Who here does not really give a monkeys

[saint1977]

I am not really concerned with results at present although I do get upset when we lose.

 

However what I am more concerned with is that the club has a healthy future we cant go along buying up undeachieving over paid professionals it is leading us nowhere.

 

 

In the last five years who have we bought who was really good - Svensson Crouch Phillips and possibly now Davis that has been the problem as the team has not developed.

 

At least with the new regime players can be developed and with money when it becomes available we maybe able to buy some better ones.

 

 

Perhaps if we had adopted this approach a season or so ago tomorrow's team may have been.

 

 

Davis

Crainie

Svensson

Mills

Surman

Wooton

Scheinder

McGoldrick

Lallana

Blackstock

 

plus someone we may have bought instead of wasting money on Powell Ostlund Makin Idiakiez Wright etc

 

I agree with 95% of your post John although Blackstock has been kicked up the backside by Dowie and hence he is now producing what we knew he was capable of and not coming into pre-season training a bloater. Mills was a shame, ignored by Redtoss and played out of position by Beerley. Results are paramount however although the objective is different to our other CCC seasons - staying up, so the results are relative. We NEED our first home win on Saturday as Barnsley are fellow strugglers and Simon Davey is under real pressure up there. Having given Blackpool 3 easy points, we cannot slip up in another home 6-pointer. The other thing is that the likes of Blackpool, Donny, Barnsley (wage cap as have been in admin) and others still have less resources than SFC even with us nearly kaput so our league performance still needs to improve a bit - we can do it if we play like we did V Brum in the League Cup. If we don't win Saturday, we are in real trouble as League 1 = administration.

 

The other key is investment, without that, the academy WILL have to be significantly downsized and I know that for a fact and I don't say that often on here. Investment is the only way we can survive at CCC level with our overheads, even with the summer reductions and people really have to understand that. I'm not even talking about spending money on better players or being flash, that would only come with bigger investment and dare I say it, a takeover....

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm not sure I agree.

 

EVERY business needs a long-term strategy as well as short-term actions/tactics.

 

So you could say that the long-term aim is to win every game. In the short-term we recognise that to build the long-term, we might lose some games while we BUILD for the long term.

 

It then depends on how you define short and long term.

 

Winning is everything IF you had a guaranteed formula to win. There isn't one.

 

So, you have to have a plan. And then STICK TO IT.

 

Otherwise you simply focus on the here and now and eventually find yourself lost.

All very noble sentiments providing:

 

a) we survive in the short term

b) the team will improve in the long term. Maybe this is as good as they get.......?

[saint1977]

If all you care about is winning games then you're supporting the wrong club - honestly just go join the Man U zombies.

 

If all you care about is watching football the way it's supposed to be played go and watch Arsenal.

 

If what you care about is Southampton FC and will support them through thin and thinner then you're in the right place.

 

Fundamentally correct but many of us do not believe that Wilde or Lowe represents an improvement on Crouch (and Wilde..). It's more of the same and the recent revealation that Askham - who is scum and the most hated figure in SFC history - is involved again sent a shiver down my spine. I'm going still to SMS because I won't stop because of Askham but I still don't like sharing a stadium with the likes of Guy Askham who has destroyed OUR club.

Edited 19 September, 2008 by saint1977

[aintforever]

I'm not sure I agree.

 

EVERY business needs a long-term strategy as well as short-term actions/tactics.

 

So you could say that the long-term aim is to win every game. In the short-term we recognise that to build the long-term, we might lose some games while we BUILD for the long term.

 

It then depends on how you define short and long term.

 

Winning is everything IF you had a guaranteed formula to win. There isn't one.

 

So, you have to have a plan. And then STICK TO IT.

 

Otherwise you simply focus on the here and now and eventually find yourself lost.

 

I don't disagree with what you said, except for the lose games part.

 

We are not in a situation where we can afford to lose any more games than we have to because relegation will screw up any long term plan we have in place. Every single point is worth it's weight in gold this season.

