Where did the quoted possession stat come from? BBC Sport said we had 57% of the possession. The major stat is that we had four yellows and Fulham had none from a Referee known to dish them out like confetti, but luckily for Spider he seemed to have lost his red card. We had 13 fouls awarded against us, Fulham only 5.
Indeed. I'd rather be able to score goals but not be able to keep them out, than not be able to do either. We've scored more goals than Norwich and QPR combined (despite the fact that between them, they've played each other, West Ham twice, Fulham, Reading and WBA), and only conceded a few more than both of them. 20 goals conceded vs 16 and 17. Reading, Villa and Wigan all have better defensive records so far, so good on them for that. But they've only scored 6, 7 and 8 respectively. We've got 8 goals just at SMS alone. As bad as we are at the back, we're not the only ones. And more importantly, we are the only ones who have shown so far that we can score regular goals.
If the season comes down to goals scored then we'll be glad that we went to win games and not to sit back and defend to get a 0-0 draw. On another note, the referee was truly awful today-the amount of times they fouled us and nothing was done and when we did it to them we got booked for it.
Did anyone think Sidwell got away with a couple of bookable chances early one. Didn't think ref helped either side! Hooiveld's booking was harsh.
Losing Clune and Richradson were big blows. Can see why Nigel tried to change it. Just one of those days.
There were a few times that I thought that, however to say he was truly awful due to this is (IMO) wrong. I really thought he was ok today and didn't make any major game changers wrong. I think the decision for the "goal" was correct; Puncheon stuck his leg out on purpose to trip the keeper. The fact the keeper made a lot of it is fairly irrelevant. He was tripped off the ball.
Didn't have a problem with Do Prado coming in for Lambert. It's not like Guly offers nothing offensively and in fact I thought he had a good game. Guly is creative, had fresh legs, and he's got more pace than Lambert. Using him puts the Saints in more of a possession/defensive mode but hardly shutting up shop. The thing I worry about is that Lambert has been immense defensively on set pieces and I think he's better than Guly on those, which negates some of the advantage you gain from Guly in open play. Not a clear cut choice, but one where I'm okay with giving Adkins the benefit of the doubt. If Saints win that game, no one would be complaining and neither of the goals conceded had anything to do with Do Prado. Chaplow coming in for Puncheon was more questionable. To be fair, while Puncheon had a good game yesterday I don't fully trust him and so I don't blame Adkins for thinking about a sub. Chaplow is more physical, but also not the smartest player and nowhere near as skilled. Would not have minded Chaplow coming in for Puncheon as a late sub with 5 or 10 minutes left, but 62' is too early. In the long run, hopefully Ramirez comes back in and either Jay Rodriguez and/or Mayuka show enough ability that the Chaplow/Puncheon debate is rendered moot.
I agree ith this. I thought that we could have played JWP instead of Chappers; just as much energy, if not more.
