Players to eager to get the ball

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
mightysouthampton

mightysouthampton

Active Member
Jan 25, 2011
1,087
1
38
33
Southampton
Yesterday, our players seemed to eager to get the ball when Leeds had possession on the wings. Chaplow, Puncheon, Fox and especially Richardson seemed to commit to early and left space behind for the Leeds players the attack which drew the defence totally out of shape. This was very frustrating to watch, and it's probably the first team we have been so easy to get through at the back. But, fair play to Leeds because they kept going and trying but came up against a man possessed in our goal.

Our midfield also seemed a bit easy to pass and play through. Most long balls from their keeper seemed to go straight through the whole team which is worrying but maybe it was an off day. The squad will be very tired against Ipswich tuesday night I imagine, so I think Sharp, Harding and Guly will start if Lallana isn't back, which would be a big miss.
 
I don't think this is an accurate assessment at all. You need to give more credit where credit is due and simply say that the Leeds performance yesterday was the best we've seen all season and that no other team would have been able to take anything from that game. Our players were poor on the ball at times, and gave it away a few times, but you can't fault their defensive efforts and their positioning off the ball.
 
I agree Joe. I can't think of a Southampton side in the last 40 or 50 years who would have got anything out of that game. True, we had a fair bit of luck, and Kelvin was outrageously brilliant, but the defence were fantastic too, and kept their concentration wonderfully well.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
I agree Joe. I can't think of a Southampton side in the last 40 or 50 years who would have got anything out of that game. True, we had a fair bit of luck, and Kelvin was outrageously brilliant, but the defence were fantastic too, and kept their concentration wonderfully well.
Click to expand...

I'm trying very hard to find the good luck you mention, Chilco. Yes, Fonte's handball might have been blown up for a penalty, and many referees would have given it. But Jose was trying to protect himself and the ref either realised that or didn't see the ball hit his arm. That aside, I think it was a great performance of mainly rearguard action.
 
Let's be honest, Kelv probably would have saved the penalty anyway.
 
TheSecondStain said:
I'm trying very hard to find the good luck you mention, Chilco. Yes, Fonte's handball might have been blown up for a penalty, and many referees would have given it. But Jose was trying to protect himself and the ref either realised that or didn't see the ball hit his arm. That aside, I think it was a great performance of mainly rearguard action.
Click to expand...

The Fonte handball, the Deano handball near the end, and the shot from Becchio straight at Kelvin which bounced off the post back to Kelvin. That's enough luck for one game! Everything else was down to skill and graft.
 
I'm with Chilco, we were lucky. Fonte's handball was a 50/50 call which went our way, McCormack's fizzing shot went just wide, Webber missed an open goal, Davis's scrambling save from Becchio was awesome but Becchio should have scored. A few other shots went straight at Davis...

No complaints though, we were due a bit of luck I reckon.
 
pass the football said:
I'm with Chilco, we were lucky. Fonte's handball was a 50/50 call which went our way, McCormack's fizzing shot went just wide, Webber missed an open goal, Davis's scrambling save from Becchio was awesome but Becchio should have scored. A few other shots went straight at Davis...

No complaints though, we were due a bit of luck I reckon.
Click to expand...
Come on mate,it was a stonewall pen.
 
The point is that on another day, another ref might have given both penalties. That one gave neither, and I agree, we were due a bit of luck.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
The Fonte handball, the Deano handball near the end, and the shot from Becchio straight at Kelvin which bounced off the post back to Kelvin. That's enough luck for one game! Everything else was down to skill and graft.
Click to expand...

Ah, right. Well the Deano handball hit him in the upper chest - he had his hands down by his sides. In fact, I thought Deano was extremely brave to just let the ball hit him like that - with no protective reaction.

As for ricochets off people, it reminds me of the period where I realised that luck wasn't the explanation for things that I couldn't understand or accept. The ball ricocheted off various players and hit the bar or post. Often they came back into play to Leeds players. Do you not think that they could have bounced somewhere else, other than into the goal or to Leeds players..? Honestly mate, it's not luck. It's angles.

I might lightly say in conversation... blimey, that was lucky, but I don't mean it. Leeds hit the Saints woodwork 3 times, IIRC. The ball didn't go in the goal. Good defending. Bad attacking.
 
Stop arguing with the supporters of Big Sam's Hoofball team.

Just ask yourself would you want us to play like them?
Would you want Sam as our manager?
Would you want us to play regularly with ten men?
Would you want us to be known as the new Bolton?
Would you want us to be on the verge of bankruptcy?
Would you want us to abandon our footballing principles?
Would you want us to be owned by purveyors of pornography rather than an honourable Christian family?
 
joesteinberg said:
It was definitely a penalty, there is no denying that.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure, there were mitigating factors: it was in front of his face, so the ref might have thought it was self-preservation (though most aren't that sympathetic) or it would have hit his face anyway so no real advantage gained (I'm aware that's not the rule but it might have impacted the decision).

But it just reinforces the point that we were lucky anyway.
 
pass the football said:
I'm not so sure, there were mitigating factors: it was in front of his face, so the ref might have thought it was self-preservation (though most aren't that sympathetic) or it would have hit his face anyway so no real advantage gained (I'm aware that's not the rule but it might have impacted the decision).

But it just reinforces the point that we were lucky anyway.
Click to expand...

The ref clearly saw it hit his arm and decided that it wasn't deliberate. Call me biased but I agree with him personally, to be honest too many handballs are given that should not be handballs at all (but it seems like most refs are getting to grips with this now). Certainly some refs would have given it so if you look at it from that point of view we were fortunate (can't bring myself to use the L-word).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back