Professor

Good to see Saints as the first match on the Show. Beats last year when sometimes you had to wait 'til the 40th minute. Can't criticise the players for not getting another goal when you see how close the strikes from Lamberts and Lallana were, but also showed why Lallana was so angry after his shot went past the post because he was clearly pushed in the back coming into the area. So more cheating by a professional footballer - this time a Burnley defender - missed by a professional referee. If you stayed on to watch the Brighton/Leeds game there was more cheating missed when Mackail-Smith threw himself down in the area and the referee was conned into awarding a penalty. Its a pity the Football League Show doesn't do more to highlight that refereeing mistakes have too much impact on the game and the FA rule that prevents fouls being punished after the games if there was a refereeing error, just encourages the cheats. Players know that if they can con the ref they will have got away with it, even when the cameras show the truth. Its only if the ref misses something altogether that action can be taken afterwards. There was an example in the Forest game when Derbyshire's dive was seen by the assistant and the referee gave a yellow card, but when you saw on TV how blatent the dive was, if the ref had seen that himself, he would surely have given a red, but after the event nothing is done because of FA rules. Come on BBC, lets have a campaign through the football league show to highlight all the cheating that players are getting away with.

Don't think Adkins and Cortese see the team's true position as 6-12 otherwise they might have carried on trying to bring in the striker and first choice CB. The start to the season may have them thinking this squad can get promotion despite the cautious words from NA. One away draw won't change that opinion, but the next few weeks are tough and some other teams are improving. If we are still in the top two in weeks time, then a 6th-12th finish would be very disappointing.

A draw is not a bad result but neither is it a good result, especially when you are top of the table and your opponents are in the bottom half. To stay here against the likes of Middlesborough and West Ham we can't afford too many disappointing results, BUT we must expect a few. Even a team looking for automatic promotion will lose the odd game and draw a few, so its not unexpected statistically but in this game and the defeat at Leicester a common factor was not coverting a high enough percentage of chances. Are we missing the third striker that we failed to sign in the window? Adkins says that competition for places is what its all about but up front there doesn't seem to be much. Forte was fairly useless againt PNE and unless Barnard comes back fit and free we might regret not having a Maynard or Rodriguez type on hand.

Really good point. That it is most unlikely is no reason not to discuss it. For the Football League to cut itself off from the Prem has a lot going for it, and since about half the clubs playing in the Prem at any time are really Football League clubs being used as cannon fodder, they should pull out as well. If the few ultra rich clubs were cut adrift the rest of the game, it would be very much healthier. As for Saints joining the ultra rich because we are owned by billionaires, its hard to believe this will happen, despite Cortese's original statements about ambition when Marcus was alive. If we get promoted this year we would need to spend massively to be at the Liverpool, Spurs level and still way off the Chelsea, Manchester and even Arsenal level. Since we haven't even spent the Chamberlain money to make promotion a greater certainty this year, it doesn't feel realistic to expect that sort of spending. Its not as if we have owners who are watching the matches and taking a close interest like the high profile ones do.

Except he was happy enough to sign a contract with Saints which he then set about break through statements to the media, no doubt engineered by hangers-on who wanted to make money out of him themselves and following the example of Arsenal who had already made illegal approaches through the media. In the end it was Arsenals willingness to pay such a massive fee that allowed him to go as it seems likely that the club rejected the move for less. Fact is, Saints would have a stronger team if he was still here and he would have easily filled a slot in the premier side we hope to have soon, so his earnings would have had to have gone to the next level but all around him people were urging him to dump on Southampton so its not surprising thats what happened. But coming back afterwards to say how lovely we are leaves a bit of a bad taste. Oh, and Saints welcome people into the group almost as well as Arsenal do. So thats why Arsenal can't hold on to some of their players; its because they're such a nice welcoming group....and some of them even speak English....unless they are talking to the manager.