 

Balance the books and consolidate our position should be the only plan for this season then we can move on from there.

 

Do you think it would be wise for Stoke City to implement a long term plan to get in the UEFA Cup at the expense of league points?

Edited 19 September, 2008 by aintforever

[St Marco]

Personally i want us to be a good team that plays well and wins more then they lose. The hope of that is what keeps me going to games. However right now and for the past few seasons i am happy to just win even if it is an own goal and we look ****. We need points and im not picky about how we get them!

[Scudamore]

Fundamentally correct but many of us do not believe that Wilde or Lowe represents an improvement on Crouch (and Wilde..). It's more of the same and the recent revealation that Askham - who is scum and the most hated figure in SFC history - is involved again sent a shiver down my spine. I'm going still to SMS because I won't stop because of Askham but I still don't like sharing a stadium with the likes of Guy Askham who has destroyed OUR club.

 

Gotta disagree with that. When we chose to take the risk of spending big it was the right thing to do at that time. What we are doing now is the right thing to do now. What we did in between those times...was not the right thing to do at that time...and i'm not sure that Crouch even realised that was the case...

[Scudamore]

That said i prefer to fixate on the football side of things as opposed to the Chairman myself...

 

I've yet to go down the stadium to see who is sitting in the directors box...

[LGTL]

Having grown up watching and supporting saints, I don't expect to see us win, in fact I hear over the past 20 years Southampton have won less games than any other professional club in England. That is the way things are and I'm quite used to it, now I am happy as long as we play well.

 

And guess how old I am. Thanks Dad

[Legod Second Coming]

I don't disagree with what you said, except for the lose games part.

 

We are not in a situation where we can afford to lose any more games than we have to because relegation will screw up any long term plan we have in place. Every single point is worth it's weight in gold this season.

 

Balance the books and consolidate our position should be the only plan for this season then we can move on from there.

 

Do you think it would be wise for Stoke City to implement a long term plan to get in the UEFA Cup at the expense of league points?

 

I hear what you're saying and I didn't express my point very well I don't think.

 

If the short term way to win games is bankrupt the club in the long term, then would that be preferable??

 

Our plan is not one or the other - I'm sure we don't expect to lose.

[saintcrris]

SFC is a football club and football is all about scoring more goals then your opponents.

Winning is all that matters, because that is what puts bums on seats.

 

We are 3rd from bottom to the rest of the footballing world that makes us crap.

 

We can win without making 30 passes and you can play attractive football the non dutch way or whatever.

[lordswoodsaints]

some people wouldnt care how we get to the prem just as long as we get there but i would hate it if we had to do what derby did(i dont think my neck could take it).

i pay my money to be entertained and if that results in a win then all well and good.i hate to see us lose but if the players have given there best and have tried to play a bit of football then i cant really be too unhappy.

[Amesbury Saint]

I would be very happy i we won every home match 1-0.

[Stanley Saint]

Obviously I'd rather see us win, but I'd rather see us losing with a team trying to play football than losing with a team intent on lumping the ball 70 yards onto Paul Moody's head. That was what the Branfoot wars were about, and some of us vets haven't got over the trauma yet.

 

At least in most of the games this season there have been passages of play when you think, well, if they keep playing like that, and stop getting bullied in defence, we might get somewhere. Mind you, it's the hope that kills you...

[Mole1]

I used to care, but now Lowe is back i can't be arsed to get that bothered. Not going to games and not spending any money at the club makes us losing easier. It's those who spend a small fortune going week in week out that i feel for.

[trousers]

So the quality of play is meaningless? Don't you want to be entertained?

 

 

SaintsWeb poster in jump to conclusion shocker

[um pahars]

but deep down, who else could not really care too much how we play and what players play as long as we win..?

 

I would prefer:

 

a) Winning 3-0 playing great football, then

 

b) Grinding out a 1-0 ugly win, then

 

b) i) getting outplayed for 89 mins, having 25 shots against us but grabbing a last min winner, through a luckily deflection, in our only attack of the game

 

c) Drawing, when we probably should have won, then

 

d) Snatching a draw when we deserve to lose, then

 

e) Losing, but playing some really good stuff, & finally

 

f) Losing, but deserving the spanking.

