The9

Fair point, that.

Which I still have, untouched, in the garage, just waiting for someone to say "if only we had a set of 20-ish top quality, still packaged, plain red with white feet, Umbro, England away, socks". They don't match the away kit, and if we used them for the home kit (which they would look nice with), the away kit would have white socks, which just looks wrong. Anyway, not bringing those unless Steve specifically offers to buy them. They are available for bulk purchase, all brand spanking new and would suit any kit with red in it.

I'd be inclined to bring your own socks and shorts just in case we end up short of kit, but we probably have enough kit for 2 full sets with me bringing some "away" socks.

Especially when he falls over whilst accidentally kicking the ball into his own goal... But you're right, there are worse players and it was especially strange after he'd been playing well for a while.

Adkins' nothingspeak is a work of genius. I hope Reading stuff QPR on Sunday so our most popular manager of the last 8 years relegates the least popular Saints manager ever as quickly as possible.

As I keep pointing out to people, their "good form" has been to beat the worst two sides by far in the division and Stoke, who at the time were a team with bottom 3 form. Whenever they play anyone anything other than cack, they look utter cack. I'd have your arm off for Benteke, Guzan (as a very competent back up), Weimann and maybe even Vlaar would look better with some decent defenders around him.

Ideally Lambert would be able to run, but then we wouldn't have signed him when at the bottom of League One...

I think Weimann's made his point this season, Benteke is clearly decent and would improve us, Guzan's been very good in the face of a lot of practice, but the rest of them are at best hopefuls at this standard, and Juhhhhrrrr Bennett for one has had a nightmare season in the real world after all the Championship accolades he was getting last season.

First thing I thought after they'd finished celebrating it was "Saints would never score a goal like that with the current team". Rodriguez would be too deep, and Lambert would never get to the ball in time, even though he may have the striking ability.

You're incorrect on both counts, we have some right flappers on here with no concept of probability and we are 99.9237% likely to stay up (prior to the kick of at Old Trafford). I have a friend with money that someone will score 10 in the Prem this season, suffice to say I'm hopeful of some early goals in Villa's net second half too.

Ha, Reading v QPR on Sunday for the lolz.

I'd also say, if people think Saints going down is worth a punt, they might get better odds betting an accumulator for everyone else other than Reading and QPR to stay up.

Disappointing to see El Kelloggs had dispensed with the silver boots which let to the crowd chant of "new boots Tahar" at one point. Weirdly El Kelloggs only played 4 more Prem matches after that, 1 for us when Paul Williams got sent off and 3 for Charlton, where a 6-1 home defeat to Leeds in his 2nd match probably didn't help his case much.

Yes, he was sent off. And we won 3-1 with Telfer chipping the keeper from 40 yards in the last minute. After the media sh!tstorm following Tahar's tackle (and Dyer's agent threatening to sue), I named my Fantasy Football team for the following season "Tahar Shot JR".

He was a very good player in the months when he was trying to get himself a contract.

I want one with a rich dog. Any ideas ?

I just wish people would stop quoting the mentalist.

Saint Charlie has already started though, as far as I can tell ?

To clarify why he "it was a tackle" is nonsense... I just rewatched it. A lot. McManaman's facing diagonally off the pitch and running at 45 degrees to "up the pitch", he needed to go side-footed to clear the ball and keep it in play, as if he'd hit it with the laces he'd have just whacked it against Haidara or straight off the pitch. So he went side-footed at first. Then... ...Both players are initially hurtling into the challenge rapidly, and after McManaman starts his swing to clear the ball, there is a small amount of backspin on the ball which means it is further from McManaman than he's expecting, so he ends up stretching and mostly (but not entirely) missing the ball. Haidara as the attacker quickly stops his forward motion to cut right, and is trying to finesse the ball rather than just get rid of it up the pitch, and is off balance, cutting the deflected ball across his body left footed back towards his own goal just after McManaman makes contact with it. Because McManaman was then stretching as well as already mid-clearance and didn't read the spin, he barely clips the ball, and his leg is then dangling in midair with little weight on his standing leg due to the stretch. Haidara choosing to cut the ball back puts him right in the way of the stretching McManaman, and what happens next is what happens when a fast moving player going forward collides with another fast moving player in the process of changing direction - which in this case is a messy collision between McManaman's kicking (right) foot pivoting off Haidara's calf on the Newcastle player's standing (left) leg, causing McManaman to lose balance on his left foot as the two players run into each other at high speed, and lifting McManaman into the air, thus making the collision look even worse than it was, as it gives the appearance of a two-footed challenge. To get back to the original point about refs, what Halsey saw was someone trying to clear the ball, barely doing it, and two fast moving players colliding with each other inevitably, but nevertheless accidentally. However, according to the laws of the game it was a foul, because even kicking someone accidentally is now against the rules. I still don't think there was any intent to even tackle - I expect McManaman's intent was to knock the ball up the pitch and then fall over, possibly anticipating a glancing collision with Haidara in passing. But that doesn't matter - unfortunately (IMO) referees are no longer asked to judge intent, they are asked to judge on, in this case, if someone "kicks an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force". This is a relatively new change following the dumping of "intent" and then "proportionate force" which were judged as legally dubious where FIFA or individual referees might be held accountable for injury in a court of law. As we've seen, the "careless, reckless or using excessive force" clause now leads to referees adjudicating on outcomes (ie injury) and not the incident itself. Although Halsey didn't, presumably as he only saw "a collision" and decided both players took appropriate measures of care - which I guess you have to say is wrong. So there you go, checked the Laws, and Halsey got it wrong according to the Laws, and though I don't think that's the way challenges should be judged, can't argue with that. I still don't think it was a "horror tackle", but it WAS a foul.

Utter nonsense.

My take on video technology is that we should do away with refs entirely and just have a guy with a load of screens in a booth issuing commands via PA and video scoreboard. Because let's face it, once we get into artificial goal-line technology, we may as well just sign it all away to television and 15 years down the line it'll be as stage-managed as WWE. Which is fine for WWE, but not really what I want in my football matches.

I would say it was a reckless and uncontrolled clearance because I'm biased towards Saints, and call for red cards after every hoofed clearance, to be consistent with my interpretation of that challenge. Why isn't everyone up in arms about these vicious clearances if they're all so dangerous and potentially career-ending ? Just for the record, Haidara came back from this "horror tackle" within 3 weeks and has suffered no lasting damage. Unlike Steve Stone who wrecked his knee falling over backwards with no-one near him - which nowadays would probably lead to the player nearest him getting sent off for causing dangerous vibrations, or something. Also, there's a very specific difference between the follow through on McManaman's challenge and, say, Gazza's first minute ball-kick and deliberate boot-into chest in the '91 FA Cup Final , which was definitely deliberate and pre-meditated, and nowadays would, and should, be a straight red as well. (3:55 here : ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h2dh623wZE&list=PL0B000D8E7CC76F4C If you can't tell the difference between that and McManaman's, well that's probably the issue here.

Someone's on the road to a-banning...

I don't watch them so I wouldn't know, I've just seen him smile a few times, which is... fine.