Wes Tender

It was great to see members of the Liebherr family at the match. I'm sure that many of them are very busy people and whereas Markus at his age was indulging a whim, giving himself an interesting project towards his semi-retirement, others in the family attending shows a commitment that is most welcome. I do hope that they heard the chants for him and recognise how much we appreciated the short time he had with us and that we will never forget the great debt of graritude that we owe him for saving our club.

It was a very poor first half overall, perhaps because there is a lot of pressure on the players, pressure which is exacerbated by the growing number of games we have in hand over teams above us who already have the points on the board. The situation was heightened today because we played the match later than most, but at least we knew that we could gain two points on Huddersfield today with a win. There appears to be a pattern developing over the past few matches, that we begin nervously, lack fluidity and invite pressure onto ourselves during the first half. The players are tentative and the crowd is subdued. Then Adkins must either calm them with a metaphorical arm around their shoulders, or galvanise them into action with a kick up the backside, because we often come out the second half almost a different team. SW, who had gradually come more and more into the game towards the last 20 minutes of the half, must have been told that it was in their hands to go and produce an upset, because they came out to the second half all guns blazing. But we have an experienced defence, who do not flap and they weathered the storm and provided the base for our own midfield and strikers to gain a stranglehold on the match. A great corner provided Fonte with the chance to lose his marker and head in a goal, which steadied the nerves and confidence and belief began to grow. A good assist from Barnard, lively throughout, gave Lambert the chance he needed to continue his recent return to form and place the ball to the keeper's right and secure the three points. SW hadn't looked as if they had enough ammunition to overturn a two goal lead and indeed as the half continued towards its conclusion, it was Saints that were looking the more likely to increase the scoreline. So altogether the important thing was the three points, but the added bonus is the clean sheet, the closing in on Huddersfield and the rare winning of a televised game. Maybe with the next televised game, we ought to be thinking in terms of those we have had under Adkins, as apart from a loss against ManUre where we impressed all the neutrals with our flair and dominated them for 70 minutes before their star subs tipped it their way, the other matches have been an exciting draw against Posh and this win.

"The statue, depicting the singer in one of his most iconic poses..." I do hope that little boys or monkeys are not involved....

She was Harry Redknapp??

I'd be entirely happy if we retained the sash kit. We're uniquely different to most other teams kits now. I'll be happy to wear that shirt for years to come, especially as there is no sponsor on it. I seem to recall that a poll on here came out 50% or so in favour of keeping it.

All very sensible. OK, so it's a pain having these games in hand, but psychologically it can be turned to our advantage if we start to win them. We know that if we do win them, then there is nothing that those teams above us can do about it. Earlier on in the season, there were those posters who stated that we wouldn't go up this season because of the departure of Pardew, the poor results before he went and the poor results by Wilkins, until Adkins' arrival. Well, I hope that those same posters recognise that although our situation currently is difficult, we have it in our own hands to go up automatically. I recall at the time pointing out that the season was a marathon, not a sprint. I understand that one of Adkins' strengths is a knowledge of motivational and psychology skills, so the analogy he needs to impress on the players is that they are on the last lap of the race, on the final bend and on the shoulders of the leading pack of four. One runner has shot ahead, but might yet tire and be caught. The other three are there for the taking and their resolve might crumble if we put in a strong finish in the final straight. We already surged ahead of Bournemouth, so our mental attitude should be good for the games ahead.

And you seem totally unable to comprehend the alternative situation that might arise; you know, the exact same one that actually happened earlier, that when we went one behind early on, we played with enough conviction and effort to get a goal back. But if you believe that it's set in stone that the game could only change in their favour if they went ahead with the penalty, then go ahead. If you wish to suppose through conjecture that they would have gone on to win it, good for you.

It is an irrefutable fact that if we score more goals than they do, we win. Where did I make a statement saying that we would have won, even had they been awarded the penalty? Read it again. What I said was that even had they been awarded the penalty the score would still have been 3-2 to us. I can see why that statement is flawed, as there is an inherent assumption that they would have scored from it, an assumption also made by their manager and others when bleating about how unfair the result was, but my statement "And it would have been (3-2), had no other goals been scored" is otherwise correct and factual.

Both possibilities. After all, the fair price is what somebody is prepared to pay for something and the best case scenario is two parties or more (including Millwall) bidding for the same product. Equally, we are short in midfield, although Puncheon seems to me to be better out wide. Whether he could do a job playing in the hole, or allowing Lallana to play in the hole is dabateable. Whether his mindset would be tuned in to coming back here or not is another issue.

