Wes Tender

I've challenged others on this and I challenge you too. Give me the names of all of the other keepers in this division who are better than Kelvin. Mind you, I'm not going to take you seriously, even if you come up with some names, as the remark you made that Davis was only made to look good because he was playing in the worst Saints team and that of course he was going to look good because of the number of shots coming at him every game, was ridiculous. By your reasoning, presumably the better keepers you would nominate are not those who play behind better defences so they don't make as many saves, making it difficult to judge them. As for your dismissal of him on the grounds that if he was any good he wouldn't be playing for us, you obviously forget that he was offered a contract at West Ham as recently as the start of this season, so presumably they thought that he was capable of playing in the Premiership.

I wouldn't mind Richard Wright, but I did qualify the guidelines by stating that any prospective alternative would have to be prepared to play at this level. Do you know for a fact that Wright would be prepared to drop down a division? He already did that to go from West Ham to Ipswich, but that is his home town. At 32, he is still is in his prime as a keeper and could still have a few more years at a decent level if he remains fit and injury free.

There are about 6 flights a day from Southampton Airport to Newcastle and the flight takes 1 hour 15 minutes. The booking in can be done about 40 minutes before the flight. Newcastle airport is 38 miles from Newcastle, so the journey should take about 45 minutes at a leisurely pace. So a couple of hours only of travel, plus perhaps another hour and a half waiting in transit. Not exactly a taxing day, especially if they did it yesterday. If they left on an mid-morning flight, they could have been there midday, had lunch and then a leisurely drive to Hartlepool for later in the afternoon with no bother.

Let's examine what you wrote a bit more closely. As you say, you are not sure whether they flew up yesterday or not, or whether it was a private flight or not, so frankly any opinions as to what the effects of the flight might be (minimal, I would have thought in any event) are conjecture. Normal routine for an away match would have involved a coach trip which would often be longer than this flight, so quite why this is a disruption of their normal routine, is beyond me. Also, even if they flew up yesterday, I'm sure that they would have made provision for some light training to tune up and avoid boredom. I very much doubt that they would be sitting around in the hotel. As for the assertion that Hartlepool are one of the best teams in the league, an examination as to whom they have played and who we have played, will show you that on balance, (although we did not have a proper pre-season and did not have a few of the current players early on), nevertheless, we have not played against some of the teams lower down the division that they have and have fared rather better than them against some of the higher placed teams than they have. We are the better team and should win against a team like them. Just because we would have been at the same level had we not had the ten point penalty, has more to do with who we have both played and the lack of a pre-season than anything else. If you wish to conclude that I posted this response just because it was you that wrote it, then you are wrong. Am I not allowed to argue or debate anything contentious that is posted by you without you thinking that it is some sort of personal vendetta? I assure you that I would have responded in the same way no matter who had posted it.

Didn't Hartlepool play on Saturday then? Won't they have to kill time during the day too? And surely you meant that it was a match against a mid-table team who have lost as many matches home or away as they have won? We go into the match with the same factors as them regarding tiredness from Saturday, but have an hour or so on a flight and a short spell at an airport in addition. It isn't as if it is a gruelling journey or that any of the players suffer from Mr T or Bergkamp syndrome. Although we shouldn't take anything for granted, we are a much better team than them.

Exactly the point I made.

And I hope we don't have to again, unless it's a higher division team from a cup match, or the last few minutes of a game.

It used to be said that we always played better against the teams that used to try and play decent football. Why should we have attempted to stop Nowrwich playing decent football at the expense of stopping playing decent football ourselves? Are they a better team of footballers than us? I don't think they are. We should have played our game and let them worry about stopping us playing football. We proved that we were capable of two excellent finishes against their two lucky chances and had we kept our width and pace, would probably have given them a damned sight more to worry about. I don't want us playing ugly, as there are no more guarantees of success than by playing pretty. Play keep ball for the last few minutes, certainly. But with 25 minutes of the match remaining after we went ahead, we should have kept them on the back foot.

