We lost Bony and were fighting well to earn a point . Why would Monk bring on a striker ? I was very proud of the defence , including Taylor , playing a man down and not playing bad holding the fort . Once we gave up a goal late and down a man , Emnes was Monks way of saying "Im not going all in here based of the situation "imo " and saved Gomis. It was always a Jenkins problem for me since Feb , and always will be . I was worried about Monk because he was an unknown in possibilities because of no expierence as a manager , like many others . I certainly wasnt assured last season with 4 games left and 3 points from relegation. But now than he seems to have his witts about him with a bit of time in , I like what I see . If we kept winning , Amat would keep on playing . Hanging in with with Taylor. Liked his subs today ... a lot !
Give Monk some time and he will wise up on the substitutions I'm sure, I cannot really criticise Monk for the defeat, but I can put the blame squarely on Bony's shoulders for his ridiculous lack of discipline. Remember Monk is still a Rookie, and there is a coaching team at his side? It wasn't only Monk that didn't bother with the 3rd Sub........................
Lat's face it, this thread has become a Monk love in. Those who think he's the dog's .. will defend anything he does (or doesn't do). Others will call it as they see it / as it is.
Leighton James a world class fullback <played all his games as a winger>, Mel Charles saved the Swans< was Mel Nurse>,just 2 of your gaffs !
Was there some sort of police exercise outside the ground? I clocked three commanders and it seemed like far more duty officers. Added to that were the two twonks parked up and blocking the walk way behind the North Stand.
I would have switched to this.... ----------------Fab-------------- ---Fernandez--Bartley--Ash------- Rangel-----Carroll--Ki--------Taylor ---------------Siggy-------------- --------Gomis/Emnes/Montero----- ....and this is why; 1) With 10 men you need an outlet. Their full-backs and DMs were dealing well with our wingers. Even when we put a winger up the line where was he to go from there? Usually they'd put a ball into Sigs who is neither quick enough to play up front or good enough in the air. I was sat behind their goal second half and I can promise you the Saints centre-halves gobbled him up (not his fault!). We had no threat and couldn't make the ball stick in the final 3rd. Therefore we turned over ball at a fast rate and invited Southampton on to us again and again.....it felt to me like we were just waiting for Southampton to score. A striker, whether that be Gomis or the quicker Emnes/Montero would have given their centre-halves something to think about and might have resulted in more free-kicks/corners, which would have relieved pressure from the defence. I would have made this sub at half-time even if we were sticking with the existing shape of the team. 2) It took Siggy away from where he was needed in midfield. Whether he was trying to play a "false 9" or not, in reality when we got the ball forward in the second half Siggy had to break a neck in order to lead the line (or be the man to aim at in and around the box)....when Saints turned over the ball and got it forward into midfield (usually to Cork, who was playing well) it meant they had 3 against 2 in the centre of the park. This meant they were in total control of the game. The 3 in the centre conducted the attacks at will, putting their inside forwards in on our full-backs....Schneiderlin was able to join their attacks and find space a lot easier too. Changing to the formation I put above would have meant we retained 3 in midfield and had a target to aim for up front (with Siggy joining him where he could). Of course this would have meant sacrificing some width, which brings me on to.... 3) 3 at the back with wing backs. The second sub I would have made (either at half-time or 5-10 minutes into the 2nd half after seeing what Saints would do next) would have been to sacrifice our second winger for Bartley and changed our formation. Why? Because I'd rather their full-backs have some extra space than Schneiderlin. 3 at the back would have matched up with their front line. When we were defending it would have been a back 5. When we had the ball the onus would have been on Rangel and Taylor to provide some width. In my formation Rangel and Taylor could bomb forward knowing that a centr-half and a DM would be able to cover the space behind them. They would have the option of passing inside to Siggy/Ki/Carroll, backwards to Ash/Fernandez or a cross/ball in behind for the striker to compete for. I believe this would have resulted in better possession for us (= less pressure on defence) and more of a threat....ie. Rangel gets into their half and hits a ball into Gomis who competes with the centre-half well and knocks it back towards Siggy running from deep (who would have 2 midfielders and 2 wing-backs making runs for him). In short this formation would have created a better platform for us to stay in the game. 4) 3rd substitution. Which I would have made on 60mins. Carroll for Shelvey. Why? More energy in front of the defense is essential when you are playing a long stretch of the game with 10 men. Also, Carroll seemed (in his 10 min cameo that I saw ) to be a busy neat and tidy quick passer. We could have used him buzzing around in front of the defence making himself available to the defenders, Ki and the wing-backs playing quick 1/2 touch passes...it would have helped us to keep possession better which is the key when you're down to 10 men (make them run more and give them less time on the ball to find that extra space they should have somewhere) and is supposed to be our great strength. Sorry to go on, hope that made some sense.