And it would have been, had no other goals been scored. Assuming that other goals might have been scored by either team as a result of whether the penalty was awarded or not is the conjecture. As I pointed out to Sour Mash originally, there were a series in incidents that might have changed the scoreline one way or the other, but the final score is the factual outcome of the match.

Equally of course, the team could quite feasibly raise their game in much the same way that they did when they went a goal down. A bit ironic that you chastise me for a lack of football intelligence over a matter of pure conjecture. You might as well go the whole hog and say that they might have won 5-1 had they been awarded the penalty. The thrust of my response to Sour Mash was that Bournemouth did not deserve a draw against us because even with the penalty shout, we had scored two more goals than them. If you wish to speculate about how the match might have changed had they been awarded the penalty, then I'm sure that it is equally possible to speculate on how many more goals we may have scored had other chances gone our way. But I prefer to deal in facts rather than idle conjecture, as that is the more intelligent approach.

If two Premiership clubs want to sign him, why is the valuation only £500,000?

Well, I'm an intelligent person. Had the penalty been awarded to them, then the scoreline would still have been 3-2 to us. I also see no harm in acknowledging Bournemouth's fantastic efforts in getting to where they are, despite their dire financial position. But I draw the line at thinking that they deserved a draw against us. The sides may well have been evenly matched on Saturday, apart from the ability of our players to finish off moves by putting the ball in the net. But then that is the entire essence of the game; scoring at one end and preventing the other team scoring at the other, something that we did better than them.

Lee Bradbury would love you. He seems to think that the game should have been drawn too. There might not have been too much between the two teams, except the two more goals we scored against them. Of course, we would have scored one less had not their defender made a pig's ear of shepherding the ball out of play and not allowing Lambert to take it off him and crossing for Barnard's goal, which their keeper should have saved. And then of course, Lambert had no right to score from that free-kick, in the same way that Kelvin should not have been able to tip that goal-bound shot of theirs onto the bar. Nor should Hammond have been allowed the space to score from Chamberlain's free-kick. Come to that, we had no right to have had a player of such high value on the field, regardless of the fact that he's still only of schoolboy age. And naturally, they should have made their numerical advantage count when we had Gobern sent off. So all in all, the whole thing was grossly unfair and by rights the three points and the bragging rights should have been theirs.

Thank God that we won, although the scoreline makes it seem as if it was an easier feat than it actually was. But then it was only to be expected that they would be up for it, following all the hype from their idiot Chairman, that idiot Bournemouth Echo journo who thinks that he is a Saints fan and many of their fans who thought that the hierarchy between them and us had changed in their favour. But three matches played against them this season and three wins for us prove conclusively that it has not changed and that we remain the better team, even though the table had them above us until the final whistle yesterday. Good luck to them for achieving that position in light of their precarious financial history recently and it would be great if they were to go up at the end of the season, provided that we go up ahead of them. For all their fans' talk about penalties that were not awarded and brilliant saves by Davis and shots that would have gone in on other days, it is the result that counts. We could equally moan about similar incidents in other matches that would have placed us higher in the table and of course the same applies to every other team. As for their complaint that they were a team of cheap players matched against our team of million pound players, for all that he is rated at £10 million and Lallana at £5 million, these are both players brought up through our academy. We were in administration recently as they were, but thankfully we got Liebherr and they got Mitchell.

I didn't know the the Echo were banned from press conferences. Did that one just pass me by or is this news? So Meldrew (sic) realises obviously the background between Cortese and Murray, the editor at their sister publication here at Southampton and regardless of his alleged support of Saints, is willing to place his tongue on the posterior orifice of his employers and slag off the Saints. It's sad to see that a so-called supporter of ours is willing to place his career advancement ahead of his allegiance to us in a pathetic effort to sell more copies of that rag. Perhaps he ought to support Bournemouth instead, as I'm sure that Mitchell will grant him a place in the Directors' box for his Quisling rhetoric on their behalf.

I'm somewhat confused that I'm labelled as a consumer rather than a fan because I wear a replica shirt to the match and sometimes to other places too. I must have been mistaken in believing the psycho-babble spouted by the experts in behavioural patterns who tell us that the wearing of the "tribal" colours and the singing of the "tribal" chants identifies those members of belonging to that "tribe". If Turkish is correct, there is a separate "tribe" of true supporters of the club whose uniform is designer label gear such as Stone Island. Unfortunately, the problem with this uniform, is that it is apparently also worn by those from rival tribes, thus making it almost impossible to identify those of like pursuasion. I don't leave early, don't go down to the concourse before half-time, so seemingly the wearing of the replica shirt is my only transgression. So how much of a fan or consumer am I ?

