Wes Tender

We started off well enough, looked committed and had a couple of good chances before we scored a good goal. And then until half-time, we seemed to reckon that we had done enough and should take our foot off the pedal and give them a chance to come back into it. So we sat deeper and deeper and they gradually started to represent more of a threat. It looked as if a goal from them was only a matter of time unless we bucked our ideas up and started to challenge for the loose balls and close them down. And so it proved, that shortly after the half-time break, they gained their equaliser. For me, it was almost a relief, as I surmised that it might be just the kick up the backside that the team needed, a jolt to their complacency. A couple of good substitutions by Adkins also freshened things up, Barnard and Schneiderlin making a very quick impact and two goals following in quick sucession gave us a good cushion, increased our self-belief and taking the wind out of Swindon's sails. From then onwards, we played with the width that was so sadly lacking in the first half, stretching the midfield to allow us the space to play our passing game. We then played some exhibition football, stringing together a series of passes to frustrate Swindon, who couldn't get the ball back. So why can't we play with this width from the first whistle? We have skilled and fast wingers, so surely it makes sense to keep them out wide, forcing the opposition out wide to mark them? The goal from Barnard almost on full time, was a bonus and demonstrated how effective our open passing play could be when we tie up opponents in midfield and then go for their jugular with a telling defence-splitting pass. At the time of their equaliser, the match could have swung their way had we not resolved to step up a gear. Certainly Schneiderlin worked well beside Hammond to anchor the midfield and raised the question of whether he and Hammond, or he and Chaplow are to be preferred to Hammond and Chaplow. Also, we can speculate on whether Barnard should have started, or whether he is a great substitute to bring on against tiring legs to shake up a defence. By the end of the match, the rather dismal first half had been almost forgotten because of the superb display in the second.

I bet that you will really hate being back at school next week. But study hard and you might make something of your life.

It rather depends how you look at that. Hartlepool have beaten Brighton, Peterborough at home and Bournemouth and Huddersfield away. Therefore we gained one point that they didn't. As for Brighton, yes, they look as if they're beginning to run away with it. Don't I recall Leeds doing exactly the same thing at this stage of the Season, even beating ManUre in the Cup. Before slumping and just about limping into the play-offs a couple of seasons ago?

So because they might have got the hump because the Club banned the press photographers, that gives them license to print garbage, to spread mischievous unfounded rumours designed to destabilise the club in a childish tit-for-tat revenge, does it? And what is the result when the rumours are rubbished by the Club? The press are made to look stupid, thus decreasing their readership by normal intelligent people who feel no desire to spend their money on a gutter press publication. So do you reckon that because of this situation there is any justification in them fabricating stories, or do you hold that the press have a duty to only publish stories that are news, i.e, factual? Because it seems to me that your post excuses them if it is found to the b*ll*cks that you assume it to be.

Exactly. And this is where the whole basis of Misguided's opening post falls flat on its face. and then..... So his post is based on facts, regardless that they are third hand and that GM has not had the benefit of hearing the other side of it from Cortese. But then again, he goes on to cast doubt on his own assertion that they are fact, because he has his caveat, "whether these claims are true or not". Surely, if they are facts, they most be true by definition.

So by your reckoning, the Skates' Storrie-teller was a good one, because the proof of his running the club better than most of their previous Chairmen was plainly there to see when they won the FA Cup and had half of the England squad in their team, finishing high up the Premiership. Right. But of course, their team was only successful on the pitch because they bankrupted themselves to achieve it.

The voice of reason.

Yes, we're talking about them. And most posters are saying what a prat their chairman is.

You didn't read Daren's post very well. He admitted that they were above us currently, but not if we win our games in hand. In terms of the way that both clubs are run and the performances of both Chairmen, I'd say that Cortese was outperforming Mitchell hands down. Would you rather have Mitchell?

Was that what we were discussing? Or was it about the puerile behaviour of Mitchell?

Not at all. We ought to realise that in many ways we are lucky that we are run by professional people instead of these idiots like Mitchell. Don't you think that we are lucky? Or would you prefer this "shoot from the lip" approach typified by this petty little story, which is probably only in print to feed the ego of a total non-entity?

Sheffield Wednesday fans are entitled to feel agrieved having been demoted to the third division, courting bankruptcy and not living up to expetations that they would bounce back up this season. But us? Financially secure, decent manager and squad, a bright future ahead? I couldn't agree more with the sentiments of the OP. We seem to have the sort of masochists who enjoy banging their heads against a brick wall because it feels good when they stop.

I'm not sure whether I'd trust a firm of Architects with extending the Stadium if they can't even spell Extension correctly.

So you've sunk to the level where you're most comfortable -the gutter. You have nothing constructive to say, no biting wit, nothing in the way of intelligent debate, just puerile and childish playground name-calling. Pathetic.

Easy mistake to make.

