Wes Tender

Well, that is the conclusion that you reach without any knowledge of the discussions that were held in an attempt to reach a compromise between the two clubs. It could always be of course, that the Shrewsbury Chairman was the one who was petty and that the response on the OS was therefore rather terse because of their intransigence and the extra trouble that it caused to take it through the jurisdiction of the FA. And as for their attempt to maximise profits, they take half of the gate receipts as I understand it and I agree entirely with somebody's earlier suggestion that we probably did them a favour by getting the prices down, as at the £25 level, the stadium would have been almost empty. I certainly wouldn't be paying £50 for me and my son to watch Shrewsbury and might even not have attended solely to reduce revenue just to spite them for scuppering our attempt to reduce prices to make it more affordable to a wider audience.

Why should he withdraw it? It's in the archives now anyway and the righteous indignation expressed in the Shrewsbury rag was long ago chip wrapping. I don't see what he might wish to retract even if he had written it. I agree with it all, the sentiments expressed and the actual wording.

Really? I thought that I had commented on the statement. But as to whether they were his words or somebody else's written on his behalf, I do not know. Do you know?

I think that it will be instructive to show what was written on the OS so that some can attempt to see whether there are other interpretations or nuances that can be applied to it. "Bearing in mind the opposition and the number of other significant home matches during November, the Club had wished to push through discounted rates for this match, in order to reward our most loyal fans. However, our opponents from League Two, were looking to cash in their trip to St Mary's by charging both sets of fans full price tickets, an over ambitions move designed only to line their own pockets. As no compromise was able to be reached, the matter was handed over to the FA and the club are pleased to announce that they have sided with Saints. We are extremely grateful to the FA for agreeing that the club's initial pricing structure represents a fair and honest option for both Saints and Shrews fans." So the price was set by the FA and the OS confirmed that. The line about "bearing in mind the opposition" has to be taken together with the "number of other significant matches in November" What was meant was that because there were a lot of other important matches in November, the Club recognised that it might be difficult to pursuade fans to cough up the extra cash to attend this match unless it was priced realistically. Can anybody on here justify why the game should be priced at normal match level prices for League One when we are playing a League Two side? Can anybody gain any further justification for the prices being set at that level just because it will be helpful to the finances of that lower league Club, even though it would mean that our own attendances will be reduced because many just "can't be bothered" to go and watch us play Shrewsbury" at those prices? The Club had attempted to do our fans a favour and to encourage larger attendances through fairer prices. It must also be pointed out that many Shrewsbury fans might also be thankful that the prices are set at a reasonable level too and I doubt that many of them will be militating that they ought to be paying £25 for the privilege of playing a third division club in the early rounds of the FA Cup. The statement aIso makes it clear that the Club had tried to reach a compromise with Shrewsbury over the pricing, but some seem to automatically assume that we are entirely at fault because nothing could be agreed. It saddens me that some seem to prefer to take the stance in favour of rival managments over our own people.

I can't say that I was that impressed with him, from what I saw of him. He didn't seem like Antonio MK11

You're all over the place here it seems. I see nothing wrong in somebody encouraging others to attend. Some waiverers like to have a bit of encouragement to go, but others can't be bothered like you. Frankly I'm amazed that anybody would be embarrassed by the response that the club gave Shrewsbury. If they hadn't insisted on increasing the ticket price by 50% then we would not have had people on here moaning about the ticket price. Just what was disrespectful in the statement of the obvious, that they were not exactly the big name draw and therefore we were inclined to reduce the ticket price as an incentive for our fans "to be bothered"? And I wonder whether you realise the irony of you then saying that you won't be going because the match has a non-league feel about it? As to whether Cortese's response showed a lack of class and professionalism, I don't see it at all. It might have smacked of him being a bit peeved because it scuppered our plans to offer our own fans a decent price in order to get the support increased, but if you prefer to support the management of the other club over ours, then go ahead.

So we've told Shrewsbury that we're not interested in a Cup run this year?

Well, I expect that Adkins would have had us performing as well if not better had he had the squad here that he had at S****horpe, a squad that was assembled on a shoestring budget with hardly any well-known names, but one that was obviously fit, industrious and had team spirit and playing in the division above. And the question that begs to be asked is why Pardew's squad at the end of last season was flying and yet got off to such a poor start this season. The Bristol Rovers result might have been a blip. Nobody can prove that he would have fared any better than Wilkins.