 

 

 

e) is most definitely better than f), and c) and d) are close, but nothing ultimately beats a) and b).

 

(Particularly if b) is away from home or against a team you hate).

Edited 20 September, 2008 by um pahars

[IFHP]

I would prefer:

 

a) Winning 3-0 playing great football, then

 

b) Grinding out a 1-0 ugly win, then

 

c) Drawing, when we probably should have won, then

 

d) Snatching a draw when we deserve to lose, then

 

e) Losing, but playing some really good stuff, & finally

 

f) Losing, but deserving the spanking.

 

 

 

e) is most definitely better than f), and c) and d) are close, but nothing ultimately beats a) and b).

 

(Particularly if b) is away from home or against a team you hate).

 

Can we not have the getting outplayed for 89 mins, having 25 shots against us but grabbing a last min winner, through a luckily deflection, in our only attack of the game option?

[um pahars]

Can we not have the getting outplayed for 89 mins, having 25 shots against us but grabbing a last min winner, through a luckily deflection, in our only attack of the game option?

 

Could come in with b), but i'll go back and edit my post just for you!!!!

[Wes Tender]

I hear what you're saying and I didn't express my point very well I don't think.

 

If the short term way to win games is bankrupt the club in the long term, then would that be preferable??

 

Our plan is not one or the other - I'm sure we don't expect to lose.

 

Does the use of the double negative in your first sentence mean that believe you expressed your opinion well, or not very well? Or should there have a full stop after "well"?

 

You say that we didn't expect to lose, presumably talking about the architects of this plan, mostly Lowe I suspect, with the taciturn support of the Quisling.

 

If it is indeed true that we didn't expect to lose games with a plan that is hugely experimental, relying on hitherto totally untested methods to be carried out by inexperienced youngsters and management also inexperienced not only in this country but also at this level, then Lowe and Wilde could be accused of extreme naivety. For all their faults, I don't accuse them of naivety, so it follows that they must have been aware that it was a huge gamble, thus the prospects of it all going tits up and us losing many matches if it didn't work were not only a possibility, but arguably a probability.

[Oz]

not too many are calling for his head..maybe one or two on here...

 

most even on the billy davies thread said that they would not mind him SHOULD JP not work out..

 

 

I think 90% of fans are happy (including myself) to give JP time as he has some bloody good ideas

 

jp out!

[Oz]

Can we not have the getting outplayed for 89 mins, having 25 shots against us but grabbing a last min winner, through a luckily deflection, in our only attack of the game option?

 

would have been great in the cup final!

[St Landrew]

I'd rather a season of boring 1-0 wins, all the way to promotion. But we don't get that. We are served up very entertaining football from a squad of previous seasons reserves, academy players, loanees and cheap buys. I don't have a say in that, as I don't own the club. So it's up to me to like it or lump it. I like it, but I'd rather have promotion.

[qwertySFC]

I pretty much agree. Winning is everything at the end of the day (Brian).

 

Unfortunatly , that is true. Winning is 3 points and inproves confidence in a young inexperienced team. One thing that is concerning is how long will the youngsters believe that the total football system is working. If we go week in week out playing this way and we dont produce a win, it is going to knock the already fragile confidence in these youngsters. Yes we may have been unlucky in some of the games and were unfortunate not to gain a win or draw. The whole concept of SFC is slowly dying a painful public death. Just over 13,000 saints fans turning up this week, an inexperienced manager who may not be picking the team himself , I think Lancaster played at QPR purely because QPR are a club with cash on the hip and Rupert wants the younger players in these clubs shop windows. The total lack of interest in this club is so infectious that it will eventually become mundane for a lot of people. The ticketing prices are way off what is realistic , as a Saints fan for 38 years SFC was my Saturday , now days it's just a occasional glance at the teletext , the odd listen to the radio and a read on line. A lot of fans like me have either given up , not that bothered about SFC now and this is so evident in the attendances. I dont know what the answer is , but what i do know is that the likes of myself are so distant from the club now I dont think i could recognise any of the players if they stood in front of me..