It was a boring game and we really should have pressed on and made it safe after the first goal with them being down to 10 men. As it was, we were letting them gradually back into the game by playing deeper and there were certainly opportunities where they could have sneaked a goal at around the 80 minute mark. What would we have done then, facing the loss of two vital points? Thankfully Carlisle weren't capable of punishing us because their finishing wasn't up to it. The last game was also one that we won ugly, so it is a bit disconcerting after the 6-0 hammering against Oldham and the magnificent performance against the Glory hunters that we seemed on the surface to be so lacklustre these past two games. But ultimately, the main thing is the 3 points. And the bonus is that we have Lallana back and another goal from open play from Lambert. There were some bright spots too. Good performances from Hammond and Chamberlain from midfield and Lallana when he came on. Also a very solid back four, all of them turning in good performances. However, I remain unconvinced about Forte and N'Guessen and only half convinced about Gully. He had a couple of gilt-edged chances to score but fluffed his lines through hesitation. The two new boys might yet prove to be assets and give us something extra, but we are now at the stage where we have cover for most positions and my preferred midfield would have Schneiderlin and Chaplow/Hammond with Lallana and Chamberlain out wide. So where do you accommodate Forte/N'Guessen? Late match subs for fresh legs with pace? Replacements when Chamberlain is rested or for when he or Lallana might be carrying knocks? I certainly hope that these two new players do develop to slot in nicely, as we pretty well have options for every position. The hope is that none of our promotion rivals has such depth and that they suffer injuries and suspensions in the run in,that allows us to overtake them on the final straight.

Thank you Vectis; I respect your stance on most things and I am happy that you recall the context, that Dune called Cortese a slimey Italian and so I decided to retaliate to see if he could take the medicine that he liked to dish out by what I said of Le Tiss. Mind you, you would have thought that I had uttered some heresy and that the Spanish Inquisition were on their way to burn me at the stake. I offered to retract the Le Tiss remarks in return for Dune apologising for his remarks about Cortese, as I quote below:- But of course, Dune isn't man enough to do that. Neither has he apologised for the part he paid in the feeding frenzy against Cortese on the closed thread, when he was one of the chief antagonists. So will he be a bit less hasty the next time he reads something anti-Cortese in the press? I doubt it.

Agreed. Perhaps as a result, those "sensible" posters will be a bit more circumspect the next time they perceive there is an opportunity to slag off Cortese and hold their tongues until they know a few more facts, rather than taking what the Mail or Echo say as being the Gospel truth. They might even listen more closely to the "loons" who advocate holding off from making snap judgments based on personalities. But I won't hold my breath.

Nothing wrong with the posts you made on that thread, Steve. What is upsetting is that because of these groundless allegations, the Ex-Saints charity has had its reputation sullied. I'm not going to second guess how the story reached the Mail, or who was the source, but they have done both the charity and the Club a disservice.

I'm not at all surprised to read that you won't apologise. You never do when you're wrong, which is quite often. But when it comes to numptydom, you were one of the main contenders for the number one spot. Egg all over your face.

So it does seem that there are indeed mischief-makers in the press who seek to destabilise the Club, particularly in the Daily Mail and the Echo. The story had two parties involved with it, the Club and the Ex-Saints. The journalists had the obligation if they wished to be treated as professionals to have checked both sides of the story before publishing. Now, it might well have been, judging by past experience, that the Club were reticent in commenting on it, but therefore where did the story surface from on the Ex-Players' side? Who was it that informed the press that the Club had refused permission for Adkins and the current squad to attend? Mike Osman? Le Tiss? Benali? Lawrie? Whoever it was, I think that they ought to be chastised by the Ex-Players charity for their actions. As for the Mail, I think that they should be forced to print a retraction with the same number of column inches that they used for the original groundless allegations. As somebody also commented in the Echo, they should be told in no uncertain terms through the Club's legal people that if this scurillous campaign against the Club continues, they will be sued. As for those posters who went off at half-cock, only too ready to besmirch the name of our Chairman without access to all of the facts, this comment from that thread deserves to be posted again. Hypochondriac: Incidentally, Steve Godwin and Um Pahars are one and the same person, so the list of "sensible" people is reduced by one. There weren't many "others" thankfully. I wonder whether they will have the good grace to retract their remarks and apologise?

Ah yes. Got it! http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/8847717.Love_is_in_the_air_for_Nigel/?ref=rss

Exactly the same thoughts occurred to me too. Especially when the thread title was labelled the Cortese tax. And you say that Adkins has denied that the players have been banned from attending the 125th event? Where was that link? As you say, it's all gone quiet over there. Will we be having some apologies from those who went off at half-cock and got it wrong?

It's a suburb of Bristol. Didn't you know?

I'm sorry, Daren, but I'm afraid that your timescale reckoning has let you down a bit here. Would that it were correct and it would have been a jolly little jape, but by my reckoning, 125 weeks takes us back to the Lowe/Wilde era, with Hapless Jan playing the kids. If you wish to celebrate that, then I suspect that you might be in a minority of one.