Match Day Thread Saints v AFC Bournemouth 5:30pm Saturday 1st April

Someone's had a couple of little boosts in this thread but I think he deserves more.

Whenever we played Norwich, Nathan Redmond always scared me. He used to look like he might be able to change a game in a few seconds. I thought he regained that level again (possibly for the first time) yesterday. He was constantly running at people, getting past them and (and here's the change) getting the ball to someone pretty accurately. He could have gained us a goal with the blistering shot that Boruc parried away - a yard further and it could well have been scrambled in (I forget who was following up). He must scare the willies out of defenders.

I really thought it was an excellent performance (though predictably there were plenty around me who disagreed when he made his one mistake of the game).

Vin

 

Corrected for you!

Sam McQueen was brought on to allow boufal to come in centrally where he was (slightly) more effective.

 

This is probably too basic a view, but I always think there are two main styles of football.
Play to win
Play not to lose

In my view, saints have entered pretty much every game trying to win the match and start on the front foot.

What would you like to see that's different?

 

my 1-0 prediction would have been spot on if we'd scored a goal and they didn't!

 

You also need service, which they weren't really getting a lot of.

Well, not after Tadic did his usual thing and switched off about 20 mins before getting subbed off.

 

He's an entertaining footballer. And one who doesn't give the ball away all that easily either. If he could just improve on the final pass or shot...

 

I said the same thing - I think they are really close and bicker like a married couple. If you look at them sometimes there is genuine affection between them. Bit like the Tadic & Pelle bromance.

 

I went to the Toon match yesterday and they were distinctly average. Wigan could have won the match and a draw was the least they deserved. Only a couple of Toon players are Premier league ready. Going to be a different team next season.

 

Saintlyhero

I personally prefer to watch football played at tempo. I can appreciate the slower, more technical aspect of the continental game but personally I would always choose to watch a team where the football is played at pace and where the wings are exploited. This is largely the tradition that you would expect from Saints or at least perceive that Southampton teams have tried to emulate. I really liked the way that Pochettino's teams pressed and I suppose it is the creative element of the sport which is the main attraction. It would also admit to enjoying players who are not afraid to be a bit physical and particularly appreciate Romeu in the current squad. For me, one of the best players we ever had was Jimmy Case who combined creativity, a good understanding of the game and an ability to put his boot in when necessary.

If it comes to styles of playing I think that the match on Wednesday will witness a Palace team under Sam Allardyce whose teams almost play anti-football. I don't have much expectations of that game being pleasurable to watch and suppose they typify your "place not to lose" mentality.

I don't agree that your idea of two styles geared for winning or not losing is at all correct. I think that the appeal of football is that it offers different permutations and multitude of possibilities. I find the idea of tactics and formations one of the puzzles that it difficult to appreciate from a practical point of view but the theoretical ideas that have evolved since the Scottish first started passing the ball in the 1870's up until the use of wingbacks today really fascinating. I like to watch football that is positive , aggressive and placed at pace and with width. This probably applies to 99% of football fans.

 

Yeah a lot of Geordies round here are still kind of nervous, I think there was some unrest recently and talk about Benitez leaving.

On the other hand I think Brighton could be quite good next year. Full disclosure: I said that about Middlesbrough too.

 

Ian, can you explain the bit in bold please as I don't quite get what you are saying. It sounds like you are saying you don't get tactics in football on a practical level.

On your last sentence, and like your non league statement earlier, why do you keep speaking for vast majorities? You can't possibly suggest that 99% of fans will like what you like, just because you do. Very blinkered in my opinion.

 

Le Tiss

I think the theory behind football formations is pretty rigid whereas the reality is more fluid. Take the last 20 minutes of Saturday's game and explain to me what formation was actually being placed despite Puel's intentions ? When the opposition has the majority of the possession or when they press, I would suggest that the other team's formation is unlikely to be playing in the formation intended with particular players carrying out their positional functions when starting. If a manager gets his tactics correct, this will have a bearing on how the formation of the opposition functions or indeed is retained - to varying degrees of course. Common sense , surely? Therefore to say a team has played 4-4-2 is a bit of a generalisation.

I would strongly recommend Jonathan Wilson's "Inverting the pyramid" to try to get an understanding of formations and tactics. Whilst most people can grasp the fundamentals of what might be intended when a manager makes a selection or indeed when a team line up prior to kick off, this book really made me appreciate the complexity of the logic behind different formations. It is by no means simple or straight forward. I wasn't aware of W and M formations in the evolution of the game nor the fact that a lot of these ideas originated in Austria during the 1920's when they revolutionised football. A lot of the ideas are theoretical and there is speculation of how formations might change in the coming years in the final chapter which offers food for thought on how teams might line up in future. I would suggest that this book would be a real eye-opener to mot supporters. Wilson is one of the best writers on the game in my opinion. His book about goalkeepers is also pretty good.

