Wes Tender

Yes, as you say. I'm not making more than three posts a day anyway, but if I wanted to, I couldn't. And I don't like ads. But if they don't want to grant me full membership although I have paid for it, then perhaps they will refund my £5. Or extend the membership by 1 month to compensate.

https://www.footballfancast.com/football-news/southampton-boss-provides-update-on-30m-rated-star Rated at just £30 million according to the thicko buffoons at transfermarkt.co.uk. That might be what they rate his value to be, but it isn't anywhere near what Southampton would be prepared to accept for him, or indeed what some clubs would be prepared to pay for him. Being adrift with a valuation at least half of what it probably should be, is totally inept and makes them look idiotic.

I paid my full membership £5 subs a month ago. It shows on my bank account as having been paid to Saintsweb by direct debit I have sent emails four times querying why my membership has not been acknowledged. Is anybody else in the same situation?

The doubt about who was not at the game falls squarely on your shoulders. What is pathetic, is your opinion that we were pathetic. We dominated them for around 55 minutes. Apart from not scoring, hardly anybody without some sort of agenda will have come away from the match thinking that we didn't put in a good performance against a top side. Yeah, their defending was so good that Mourinho's subs were all defensive.

That was a game that we could easily have won with the number of chances we created, had we possessed the strikers on the pitch with the ability to convert them. From just before the half time whistle to the end of the match, I doubt that there are many teams recently who have made United look so ordinary. We were all over them like a rash, causing Mourinho to bring on defensive players and for United to indulge in a cynical catalogue of falling over at the merest touch and feigning injuries to break up our momentum. And then the dirty bastards weren't above dishing out a series of fouls on our players hoping to slow them down with injuries, so they were shown several yellow cards. but because it is United, no reds. Quite why a team like theirs, full of international stars, has to indulge in such cheating and gamesmanship is beyond me. Mourinho probably coaches it into them, which is a shame. I have no doubt that as is typical of MOTD when United are featured, we will see mainly the handful of half chances from them and won't see the succession of chances that we created when we had their backs against the wall and laid siege to their box. There were some very good performances from our players who put in a real shift particularly in the second half. Lemina impressed once again and the partnership with Romeu is becoming formidable. Despite the absence of Van Dijk, the defence was tight, with Hoedt slotting in nicely again, although the long diagonal passes against Palace weren't much in evidence today. Once though, he ran deep into United territory, ball at his feet, made a decent pass into the box, reminding me of Van Dijk. Long did what he does best, made a bloody nuisance of himself and made them defend deeper in case he received the ball over the top with his pace. Tadic also had a very good game, showing several neat touches and some class in his movement and distribution. I do wonder though whether Davis and Long aren't in fact quite similar players, so that Davis could be replaced by Long just in front of midfield, with an extra striker up front. Despite a very positive performance against a top team, it is no good putting them on the rack if we are unable to score the goals that gain the points. Surely Van Dijk is not far from returning, so that we can play three in the back, five across the middle and two up top. The referee missed a stonewall free kick on the edge of their box when Jones blatantly pushed Romeu and I have a strong suspicion that the lino on our left in the first half missed a couple of offsides against them.And then the referee was ridiculous in the last minutes of the game allowing United to feign injuries and cheat away the time whilst breaking up our momentum. It really is long overdue for a clock to be introduced which is stopped for injuries and substitutions, and other occasions when play is stopped. That would put paid to this cynical gamesmanship once and for all.

And also the obligatory "looks like Southampton have got a bargain."

Hoedt is showing promise. If he forms a solid partnership with his compatriot Virgil, how many PL teams will have a stronger back four? Add the back four to the midfield three and then how many will match that? I still see us being weak in goal and misfiring up front though, unless we manage to hit upon the right formula.

A good first half from us, bossing possession in the midfield and spreading the ball well. Lemina shows us why he should have played against Watford and has a great partnership with Romeu. Hoedt has made some great long diagonal passes to Tadic, who is proving a handful out wide on the right with Cedric. Redmond hasn't forged the same partnership with Bertrand. Davis is better further forward

Since you've mentioned Richarlison, it reminded me that I had forgotten to mention what a diving f*cking cheat he is. How many free kicks did he con the ref into awarding him for going down at the merest contact? He reminded me of our number 11.

I will allow a degree of latitude, that because of the internationals and the distances that some had to travel, there might have been an element of discretion played by Pellegrino in his team selection as a result. But that is the only excuse allowable for that crock of sh*te performance, where hardly any of our players came away with much credit. As others have said, what is the discernible difference from Puel? Pre-match, Silva worried about Saints' quality international players, but obviously had a tactical game plan to negate our advantages, but ultimately it came down to Watford's team comprising of bigger, stronger players dominating the midfield, bullying our lightweights off the ball. Because we did not control the midfield, we were unable to feed any telling balls up front to Gabbiabini, so no shots on goal at all. Why didn't we play Lemina next to Romeu? Was he not 100%? He would have added some muscle there and a bit of finesse with his passing too. Why didn't we stretch the midfield by playing with width, which is what I thought Pellegrino had in mind? When we were chasing the game, why did we hesitate to put two strikers on, only wasting 5 minutes having taken Gabbiadini off before we had Long and Austin on? But then again, why take off Gabbiadini without gifting him the opportunity to have a strike partner on with him, even if only for 15 minutes or so to see how it pans out? Perhaps we should just play 4-4-2 instead. But the really unforgivable aspect of the game is that Watford's desire was far greater than Southampton's. Where was the closing down of every player with the ball? Where was the desire to win the ball back if a player lost it? Where was the hunting in packs high up in Watford's half. Where was the movement, the one touch quick passing? Why play the likes of Boufal, Tadic and Redmond together? Pellegrino said pre-match that the squad spirit was very good, so he was encouraged. What is it like now, after we have been bested by a team like Watford? How much longer do we long-suffering fans have to suffer this dismal dearth of goals from open play at a home match? The Gabbiadini one against West Ham being the first in how many minutes of play now? How long do we have to go back in our history until we have had a worse home record than this?