I would think the problem of playing in the Football League before 1900 was the location of the clubs, not only Saints having to travel away, but clubs from the north and midlands having to get to Southampton. There was no practical road travel in those days so it would have been by rail. Not sure the SL was entirely seen as equal to the FL because according to Dave Juson and David Bull's book 'Full-Time at The Dell', when Saints beat Leicester in the FA Cup in Jan 1898 they were the first SL team to eliminate an FL team from the cup.

Got to do something while you watch the other team score another goal and none of your team's players will pass to you. Good to see his kit's so clean, but if you're only on the pitch for 10 minutes I suppose it would be.

In August it seemed that NA and NC both thought we needed a third striker not a back-up, otherwise they wouldn't have chased the players we are told they tried for. The absence now of a loan could be because Connolly and Lambert are playing too well to be rotated or because no one suitable has been found. We must assume that NC thinks the injury risk is manageable by a reshuffle involving Guly, Lallana, de Ridder and Chaplow as well as Forte in reserve and thats before he goes to the under 21s for bench cover.

Even if we don't do as well as we have in the first 7 games, there is every likelihood that we will averaging 2 points a game - so 14 from the next 7. Can't rule out the possibility that another team could do better, but all things being equal, this should mean still being top at the end of October.

Could this great start turn into back-to-back promotion? Obviously nothing is certain in football and its possible for a team to be in the top 2 with 4 games left and still miss out on promotion entirely. Cardiff did that last season being second with 4 games left to play, dropping to 4th and losing in the play-offs. NA is rightly cautious as he tries to balance confidence against complacency, and says he's not going to look at the table until January but as fans we look at it all the time. A comparison with last season's championship table is interesting. The promoted teams, Norwich, Leeds and Millwall finished 2nd, 7th and 9th. In September 2010, (after 7 games) the promoted teams were 4th, 9th and 12th, so no dramatic change during the season, in fact a slight improvement. This year the promoted teams are 1st, 3rd and 10th. You can't improve on 1st and there are games to come against some of the clubs close behind us, but maybe we can start to believe that this could be it. There's also a comparison for the relegated clubs, bearing in mind the advantage they should have of holding on to players with premier league experience and having the parachute payments. Last season the relegated clubs were Burnley, Hull and Portsmouth. After 7 games they were at 8th, 18th and 20th, and finished 8th, 11th and 16th. So they improved but were never in the promotion race. This year the relegated teams after 7 games, are 5th, 7th and 14th. So this year's three have made a slightly better start than last year's three but not exactly setting the Championship alight. This could mean that the top of League 1 and the bottom of the Prem are not so far apart as the money paid to the players would suggest. Maybe a settled team going upwards has advantages over disrupted teams going downwards that are changing managers and players as they go. The belief may have to be revised if things go wrong, as Cardiff found last year, but right now it seems reasonable to believe that there will be premier league football at the SMS again next season.

Oh dear - you shouldn't take everything so seriously - can't you tell when tongue is in cheek!!!!

We've beaten Birmingham but they are only 14th in the table and we are top, so was it no more than to be expected? We have only played one team from the top 10 which was the defeat at Leicester. The clubs we have beaten are Leeds (11th); Birmingham (14th); Millwall (15th); Barnsley (16th); Ipswich (19th); and Notts Forest (22nd). Should we be worried?

Nottingham Forest are in the bottom three, so not far away from what? Relegation? New Manager?

If the same back four were to start this week they would be better than last week because they have last week's game under their belt and another week of training will have helped Hayfield settle in. I think he and Fox will have had their ball watching mistake pointed out. But I'm not sure you can turn Jack Cork into a FB who will handle tricky wingers and I can't see NA sticking with that so the switch back to MF for Cork looks obvious. Who then plays at FB depends on fitness and as most posts have suggested Richardson is thought to be fit but Harding may not be. Result, as long as the Cork FB experiement is over, a win by at least 2 goals.