Whereas I wouldn't go as far as to agree with Alpine's terminology, there are elements in what Pardew said that I question. He said " “We sacrificed a little bit of possession to catch them on the break." What does that mean? That we deliberately sat back and played deep, inviting them on to us so that we could hit them on the break? A very dangerous strategy if so. Or was it an excuse to cover that we could not keep possession because they were winning the 50/50 balls in midfield and we were giving away possession carelessly as we have the past few games? Had we managed to keep possession and pass the ball around, would that have foiled Pardew's game plan? And then he surmises that we should have played "ugly" whatever that means. We should have shut up shop for the remaining 25 or more minutes with only a one goal advantage. And if they scored in the last five minutes, presumably we would have switched to playing pretty football and gone all out for the winner. So did we go for the winner after they equalised on 75 minutes, or were we settling for the draw? The trouble with his assessment, is that he made a substitution in the 57th minute before they equalised, but then only made further substitutions in the 84th and 88th minutes 16 minutes after Norwich had made their double substitution that had gained them the equaliser. Their equaliser was scored three minutes after one of those substitutes came on. The Murty substitution was a good one, shoring up our right flank and the team showed more purpose and bite with James in midfield. Arguably that was a good tactical move and possibly the difference it made, led to the goal from Connolly. But to expect to shut up shop for the remaining 25 minutes or so? If that was required, why didn't Pardew put on another defender when Norwich made their substitutions? I am not convinced by the tactics. Norwich had sussed out Antonio by half time and we should have brought on Papa and carried on taking the game to Norwich for another goal or two and the three points.

Agree totally. I'm usually firmly in agreement with most of Vectis' posts, but had James not given away a stupid, unecessary penalty, we would have had the three points. Therefore, James and Davis conceded the goals that cost us the match. I'm not blaming Davis unduly for spilling the ball for their second, as conditions were atrocious, but James' tackle was crass, especially when there was cover and he could have just stood his ground and any cross that came in would more than likely have been defended. I'm pretty certain that James has been identified as a weakness by rival managers and our play improved the minute that Murty came on and James moved midfield. I hope that Murty remains fit to the end of the season, as the improvement that might result from having him back will be tangible IMO. As for the match, it was entertaining, but the atmosphere in the stadium was eerily quiet in the first half, like a morgue. Neither Norwich or us made much noise, but in the second half it all came alive. I question Pardew's tactics, bringing on Papa so late. Had he been on earlier, I'm convinced that he could have made the difference and gained us another goal, as he is unpredictable for rival defenders. What was telling, was that both of our goals were top drawer finishes, whereas both Norwich goals were opportunist, reliant more on luck than skill. As they are another of the top handful of teams that we have either beaten or drawn with since we got over our early season slow start, I don't think that we should have been too disappointed with the result. We should be afraid of no team in this division.

Davis made two superb throw outs on Saturday, but you obviously didn't notice. He also made a good penalty stop, but was unfortunate that the rebound off the post went to the penalty taker. So give me some names of those keepers who you consider have the attributes you have listed and also are good shot stoppers, as I'm sure that you'd want them to have that skill also. They must also be prepared to play at this level too. And your suggestions are....?

I got exactly the same email from a friend, posted at 1pm yesterday. It must be doing the rounds, or else we have mutual friends.

Well, you don't contest that a save by a shot-stopper is a goal saved. If he hadn't saved in that penalty shoot-out against Torquay, we would have been out of that paint pot cup , but shot-stopper keepers tend to have better success rates there too over ordinary competent keepers. The saves by the Bristol keeper were nothing that Davis couldn't have saved, certainly not enough evidence to say that on the strength of them that he was preferable to Davis, any more than saying that the Brighton goalkeeper was better. It is easy to make assessments on the basis of one performance, whereas those other keepers in this division also have their peaks and troughs, play blinders and then have a complete mare the next match. Davis isn't all we have at the moment. We don't have just one goalkeeper. If you said that he was the only one who was good enough, fair enough. If you think that we could obtain a better keeper prepared to play for us at this level, then name somebody who you think is an improvement. Trouble is, it is difficult analysing the statistical evidence purely on goals conceded, as there are too many factors affecting it. Even you make the contention that Lallana not offering protection to Harding is a case in point and possibly accounts for the odd goal or two that Davis might not have conceded otherwise.

