The9

Because you can't unilaterally cancel a bnding legal contract of employment without at the absolute minimum running the risk of getting taken to court by the player to receive the money due to them for the rest of the contract term, and the players in question aren't stupid enough to mutually agree to the cancellation knowing they're unlikely to get a deal that betters it in that time frame. As a comparison, Saints and Wotton agreed to have his contract terminated : So Saints got his wages off the payroll, as someone who rarely played for the first team this season and wasn't very likely to again, whilst Yeovil could sign him for free ahead of his contract expiry in the summer, and Wotton agreed to it because he negotiated an extra year's wages (for next season from Yeovil) without having the anxiety of being a free agent in the summer. Basically, Wotton's Saints wages for the remaining 4 months of his contract were in total less than his 16 month Yeovil deal.

I suspect they'd be Tony Pulis and Juande Ramos... Also, my backside was anyone "raving" about him when he arrived.

AAAAAARGH FFS NOT AGAIN !!!! He didn't do that. There is a link to the team getting off the coach and he's clearly wearing dark trousers and a dark shirt and maybe a black tie under a black jumper. Looked fine to me. Anyway. Puncheon... predominantly left footed, likes to cut inside on the right wing and bend the ball into the far corner, occasionally does something similar on the left wing with his right foot, which doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Played well for MK Dons against Saints last season in Johnstone's Paint Trophy when he was on loan there, leading to us signing him (from Plymouth). No-one was that bothered to see him go, we couldn't figure out why. Started well for Saints, busy, hard working, doing the stuff mentioned above. After a few weeks his application seemed to fade a bit, and instead of moving the ball quickly, he was taking an extra touch here and there and generally being held responsible for slowing down our attacks and making us easier to defend against. By the start of this season, still under Pardew, he was targeted by a few boo-boys and was definitely responsible for a lot of frustration from a few loose passes, bad decisions and he'd also stopped scoring. Then Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain started doing his thing, and with Lallana on the other side when he got fit after a couple of games, Puncheon wasn't first choice any more. Pardew got the boot, and in the first couple of games under Adkins Puncheon got a chance and showed a spark of what he'd been like at first for Saints, working harder, moving the ball more quickly and generally looking a lot more interested (like the rest of the team, actually, Adkins certainly got them started). But with Ox-Cham and Lallana ahead of him he was a bit on the fringes and obviously got fed up with that. For whatever reason, he was unexpectedly loaned to Millwall, and from what I saw there he played more centrally and definitely played better than he did for Saints at any point. Scored a hat-trick in one game, all from the centre/left midfield position. Came back to Saints, not first choice (as indicated by his selection in what was a weak Saints team v Blackpool reserves in the FA Cup), did ok in that FA Cup game and is then rumoured to have thrown a massive wobbler and mysteriously absent from the squad for the next two games before getting loaned to Blackpool. Clearly has a huge ego, I don't doubt he's a sulker, and he's never proven at that level. As many others have said, likely to look decent at first (if he starts) and then fade - he's exactly the sort of player who will give Holloway problems he doesn't need, both good and bad.

I do find it quite strange that when I was on SaintsForever I could never get at the place when anything happened, but I've never, EVER had an access issue with this site, despite people moaning about it all the time. I suspect this is because I'm not on here as much, and no longer care what 90% of the people on here think about stuff, because they're knee-jerkist idiots, so when something actually happens I generally tend NOT to head over here until all the mentals have tired themselves out. But just don't get me started on Portuguese player name pronunciation.

Its all in there though, even if it is complicated by FIFA's recognition of nations that the UN doesn't regard as states, (eg England, for a start!), and different states having very different laws on passport-holding, residency and nationality. Di Stefano made his change long before these rules were in place, he played for Argentina, Colombia AND Spain ! Prosinecki played for Yugoslavia and then Croatia, covered under 16.1a/b/c (he or one of his parents or grandparents was born in Croatia, though Croatia was part of Yugoslavia until 1993 for footballing purposes). Half the Ukrainian team of 1992 had already played for Russia (same rules as Prosinecki and the rest of the Croatians) - and Andrei Kanchelskis, a Ukrainian, continued to play for Russia. As for Nemanja Vidic, he's played for both Serbia and Montenegro AND Serbia. As we know also, Kevin Prince Boateng and Jerome Boateng (brothers) play for Ghana and Germany respectively due to parents not just birthplace. And loads of the German-eligible players in the Bundesliga are Turkish born and vice-versa. "Turkey's" Colin Kazim-Richards (aka Kazim Kazim) was born in Leytonstone with a Turkish mother. Its all of the Brazilians who've become Japanese and Qatari "by residence" you want to start looking out for, though... Mind you, this is all about international football, and has sod all to do with how many players Saints can field. The home grown thing (rules up top somewhere) is, as people have said, only a Premier League rule, and anyone registered for any team in England or Wales for 3 years before they are 21 qualifies - and even then you only need 8 of them in the squad.

