Looking at the BBC stats we had 13 shots to their 7, and more tellingly 8 corners to their 0. We also had more possession and less fouls but as is becoming the case every week; we were ****e in front of goal yet again and as was always going to be the case, they finished the chances they made. There was a big offisde shout for the first goal against Fox, I didn't see it properly but wondered if anyone else did. Also when Hooiveld scored the 2nd he looked to be pretty much on the goal line, was he not offside? That said, I thought the ref today was one of the best ones we've had, he gave a couple of free kicks to Saints player who were playing for it but compared to others we've had I thought he was very good overall. He even managed to refrain from any silly bookings. Finally, our tactics are so negative. Barmby seems to think that if we keep knocking it around tamely, playing into the opposition's hands as we do we will eventually score. How many more goalless home games before he changes his mind? We need to start getting players properly forward. Saints showed us how to make the most of a decent position tonight, they didn't have a lot of the ball in key areas but when they did get in our area they scored. King hit the byline 3 or 4 times and every time he put the ball in there was no one attacking it, and predictably the one time Brady got on the end of one he missed it square in front of goal. Missing chances is one big problem for us but the inability to turn a good position into a shot is another one. We can get the ball on the byline looking like a chance should come and then one pass later we're defending, how the **** do we manage that?
First goal I couldn't tell (seen the TV replay on Youtube) but the second one was onside. The ball was quite square and he ran onto it. Other observation on the second one, Chester did some fairy like attempt at clearing it and managed to punt it all of 15 yards to their player, and because he'd broken from the defensive line to make the "clearance" he then couldn't get back in time to pick up the runner.
Sorry to but in on your thread, I have seen the goals on Skysports, there was a good argument for offside by Fox, but you cannot see enough of the set up to tell, the Hooiveld goal, again possibly off side, but that would depend on whether the ball was going towards the goal or parallel across the goal, not easy to tell on the footage. As you said if you had a good finisher the result may have been different, but I guess our goalie broke your hearts with a couple of great saves. I still reckon you can make the play offs though, good luck.
I think 'negative' is a word that people will oppose, but I know what you mean. It's all very nice being the mini-Arsenal/Barcelona, but McKenna is not Xavi, Brady is not Messi, Stewart is not Villa and Rosenior is not Alves. You have to find the right balance between entertainment and success. At the moment, we're trying to be too creative instead of just sticking it in the back of the net. By all means try this style in the Premier League, where you have time on the ball, but the Championship is too much quicker with far less time. I wasn't impressed a couple of weeks ago by Barmby's "If I change my style, I'll be a fraud" interview. People seem to respect him for that but to me, good managers recognise when something is not working and they change for the sake of success. A counter-argument to that would be that we've just lost our first game in 12. A record of 4-7-1 is no better than 6-1-5, so please, please drop the 'unbeaten record' point.
I was right in line with pass to Fox for the first goal but for some reason I missed it, I must have been paying attention to something else. I just remember Fox suddenly being in a very dangerous position and being convinced Lambert would score. Sounds like they were both close and it was probably right to give the benefit to the attacking side if that's the cae. Yes people probably will oppose the word negative. I just remember this time in 2008 under PB we played with two proper strikers, two proper wingers and a midfielder who got forward. That's 5 players in any attack, now we never have any more than the front 4 getting forward and those 4 never seem to get into dangerous positions with the possible exception of Koren. With that in mind it's not surprising that this team can't buy a goal and the one of 2008 scored 2 or 3 every week!
And neither did Evans or Rosenior who are on 8 each. (oh god, I now have visions of us missing Evans, McKenna and Rosenior for the same 2 games)
Simple Oli and Cairney UN the middle and drop McLean to right back, he showed against Ipswich his defensive qualities in our own box.
I can't see us making the play offs with a) no attacking reinforcements b) sticking with this **** formation at home (ok for away games, but it doesn't work at home) piss poor home record illustrates this.
Incredibly frustrated by last night. We matched the best team in the Championship in all aspects except the one that counts and even then they had a lot of help in those two goals. I wouldn't rule us out yet but last night was a setback and we do need to be more creative / aggressive in the final third or we will come up short.
I think the main difference between City and Southampton is that they have players who can score at any moment whereas ours seem to need the perfect build-up and opportunity. This has been our achilles heel for two seasons now and although we can get results away where the onus is on the home team to press, we have no one who can terrorise and unlock teams that park the bus at the KC. We all know goals completely change the complexion of games, so no matter what happens this season I hope Nick spends 90% of his transfer budget on a couple of dangerous strikers in the summer.
I thought Southampton deserved their win and so did everyone else who i've spoken to about the match. We started slowly again and they caught us out twice. Infact they should have been 2-0 before our 15-20 minute spell at the end of the first half. In that spell we really should have scored. King was unlucky but at least his chances made their keeper work. I dunno how Brady managed to put the ball into row Z, but it sums up our striking options. Second half, we had nothing up front so it was all too easy for them to break up play. Passing needs to be a bit quicker. Maybe playing King up front rather than Mclean might have been better. Their first goal was a great pass and move, but Hobbs was unfortunate to put in his own net, but Lambert would have done it for him if he'd missed it. The goal showed So'ton's credentials as the best team in the division for me. From then on they pressed us well, and when they had the ball they attacked in numbers. Something we don't do very well. Chester's at fault for the second goal, his clearance could have been better. And from then on he was out of position and the So'ton counter attack was so fast and accurate it bypassed everyone. Chester couldn't get back in time to cover his marker and their centre half did what Brady should have done and sealed the match. Credit where credits due to King though, he played well last night and deserved his MOTM. Unfortunately some players weren't good and looked lost. Not naming names. Onwards and upwards City! I'll be at Leicester. UTT!
My thoughts are that we lack squad depth. Rosenior is looking under par because he has none pushing him. Likewise up front with fryatt he can play as in adequately as he wants and he still knows he will start the next game. For me Brady and McLean can go too as I don't feel they are good enough as well. I just feel with another summer to adjust the playing personnel we will have the squad to play the way the gaffer wants.
"Our tactics are so negative"? 13 shots to their 7.... 8 corners.... Keeping posetion is NOT negative. We ARE creating chances (13 shots) We are a Jason Roberts type striker away from being a very good team. (look what he has done at Reading)
We created alot of chances but they closed the game up well and their second killed it off to be fair. We should have scored in the first half but didn't and paid the price. That's football for you. I thought they deserved their win. They had some clear cut chances and took them. They got bodies forward and in greater numbers then we did. Youc an see that they deserve to be up there. The match against Saints last night was completely different to the West Ham home match. We battered West Ham, whereas Southampton had more of a foothold in the game then they did. The rallying point at the end might keep up their confidence going into the Leicester match.
yes. that's how come I have an opinion on it. I agree they were the better team because they scored and we didn't.
