Wes Tender

Well, the club ought to be able to provide video evidence for the FL. If we could show that the linesmen got the decision wrong on numerous occasions, then the case for either extra linesmen or video evidence becomes more compelling. I was musing about another possibility. Wouldn't it be possible for the trailing linesman to have some of device that enabled him to indicate by an electronic beep to the forward linesman the second that the ball was kicked forward? Then the forward linesman would only have to look at the position of the striker, rather than having to watch play down the pitch and make a simultaneous judgement on when the striker made his move?

I was another who had a lump in my throat. It was a defining moment of the season so far, almost as if a watershed had been reached. It seemed to be an acknowledgement, an acceptance that we had reached a point where nearly everybody realised that the club was once again in the ascendancy, that better times were ahead. Shortly after in the Northam, a chant started of "One Markus Liebherr" and then one for Alan Pardew. It was an emotional few minutes, especially as the slow version of our chant is so atmospheric. So many people having witnessed how good it can be, I reckon that it will just grow and grow until we reclaim it as our anthem and are recognised as the best and most appropriate owners of that song. It was almost as moving as Amazing Grace, or What a wonderful World when they are sung properly.

Now, here is where you amaze me. I thought that we had a bit more in common where it involved moral principles, even though we have clashed over other things in the past. I am frankly disappointed that you believe that cheating by a player is ever acceptable, especially when you consider the implications of us being knocked out of the World Cup by Maradonna's hand of God. Had you been Irish, you might still be feeling a bit sore that Henry had cheated to knock them out of the World Cup too. You have not commented on my assertion either, that if somebody is capable of cheating at football, then they are also capable of transgressing in other ways too. Oh well, it's only a game and look at how I've gained my team three points. Oh well, it's only the Insurance company I've cheated by making that claim and they can afford it and anyway, everybody does it, don't they? So where do you personally draw the line, Nineteen? I'm obviously too much the goody goody, as I wouldn't cheat at football, lie about my golf score or anything like that.

Well, let Duncan share this information with us, if indeed he has both sides of it all.

It seems pretty futile suggesting on this thread that people should cease to jump to their own conclusions based on one side of the argument, the other side of it not having been given. Several people have posted regardless and there continues to be a never ending supply of those prepared to make probably rash statements based on pure conjecture and guesswork. As such, there are absolutely no grounds for anybody to have the ability to reach any infallible conclusions about the rights and wrongs of it all. Dare I suggest that they make themselves look stupid for doing so? What is open to debate is what the implications might be for the club or for the Echo. I agree that the Echo is increasingly an irrelevance with the advancement of modern communication technology. There might be the odd elderly reader who is a technophobe and is totally relient on the newspaper, but even many of them have children and grand children who can bring them far more coverage including extra information and opinion from the fans' forums, rival fans' forums, other newspapers, etc, as well as the information contained on the Club's website. The Echo and other newspapers are the equivalent of the Yellow pages; they have been largely by-passed by the computer and have been forced to place themselves online as a defence. If they wish to hasten their decline, they are going about it the right way.

Interesting to note that of the three shining examples of players named by Nineteen as probably not being impressed by MLT credentials as a penalty taker and his obscure reasoning that they would not have respect for him because of this questionable betting scam, all three of them are cheats on the pitch. All three have been guilty of simulation, i.e. diving in the penalty box, Rooney as recently as his last match. What are his thoughts on this sort of behaviour? Surely it is totally against the spirit of the game and used to be the preserve of foreign players, particularly those from the Latin countries, who to be fair, still hold the upper hand when it comes to theatricality. But does he not feel that this sort of cheating lays them open to accusations of moral bankruptcy and suggestive that they might therefore be capable by extension of transgressions in other directions in their lives outside of football?

But neither are we cash-strapped. We are one of the very few clubs in British football without any debt and our owner has pledged that cash would be made available as the need arises, so that journalist ought to get his facts right.