The team needs to rely on those 3 points .. we can hype up all we like about the 1 touch , total football , youngsters playing their hearts out , but in the end this game is result driven , 1 league win in these early stages I think demonstrates what lies ahead for the rest of the season. If this trend continues will Jan be here at Xmas , I believe he will , he will be walking this club into obscurity....

[swannymere]

If you want to win at all costs then **** off and support one of the big four.

[Thedelldays]

If you want to win at all costs then **** off and support one of the big four.

i really fail to understand that statement...are you saying you dont care if we win or not?

[um pahars]

If you want to win at all costs then **** off and support one of the big four.

 

I just want us to win.

[Legod Second Coming]

Does the use of the double negative in your first sentence mean that believe you expressed your opinion well, or not very well? Or should there have a full stop after "well"?

 

You say that we didn't expect to lose, presumably talking about the architects of this plan, mostly Lowe I suspect, with the taciturn support of the Quisling.

 

If it is indeed true that we didn't expect to lose games with a plan that is hugely experimental, relying on hitherto totally untested methods to be carried out by inexperienced youngsters and management also inexperienced not only in this country but also at this level, then Lowe and Wilde could be accused of extreme naivety. For all their faults, I don't accuse them of naivety, so it follows that they must have been aware that it was a huge gamble, thus the prospects of it all going tits up and us losing many matches if it didn't work were not only a possibility, but arguably a probability.

 

Ignoring my incoherence...

 

Firstly, I'm not sure that the plan is all that experimental.

 

OK, the manager has no experience in this league. The overall plan is, however, pretty straightforward and has been the bedrock of success for many clubs over the years - some with great success, notably Arsenal and Ajax.

 

I also think that people have taken the 'total football' too literally.

 

We don't play the Dutch total football of the mid-70s. Even the Dutch didn't play it. What they had was Johann Cruyff - arguably and rightly, the most versatile, skillful footballer ever - really, knocked Best into a ****ed hat, Pele nowhere near - both by their own admission.

 

So around Cruyff, they encouraged footballers who were confident on the ball, who would pass and move, pass and move.

 

At the same time, in England, Liverpool played a very similar game. All my youth I can remember people referring to Liverpool's 'little triangles' - when one man has the ball, he always had two options to pass to. It worked. It still does.

 

The best football teams play good football - in simple terms they are comfortable on the ball and giving it to one another. What formation they use, really doesn't matter. You can have 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1... if your players do not want, covet and use the ball, you are wasting your time.

 

For my money, far from being 'experimental' this is about getting back to the basics of football - players with technical skill making the ball do the work.

 

Yes, at times, our players are making mistakes. But if Simon Gillet in any formation gives the ball away to a man running onto our defence, it will spell trouble.

 

Ahah, you say - what if Safri had been playing the ball out - a proven experienced pro.

 

Answer? He may or may not have given the ball away. Put it this way, Jhon Viafara should have worked for SportsWorld he gave the thing away so often...

 

So, to me, at least we have a plan. And that's how all good things start. We won the Ashes not by selecting the best 11 to play Bangladesh at the expense of all else, but by restructuring the league system, introducing an Acadmey, central contracts etc.

 

Did it stop us beating Bangladesh? No. Does our long term plan stop us beating Barnsley today? No.

 

Ah, but the manager. He is unproven... True. But neither did he relegate Coventry...

[saint_ed]

I'm beginning to wonder whether the club are more concerned about us playing attractive football and get attendances up that way rather than us having sustained success, as we know that is unlikely on this budget.

[Delmary]

Attendances are down because the feel good factor is missing. You would struggle to give tickets away. Fans have fallen out of love with the team, the match day experience & the club. With personal finances tight for many, why waste money on something that is not delivering enjoyment?

