vestergaard, at least Yoshida is playing alongside him - the only situation where I can see Vestergaard as a viable option.

They should, but these are footballers we're talking about. I look at Charlie Austin and I think it's disgraceful that he has allowed himself to become that unfit, but I find more frustrating that coaches and the manager aren't seeing it and telling him - or perhaps, earning THEIR money and coach him back to an appropriate level of fitness!

So am I... at no point have I sided with the players.

I agree with you, but that is not how the players will see it. I am not excusing them - I agree that if they don't like it, then tough, the situation calls for it and they have (arguably) brought it on themselves. All I am trying to explain is that footballers do not see their jobs in the same way that fans do and that being initially put out by an increase in workload is a natural human reaction. (Also, to counter your first point, if they saw playing football as a hobby rather than a job, why on earth would they feel compelled to work harder if they don't want to?)

I mean, it's getting to the point in the PL (and certainly for Saints) that if this was an option teams would take it. If nothing else they will field a weakened team because they know they can't get anything from the match. In matches against teams outside the top 5, the top 5 have won 89% of the points available. You might expect that against, say, the bottom 5, but not against the rest of the entire division. With nearly half the season gone that is an insane statistic.

But that's not how footballers see it, even if they should. It's a job - they have their hours and they get paid. Yes, perhaps they should have been volunteering to do extra sessions for the past seasons based on their performance, but if they haven't been, then they are quite clearly content with their lot. I'm sure they want to be successful, but it's no different to someone working 9-5 instead of 8-8 because they value work-life balance over a promotion. If we get relegated, they'll just find another club (job). Longer term I doubt there will be problems, especially (or only) if we see success on the pitch. But understandable that it may initially irk some of the players (even if they deserve it!)

Yep, I don't know where these 'journalists' get their info from... surely anyone who knows anything about Premier League football realises this?!

Although I do agree about players being pampered, overpaid, don't know how good they've got it etc etc, I can also understand them not being happy with suddenly having twice the workload and cancelled days off. Not saying they are justified in it, but it's a natural reaction. Not many sit or stand at work thinking "man this is easy, they should probably make me work a bit more" - if your boss asked you to do some extra hours or come in on your day off because the company was struggling, what would your reaction be? At best it would be "ok I'll do it but not exactly chuffed about it". It's totally fair enough to think that footballers live in a bubble with no perspective, but if they do then they are bound to the same emotions and reactions that we all are when it comes to work!

Very good point. Can we shut this website down, please?

Hoedt and Vestergaard?! Jesus, the slowest and most error prone pair of centre backs the world has ever seen! Of the 10 possible combinations I think this would be 10th on my list...

Credit where it's due though, Hoedt normally makes the mistake in an area where he has chance to recover, make another mistake, recover, make another mistake - by which point the rest of the team have managed to get back to help him out (on a serious note, I don't think anyone has made a mistake as bad or in as critical a position as Vestergaard did on Saturday)

Yep, in the game at St Mary's, bit of a long range effort if I recall.

Yoshida is the only CB with any pace (I haven't seen enough of Bednarek to be sure, but don't think he is particularly quick), but isn't great in the air. I know he isn't brilliant or consistent, but he has also had some excellent games. I'd rather play someone who can be good but can be bad rather than someone who has never been good... I've tried to summarise in a table - the problem of being "error prone" is taken as a given with all combinations... Feel free to suggest corrections to this table if you disagree!