Both Almunia and Carlo Cudicini have been put forward as solutions to England's keeper "problem" based on long-term residency.

Boringly, here are the rules, from FIFA's statutes : http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/01/29/85/71/fifastatuten2010_e.pdf "VII. ELIGIBILITY TO PLAY FOR REPRESENTATIVE TEAMS 15 Principle 1. Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country. 2. With the exception of the conditions specifi ed in article 18 below, any Player who has already participated in a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association may not play an international match for a representative team of another Association. 16 Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association 1. A Player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfi ls at least one of the following conditions: (a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association; (b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association; © His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association; (d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years. 2. Regardless of par. 1 above, Associations sharing a common nationality may make an agreement under which item (d) of par. 1 of this article is deleted completely or amended to specify a longer time limit. Such agreements shall be lodged with and approved by the Executive Committee. 17 Acquisition of a new nationality Any Player who refers to art. 15 par. 1 to assume a new nationality and who has not played international football in accordance with art. 15 par. 2 shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the following conditions: (a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association; (b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association; © His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association; (d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association. 18 Change of Association 1. If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions: (a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an offi cial competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an official competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play. (b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous Association. 2. If a Player who has been fielded by his Association in an international match in accordance with art. 15 par. 2 permanently loses the nationality of that country without his consent or against his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may request permission to play for another Association whose nationality he already has or has acquired. 3. Any Player who has the right to change Associations in accordance with par. 1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. The Players’ Status Committee shall decide on the request. The procedure will be in accordance with the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Once the Player has filed his request, he is not eligible to play for any representative team until his request has been processed." Ho hum.

Yeah they can... Alfredo di Stefano, Robert Prosinecki, about half of the Ukrainian and Croatian sides of 1993, Nemanja Vidic, etc. And I'm pretty sure the residency quaification is 5 years, cos having moved to Southampton in 2006 I'm still waiting another 4 months to become eligible for England, lol. EDIT : Looks like the 5 year thing is what covers British nationals wishing to switch within the UK (para 17, rather than the "2 year" residency in para 16 below)

Oh, and just get some facts into this "Home Grown" debate, the Premier League Home Grown rules as taken from their website : http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~2094341,00.html A home grown player is defined as one who, irrespective of his nationality or age, has been registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Welsh Football Association for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday (or the end of the season during which he turns 21). For the purposes of this rule, the season is deemed to run from the date the first transfer window closes until the final match of the campaign. In keeping with UEFA guidelines, an Under 21 player is defined as one who is under the age of 21 on 1st January in the year in which the season commences. For the 2010/11 campaign Under 21 players will have been born on or after 1st January 1989. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES The 25-man squads must be submitted to the Premier League by 5pm on the day following the close of each transfer window. For the 2010/11 season the first window will close at 6pm on 31st August and final squads must be registered by 5pm on 1st September. Before then Clubs will not be required to name their squads and may select their teams from any registered players. While the transfer windows are open, clubs may change their squads as many times as they want. However they will only be able to make alterations outside the windows if there are exceptional circumstances and the changes are approved by the Premier League board. For example, if a club has two out of three goalkeepers injured they may be permitted to bring in a replacement under the guidelines drawn up by a specially formed working party. Players in the 25-man squads who go out on loan to Football League clubs may not be replaced. However they may reclaim their place on their return. Clubs do not have to name a full squad of 25 if they do not have that many contracted players and in this instance they may add free agents outside the transfer window. However if they have 25 eligible contracted players, they must be named. Similarly, clubs do not have to name eight home grown players if they do not have that many but that would mean operating with a reduced squad. The system will be simple enough to administer. Clubs will register their players via an online form which automatically flags up if they have named too many players who do not qualify as Home-Grown.

As he's got a British passport he would have been eligible for Scotland and Northern Ireland as well if not for the gentlemen's agreement between the "home" FAs not to select players with a stronger claim on playing for the other "home nations". Quite how that tallies with Vinnie Jones turning out for Wales I don't know, and I think they've dumped the agreement now in favour of following FIFA's rules - that an there not being any gentlemen left in football...