How two teams do against a third is no guide, but its still worth remembering that Leicester were only credited with 3 goals against Saints because one goal was awarded despite the foul on Lambert that resulted in the ball hitting him and bouncing into the net. And that Saints were only kept to 2 goals because Leicester were very lucky. At least 2 shots hit their GK and bounced off without him knowing about it and another hit the post. It was a game that could just as easily have been won by Saints and it was luck that decided it, especially over the goal that should have been disallowed.

Agree with this. Not only do we have 3 strong players at CM, but two of them, Cork at 22, and Schneiderlin not quite 22, both have scope to get even better which may mean James W-P will find it hard to get an opportunity in the near future but he isn't quite 17 yet, so time is on his side and if he's not in the first team he's not so likely to catch the eye of other clubs as happened to Theo, Gareth and Alex. Be nice if we could hang on to him until he can come through in the Prem side.

Typical speculative press report not based on fact and complete disregard to whether it unsettles the player. Clubs have not found a way of preventing these stories but they are not in the interests of anyone other that the paper or the media station that hopes to increase customers by publishing unfounded stories regardless of truth. As for Rickie, he has every chance of playing in the Prem for Saints and if SFC is promoted his wages will go up accordingly so don't expect him to take any notice anyway.

The great thing about a tattoo is that it tells the whole world what an itelligent individual you are, as long as you wear clothes that display it through the cold winter days. Potential employers will always be highly impressed so it will definitely help with career progression and as its a football tattoo you can show it to other football fans all over the country who will immediately treat you as a close friend - even in Portsmouth.

Its not so easy to give a young player a place on the bench and a first ten minutes on the pitch now that the new limits on subs are in place. This does make it harder to try anyone out but do those who are ITK have any indicatons that an under-21 is likely to get a step-up opportunity? Jack Stephens is out of contention through injury for a while but is Ben Reeves likely to get a chance as he's training with the first team? James Ward-Prowse is catching the eye but he is still only 16. Being 16 didn't prevent AOC or Theo Walcott getting into the team but have the new sub rules, ruled it out? I have a feeling it may be Stevens as there is more scope to break in at FB, but any views?

I appreciate we've done this striker and CB thing to death and that the club won't say anything unless and until something happens. So we can only speculate while waiting to see if any loans come about. I'm not sure Adkins does think he has adequate depth in all areas, as playing Cork out of position seemed a compromise because he didn't have a RB he could trust. Whilst it put both Cork and Schneiderlin on the field it weakened the right-side of defence and we missed Cork in MF. On the CB, clearly Adkins wanted cover or competition for left CB and now he's lost Seaborne he doesn't have that any more. A loan there seems essential otherwise the decision to bring in Jos is negated because the squad remains the same in structure now as it was before Jos came. Up front, I agree with SNSUN and so it would seem does Adkins, otherwise why would the reported bids for quality strikers have been made? On the other hand, if we had got the likes of Maynard in, Adkins would have the same problem with 3 top strikers that he has with 3 top players in CMF. Not easy at all, but given the launchpad we now have to push on for the Prem; and that next year the start might not be this good again; there must be a powerful case for the club to build on what it has by two strong loans.

The loss of Dan Seaborne and minor injuries to two FBs has demonstrated how right Nigel Adkins is when he says that success is not about the 11 on the field but it is about the squad. The cut to 5 subs has made this much harder and its easy to see why he has complained about that decision. Currently there seem to be several ways that problems arise. 3 defenders out and question marks over some of the understudies, having 3 excellent payers in CM but having to leave one of them out when all three are worth a starting place, and having two quality strikers but not sure how it would go if one of them was out for a whole match. So, will there be loans to fill in for the failed attempts to buy a striker and to cover Seaborn's absence? Or is this squad good enough that even with more than 3 or 4 changes the team could still perform to the same level? And, have we actually replaced AOC or was he surplus to requirements anyway?