I noticed that several times myself. Is it something planned because of his ability to pick out a good pass, or is it just down to him? Whichever, I would have thought that he would be utilised more effectively in the box alongside Barnard.

Games like the one at Bournemouth won't tell us much beyond whether we can beat them away or not. We already know that we can beat them at home. We learned from playing Man Ure and Blackpool that we are capable of beating at least one Premiership side and giving the Premiership leaders a nasty fright for two-thirds of the match. So following that, we lose against one of the teams in the third division basement. There are too many twists and turns to predict whether we are a league winning or promotion team at this stage, especially as some of the top 6 are playing each other and not beyond stumbling against those lower placed teams themselves

I concur with many others' opinions that although it was a comfortable win in the end, it seemed as if we made hard work of not scoring a hatful, against one of the worst teams I've seen this season. Yeovil were very adept at giving away possession by misplacing a high percentage of their passes, often kicking the ball out of play. But the result is what is important, especially as Exeter did us a favour by beating Bournemouth, who must now be looking nervously over their shoulder just before we play them this Saturday. The referee was flagged up by the Yeovil forum as being the most card-happy in the division and yet apart from a couple of poor decisions, he didn't do too badly. Firstly, he gave Chaplow a yellow when he clearly got the ball, although the tackle he made was typically full-blooded. Secondly, there was the bizarre incident of the corner kick taken by Yeovil. Their player clearly kicked the ball and although it only moved a few feet, it was clearly in play, so Barney was fully entitled to rush over to play the ball. If the referee allowed them to take it again, he ought to have yellow carded their player who had set himself to take it, for time-wasting. When we had a corner shortly after, it would have been amusing for us to have done the same thing, to see what the Ref's reaction would be. It never seemed that we stretched ourselves that much and had their couple of chances produced something, the outcome might have been very different. But thankfully their finishing was truly abyssmal. A better team would have punished us at least twice.

It would only be worth contemplating if we had gone up as champions, Brighton as the second automatic promotion team and Bournemouth via the play-offs. It would be even better if the Skates were to be relegated, but regrettably that doesn't appear to be likely.

I'm not disputing that on our day in previous years we could beat the likes of the glory teams. Chez had suggested that "Adkins must find that elusive blend, style...that enables the side to play freely." I questioned why we allowed other teams to dictate that we should play a narrow restricted game, not utilising our ability to play with width, thus freeing up the centre to allow us to play to our strengths, which are pace out wide and incisive passing. Do you believe that we have no alternative but to play in the manner that is dictated by the tactics of the rival managers? Because if there is no alternative, then we might as well accept that we are not going up this season.

What I don't understand is why we should allow other teams to dictate how we should play. Yes, we have seen so many times how other less skilled teams "park the bus" in front of their goal and invite us to break them down. But as I say, when we have possession, why do we have to have all of our players in one half of the field lengthwise? That was a fault of Pardew's and it looked as if Adkins was different. Recently, the way we've played, it seems not.

I've been away the past week, so missed the commentary on the match against Walsall, but listened to the radio commentary and read the match report on Saturday's game. But it seems that there was one factor common to both matches which could have had a major bearing on the outcomes. In both cases, it seems that we played without any width. Now, I might be mistaken, but surely it is up to us to a certain extent as to how we play. The other team might attempt to play in a style which suits them, or neutralises the effectiveness of their opposition, but if we chose to play with width, stretching the midfield to increase our ability to pass the ball to our players, then surely there is little that the other team could do to prevent it. If the ball is in the hands of our goallie, or we have a free kick, then we are able to string players across the pitch to offer passing and attacking options which would suit our style of play and the skills of our players. But we don't often do that and Dave Merrington plainly said that in the Colchester match, the play was compacted into a small, tight area of the pitch. And yet against Man Ure we played a great passing game with width. Against Swindon, once we had established a lead, we played such good passing foorball that they couldn't even get the ball from us. I'm convinced that if we were to play to our strengths, utilising our main assets of pace out wide with Chamberlain, good passing ability from the likes of Lallana and Schneiderlin, we would beat any team in this division. So why do we allow these less skillful teams to dictate how we should play? I just don't understand it.

Last season we lost to Leeds away, but beat them at home. Against the league champions Norwich, we drew twice, in the league at home and in the JPT, but beat them away 2-0. So patently those teams were not better than us. I think that you're forgetting that we had a 10 point deduction and took some time to get our minds in gear and get past it. Our form in the second half of the season was better than Norwich's and Leeds.