You changed your tune a bit. You had said:- Of course he should be a competent shot-stopper you now say, whereas before you would be happy with a goalkeeper who wasn't as good a shot-stopper provided that he dominated the box and gave good instant distribution. I reiterate; a shot-stopping goalkeeper is saving a goal, by definition. A keeper who was not as competent with that skill, would let in several more goals a season for sure, whereas good defenders are capable of mopping up loose balls in the area and negating high balls into the box. There are several arguments that can be made as to how pressure on the goalkeeper can be relieved, including leaving a striker upfield at set pieces, something that Brighton did. I don't think that I have seen a better keeper at home this season. I do not recall any keeper in particular producing a string of heroic saves in a match that denied us the win. Far too often the saves have been because the shots were straight at the keeper. Although it would be nice to have a second string keeper putting pressure on Davis, I don't even believe that he is the sort of person who allows himself to become complacent or allows his standards to drop in a match. I don't change my position that the defence would have let in fewer goals this season if they had had more time to gel early on, if Murty had been injured, if the formation played had secured control of the midfield, etc. Any number of reasons which have been covered by others and from which one of the least reasons was dodgey goalkeeping.

Well, let's have a look at the number of different defenders that Davis had had in front of him since he arrived on 21st July 2006 just ahead of the 2006/7 season. 2006/7 Ostlund, Baird, Pele, Bale, Makin, Wright, Lundekvam, Powell. 2007/8 Vignal, Wright, Thomas, Makin, Ostlund, Wright, Dailly, Ifil, Scacel, Davies, Bennett, Powell, Lucketti. 2008/9 Svensson, Perry, Surman, James, Wotton, Lancashire, Mills, Pearce, Scacel, Saeijs. 2009/10 Murty, Harding, Jaidi, Trotman, Thomas, James. Now, I make that 29 different defenders in not even three and a half seasons. Not exactly a settled defence that has experience of playing together, is it? Potentially, the defence that is most settled is the Pardew one, which will be improved by the return of Murty for James. Looking at the other seasons under Burley, Dodd/Gorman and the two Dutch jokers, the defences comprised many who didn't stay long before moving on, short term loans, those prone to injury, callow youths or those well past their sell by date, or others playing out of their natural positions. If Davis is to accept any blame for his shortcomings, then it is only fair that any who disparage his performance over this period, name a better goalkeeper at this level. As for Derry's assertion that it might be better to have a good all round goalkeeper that dominated the penalty area with instant distribution to keep the game going, even if he isn't as good a shot stopper, I disagree. If the keeper fails to be a shot stopper, then a goal is scored, whereas a good strong defence can help a keeper who isn't so dominant and a good midfield can help make something of the keepers distribution. Surely it is far more difficult to make saves when the ball is closer to the keeper? In a crowded defence, there is less room to manoeuvre in, less time to react to a rival's player toe poking in a loose ball. Nothing unusual about those circumstances. It is up to the defence to clear the loose balls in the box if the keeper cannot get to them.

No, you're not alone; there was one other poster who supports your contention that Davis might be a factor in the number of goals conceded. That might suggest to you that although he is the easiest person to point the finger at, being the custodian of the goal, most do not think that his prowess in goal is poor. It is the easiest thing in the World to blame the goalkeeper, whereas attempting to analyse the defensive weaknesses in front of him or in midfield that allow a rival team shooting opportunities, is much more difficult. But that is what everybody except two posters have attempted to do. I feel fairly happy that Pardew is also concentrating on our defensive frailties and not having worries that replacing Kelvin Davis is the easy remedy.

No, one can't fault James' effort or application. But then again, he isn't a right back, whereas Murty is. Any rival manager worth his salt will have identified our right flank as a weakness until we make provision to either cover for him, or bring in an experienced RB like Murty. On the other flank, it has already been suggested by many that the weakness lies not with Harding, but with Lallana not covering him when he drifts inside. I'm one who didn't think that we played all that badly on Sunday and that the fault lay with poor finishing, not being first to the ball in the midfield, not keeping possession through playing head tennis when the ball should have been on the deck and seemingly Brighton wanting it more. Certainly we had more gilt edged chances than Brighton did, but they put theirs away. Had we equalised, Brighton's players would have been a lot more wary of forgaging forward, as we had the pacy players ourselves to have hit them on the break.

Good call IMO. Murty is very like Dodd in the twilight of his career. He still has some pace, but experience and intelligence gives him an extra yard in his head. Like Dodd too, he is capable of getting up the line and putting over a very good ball from the byeline. I think that he would be good with either Antonio or Papa Weigo ahead of him. It is the other wing that is more concerning, because although Harding is excellent at RB, I worry that Lallana ahead of him doesn't cover for him well enough when he is upfield. Perhaps James might excel as a sweeper in front of the back four and double as cover for Harding or Murty if they are rampaging forward. Although not as solid as Wotton, he is a better passer of the ball and anyway we have a solid enough pair of CBs. Alternatively, with Murty back, we could consider playing Trotman or Thomas in front of the back four, making it three big players in the centre of defence.