A good example of just this was the game against United when Kevin Phillips brought us back into contention and Van Nistelrooy scored the winner. At that time the rules had just been altered as I recall and they were questioned at the time by the commentator. I watched the game in a bar in Hong Kong and remember how cheated I felt. I also seem to recall us attempting to do the same in a match soon after, on the basis that if Man Ure had been allowed to get away with it, they had set the precedent for that interpretation. I'm pretty convinced that a lot of the decisions regarding the offside rule are wrong at this level because the linesmen are simply not good enough at keeping up with play and judging whether the player was ahead of the last defender at the precise time when the ball was played. As it is a physical impossibilty to be looking in two different directions at the same time, there ought to either be electronic aids, or an extra two linesmen. Naturally, the difficulty for the linesman is increased when he has to decide whether the striker has broken forward before the ball has been kicked by the keeper. I was behind the Northam goal and saw Papa as being onside when the ball was kicked. My perspective is not perfect, but at least I saw the while thing simultaneously to when it happened, which the linesman could not do from two thirds up the pitch.

A dour first half, as Tranmere cynically tried to grind out a draw by packing their defence, taking far too long to take throw-ins and play-acting at every opportunity to run down the clock from the start. It was truly one of the great bore games and dragged on slowly to half time. It looked as if it might continue in that vein for the second half. But what this season has taught me, is that Pardew is capable of either instilling some extra effort and belief into the players, or changing the tactics to good effect. The second half was altered irrevocably as soon as Harding scored a superb goal, having been fed with an excellent cross from Connolly. That meant that Tranmere had to chase the game in order to go away with the point that they had come for and that left spaces in midfield that we could attack and we could hit them on the break when they had committed players forward. From then on, our players' confidence grew and we started to tear them apart. Really, all three of our goals were a bit special; even Lambert's penalty was unstoppable and struck with venom. His free-kick was top drawer and worthy of MLT, Beckham or Ronaldo. Apart from that, I wondered why Papa Weigo was ruled offside when he broke through from a ball that had struck a Tranmere defender. We ought to have been a further goal up, if not for some gross incompetancy from the Linesman. Also, the referee should have clamped down on Tranmere's timewasting. But we have yet another three points and have another match where we have been capable of scoring three goals. I fancy us to beat Norwich on Tuesday and to have Leeds feeling a bit apprehensive about what we can achieve against them.

Read my post again that you highlighted. That's exactly what I said. You thought it was a publicity stunt, I thought not. As neither of us have any evidence either way, it is merely a difference of opinion between us. We finally agree on something. If you tire of the debate, stop this petty vendetta you have with MLT. He is a hero to most Saints fans, so you're p*ssing in the wind trying to tarnish his reputation.

A golden opportunity for those attending the match today to buy a card and even save the postage by dropping it off at the reception before the match...

Perhaps you will kindly justify your comment that my position on the Echo is childish. Even without knowing the ins and outs of the matter, the Echo have shot themselves in the foot. Surely that is clear to you? The Echo has far more to lose than the Club, which does not really need the Echo at all, being able to place its exclusives with the Nationals or on its own website. If the Echo wishes to paint the club or the people running it in a bad light, they will at the least alienate a large portion of their readership, or at most face the legal counsel of one of the wealthiest men in Europe. Surely it is clear to you that this is a lose/lose situation for them. You have jumped to conclusions and formed your opinion based on one side of the story and pure conjecture for the way that the club has acted. You invite me to do the same. I will not, nor should any other reasonably intelligent and sensible person.

Darren has already shot that last paragraph down in flames. And I disagree that it was offered as a PR stunt. I have no evidence either way, but then again, neither do you.

I agree. The Echo have acted like total idiots.

The post was an opinion based on partial knowledge of one side of the story. So how can you possibly conclude that it was a brilliant post with any certainty? It could yet transpire that when Cortese's side of things is made clear (if indeed he can be bothered to join in the Echo's petty vindictiveness) then you and Saint Peach will look like fools for jumping to conclusions based on only half of the facts. Mind you, that would be your default position.