 

Ian - I didn't say I don't understand formations, I asked what you meant and I wasn't looking for a route to understanding. But thanks for the book recommendation anyway.

I can't speak for any % of fans, only myself and I've not thought of a formation as a rigid system - I coach and my boys' team get that! This statement may sound rude and it is honestly not meant to be but the only way I can explain: You seem to write a lot of words to say something simple and then it appears that you assume you write for the majority or the majority have your thought too.

Your whole first paragraph just says, football formations aren't rigid, they are fluid. Now that is common sense surely? I don't need a book to know that. You appear to preach that as if it is a revelation, when it's not, it's football. All your comments about the opponents play affecting a team's formation, while absolutely spot on, come a cross as a little condescending. I would be amazed if people didn't realised this, but then again I can't speak for the thoughts of others.

As for your question to me on our formation in the last 20 minutes.... I have said previously in this thread my thoughts. Puel took a gamble on 65 minutes introducing Boufal/Long for JWP/Jay in what I believed to be a move with attacking intent to win the match - an intention I thought you would have liked, as you seem to dislike his intents to 'control' the pace of a game - and the formation stayed roughly the same. All that happened and this is the bit I find strange that some (maybe you) don't accept, is that 5 minutes later Eddie Howe made a tactical change that countered that move. He withdrew a striker and introduced an attacking midfielder - he changed his formations intent and gained control of the game in midfield from that point on. We then struggled with our attacking intent because Bournemouth had gained control, so to take your point about a team's tactics or formation being affected by the opponents, that happened to us.

What frustrated me in that period was our fans impatience. I could see what was happening (I'm no genius, Bournemouth had more of the ball and as they came forward with it, we had less defensively minded players on the field than before - even Jay dropped deeper than Shane - and they caused us problems driving forward) but when we did get possession having not had it for a while, I was listening to our fans in their thousands scream at the team to get the ball forward quickly.... this leading to Bournemouth getting the ball back again. At times during this, I was shaking my head saying, "No, keep it and take the sting out of Bournemouth's momentum." I was a lost voice.

So in short (), our formation/tactic was affected by Bournemouth's and we became the dominated party not the dominant one.

Channon was right, you're driving me to long winded drivel now. You should really come to the pub as this type of discussion is always better in person.

 

In a nutshell, you have just given the precise reason why English players are technically so far behind everyone else in Europe.

England will not be competitive in a major tournament while this attitude remains prevalent in this country.

 

With you there, Maya. One point isn't enough at home against a team close to us in the league. We have some truly tough games coming up, so hopefully we will take maximum points against Palace and West Brom. I was hoping for 6 points from these three games, so, with only one point in the bag, we need these wins.

 

I think one reason why we haven't scored many goals at home this season is because teams setup to play very defensively and hope to catch us on a counter attack. On many occasions on Saturday Bournemouth had all of their players packed into their half and we were too slow or not good enough to break them down. Gabbi has scored goals almost out of the blue and we were missing that creativity on Saturday.

 

I agree but chose to bite my tongue. It hurts

 

Archers Road

I agree with you in part and this is actually one of the main points in Wilson's book which highlights that England have rarely had the initiative with coming up with formations or styles of football that have been a revelation. It even to the Scots to work out how to pass the ball (original called "Combination play") and the absence of UK involvement in World Cups pre-War is always cited as a reason for the perceived inability for success in major competitions. Other teams are alleged to be more successful because they employed a more measured and considered approach to football.

These days the argument does not really wash. I don't think you should conflate the idea of playing at pace with unthinking kick-and-rush football. Most English teams still play at pace even when packed with foreign players and managed by foreign coaches. The "English game" still feels pacier that the game played in countries like Italy. The popularity of English football abroad also would appear to account for it having some characteristic that "consumers" feel is appealing.

I might concede to your argument if we were talking about English football prior up until the early 1990s with the likes of Wimbledon rightly accused of "long ball football" bit there are plenty of teams which play at tempo such as Man City and Spurs who are extremely entertaining to watch. It is a generalisation to consider continental football to be technically superior (go and watch some French football just to see how mediocre it is in contrast to the national squad) and I don't think that pace and skill are mutually exclusive in football. Surely it is equally fair to say that some continental teams find it very difficult to deal with more progressive and faster tempo teams?

 

To be fair mate, German sides still manage to play high tempo, aggressive football without sacrificing technique or close control, so it's certainly possible.

I just think that the emphasis in the English game, right from junior level, is far more on athleticism, pace and aggression than it is on learning to love the ball.