Not at all, Hernandez was all but laid out, from the angle he was at the best he was going to manage was to poke the ball forwards towards the goal in a very predictable direction, and he definitely didn't have the torque to get the ball off the ground as his leg was already extended. The shape of his leg made that obvious - Bart just didn't have long to work that out, hence the ball going under him.

The other issue of course being that once United got ahead they could play "keep ball" without needing to threaten. Which if anything makes our ability to do it early in the second half, when they should have been chasing us for all they were worth, all the more impressive.

I thought we did well to concede our right to O'Shea early in the second half after he switched positions, because he was never going to be a threat going forward. Either that or Lambert was too knackered to chase him by then. As yet I'm not entirely convinced we didn't just fold 'em at 2-1 down, knowing a replay was a game we didn't want - the substitutions certainly hinted at it. Another 2 weeks of not being much good in the league could have been very damaging with the number of games we've got to fit in. And of course the Dickson switch directly led to their winner within seconds, but no-one's thinking that was deliberate !

There's also a hint of what Adkins claims our formation was () here : http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2280546,00.html "Guly played that position well I thought at the tip of the diamond. The last game against Blackpool we played the diamond and we wanted to do that again. We then put Alex at the tip of it and gave Guly the situation where he could bomb forward and Chaplow on the other side."

Although to be fair I don't remember him hitting many 40 yard balls, hammering shots from just outside the box OR tackling crappily even after the change !

There is a glossary on the site. I prefer the "false nine" myself, but horses for courses, as I've no doubt Michael Owen says.

I hadn't seen this and have made it a thread of its own - for those of us that want to talk tactics (not many games with such obvious tactical changes as Fergie's either). I have no doubt that it will drop like a stone off the front page within hours, as there's not much scope for abuse or hilarious put downs in football tactics.

If we're talking about the same one (had some kind of oxygen in his/her mouth) I wasn't sure it was a Manc, it looked to me like they might have had a trace of a red diagonal on a white shirt as one of their numerous layers. But then I didn't see where the stretcher originated. Anyone see the initial incident ?

All he had to do was lie down and block/smother the blatantly obvious ground shot towards the far corner that was the only possible thing Hernandez could do, having fallen over. I still don't know now how the ball got under him, off his knee and into the corner.

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/01/30/southampton-1-2-manchester-united-fergusons-switch-back-to-a-system-with-width-turns-game/ Decent enough article, does focus a bit on the Mancs, but then the site has plenty of their other matches to compare it to. ...have to disagree a little that O'Shea didn't get forward much due to being closed down by our front players, as I felt we deliberately stood off him and allowed him to have the ball, but at the same time seeing the sides laid out like that makes Chamberlain's narrowness make more sense, and his reluctance to attack down the flanks a bit more understandable (given the 3 v 3 in the middle). Obertan was also much more effective out wide than he was in the first 60 minutes, when he was gash. It also means the Dickson substitution makes a little more sense with us trying to match their 4 across the middle once Giggs and Nani came on. Have to say I didn't spot all that at the time (though it was obvious the Man U wide players actually playing on the touchlines and Nani's individual ability made a huge difference). Will be nice to get a few more of these kind of things as we get back up the leagues. I expect a similar write-up of Exeter v Saints soon !

If he's expecting a cross a keeper should be half way towards the near post from the centre of the goal, where he can step forward to the near post or get across to the far if the ball goes there. He should also be a yard or two off his line in case he needs to come and collect the cross. If he's stood at the near post and the cross goes far he has to make 8 yards to the far post quicker than the ball does. FWIW on this discussion I think Bart's more agile, quicker and a better thrower better on crosses, has a longer kick and has a better presence, Kelvin's a more accurate and less error prone kicker, a better shot stopper and organises the defence better - he's also more cautious with his distribution, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And I think even Bart would think he'd expect to stop a shot from close range from a player who was practically laid on the ground and couldn't possibly lift the ball over him.

Like Manchester United dropped Van der Sar ?

Seriously, the ref gave thirteen consecutive borderline decisions in their favour, I started counting after the first few. We got two bolted on definite fouls in that time, they got a couple in their favour that I couldn't argue with, but every single one of the "could give it" decisions went in Man U's favour. The worst was the sliding tackle one but they got two or three corners and throws that were ours as well as us not being allowed to tackle them whilst they were shoving our players over left right and centre.

Yeah they do, all the time. Also when the difference is between zero and one, it's infinitely different.

Although of course it wouldn't have helped Guly head the ball more accurately or Owen not being jammily in the only place to score, or Fonte falling over, however it might have meant Dickson wasn't on the pitch...