Please kindly enlighten us about your vast playing experience which enables you to expound your opinions about whether Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard need technical advice from Matt Le Tissier. I have an inkling that I have seen all three of them miss penalties and I'm quite certain that it has been on more than one occasion. On that basis, if they had any humility, they would accept that MLT was a far better exponent of the art than them and neither of them is the complete article, a player who has no need to stop learning because they are beyond improvement. Rooney especially is still a comparative youngster, with much to learn, especially about temperament. The tiredness factor is obviously a complete red herring, inferring that an physically fit athlete such as a top footballer is incapable of dispatching a ball a mere 12 yards with power, accuracy, or both, even having played for 120 minutes. You might have more of a point regarding the mental strength that is required in a high pressure situation, but again, you have absolutely no reason at all to imply that MLT does not possess that mental strength. If you disagree, please do tell us the reasons behind your assertion.

Perhaps with their unparalleled prowess in local sporting knowledge, they thought that one of them was playing in our goal.

How can you make that decision without knowing the exact circumstances from his perspective?

We have not heard Nicola Cortese's side of things yet and because he is a damned sight more professional than those who run the Echo, it is quite possible that he will not stoop to their level to do so. Even on that basis, on the evidence of what I have seen of the way that the club go about their business since his arrival, I am quite content to credit him with being on the moral high ground in this matter. The Echo has attempted to convey the impression that they are the injured party, whilst probably gleefully anticipating an increase of sales to those who might be pursuaded to read about in their rag. But it will be a Phyrric victory, as it cannot be in their best interests to have a poor relationship with a business that generates so much custom for them in the local vicinity. It is also quite feasible that if they persist in this childish posturing, they might lose existing readers who are Saints fans and that the scoops and exclusives are denied to them in future and given to the Nationals instead.

Following todays revelations of the fall-out between the Club and the Echo, we shouldn't expect too much help from him...

You picked that up too then. For some time they ought to have employed a decent proof reader on that rag, somebody with a reasonable command of grammar and spelling. One gets the impression that half of the articles have been written by pimply youths straight out of college on work experience.

I'm pretty impressed at how the Echo knew Rupert so well that they could predict with such certainty how he might have handled things. Shame he didn't have such a cosy relationship with the BBC, because he threw his rattle out of the pram with them. I take this as being a shot over the Echo's bows by Cortese and a good thing too. The Echo have much more to lose by not having a good relationship with the club and if they choose to antagonise the chief executive, then they will think twice the next time. I'm sure that the two parties will have a discussion about it soon and some ground rules will be laid down so it doesn't happen again.

Is there any way that the Trust can function under this new regime? I thought that the essence of the Trust was that they bought up shares and therefore used those shares to give the supporters a voice. And when the club went into administration, their shares became worthless, in the same way that mine did. Although on the face of it, it would be a worry if there were groups like the Trust and SISA putting themselves forward as the voice of the supporters, I'm sure that many would point out to Nicola Cortese the historical background and that he would put in place some sort of structure that enabled individuals to be heard as well as only those groups that had some sort of authority vested in them by virtue of the proper democratic elections of their representatives. But as you rightly say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I don't believe that there is any impetus towards the formation of fans' groups at the moment, as they only appear when there is discontent and division, which isn't present at the moment.

I had to laugh at us chanting Southerners at the match against Torquay. Mind you, we could reasonably categorise them as South Westerners rather than Southerners

The whole thrust of this argument is a load of codswallop and can easily be dismissed as such by a clear example. There is such a thing as a Sports Psychiatrist. This is a person who specialises in motivating sportsmen to achieve ever greater success in their chosen discipline. I expect that most of these specialists have never found themselves in the position of taking penalties in front of 100,000 fans and with the outcome dependent on their team's advancement into the finals of the World Cup. Very few would have run marathons, played tennis, golf, cricket, rugby, etc at the very highest level either. What they do excel in, often to a World Class degree, is the ability to motivate those sportsmen. Those sportsmen in turn do not turn around and belittle that specialist with the put-down that they will refuse to listen to them because they do not possess the equal sporting prowess of their pupils. Your argument would have been far more credible had you recognised that MLT would be perfectly capable of imparting his knowledge of technique, but perhaps would not have the ability to teach the same degree of mental strength that he possessed in such situations. As for your assertion that Henry would have not have listened to Zidane telling him the reasons for his success at penalty taking, you have no evidence that Henry did not discuss it with him. As Henry's prowess at penalty taking was inferior to Zidane's he would be an idiot not to want to improve himself. It is quite a different skill finding the net from 12 yards out in open play to netting it from the spot under pressure.