Although it was very good possession football, and through the opposition, not just back passes, I would say that its slightly disrespectful to some of Saint's Premier Teams to say this is the best 5 minutes ever. Saint's 5 goals in the first half against Man U in the 6-3 defeat is worth looking at on You-Tube and what you do notice from some of the Prem games is that the game seems to be played noticeably faster than currently in the NpC. We have some good players now and some who could hold their own in the Prem, but I'm not sure we have an Eyol Berkovic, or an Egil Ostanstadt and certainly we don't have a Le Tiss whose chip over Peter Schmeichel in the 6-3 win was sublime.

I played much of my football in what was then the Hampshire League Div.1 but I gave up playing at 29 when I could have played on for another 5 or so years because I was so frustrated playing against young players for whom cheating and diving was becoming the norm, mainly because it was there in the professional game and shown on MoTD. This was over 30 years ago, so cheating is not new, and its been around for so long that its incredible that the football authorities have done so little about it. Don't think we can blame the referees as they get their guidance from the game authorities, but that shouldn't stop individual referees from using their common sense when they see the way a player falls to the ground in the penalty area is so different to how the same player behaves when challenged anywhere else on the field. Maybe the problem is with the rules of football, that a penalty is just too big a reward for a foul in a situation where there was not a goal chance. We see penalties awarded for fouls in the area when the ball is already running out of play or where the attacker has already lost the ball to the defending team. There needs to be a less severe award for such fouls, which in turn would remove some of the incentive for simulation.

The Saints v Nottingham Forest game contained an example of the cheating that goes on in football when players throw themselves to the ground for free kicks and especially penalties. It is a constant source of amazement that referees allow themselves to be taken in so easily, which undoubtedly encourages even more cheating. As for the punishments, often there is none, just the false claim for a free kick or penalty dismissed. Only occasionally is a player given a yellow card for simulation and very rarely are they sent off. In other sports, cheating is unacceptable and is met with severe penalties. Athletes who cheat can be banned for years, or even a life-time Olympics’ ban. In many sports a win achieved by cheating is cancelled. But in football, the authorities' response to cheating seems to be weak and ineffectual so that diving and feigning injury has become widespread ever since Rodney Marsh got a reputation for it some 40 or so years ago. The practice is not only condoned by managers who deny the fact of blatant dives and is even encouraged by media reporters who praise players for “winning” a free kick or penalty. Anyone who truly loves this game should want to see cheating eradicated. If not, football might as well send players onto the pitch for a free-for-all and not bother with any rules.

In the regular TV pictures, Derbyshire is beyond Davies, who is on the ground and its not possible to see the lack of contact. But the All Angles Covered pictures from behind the goal line show very clearly that there was no contact between the players and no foul by Davies. Davies knocked the ball away with his hand before Derbyshire could kick it and as soon as he did, the Forest player threw himself to the ground. The camera from this angle shows without any doubt at all that this was a blatant attempt at cheating and show Derbyshire's dive. These pictures also show that the assistant referee was on the right side to have a clear view of the dive. It is interesting that Maclaren claimed to have seen the TV pictures and said they showed contact by the goalkeeper. Obviously he was not telling the truth because there was no contact to see, but he probably had not seen the all angles pictures and was saying what he thought was in his own interest because he thought the TV pictures were inconclusive. What is then more interesting is that according to the Forest Forum, the Forest Player Video has not shown the all angles pictures. Now why should that be? Answers on a post card to.............. But just one final thought. The Assistant Ref flagged for the dive instantly it happened. Not for shirt pulling or anything else that the commentator, who could not see the dive, thought at the time but for the simulation. The Referee then booked Derbyshire but only gave him a warning and yellow card. Cheating in any sport or game is unacceptable and in most sports results in disqualification. The failure of the referee to send Derbyshire off the field will do nothing to stop this sickness in the game, and I don't pretend that players in a Saints' shirt are any less prone to it than others but as the old saying goes, "something must be done". This referee had a clear opportunity and he failed.