I stand by my assertion that we play with more width under Adkins than we did under Pardew. Granted that the positioning of the players is often narrow when KD kicks out and that is something that needs to be addressed, as it is obviously the case that positioning the players across the pitch stretches the midfield and makes it easier to reach our players. But the narrowness of the play is something I detested under Pardew and so I have been very observant as to how Adkins does things and as others have also agreed, in open play we are placed wider across the pitch more often than not than we were under Pardew. Yes, Antonio played out wide and made some good runs on the wing as does Oxo. But that doesn't mean to say that there were players on the opposite touchline. The play was out on the right and often all of the players were in the right hand side of the pitch and vice versa when the ball was on the left wing. Having players stretched across the pitch as we more often do now, allows the midfielders with better passing ability like Schneiderlin and Chaplow the option to go right or left and it is becoming more effective. Richardson didn't get forward up the wing for a very good reason. He isn't yet fit enough to do so and would have left our right flank exposed had he done so. I'm not adverse to route one football from time to time, especially as it could be utilised to great effect with speedy players like Chamberlain. I said as much when citing the brilliant piece of play by Arsenal last night involving Walcott. Overall, the best strategy is to vary the play and the tactics to suit the conditions, available players and to exploit the weaknesses of the opposition and counter their strengths. Huddersfield got their strategy against us spot on and we were found out. But I have more confidence in the ability of Adkins as a tactition than I had in Pardew, so I believe that we will have learned a lesson and addressed our shortcomings.

But we have yet to play Brighton twice, so could reduce that gap potentially by 6 points. And although we are yet to play them and Peterborough who are close to the top, they also have yet to play us, Huddersfield and Colchester. Although they have beaten some teams that we have lost or drawn against, the same applies the other way and we have the excuse that we were jolted by the departure of Pardew and Wilkins being in charge until Adkins came in. But we have beaten Bournemouth,and Sheffield Wednesday who beat them. They could only draw with Tranmere who we beat convincingly. So I'm not about to worry unduly about Brighton's 10 point lead just yet, remembering that Leeds were last season's Brighton in terms of beginning to run away with the division early on. And being only two point off second means that we are the team with current momentum that the others will be looking anxiously over their shoulders at.

Again, you must be watching a different team play to the one that I have watched at every home game this season. The main difference is that we now play with much more width than we ever did under Pardew. Do you disagree? The difference between KD kicking the ball out long and KD rolling the ball out to Fonte who then kicks upfield, is twofold. Firstly, Fonte doesn't always kick long and has options to advance forward into midfield space, which of course KD cannot do. Secondly, if Fonte does choose to kick long, then he is a very accurate placer of that kick and invariably finds his man with precision. But then of course, KD doesn't only roll the ball out to Fonte, does he? He uses any of the defenders who are available in space and the options out wide with Lallana and Puncheon/Chamberlain make them both a threat out wide if the ball is rolled out to Harding/Butterfield/Richardson who in turn pass on to them. The plenty of punting in the Daggers game was coming from Daggers far more than from us. We mixed it up nicely IMO. Yes, we can only really judge Nigel at the end of the season, but the thread invited opinions on how we thought he was doing so far. And so far, I am happier with NA, as his style of football is far more entertaining to watch at the very least.

You and Minty are right on the money and LGSC and Derry must have been watching another match; either that, or they are somehow being defensive towards Pardew's type of game. I suspect that Minty has hit on the reality, that Huddersfield had sussed out our new style of play and closed down the fullbacks quickly meaning that play had to be more varied to keep the opposition guessing. If the other team play a high line to pressure our back line, then the obvious solution is to hit the ball over their forward line for our forwards to run on to. Hull did that to us to great effect a few seasons ago and thrashed us 5-0 in the process and we had no answer to it at the time. Hoofing is only when the ball is aimlessly hit high and forward without any real purpose. If anybody saw the Arsenal game last night, then they would have seen the ball hit far up the pitch where Walcott ran through and left their entire defence for dead and only had their keeper to beat. Was that ball hoofed, or are Arsenal a passing side? Well, with players like Chamberlain in our team, we also have that option. So if there is a debate as to whether we have varied our style of play for a particular match, that is suggestive that we adapt our game tactically to suit the conditions, the team in front of us, the players we have available etc. And from what I've seen, Adkins is far more aware tactically than Pardew and produces the more entertaining football at the same time. If we fans can't agree on what our style of play is, then that is surely a bonus, as rival managers won't know either what type of play we will present on the day. And thank God for the width we play with now too.

