By Neil Ravenscroft
September 5 2004

There was an interesting article in the Express and Star on Friday night by Steve Madeley. Pity his analysis was so far off the mark. Steve Madeley's piece was called "sit back and enjoy the ride" and was, of course, written before Walsall Football Club's latest defensive shambles at Doncaster yesterday. The Saddlers created enough in front of goal to have bagged three points yesterday, let alone the one that might have been seen as a credible achievement before the game. The reason they didn't was down to yet another woeful exhibition of defending and defensive midfield play, tempered only by an excellent performance from keeper Mark Paston.

So what did Mr Madeley say on Friday? It was based around his reaction to the Bank Holiday Monday game against Swindon and the fact he thinks that there is a schism in the fans between those who see our defensive performances as an obstacle to promotopn and those, who he calls the pro Merson faction who think it will all come right. In that lies, of course, his first mistake. I have been very critical of the performances this season, but am (despite what some people think) pro Merson, it's just I want him to do a lot better. In typical journalist fashion, he makes the issue one of black and white, like or dislike, when it's all a matter of the team and performances really.

He goes on to say "History would suggest that Merson's men will need to tighten up if they are to mount a serious assault on the promotion places.
Not many sides concede shed-loads of goals and manage to remain in the top six.
And yet just as few score goals for fun and end up embroiled in a relegation scrap.
So therein lies the futility of the debate currently raging around Bescot. If Walsall maintained their current goals-per-game averages they would both score and conceded exactly 100 by May.
That is more goals scored than last year's Division Two champions Plymouth, and more conceded than anyone in the bottom four last term.
So, realistically, what is the worst that can happen?
In theory it's relegation, but assuming that free-scoring keeps them well away from that peril, Walsall will begin next season at worst still in League One, and with a group of talented youngsters 12 months more experienced.
And the evidence of the opening half-dozen matches suggests that fans of Walsall and their opponents alike will have been royally entertained in the meantime.
It is understandably tough for partisan supporters to take a step back from their emotional attachment to their club, but in the case of Walsall 2004, it would be well worth the effort".

I'm sorry, that's the attitude of the loser throughout the ages. We have been treated to a better class of football for four of the that last five seasons and Paul Merson's priority, as he admits himself, is to get the club back to that level at the first time of asking. If he can entertain along the way, fine, (although I don't find watching us defend like the Long John Silver Impersonators in the famous Monty Python sketch remotely entertaining, Mr Madeley), but his job is to get this club promoted again. Personally, I'd take 39 one nil wins.

I'd also take exception to his statement "still in League One, and with a group of talented youngsters 12 months more experienced". Yes, they might be 12 months more experienced, but they would also be far less likely to want to be playing another season in League Two. New contract extensions mean that we'd get a bigger fee for them, but the likelihood is they'd be off.

"It is understandably tough for partisan supporters to take a step back from their emotional attachment to their club, but in the case of Walsall 2004, it would be well worth the effort". Too bloody true, Steve, it's virtually impossible for a partisan supporter to step back from the emotional attachment to their club and, what's more, I, for one, ain't prepared to, as I am desperate for promotion this season. I suggest you concentrate on writing about the club's performances and leave it to the supporters to decide if Paul Merson is doing the job for them or not.