Don't apologise it's a good post , compare this with Dai's contribution and I can understand why he gets the comments he does .
Spot on again - it's a Terror love-in Bad subs probably didn't cost us the game imo but good ones may, just may, have made the difference.
Terror ... It makes more sense that what we actually did and would at the very least have forced Soton to make adjustments and be more creative, which let's face it was a challenge for them all game. It would have given us a better chance to sneak a win and not concede the goal that we did.
Dragon ... Any subs in midfield for Shelvey would have given us a ton more resistance there than we had - even a tea lady.
Hindsighters having Monks subs , or lack of , under a microscope , and this is a "Monk love in " -LOL.We were playing well before the red card and almost secured a point up till 10 minutes left and some want to focus on Monks unused sub as a catalyst t what went wrong , leaving the fact that were down to ten men and Southampton were up to 12 men including the wingnut of a ref behind ....mercy lord !
Roof .... when soton scored they had already sub'd two fresh players into midfield and the freshest one scored. Our only sub at that point was Montero for Dyer. We were much too little much too late. We left an opportunity to put on fresher legs or make a significant tactical adjustment (as in Terror's idea) go unused. Bony's bonehead move notwithstanding, it's times like this where a coach earns his money. When Bony was sent off we had not lost the game .... our response following that effected the outcome of the game. Compare to what City did against Chelsea. They went to 10 men against a very creative Chelsea team, conceded a goal, made significant adjustments, got a tie and could have won it. This is how you need to respond to these situations - bold and creative. Much better to be bold and creative and lose than hyper conservative, fail to utilize resources properly, fail to use all resources properly and lose. Our match and result was all about resource management .... and this time around we got a D.
Totally happy at Monks line up and subs yankee , looking forward to the next 4 games , Im pumped but you and others can fine tune your microscope at " subs" , Im to busy focusing on the big picture and it looks good .. just an opinion .
I was at the game. If I ran through my thoughts on what we should next following the Bony red card to all and sundry around me I would have; a) sounded like a mad man and b) quite possibly have caused those around me to fall asleep or start slashing their wrists with the lengthy explanations I kept my thoughts too myself apart from pointing out that perhaps a striker would be a better out ball than a "false 9", which was dismissed anyway. Regarding overheard rants... Count yourself lucky. I was made to sit through 10 minutes of running down "Sir Mike", his supposed favoured players, his agent, the lot!! I found myself nearly saying, "is that you Stump?" (no offence Stump!)....but ended up just smiling and redirecting the conversation towards the game. What would be the point of doing anything else? He was not going to convince me and I was patently not going to convince him. Unbelievable how angry some people can still get about our ex-manager of 8 months. How dare he bring success to this club?!? I go to games to watch, enjoy...yesterday was about my son. I tend to leave the debating to this forum or conversations with my mates in the pub....otherwise I'd end up offering out half the stand
It's not about "fine tuning microscopes" it's, as Yankee says, expecting a reaction to a factor which has changed the game. The team does look like they are happy with Monk and each other at the moment, they are also putting shifts in (which they should always do, as professionals for themselves and ANY manager of the club anyway)....we were on top before the sending off and there is lots to be positive about. However, when we have to play 50+ minutes with 10 men I expect the manager of my team to react to it in some way. As Yankee points out, even Man City with their World Class players adjusted when reduced to 10. Monk did nothing and it didn't come off.
