madras

are you incuding in his shortcomings the fact that he'd played about 3 decent games in the last 3 seasons ?

cos they need to get finished in order to leave 10mins before half time to get a pint.

Especially as we frequently seem to sing it when we're under the cosh. even worse as it sometimes seems orchestrated when we are on top and the fans are getting up for it....then they trot that out in the hope that some who normally wouldn't but when on top will join in anything........i know it wasn't planned like that but it seemed like it.

in and out all day tomorrow so wont be able to go in play or lay off the final game in a later kick off accy so........ 1 Kaiserslautern v Rot-Weiss Ahlen (Backing Kaiserslautern @ 1.27) 2 Preston v Chelsea (Backing Chelsea @ 1.25) 3 Aston Villa v Brighton (Backing Aston Villa @ 1.27) 4 Accrington S v Fulham (Backing Fulham @ 1.44) 5 Norwich v Brentford (Backing Norwich @ 1.46) 6 Man Utd v Hull (Backing Man Utd @ 1.15) 7 Tottenham v Leeds (Backing Tottenham @ 1.31)

i wonder if barton is actually fit but the club thought that if they paid him a bit extra to stay away we may keep some of our already thin for numbers squad out of casualty.

if we were to get promoted.....hitzlsperger's out of contract in the summer.

Aye, but we scored half as many goals. Was the defence ever really the problem? I thought most accepted the fact that we were relegated because Owen et al were abysmal. half the problem is that many people think the defending is purely down to the defenders. last season the players seemed to take this on board and left all the defending to the back 4. there was a lack of craeativity and basic footballing ability throughout the rest of the team.

By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Strange point to make. We conceded 59 in the Prem last season, in 38 matches. We were abysmal, both attacking and defensively. We have lost arguably our three best players from that back 5. What makes you think we will look much better next season, providing we go up, except for the blind hope that we will somehow massively improve elsewhere on the pitch (defensive midfielders who provide real cover, attackers who can hold up the ball effectively and release pressure), which we more than likely won't while Mike Ashley is around? Why do people argue the back 5 is good enough while also arguing that it's not about the back 5, but about the entire team defending and not putting too much pressure on the defense. If defending is not just about the back 5 (which is true), and there is no reason to assume our team defending will be any better (with no investment forthcoming), how can our "defence" (in the broad sense of the word, i.e. not just the back 5) be considered of Premier League standard? I would argue that without significant investment (unlikely) we run a serious risk of doing worse in terms of goal difference next season than we did last season (-19). Please point to the part of my post which has any relevance to what you are saying? Pot.. Kettle.. What was the relevance of your point exactly..? Did you not understand it? Ok well if we had scored 1 goal against Pompey we would have stayed up due to a 1-0 win. If we scored 1 goal against Fulham we would have stayed up due to a 1-1 draw. If we had scored 1 goal at Villa on the last day we would have stayed up thanks to a 1-1 draw. Not scoring in 6 of our last 8 games is extremely relevant wouldnt you say? I understood your point but it makes you look like you are in denial about the root causes of our relegation and wasn't particular relevant to the discussion about the strength of our defence/back 5, was it? the root cause was we were poor as a team even if some of the individual parts may have been up to it. So, have we improved to the point you could reasonably say "the defence is now of Premier League standard"..? Thought not.. i think that back 4 could survive in the prem if placed in the majority of prem league teams. have we improved....no, but then i didn't think the back 4 was the major problem last season. As you are one of the main advocates of this "defending as a team" notion, have we addressed the overall problem that was the root cause of our relegation. In terms of quality of personnel we have gone down; have we made up for that by being much more organised tactically? I certainly don't believe this is the case. It's just strikers miss complete sitters in this league like there is no tomorrow. Talking about a much improved defense is a case of papering over the cracks if you ask me. As soon as we are back in the Prem we will be back out of our depth unless we have made very significant improvements to the squad and as a team tactically... i never said it was improved. i said it was premiership standard. have we addressed the problem.......no! our midfield is poorer this year than last and last year it was the major reason we went down, even the forwards were more of a problem than the defence .

By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Strange point to make. We conceded 59 in the Prem last season, in 38 matches. We were abysmal, both attacking and defensively. We have lost arguably our three best players from that back 5. What makes you think we will look much better next season, providing we go up, except for the blind hope that we will somehow massively improve elsewhere on the pitch (defensive midfielders who provide real cover, attackers who can hold up the ball effectively and release pressure), which we more than likely won't while Mike Ashley is around? Why do people argue the back 5 is good enough while also arguing that it's not about the back 5, but about the entire team defending and not putting too much pressure on the defense. If defending is not just about the back 5 (which is true), and there is no reason to assume our team defending will be any better (with no investment forthcoming), how can our "defence" (in the broad sense of the word, i.e. not just the back 5) be considered of Premier League standard? I would argue that without significant investment (unlikely) we run a serious risk of doing worse in terms of goal difference next season than we did last season (-19). Please point to the part of my post which has any relevance to what you are saying? Pot.. Kettle.. What was the relevance of your point exactly..? Did you not understand it? Ok well if we had scored 1 goal against Pompey we would have stayed up due to a 1-0 win. If we scored 1 goal against Fulham we would have stayed up due to a 1-1 draw. If we had scored 1 goal at Villa on the last day we would have stayed up thanks to a 1-1 draw. Not scoring in 6 of our last 8 games is extremely relevant wouldnt you say? I understood your point but it makes you look like you are in denial about the root causes of our relegation and wasn't particular relevant to the discussion about the strength of our defence/back 5, was it? the root cause was we were poor as a team even if some of the individual parts may have been up to it. So, have we improved to the point you could reasonably say "the defence is now of Premier League standard"..? Thought not.. i think that back 4 could survive in the prem if placed in the majority of prem league teams. have we improved....no, but then i didn't think the back 4 was the major problem last season. improvment wasn't really the question was it ?