Surely a group calling themselves The Worldwide Financial Services Group ought to have a far better command of the English Language than the clowns who post their bile on here. Most of it is barely intelligible.

Personally I'm ecstatic, smears. A very good 18 months in my opinion. The club is run without debt in a slick and professional manner. Now we also have a slick and professional manager too. Pardew might have had a decent eye for a player, but seemingly Adkins has the greater ability to get the best out of them and certainly in his short time here, there have been games that have been far more entertaining than most under Pardew. Some peoples' noses have been put out of joint by management decisions that have probably been taken for very good reasons, obviously yours and your mate leftback's and a few others, but the vast majority seem to be very content with the progress that has been made. Money has been spent on the training ground with the express policy of developing a home-grown crop of talented youngsters and we no longer have a need to sell them on as soon as they attract the attention of the glory teams. There is ambition to either improve the stadium or to relocate. Apart from one or two whingers, most are satisfied that the club is in good hands and moving steadily in an upward direction after years of mismanagement by those with bigger egos than wallets. Long may it continue.

A very entertaining match and generally we played extremely well. Many say that it was only Dagenham and Redbridge, so no surprise that we beat them easily, much as many had commented along similar lines about the Tranmere match. But often in the past, the bottom teams in the division realising our power and prowess, park the proverbial bus in front of their goal, flood the midfield to deny possession and hope to hit us on the break. So how come Tranmere and D&R didn't work to that game plan? Could it be that there is an element of our style of play under Adkins not allowing teams to play that way? Under Pardew, we nearly always used to play with no width, all players hemmed into one half of the pitch lengthwise. With Adkins, we mostly play with width, thus stretching the midfield and allowing us to play to our strength, our passing game. With Lallana and either Chamberlain or Puncheon, we have tricky, fast players who play wide and they have to be marked. If they are marked, space is opened up in the middle and last night Chaplin ran riot in that area, often breaking forward ahead of Lambert and Barnard. With Hammond the holding midfielder, Chaplow had the freedom to go box to box, something that we have not seen from a midfielder to that degree of energy since Viafara. Chaplow made a huge difference and was my motm. I believe that the decision to buy him could be influential on our season. Chamberlain is coming on in leaps and bounds and played a very influential part in our victory. His first goal looked as if it had been a cross that was fortunately too close to the goallie, who seemed to tip it in with his fingertips. The second looked as if it was meant and if so, then it would have been worthy of MLT. Also, his trickery and dribbling, his close ball control, made him almost unplayable and defenders must have realised that it would be only too easy to give away a penalty if they misjudged a tackle in the box. His turn of speed when running on to a pass out wide can leave defenders for dead. Switching sides between him and Lallana kept their defence guessing throughout the match. I don't know whether Puncheon is to be alternated with Chamberlain, or whether he had an injury, but he is obviously a good option to bring on later in a match as a substitute for Chamberlain and vice versa. Between the other players, Barnard was his usual bustling, lively self, Lambert improving, but still not 100% and could do with a goal or two from open play to boost his confidence. The defence was generally sound, Harding his usual industrious and reliable self, Seabourne improving alongside the immense Fonte, but Richardson still a bit rusty. Kelvin not much to do, but another wonderful save from a fierce shot where he tipped the goalward bound ball over the bar. With the strength in depth we have on the bench, this is certainly a team capable of winning this division and also capable of beating higher division teams if we draw any in the FA Cup. Other small observations; the referee was good and allowed a flowing game. The match was a very clean one. D & R have a player who had a wicked long throw on him which was used to devastating effect a la Delap. Now that we have fought our way into the play-off places, we have it in our hands to get up to an automatic play-off place. We can help ourselves by beating Brighton and Peterborough. Refreshing my memory on comparatively recent threads, there were allegations that replacing Pardew had jeopardised our chances of automatic promotion. I hope that the current situation where we are just two points off that second place and the memory of how Leeds ran away with the top spot in the early stages of last season only to fall away, will help to put some perspective into that assertion. In my opinion, whereas Pardew might conceivably have gained us more points than Wilkins, I am now firmly of the opinion that had he remained, he would not have done better than Adkins over these past few matches and at the very least, I am confident that the more entertaining football is played by Adkins' team.

