Would never accuse Mick Channon of being inconsistent? In my humble opinion he was the 2nd best player ever to pull on a Saints shirt?
9 games only 3 goals conceded and 18 points! Bring on Stoke
- Thread starter lamby
- Start date
-
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
-
Would never accuse Mick Channon of being inconsistent? In my humble opinion he was the 2nd best player ever to pull on a Saints shirt?
That was the thing with Micky though, he'd often make and score goals where there was precious little danger before he got on the ball. Bet his conversion rate was pretty good.
Just got in and read all this thread. JRod will become the Micky Channon to Rickie's Big Ron (if that makes sense). He just needs to try more spectacular stuff like the bicycle kick which so nearly went in on Saturday. That, I wouldn't mind betting, was in response to missing the one-on-one with Stekelenburg earlier, and he certainly put some venom into that attempt! I'm just so pleased that he did actually score one, because a blank sheet would have been hard to take after all the chances he had. More please Jay.
Channon missed a few but guaranteed he wouldn't have tapped it so tamely. It might have gone into Row ZZ though. Of course there was a lot more space in the game back then but Channon was a master at exploiting it.
I'd have him as Saints 3rd best player with Terry Paine second. In the early part of his career it was the diagonal passes from Paine that more often than not gave Channon a run on goal.
We have had some very good players over the years and obviously many even before my time, Alf Ramsey, Ted Drake etc. But the thing about those 3 is that not only were they brilliant footballers they were also Southampton through and through.
Note, that I didn't even have to name my number 1, that is a given (although Terry is the only one who's fan club I have been in!).
I have to say that Fulham was just really, really bad. That's not to say Saints weren't good, because we were. But we were also good against Swansea, and good against Man U. Different lineup each time. We weren't quite as dominant but those teams also didn't just utterly roll over like Fulham did.
So I don't think we have to play the same team just because we looked good against Fulham. I'm not opposed to using the same lineup, either. But I don't like being locked into that way of thinking that there's one setup that is best or being afraid to make changes.
It's a long season, and we're going to need to rotate some people around, and we have some young players to develop, and maybe other young players we don't want to work too hard. We should have confidence that we can make a few substitutions and still play just as well. If there's a particular reason why Rodriguez might be better suited for Stoke or Wanyama is truly indispensable vs Cork, then fine.
But keep the lineup unchanged or change it based on tactics, not just because we played well in a particular match. We should EXPECT to play well.
So I don't think we have to play the same team just because we looked good against Fulham. I'm not opposed to using the same lineup, either. But I don't like being locked into that way of thinking that there's one setup that is best or being afraid to make changes.
It's a long season, and we're going to need to rotate some people around, and we have some young players to develop, and maybe other young players we don't want to work too hard. We should have confidence that we can make a few substitutions and still play just as well. If there's a particular reason why Rodriguez might be better suited for Stoke or Wanyama is truly indispensable vs Cork, then fine.
But keep the lineup unchanged or change it based on tactics, not just because we played well in a particular match. We should EXPECT to play well.
Generally, though, our team is nailed on apart from the JWP/Davis and JRod/Osvaldo/Lambert decisions. Unless we get injuries, Mauricio knows the rest of the team. This continuity can only be good for us...though frustrating for the other players.
Think this is the perfect balance. You seem teams like Chelsea (and Spurs) who clearly don't know their best 11. They're grinding out wins, but there's clear uncertainty and some players are going to get pretty unhappy pretty quickly (Mata, Dembele, Lennon, De Bruyne to name but a few). We have fierce competition in key areas, enough to keep players on their toes, but nobody will be disillisioned if they're replaced by somebody outperforming them
What I liked was a shot of Cork at the end of the Fulham game. He'd only been on the pitch for a few minutes but looked genuinely thrilled at the final whistle.
The fans could be clearly heard singing his name. Probably felt good that he was still appreciated.
in response to is anyone goingI wish they would play Cork more. It's not like he stinks and the side would just fall apart if he replaced Wanyama. Especially 2-0 against a Fulham side that wasn't even trying. We would have won that game just as easily if Cork had been given 20 or 30 minutes.
I suppose you don't change a winning formula. Cork and morgan worked well but morgan has been even better alongside Victor.
We know Cork and Morgan work well, but I'd like to see Cork and Wanyama tried as well. After all, there may come a match, during the season, where it may be forced upon Poch. I'd like the certainty of knowing that Cork could come in and there would barely be a change in the rhythm of the team.