By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Strange point to make. We conceded 59 in the Prem last season, in 38 matches. We were abysmal, both attacking and defensively. We have lost arguably our three best players from that back 5. What makes you think we will look much better next season, providing we go up, except for the blind hope that we will somehow massively improve elsewhere on the pitch (defensive midfielders who provide real cover, attackers who can hold up the ball effectively and release pressure), which we more than likely won't while Mike Ashley is around? Why do people argue the back 5 is good enough while also arguing that it's not about the back 5, but about the entire team defending and not putting too much pressure on the defense. If defending is not just about the back 5 (which is true), and there is no reason to assume our team defending will be any better (with no investment forthcoming), how can our "defence" (in the broad sense of the word, i.e. not just the back 5) be considered of Premier League standard? I would argue that without significant investment (unlikely) we run a serious risk of doing worse in terms of goal difference next season than we did last season (-19). Please point to the part of my post which has any relevance to what you are saying? Pot.. Kettle.. What was the relevance of your point exactly..? Did you not understand it? Ok well if we had scored 1 goal against Pompey we would have stayed up due to a 1-0 win. If we scored 1 goal against Fulham we would have stayed up due to a 1-1 draw. If we had scored 1 goal at Villa on the last day we would have stayed up thanks to a 1-1 draw. Not scoring in 6 of our last 8 games is extremely relevant wouldnt you say? I understood your point but it makes you look like you are in denial about the root causes of our relegation and wasn't particular relevant to the discussion about the strength of our defence/back 5, was it? the root cause was we were poor as a team even if some of the individual parts may have been up to it.

would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Would you say that the quality of attack for mid to lower table teams was the same then as now? I don't think so. The extra money that all Premier league teams have now relative to foreign leagues compared to back then means even the poor teams in the league now are much better than the poor teams were back then player for player. So a like for like comparison of defences is largely irrelevant. The current back four would have been good enough in 2000, but that doesn't mean they're good enough in 2010. Plus Bramble is and was a far better Premiership defender than either Taylor or Coloccini. No he was not, Bramble made a lot more mistakes than Taylor and Coloccini has made... He'd make occasional obvious stupid mistakes which would be remembered for weeks, but he was far more solid throughout the game than either of them. Coloccini's usually too far out of position to make the mistakes Bramble made. i used to say that all the time about bramble and get slaughtered for it.

would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Would you say that the quality of attack for mid to lower table teams was the same then as now? I don't think so. The extra money that all Premier league teams have now relative to foreign leagues compared to back then means even the poor teams in the league now are much better than the poor teams were back then player for player. So a like for like comparison of defences is largely irrelevant. The current back four would have been good enough in 2000, but that doesn't mean they're good enough in 2010. Plus Bramble is and was a far better Premiership defender than either Taylor or Coloccini. no mention that the team with bramble in worked as a team,defended as a team and attacked as a team whereas last season and this the back 4 does all the defending on its own. any back 4 would struggle in those conditioins especially as they were last season in the prem.

stuttgart for tonight and if they score first i'll be looking to lay out if the odds come down enough.

would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ?

mouscron in the belgian top league went to the wall in december.

pompey bought him as back up for the premiership. also i hope it's not the mike williamson i went to school with as he'll be 43 now, wasn't a good footballer and in the little school done PE in his desert boots.

I agree with you but Man U and Liverpool are not Pompy, they've won loads in the past and will probably win more than us in the future as they'll still have the income. Uefa are in as much danger as Man U and Liverpool as they could easily force a breakaway with the bigger clubs going alone. You just have to look at which clubs are carrying the debt to know Uefa will more than likely bottle it. i'm not so sure about liverpool. should they finish outside the top 4 things could get tricky for them.

how could you see us beating these lot, when we we're 4 minutes away from derby doing the double, answer that one? and in that game derby were by far the better team.

does the english bit really matter ?

tell you what kids...it's coming up as a known fraudulent website.

Lazy with bad attitude...occasionally good but more often than not,anonymous. And i've definitely seen him more than you. andy cole at bristol city that.

we'll have to disagree. you have to remember the way we played apart from your oft spouted everton game. that is pompey, wigan,derby, sunderland etc. the way we were going i couldn't see us winning another game. no doubt we would have but i don't believe we'd have won enough to stop up.

and you'll admit that quite often teams get relegated after ok'ish (points wise) starts to the season. given that could you see the performances getting better enough to get the extra required points ?

starting to become the new NE5 Says you, who only signed up to the forum in the first place to have a go at Allardyce. I'm by no means a fan of the guy, wouldn't want him anywhere near the club in an ideal world. But those saying we'd have got relegated don't really have a leg to stand on, the results and points tally from the first 5 months of the season strongly suggest that we'd have been safe with him. i've mentioned performances a few times in this thread and you've never addressed it. i wonder why ?

first off....will west ham foot the entire 100,000 ? then.....what do they plan to make extra on tickets,sponsorship etc on the back of it and finally...far better new owners with cash doing it than the death throes of a dying regime trying to stay alive.