[um pahars]

OK, the manager has no experience in this league. The overall plan is, however, pretty straightforward and has been the bedrock of success for many clubs over the years - some with great success, notably Arsenal and Ajax.

 

I also think that people have taken the 'total football' too literally.

 

We don't play the Dutch total football of the mid-70s. Even the Dutch didn't play it. What they had was Johann Cruyff - arguably and rightly, the most versatile, skillful footballer ever - really, knocked Best into a ****ed hat, Pele nowhere near - both by their own admission.

 

So around Cruyff, they encouraged footballers who were confident on the ball, who would pass and move, pass and move.

 

At the same time, in England, Liverpool played a very similar game. All my youth I can remember people referring to Liverpool's 'little triangles' - when one man has the ball, he always had two options to pass to. It worked. It still does.

 

The best football teams play good football - in simple terms they are comfortable on the ball and giving it to one another. What formation they use, really doesn't matter. You can have 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1... if your players do not want, covet and use the ball, you are wasting your time.

 

For my money, far from being 'experimental' this is about getting back to the basics of football - players with technical skill making the ball do the work.

 

Yes, at times, our players are making mistakes. But if Simon Gillet in any formation gives the ball away to a man running onto our defence, it will spell trouble.

 

Not being rude, but I just can't bring myself to think of Gillet being in the same post as some of the legendary teams and players above, let alone playing the same style of football!!!!!!!!!!

[Thedelldays]

Not being rude, but I just can't bring myself to think of Gillet being in the same post as some of the legendary teams and players above, let alone playing the same style of football!!!!!!!!!!

I cant pick myself off the floor with the comparisons being made..

 

cruyff, pele,barcelona, arsenal etc being compared to saints right now..

 

 

:smt081

[derry]

Ignoring my incoherence...

 

Firstly, I'm not sure that the plan is all that experimental.

 

OK, the manager has no experience in this league. The overall plan is, however, pretty straightforward and has been the bedrock of success for many clubs over the years - some with great success, notably Arsenal and Ajax.

 

I also think that people have taken the 'total football' too literally.

 

We don't play the Dutch total football of the mid-70s. Even the Dutch didn't play it. What they had was Johann Cruyff - arguably and rightly, the most versatile, skillful footballer ever - really, knocked Best into a ****ed hat, Pele nowhere near - both by their own admission.

 

So around Cruyff, they encouraged footballers who were confident on the ball, who would pass and move, pass and move.

 

At the same time, in England, Liverpool played a very similar game. All my youth I can remember people referring to Liverpool's 'little triangles' - when one man has the ball, he always had two options to pass to. It worked. It still does.

 

The best football teams play good football - in simple terms they are comfortable on the ball and giving it to one another. What formation they use, really doesn't matter. You can have 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-5-1... if your players do not want, covet and use the ball, you are wasting your time.

 

For my money, far from being 'experimental' this is about getting back to the basics of football - players with technical skill making the ball do the work.

 

Yes, at times, our players are making mistakes. But if Simon Gillet in any formation gives the ball away to a man running onto our defence, it will spell trouble.

 

Ahah, you say - what if Safri had been playing the ball out - a proven experienced pro.

 

Answer? He may or may not have given the ball away. Put it this way, Jhon Viafara should have worked for SportsWorld he gave the thing away so often...

 

So, to me, at least we have a plan. And that's how all good things start. We won the Ashes not by selecting the best 11 to play Bangladesh at the expense of all else, but by restructuring the league system, introducing an Acadmey, central contracts etc.

 

Did it stop us beating Bangladesh? No. Does our long term plan stop us beating Barnsley today? No.

 

Ah, but the manager. He is unproven... True. But neither did he relegate Coventry...

 

I like it. Leeds played in packs as well.

[Legod Second Coming]

Not being rude, but I just can't bring myself to think of Gillet being in the same post as some of the legendary teams and players above, let alone playing the same style of football!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

LOL, did i liken him?? You get my point I'm sure???