The computer should stick to predicting the outcomes of chess games, where pieces don't get suspended, injured, or transferred.

Yes, what else could we expect? Nice to have some background about how they selected the goals, but completely pointless anyway to assess it in five year blocks too, as there might well have been say 3 goals in one period that are deemed to be amongst the best goals ever scored, but two of them would be excluded, even though they were better than any other goals subsequently. And then there is the big club/big player bias that for example would feature the Rooney overhead kick, whilst not even having Rory Delap's arguably better effort even appear on their radar. A totally pointless exercise even with independent experts, because are there even any totally independent experts?

On Match of the Day 2 last night, they decided as a bit of fun to have a poll of the best 5 goals scored since the inception of the Premier League 25 years ago. As would be expected due to the glory team bias, not one single goal scored by Matt Le Tissier was featured, although certainly he scored some goals which were more spectacular than the majority of that five. I didn't bother to wait and see which of the five goals featured was deemed to be the best, as not to feature a single MLT goal was just farcical. Although naturally we will have a bias towards our players, is there anybody here who believes that none of MLT's efforts were better than those five goals, or indeed, were there any other of our players whose goals deserved to be on that list?

The value of a player is what a club is prepared to pay for them and what the selling club is prepared to accept, it's as simple as that. All this guff in the media about Virgil "valued at £50/60 million" is absolute rubbish, put about by the glory club supporting media in an attempt to reduce the amount that Southampton will accept. So it would be a world record fee for a defender. So what? We could never afford to buy a player at that price and we have one in our squad, so we will be very happy to keep him if we can get him to play after the 1st September. His value will continue to head north if he puts in the effort that he ought to if he wants to make himself attractive to bigger clubs than Scousehampton in January, or next summer.

Shame that he wasn't thrown out of the stadium if he was swearing like that in the family stand.

And the greatest irony if it did indeed happen, is that the one who gives the appearance of being one of the biggest culprits, is none other than Rob Jansen, who just happens to be......the founding President of the European Football Agents Association, i.e. chief rat.

On the plus side, we played really well throughout, good passing and movement, commitment from every player, great possession, solid in defence and midfield, plenty of scoring chances. On the minus side, the inability to put the ball in the net. It was obviously Swansea's plan to park the bus and waste time at every opportunity and they did it really well, with Fabianski taking an age to kick the ball upfield, their players taking their time over throw-ins and when substituted, taking an absolute eternity to stroll off the pitch at a snail's pace, especially Abraham, their on loan striker from Chelski. Something needs to be done about the amount of time taken by players like this. Either the rules need changing to stop the clock when play stops, or at the very least the referee should flash a yellow. As for the referee, this one was very poor, whoever it was. His added time for the end of the first half was a joke. One minute and then he deducted the time from the free kick, to allow his marking the distance and the players getting ready to take it and blew the whistle immediately it was taken, thus about 18 seconds into the minute. There were other bizarre decisions from him, either penalising us for perfectly decent challenges, or allowing Swansea to get away with some fairly robust tackles which were deserving of yellows. So, frustrating not to have the three points that our play and possession deserved, but we can take some measure of confidence in the number of opportunities we created and the generally entertaining way that we went about our business.

As I've said before two incidents of once cordial relationships between Southampton FC and their former manager and a player who was made captain, turned toxic by the same agent, Rob Jansen, of Wassermans. I suspect that when we are scouting players or future managers, we will give a wide berth to those who have Jansen as their agent, as it has become all too clear that 5 minutes after they arrive here, Jansen will be turning their heads towards moving them on to a glory club, so that he can get his greedy hands onto a giant wodge of dosh.

This would be a very risky strategy for other clubs to employ. The closer that the transfer deadline becomes, the more desperate those clubs seeking to buy van Dijk will become. If their 11th hour bids fail, then they risk having a weakened defence until January at the earliest. If they sign a serious alternative to van Dijk before then, they signal to him that they are not serious about signing him, and that his chances of playing for that team as first choice CB are reduced. If the club remains steadfast on their commitment to not selling allegedly at any price, then it would only be a really ludicrous price that might make them reconsider.

Here is the most sensible post from the RAWK forum about the van Dijk saga, and even that is disputed by some of their more idiotic fans.

http://bet.unibet.co.uk/football/premier-league/southampton-will-not-be-bullied-selling-virgil-van-dijk-anything-other-their A very well balanced article, praising the way that Southampton have handled this situation.

Although there is the appearance given that there were a lot of assumptions made by the OP, and much conjecture about how the Virgil situation came about, it is indeed reassuring that right here on this very fans' forum, we have somebody who not only is well versed in the thought processes off the management, but also eminently qualified to offer expert advice about how we should be prepared to proceed the next time. Even more astounding, is that it seems to be the case that this expert advice is offered gratis. We are truly blessed to have this degree of managerial expertise so freely given.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/virgil-van-dijk-liverpool-transfer-chelsea-southampton-latest-a7882136.html As they conclude, we hold the upper hand, as van Dijk's and Liverpool's position is weak. Chelsea and any other team offering an eye-wateringly high fee for him are in with a shout, but only if we decide we want to sell. The article opines that if we keep him past the closure of the transfer window, he will have no real alternative than to buckle down and play.

Absolutely spot on in every detail. We need to draw a line in the sand and show that we are prepared to act on a matter of principle, even if van Dijk and his shonky agent are not.

delete