So what category does the right to freedom come under? Only a matter of time before they start protesting that imprisonment is a breach of their rights too. I'm with you, that the minute that they are imprisoned until the day they are released, the have forfeited their rights to personal freedom and the right to vote amongst others. And another aspect of this cretinous judgement that needs consideration is the question of where they should be allowed to vote. In the constituency where they are resident, i.e. where the nick is, or their home constituency? Technically, the place of their abode is the nick, in the same way that students can vote in the Constituency of their University. So thousands of them could potentially change the result of a Parliamentary Election in the Constituency where the prison is.

I don't question your loyalty to the Saints, nor your right to your opinion. Just that County brought about the change to their position themselves when they were making it hard for us to break them down. As I say, it isn't really feasible to say that had they not committed the foul that resulted in the penalty and the sending off they would have won, as that was the turning point in the game. But if the penalty and sending off was the fault of their player and fair, then that player was the architect of their downfall. Would Barnard have scored if not fouled? Would we still have gone on to have scored the other two goals? Who knows? But it might well have happened following the substitutions. As the old cliche says, it is a game of two halves. I am always mindful of that game against Leeds when they overturned a 3 goal deficit to win 3-4 within the last 20 minutes. No doubt their fans thought that we were flying and that there was nothing in it for them. Just as a matter of interest, just try putting into Google Southampton 3 and see what comes up.

Agreed. Objectivity goes out of the window when there is a political agenda or a personal axe to grind.

Just to make it easier to understand, it would be a bit like a Yorkshireman saying that those people from Hampshire are an insufferable lot, especially those from Southampton, Portsmouth, Chichester and Haywards Heath. So IMO your assertion is weakened because two of the places that you gave as examples aren't even in Yorkshire. Mind you, it would also be absurd though to believe that once one crosses a boundary line on a map into a different County that the character of the indigenous population would alter greatly or that the characters of the city dwellers is identical to that of the country folk. This is the problem with broad sweeping generalisations. As for Earl Grey and Darjeeling being head and shoulders above Yorkshire Tea, that is surely a matter of personal taste.

If their player had not been sent off, we were heading towards defeat? Rather like saying that had we not scored the three goals, they would have beaten us 1-0. Did you think that the challenge by their defender was not a foul in the penalty area? That he should not have been sent off as the last defender between Barnard and the goal? Because if you allow that the penalty was just, then you also accept that the score was then 1-1 and that we were headed for a draw at least. That our spirits were raised, that they weren't able to shut up shop in the second half, that Adkins made some telling substitutions are all additional reasons why we came away with a victory and all three points. Even had the penalty and sending off not happened, there is no cast iron guarantee that the substitutions would not have changed the match in our favour. But if the report is correct that the player who got sent off and arguably lost the game for them (in accordance with some opinions) was given an 8 by the Echo, then that is just plain bizarre.

Quite ironic when there is a thread about Yorkshire and naming places as being the pits when they aren't even in that county. It wasn't pedantry that picked up on it, as it was just poor geographic knowledge that undermines the entire point of the thread. And I love Yorkshire Tea. Taylor's of Harrogate must be doing something right if their product is being discussed on a football forum down South.

We should tell the European Court of Human Rights to go and get lost and if they don't like it, we will have a referendum on whether they should have precedence over the laws enacted by our democratically elected Government. If they then don't like that, we should leave the EU, as that was not the body we originally joined.

Nobody actually gives a damn what the Echo thinks anymore. The most important figures associated with that match are Saints 3 points, Notts County zero points.

Well, although you are entitled to your opinion about both players, others have picked holes in the background reasons for your viewpoint. As stated, Butterfield was injured, so had to be replaced by Richardson. Also, Harding was not at fault for the County goal which should not have stood because of the foul against KD and in any event IMO it was Seabourne who was at fault for not marking Edwards. Although Merrington was scathing about how nobody had picked up Edwards, allowing him a free header, the replays don't show it as clearcut as all that. Puncheon blows hot and cold, but for me, Harding has been his usual consistent self for most matches. I'm content that Chamberlain comes on for the last 20 minutes or so as an impact sub when opposition legs are tiring.

You want to go carefully, LB. I'd imagine that a puncure repair would be difficult inside the mouth of one of those blow-up dolls. Did it cost much?