Good Old Shipps !

[Jim Chimmerney]

"Matthew Le Tissier has revealed he played a central role in an attempted betting scam 14 years ago only to fail miserably.

The former Southampton and England midfielder colluded with friends who placed a spread bet on the time of the first throw-in during a game against Wimbledon in 1995. Along with a team-mate, he devised a plan to send the ball into touch from the kick-off and beat the bookies who were predicting it would take around a minute for it to go out. Le-Tissier, then on around £4,000 a week, confirmed that they stood to win around £10,000.

'It was set up nicely. The ball was to be rolled back to me and I would smash it into touch. It seemed to be going like clockwork. We kicked off, the ball was tapped to me and I went to hit it out towards Neil Shipperley on the left wing. As it was live on television I didn't want to make it too obvious or end up looking like a prat for miscuing the ball so I tried to hit it just over his head. But with so much riding on it I was a bit nervous and didn't give it quite enough welly.'

The problem was that Shipperley knew nothing about the bet and leapt like a salmon, managed to reach it, and even head it back into play. The ball eventually went out on 70 seconds giving them their money back."

 

[Ted Danson]

Just read that too, good old HMS!

I like the way Letiss says Id never dream of doing anything to influence the game so I thought Id just boot it out for a throw in.

What if the opposition scores as a result of the throw in?

Wasnt this all around the time we got relegated and the whole hans saggars / Bruce grobblar match fixing affair was going on too? Did Letis have a hand in us getting relegated?

 

[Darren]

"Matthew Le Tissier has revealed he played a central role in an attempted betting scam 14 years ago only to fail miserably.

The former Southampton and England midfielder colluded with friends who placed a spread bet on the time of the first throw-in during a game against Wimbledon in 1995. Along with a team-mate, he devised a plan to send the ball into touch from the kick-off and beat the bookies who were predicting it would take around a minute for it to go out. Le-Tissier, then on around £4,000 a week, confirmed that they stood to win around £10,000.

'It was set up nicely. The ball was to be rolled back to me and I would smash it into touch. It seemed to be going like clockwork. We kicked off, the ball was tapped to me and I went to hit it out towards Neil Shipperley on the left wing. As it was live on television I didn't want to make it too obvious or end up looking like a prat for miscuing the ball so I tried to hit it just over his head. But with so much riding on it I was a bit nervous and didn't give it quite enough welly.'

The problem was that Shipperley knew nothing about the bet and leapt like a salmon, managed to reach it, and even head it back into play. The ball eventually went out on 70 seconds giving them their money back."

I find it difficult to believe that bookies would run a book on something like the first throw in when it is obviously so easy for players to dictate when this will happen.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Wasnt this all around the time we got relegated and the whole hans saggars / Bruce grobblar match fixing affair was going on too? Did Letis have a hand in us getting relegated?

I think this was slightly later, the match fixing allegations blew up in '94 when of course Wimbledon lost at Everton and we know the rest

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

I find it difficult to believe that bookies would run a book on something like the first throw in when it is obviously so easy for players to dictate when this will happen.

They did, although that particular bet didn't last very long if memory serves. Even now they take money on such things as the number of corners, bookings etc which you'd think is 'fixable' and I always wonder when an unknown steps up and takes a penalty for the first time in terms of 1st goal scorer.

 

[Ted Danson]

I think you can still bet on the number of throw ins in a game which I could see as being easier to fix than the time of a throw in

 

[Darren]

They did, although that particular bet didn't last very long if memory serves. Even now they take money on such things as the number of corners, bookings etc which you'd think is 'fixable' and I always wonder when an unknown steps up and takes a penalty for the first time in terms of 1st goal scorer.

Fair enough, but deliberating conceding corners, getting booked or winning a penalty is either hard to do or fairly easily detectable, whereas "overhitting" a pass out to the wing when you kick off used to happen all the time...

 

[Santos]

I think you can still bet on the number of throw ins in a game which I could see as being easier to fix than the time of a throw in

Disagree. I think it would be almost too easy to fix what time the first throw in would be. Put it this way, and I stress it is only hypothetical. United win the toss, Quinny & Evans take the kick off, role it back to Monty who blasts it out for a throw in deep in the opponents half (a tactic which we employed almost all the time under Warnock, as it means we can keep them penned in from the resulting throw in etc). All it would take in this instance is Monty and maybe Quinny to be 'in' on the deal for it to work.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Fair enough, but deliberating conceding corners, getting booked or winning a penalty is either hard to do or fairly easily detectable, whereas "overhitting" a pass out to the wing when you kick off used to happen all the time...

I haven't looked at spread betting for games for a while but the corner spread used to be around 10-12. If both teams were in on it, it wouldn't be difficult for the ball to be headed out for 2 or 3 corners every time there was a corner, panic clearances going out, making sure wingers always took it to the by-line thereby giving more chance of a corner. You used to be able to back one team getting more corners than the other in the game, surely that could easily be affected.

I agree that these days it's much harder without making it too obvious with everything being scrutinized, betting patterns watched etc but I think we'd be niaive to think it doesn't go on in a high percentage of games. Much easier to fix games like snooker and darts where the margin of error is so small that they have the skill to 'lose' whilst making it still look unlucky.

 

[Ted Danson]

But then 2 people have to be in on it and you have to get it done quickly with no errors, what if you had the equivelent of vinnie jones in the other team who just flys in straight from the KO and then its a free kick (admitidly not very likely). However to fix the amount of throwins over 90 mins seems easier as the player just has to make a few stray overhit passes out of play. When betting on the amount of throw ins the bet is normally for above or below a set amount rather than an exact number so this seems a fair bit easier to me.

 

[JFK]

But then 2 people have to be in on it and you have to get it done quickly with no errors, what if you had the equivelent of vinnie jones in the other team who just flys in straight from the KO and then its a free kick (admitidly not very likely). However to fix the amount of throwins over 90 mins seems easier as the player just has to make a few stray overhit passes out of play. When betting on the amount of throw ins the bet is normally for above or below a set amount rather than an exact number so this seems a fair bit easier to me.

Good point. What if Southampton had lost the toss / weren't kicking off. Maybe Le Tiss is talking BS to boost sales of a book that few outside the south coast would be interested in?

 

[Santos]

Dunno Ted, I'd say fixing the amount of throw ins in 90 minutes, is even harder. There are 22 people who can alter the result and one player going around kicking the ball out like a mad man with 5 minutes to go might look a bit dodgy! I don't really think the Jones example is relevent nowadays. It wouldn't even need Quinny really as 99% of kick offs result in the ball being played back to the CM. All it would take is for Monty to whack it out for a throw in and the job's done, and as I say, it's not an uncommon tactic anyway. Once or twice things might go astray, Quinny might go for a shot (like Gerrard did in one game) or Monty might fluff the ball (ala Li Tiss) but really over the course of a season it's a winner. Although I do concede both mine and your methods would result in bookies getting suspicious if big money is wagered.


Regarding Li Tissier I think he's been stupid in revealing this and surprising too for somone who seems to not be thick as two short planks.

Besides, he said there was no harm in doing it to make a bit of money on the side, try telling that to the punters who bet on throw ins in that game!

 

[Santos]

Good point. What if Southampton had lost the toss / weren't kicking off. Maybe Le Tiss is talking BS to boost sales of a book that few outside the south coast would be interested in?

I doubt it, it's hardly that juicey really, and anyway I'm sure Sky Sports have been all over it going over the old footage.

The kick off is a problem but I suppose it's a case of playing the long game and doing it over a season.