I agree entirely that he is exactly in the same mould as Bowyer and Barton, in other words a mindless, gormless yob. Why would we want such a player? OK to have wholehearted, gutsy players, but when they gain a reputation for being lunatic nutters, as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't touch them with a bargepole. We'd have to suffer him probably getting himself banned for several matches, leaving us short of cover and damaging the club's reputation in the process.

You are so wide of the mark, you're in the next County. You might as well examine the background of the players when they were children too, if you are going to take into consideration what they did when they left us. The discussion about legendary status for the club is largely down to the players' abilities on the pitch, not what career choices they make afterwards. Ted Bates is the exception, because having already established his legendary status as a player and as a manager, he went on to continue his connection with the club with distinction. Had he ceased his connection with the club after his management stint, he would not have been considered any less a legend, any more than MLT's and Lawrie Mac's status as legends is diminished by their post footballing or management activities when their careers ended. I know that you love to gnaw on that particular bone ad-nauseum, but if you wish to be taken seriously at all, do try and get some intelligent perspective.

Things will improve when Murty is back and replaces James

Delia cheats at cookery? I'm devastated, as I've hero worshipped her ever since I was a young lad. And those programmes peeking into her private life showing her praying in her local church; what hypocrisy! I am indebted to you for drawing this to my attention, Nineteen, but almost wish that you hadn't as it so tarnishes her in my eyes and the disappointment you have caused me is palpable. All of her past good cookery programmes are compromised and I will have to overlook them in light of this damning evidence that you have brought to my attention. I will not rest until I have extracted an explanation from her. She has a duty to all those who idolise her. In the meantime, Nineteen, is there any background to your allegations that you can give me? Were the CPS going to prosecute her? Has it ruined her life and upset her family and friends? In retrospect, it was a bad ploy to sell a few measly books when the price she has paid is the loss of her saintly reputation. I expect that Nigella is laughing like a drain - she wouldn't stoop to those depths. What? She has also cheated with her cookery? Stop it! I just can't bear it any longer. Next you'll be trying to tarnish my memories of my footballing idols.

The loss yesterday was caused by three factors. 1) Match on Sky TV curse 2) New manager syndrome 3) Brighton's cunning plan to wear our away strip, pack the Northam with their fans to give the impression that it was an away match, thus fooling the less intelligent of our players into passing to their players. For the neutral observer, it must have been a riveting match. I take comfort though that IMO we created more chances than them and although they could have had one or two more goals themselves, we missed some real sitters and several free headers. The score could easily have been about 6-4 to us. I'm also of the school of thought that 4-5-1 works better the first half with 4-4-2 the second half. I also noted that Brighton often left a striker up front during our set pieces, whereas we hardly ever do that ourselves. I would also like to know when we will stop playing head tennis in the centre of the park. More often than not we give away possession as a result. We are surely skilled enough to get the bloody ball on the deck and pass it around. We handed them the initiative, when we ought to have dictated play, as our players are generally more skilled than most teams' players. I see this as a hiccup. We should learn from our mistakes and progress the stronger for it.

I urge caution when you slip easily and naturally into referring to Nicola Cortese as NC and commenting on the possibility of him bringing in Lawrie McMenemy in some capacity. Especially as there is another NC posting at the same time, who cannot resist gnawing at his bone once more, his obsessive dislike of our past heroes. Everybody else realises that that bone long ago ceased to have any meat on it, but I'd hate to think that any comments praising the astute businessman who has been responsible for much of the turnaround in our club's fortunes could be misconstrued as praise for our resident contrary antagonist and wind-up merchant par excellance.

But the big difference now is that we don't need to sell any player we want to keep. That means two things Firstly, we have ambitions and can afford to buy the players that can help us achieve those ambitions. A young player can be reasonably assured that if he stays, he might well be playing in the Premiership within 2/3/4 years and might enjoy being part of the Liebher/Cortese revolution instead of playing reserve football with a higher division club. Secondly, if a player did want away, we are in a position to screw his purchasers for loads of dosh, enough to replace him with somebody with potential. We are no longer the soft touch we were this past decade where other clubs knew that we would have to sell players to balance the books or to pay dividends to the shareholders.