I guess from Broja's point of view a lot will depend on who else is interested and what Chelsea want/are allowed to do. Can't see this being resolved for a while now. As for whether we should not start him if he won't be here next year. I think Ralph will always field the team he thinks has the best chance of winning, the odd game isn't going to make a difference to anyones development. That said, Armstrong actually looked sharper and more threatening the Broja when he came on, so might well be worth starting him vs Watford anyway.
What you do is come across like an angry nasty little man. Try looking at your own attitude. Take it easy yeah.
Obviously the final score is the one that matters. But I was sat in the ground wondering how they had scored twice (other than the obvious we shat ourselves every time they hit the ball into the box which thankfully wasn't that often because we had so much of the ball). On the balance of play I was thinking a 2-1 win was more likely and even a draw would have been kind to them. Now I do think they played okay. They were physical, organised, pressed well, decent energy, sat down regularly for a break and to disrupt our play, but still, the only reason they looked dangerous is because we were so bad with balls into the box. None of their players stood out to me as anything special and I guess you could say it was a good away performance but if we wern't so bad in both boxes last night that could/should have been a relatively comfortable win, even not playing at our best. Anyway, I was interested to see what xG said and it does indeed back up what I expected. Saints xG 2.05 Newcastle xG 1.06 So I guess, yes we need to improve, and it wasn't our best performance but it also wasn't the worst and on another day we would have won. Time to move on to the next one.
Yep, pretty much how I saw it. My main concern was that unless KWP or Stu were on the ball, we had gone back a bit to our ponderous build-up. We need an injection of life a little bit.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/2522110 Rubs salt in to the wounds but gets us off of the hoodoo that goes with Saints managers winning MoTM....
Of all the posts on here this is the one that I feel covers last night the best. After reading through this thread I'm quite surprised at the lack of criticism for the team. Firstly I should say that this is not a knee jerk reaction to defeat but just an observation of what I thought was a very poor team performance on the night. It also illustrates how one person sees a game totally differently to others which in itself is pretty weird. As an example @Shandy_top_89 thought Stuey had a good game whereas I thought it was one of his worst for a long time and I'm a big fan of his. Opinions. As for the game, even though we had the best of the first half, I still felt there was something lacking. Whether it's tiredness or holiday syndrome the result in my eyes was slowness in thought and deed. Newcastle's equaliser was a good example where we just stood off players twice before the cross came in allowing Shelvey to pick out Wood under no pressure whatsoever. That was a taste of pretty much all of the second half. Movement was poor, the inability to see a forward pass when it was on and an inclination to pass sideways and backwards when there were good options ahead was very frustrating to watch. Prowsey was one of the worst offenders for that last night. Everything we did was so slow, throw ins, free kicks, goal kicks all took an age even when we were losing. Newcastle didn't have to be very good to beat us, they worked hard but any team that put in some effort would have won last night. Just a note on Newcastle's time wasting which I don't blame them for in their position but they did take it to a new level. People understandably get upset at them but the onus was on the referee to actually give the right amount of stoppage time. Six minutes was the absolute minimum and a more accurate time would have been closer to ten. All teams do it in those circumstances but to get a grip on it referees need to be stronger. Finally, some of the reactions to @Billions and Billions, and @Joelinton's Right Foot visits to this forum were quite frankly embarrassing. Right from the start the response was hostile for no good reason. Their comments were pretty harmless yet are met by replies that would put a schoolboy to shame, ffs can't we have a bit of fun without it turning into insults? JRF seemed to be particularly fair and the other NUFC lads who commented all seemed decent enough too, I don't understand the anger.
Just read a word salad on the game by someone who isn't Dan Sheldon on the Athletic. Hope this guy isn't taking over from Dan. Dreadful.
I thought Stu had a very good game compared to others, most of our threat came through him and I reckon he was very frustrated that no one took advantage of his work, looking at the highlights and I am still convincd. The banter on here is typical 21st Century posting, it's more the rule than the exception. Some individuals need to revisit their contributions and consider whether it really necessary? Not that I encourage censorship. It's best left to the Moderators to decide, rather than get in to a tedious argument.
Another reminder, the Watford game is less than 48 hours hence. Please, someone, can we have a nice unprovocative, non-triumphalist thread?
I wonder why they were hostile? I mean calling Tom a "cock stain" definitely wasn't them turning to insults was it? I'm sure Tom saw that as just a bit of fun. The Billions and Billions bloke is an absolute ****er who thinks he's utterly hilarious in winding people up, but you carry on policing Saints fans responses to him.
Did he really have tens of thousands of posts as someone suggested? Given his contributions I would expect 80% were random gifs that don’t really make sense even in context. Baffling
But he's such a comedy genius. Loved by all across not606 for his brilliant insight and cutting wit. You can guarantee 90% of his own board think he's an utter throbber but just can't be arsed to deal with it. Sort of chap who wears shoes without socks, claims to love "banter" and hangs out in vodka revs with his equally banal mates desperately trying to cling on to his youth even though he's in his late 30's.
They already said they banned multiple accounts from him and basically implied they have given up. Never mind. Gone now
It all started with Huggies Gallagher back in the 1920’s. Before Jackie Milburn there was Vic Keeble and after him there was Len White before going on to Wyn Davies (who really wasn’t anything special) and then on to Supermac.
