With Terror on this. "Pathetic" was the incessant Laudrup v Monk 'debate' that went on much longer than it should have, with threads being derailed all the time that drove a lot of us half crazy - before anyone says anything yes, both 'sides' were guilty of that. But I see nothing "pathetic" about discussing our most recent recent game. PGF - take a look at some of the other Not606 boards and it's tumbleweed central. At least here we're very active. That's good isn't it? If you don't like a thread then don't contribute to it. Simple. I see threads all the time that don't interest me or because I don't particularly like the poster, but other people do. I don't contribute to them. Pointless just sniping from the sidelines.
Some most certainly would. Some most certainly would have taken a critical look at what happened and discussed / debated the points of interest, which is what has gone on here. It appears that the blind followers - instead of cogently discussing the value of Monk's approach and supporting him - much prefer to remain silent except for ad hominem put downs. May be there is no positive rebuttal to be had? I wasn't aware that there is a metering system on these threads as to how much people can post or that because one line of discussion is happening that another 2, 3 or 4 also couldn't be going on simultaneously. The virtues of Fab's performance are being discussed on another thread. The power of Ki's performance was mentioned during match time - by me for one - and others have pondered why he was sub'd instead of Shelvey. The unused sub - when players were knackered - is a key element of the game and worthy of discussion. But nothing has stopped you from raising the rafters on Fab or Ki or Fernandez on any other topic of interest.
Yet that's all you seem to be doing lately too. Can't remember the last time you posted a football related post.
Yes it does seem like that aswan, but I'm sure the more reasonable of us see the bigger picture, and that is why we see no need to start criticising Monk at such an earl stage of the season, after all he's given us the best start to top flight in over 20+ years, won Premier League manager of the Month, and we sit in the top 5, so while the Saints game was disappointing, as far as I see it Bony was wholly responsible for that, and while Monk's subs where questionable, to me it's just a side show, so that's my view as one of the 'Silent Majority'..................... PS: Put it down to the followers of 'He who shall not be named'......................
Just watched the game, thanks for the link, and although disappointed I'm not really downhearted. We were by far the better side and even with 10 men we should have won. Worryingly though, instead of stepping up our game we simply regressed to a siege defense, gave up on closing down ball and space and invited Southampton to attack us with impunity. As the game progressed it was obvious to anyone that we desperately needed an outlet, a strong target to hold up the ball and release some of the pressure we put on ourselves by not closing down. Gomis was the obvious choice for me. Mysterious decision one - Emnes and not Gomis - Emnes can run, exploiting the channels but he is not a 'hold-up player', he's simply not strong enough. Gomis from what I've seen is capable of this and more. IMO he would have been an effective target capable of being a pressure valve with the physicality to cause defenders problems. Mysterious decision two - in my amateur opinion, Carroll should have been brought on for an ineffectual Siggy. In doing so Shelvey could move into the space wasted by Siggy, where he is happier and more effective. Mysterious Decision three - Montero/Dyer: Dyer was playing well IMO and Routledge was the one struggling ?? Maybe Montero for Routledge ?? or no Montero at all ?? Also, I'd have pushed Taylor up as a wing back, pushing Dyer forward to attack a flimsy Southampton defense. Leaving us with a back three protected by Ki. IM(amateur)O, we lost the game through giving, conceding, possession to a weak opposition. Compounded by allowing the midfield to waltz through the game through not closing down the ball, Compounded by not having a pressure releasing outlet. Compounded by providing absolutely no threat in attack, giving a dodgy defense time to kick daisies and contemplate life. In my amateur opinion, even with ten men, our poor tactics and poor game plane cost us the game, Southampton didn't win it, we gave it to them. The Monk has to learn and grow from his mistakes, and lets be honest, it would appear that he made a few on Saturday.
Fair points there Stumpy, but the only real issue I have is not using a third sub, which in my view should have been Gomis for Routledge, with Taylor playing the Wing back roll, and with Gomis up front Siggy would have been ok!................
I know DP, I can't work that one out at all. Maybe Gomis was injured? I can't see any other reason not to play him. But you quite right, no third substitue? I'm totally lost with that non decision.
Still got a few hours so.... .....one thing that puts everything right in my head and into perspective; and a lump in my throat as a Jack a long long way from home, was the absolutely magnificent support the team received from our fans. We get to watch a lot of footy here from the prem (mainly) plus seria A, bundesliga and others, but everyone from this eclectic and disparate group of nationalities who watched the game with me today all say that we are an amazing club. They get us and were making a lot of friends. I'm with guys here from all over, NZ, Auz, Indonesia, Germany and UK; majority US and Canada and the vast majority of them know us, they know Swansea City FC and who we are. The noise made by our fans Saturday made the hairs on my neck stand up and the comments and smiles from the multi-cultural group made me so proud to be a Jack. Wont be able to post for a couple of weeks, so I thought I'd share this with you all. Pride
That has been mentioned by some that attended the game, but hey hoh that would spoil the manager bashing.
I ****ing mentioned it. It's not manager bashing to question his subs and tactics....manager bashing is writing threads calling for his head, denying his achievements for the club, personal attacks etc. You sound like a 'Thinkpol' officer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police
