derry

I believe the goals are on a link from a thread on here, get a load of Sydenhams crosses for I think three of the goals. I think it was U-Tube the video came from.

It's only a game mate. They are not worth it.

We should wait and see how this unravels. In any event I suspect the Saints players will now get the appropriate advice as these headlines are on the front page. I should think the club are cringeing with embarassment at the headlines, especially with the circumstances the club finds itself in.

Suggest you PM Duncan - Fitzhugh Fella.

Don't waste your time Bill, he isn't on the same wavelength. The importance of width is not realised by many, or that teams can improve drastically by playing the whole width rather than twenty yds inside the touchlines. As far as Saints are concerned the wings could be a ploughed field. Sadly they are paying the price for playing the way they are.

Ted took over a bankrupt club, the supporters bought his first player, he kept us in the third division when the old regional third division was split, won the third division championship, promoted to the first division and kept us there. Lawrie McMenemy took over from Ted and promptly got us relegated. He won the cup in 1976, promoted two years later and a couple of Wembley visits, did well in the league, then left for Sunderland. Ted joined us before the second world war and died 60 years later as club President. Nothing that Lawrie did could compare to the lifetime that Ted Bates put into Saints.

This has nothing to do with the ability of the players, it's a way of playing. It can be played from parks to internationals. Utd were an example to use, the argument is far from futile, unless we sort that element of our game, we are going to continue to concede goals and struggle to win matches. In short, we will be relegated unless they get some width into their play.

Yes they do, they are another side that always have wide options, together with keeping attackers wide to attack the far post, they do it in a slightly different way but have great width, using fullbacks and midfielders with central attackers also going wide, They look like they are missing Walcott who did play out on the line. All good sides use the width and get to the byeline, even when we have men wide they come inside, and we never have anybody attacking the far post. The defensive shortcomings with James exposed all the time is because we don't have players wide to block the full backs breaking as per Tate of Swansea.

Sure, because it's still the same problem at SMS, the football doesn't seem to mean much to many on here, they'd rather get into an argument about three tenths of F all, or talk about rumors. This is the biggest problem this club has, but can't see it. If they played with width they would get a lot more points IMO.

The guy who told me the story was one of the original Hamwih players, still is an administrator in the best local league and worked as an accountant for Saints for some years, now retired.

Bill, Colin, you both have played football at different times for the club, you both understand what I keep banging on about. I actually think it would be the difference between getting relegated or maybe staying up. Why we persevere with as you rightly describe it Bill, soulless crap, beggers belief. The players in themselves, on the whole aren't half bad, it's the bloody stupidity and application of the so called numbers game that is going to get us relegated.

We aren't talking about the quality of the players, we are talking about players in their relative leagues with relevant skills playing wide. It is a philosophy, and one that is proven from time immemorial. After the match last night Jamie Redknapp made the comment that the real secret of Man Utd's success is their "fantastic width" It is not rocket science, thinking that compacting the team is making things tight, whilst allowing the opponents to go down our flanks and score most of the goals we concede, is stupidity on the part of the management and to a lesser extent the players. Pressure doesn't win matches, mostly because it is the sort tactic that ends up brainlessly tossing balls into the penalty area for either the centre backs or the goalkeeper to easily deal with. Any decent central defender that is dominant in the air will tell you, that is how they like the opposition to play. What terrifies them is teams that get to the byeline and cut the ball back or drive it into the box hard and low. The reason we don't get to the byeline, don't score enough goals and concede too many is that we stupidly surrender the width and play narrow. I don't subscribe to the my big lump is bigger than your big lump style of football, it doesn't work against teams that keep the ball on the floor and attack down the flanks. It might get you out of the division but it won't keep you in the premier.

You're obviously along with Alex Ferguson and myself and one or two others a football dinosaur. 13 successive clean sheets obviously nothing to do with playing wide, probably the Dutch connection.

You got a mention. I went with JFH.

You got a mention, Harry and I went.

I'm sitting watching Man Utd v West Ham, we play narrow, MU always have two or three wide one side and always one or two holding the line on the other side at the same time. It gives them the maximum width and the most options. Why can't we play with width, what makes the Saints players who are picked wide think we don't need to have wide players playing wide. We are currently one of the least successful teams in the four divisions. Surely trying to imitate the tactics of the most successful club side in the world would be better than playing the narrow, unsuccessful systems that are going to get us relegated.

I thought you were being subtle. I wasn't being critical of you, just the gulf between the quality of the past we all experienced and the dross playing these days in the Saints shirt.

Unless they have a ruthless manager, most footballers don't subscribe to the dedicated regime of the athlete/swimmer/sportsmen.

Those two, whether it's true or not, aren't good enough to clean Ron's boots, let alone be named on the same thread.

I met an old pal at Totton v Truro yesterday in the course of conversation Ron Davies came up about his circumstances, operation etc. He told me this story. In the late sixties he played for a junior club in Southampton called Hamwih Town. They were going to Le Havre to play a friendly and have a beery weekend. Cliff Huxford went and played. Ron Davies heard about it and went along for the fun. Ron at the time was at his peak, just about the best striker in the world at the time. The team went to play the match, and were getting changed, Ron had brought his boots and was in the process of getting stripped, the team apparently had great difficulty persuading Ron that there was no way he could play. Much as they would have loved it if he had. Imagine a bunch of young local lads, probably all Saints supporters having the best striker in the world playing for them. Sadly common sense prevailed and a disapointed Ron didn't play. What a man.

Without Ted Bates achievements and building blocks Lawrie McMenemy would never have been employed or had the tools to move on. We had no money when Ted took over, in little over 10 years he took us from the third to the first division. Ted bought his first player for £1000, exhanged Charlie Livesey for Cliff Huxford and £16000, brought in George O'Brien, and *ick Conner, won promotion to the second division, 5 seasons later won promotion to the first division. Without Ted there would be a pretty poor Saints. Shame is Lowe and his managerial colleagues have just about succeeded in destroying everything Ted built. It has to be Ted for me.

Or even pronounced. Stones and glasshouses.

You are quite right, but he had to be playing well which he isn't. If his only position is as a striker or support striker there has to be an end product. Whatever and wherever he is playing, he plays in a way which is counter productive both for himself and the team. He was told by a Saints coach early on in the season that he did too much running about and needed to be more discerning about getting into dangerous positions. Better not more was the message, that message has not been taken on board. One thing that really concerns me is that he is playing like a playground footballer where ball possession is the end product.

Ever since his U21 exposure he has been pretty inneffectual. If he isn't picked in his favourite position, he shouldn't be picked at all. Trying to fit him in somewhere is rediculous. The time is here that everybody either performs or they are out. We can't afford potential luxuries.

That diamond wasn't bad, I know I was very sceptical Ron, but it sort of worked, the lack of width was masked a bit by the good work rate. Against Sheffield it was a different kettle of fish, they were playing pretty flat, no high work rate, with McLaggon wide left but narrow on the right. After they were down to ten he was supposed to play wide right but Wotte kept signalling him to get out on the line, whilst he was a bit better, he kept coming inside. I do blame the coach, but he should have taken him off at half time. He had a pretty poor game. He doesn't seem to have a lot of appreciation. There was yet another long cross that cleared the defence, he was on the near post with the mob. It would have been ideal for anybody hanging back on the far post. I think our position makes it impossible to make excuses for players who are not cutting it.