Southampton v Swansea

I just think that Shaper's post @331 sums the game up well. In my opinion.

 

It may have been to do with behind the scenes, but lets not forget the football that got us to where we are today, it has kept us in the Prem for the last few seasons, granted last season got a bit close at times, but to forget how the Europa would hurt us like some on here seem to forget was the biggest reason for that. So to me personally our principles are the way we play. Passing football, it got us here, it got us to top half finishes, it got us into Europe, so why change? The formation hasn't changed, we still play 4-5-1, we still play with 2 DM's, we still have 2 wingers, 2 full backs, yet play as if we are playing 9 men behind the ball at times.

I don't like the type of football we are playing, I would much prefer to lose playing in style, than to win ugly. That to me is our principle, good football.

 

So the next time we play really well, and have many shots at goal, to the oppositions few, will you be so easy to congratulate them and say we were not robbed? Because many on here will not.

How many times do you hear people say we were robbed, we deserved to win, we did everything but score. And all that stuff, yet the moment its reversed, it was deserved, we did everything right.

Ash saved our bacons against Southampton, not the tactics. Unless of course our tactics were to have 1 glory shot on goal that somehow managed to go in, to lose the ball at basically every opportunity, need I go on.

 

The issue for me is that a few fortunate results might be masking decisions being made that will harm us in the long term.

If we keep playing like this winning games will become harder and harder to achieve.

 

(Swansalona)

Umm...not sure how to answer that. I'm sure Southampton will feel they should have won, based on the possession they had. They're no doubt frustrated. It was a mirror image of the game we had against them at the Liberty (roles reversed). I wasn't expecting to get anything from the game on Sunday. We're going round in circles with this one.

 

11 - Shots - 5
4 - On Target - 1
57% - Pos - 43%

That looks similar to this meeting right? Problem is, I have the stats the wrong way around, it was Southampton with the 11 shots, 4 on target and 57% possession at our place. So not quite roles reversal. More like same stats for both games, just the first game Southampton got the win as expected IMO

 

Main focus was to make it hard for southampton in the game, not to get thrashed 5-0 by putting in a well organized performance. I think the players worked very hard, a and jonjo scored a solo goal.. I don't think Southampton had much quality in that game, except for Elia who showed great individual skill trying to make things happen all the time. I think the players & monk did what they thought would work the best in this game and it did. This is football, Southampton could've scoreed but they didn't so it worked out very well.. Even with so many players I had hoped for them to show more confidence on the ball and show them less respect. However heroic defending, last ditch tackles, and this not very pretty but football and with so many players behind the ball of course it's hard to score. They did not have the quality really except for Elia...

The reason Some supporters slag Swansea is because they do not respect Monk. If Monk wants this respect he needs to do something Genius. Brendan rodgers was in the same position, an unknown name, but he wrote a big book about tactics. When I look at Rodgers I get the feeling there could be a little bit genius in there. When I look at Garry Monk I don't get the feeling of genius, and that is ultimately what you want at your clubl. You eiher want someone who has done it at the big stage or someone who could be a genius..

 

My problem with Monk is he gave very little respect to some of the previous managers, going behind their backs, and that is something I find hard to forget. I mean you only have to look at the comment RE Sousa's time in charge.

As a ex-swan player I want him to succeed, but he has done things that I find it hard to let it go.

I am also not the type to blow smoke up someone's arse if I don't feel they deserve it, and as much as I loved the win against Southampton, running around like a child when we scored, I find it hard to say that we were not lucky in getting the 3 points. We had a game plan to get a draw, and we got a big slice of luck with the glory goal. For me, to think it was all planned, and all down to tactical choices is foolish.

 

But now the fare on "the table" has become unattractive,tasteless,or simply inedible.

Perhaps we need a COOK, rather than a MONK.

 

And to make my point clearer, that I am not just anti-Monk and pro Laudrup.

The 2-0 win at Stamford Bridge to get into the Capital One cup final was luck, the game plan was go for the draw or keep the score low, so that we had something to take back to the Liberty Stadium where we would have a greater chance of winning. Instead we were granted a huge slice of luck by the Ivanovic mistakes, and we capitalised on it.

We were then able to change the game plan at home to just sit back and soak up the pressure to get the draw, or at least not allow them to score more than 1 goal. Which we done to perfection as Chelsea failed to score meaning we progressed to the final.

The win against Southampton was no different to the Chelsea win, the game plan was to go for the draw, and we got lucky with goals in both games.

 

AW poor Monk we sometimes are a bit hard on him. I hope he doesn't read Swansea forums..

I don't think Swansea set out for a draw. I think they set out for a well organized performance .. Fact they couldn't keep the ball for more than two passes(disappointing) made it look like Swansea set out for a draw.

 

lol so in other words our game plan wasn't perfectly executed

 

Most of the 606 posts during the first half,at least,were of doom and gloom.
Monk followers were showing clear signs of jumping off his ship.
One post said,"I worry where Monk is taking us". That was from his No.1 fan.
The performance was apparently "dire".
Radio commentary also clearly indicated a team in complete and utter disarray,with comments such as "what's happened to Swansea?"

However,Shelvey saved the day with his great strike,and now we have the following -

" we out thought them"
"I don't think it was that bad at all"
"we contained them quite comfortably that first half"
"we played to our strengths and it paid off"
"and Monk had the correct game plan and it worked like a dream", that's my favourite.

Other,more sane and sensible observations, have been posted -

"we were bloody awful for most of that game"
"but let's not get away from how bad we were in the first half. It was,at best,pathetic. If the plan was to be that poor,then it worked"
"The Swans' were dominated and outplayed for large protion of that game"

It's seems crystal clear from the above samples, that some people see it as it is, and others see what they want to see.

 

Had Chelsea not scored in the first minute we'd have seen significant amounts of defending as we have in most games this season. We have sometimes taken leads and sat back only to draw or lose. Was that the tactic? 'Rope a dope', worked for Ali at huge long term personal cost, I fear the same will be true for us if it continues. While we defended well in numbers v Soton and Everton our defence has been very ropy all season, thankfully we have had Ashley Williams and Fabianski on form for most of that time and have seen some incredible misses - it happens to and against all sides.
Personally, I find our play this season uninviting, poor quality and at times desperate - winning at all costs is OK for some but if it continues I can see more and more fans becoming armchair supporters.

Under Monk we have won, marginally, a higher percentage than under Laudrup or Sousa (chosen as they are the managers who seem to be considered useless by fans and Monk himself) where they drew more - this has led to us gaining more points. A very good thing.
Conversely, under Monk we have lost a higher percentage than under Laudrup or Sousa (chosen as they are the managers who seem to be considered useless by fans and Monk himself) which is not a good thing.
Although we have a central defender as chief coach we are easier to beat under any other manager in the last 15 years.

 

How many of those shots were clear goal scoring opportunities? They were mostly pot shots from outside the box.

 

How many of ours were then to justify some saying we were robbed at our place

 

In golfing parlance,that's "par for the course" here.

 

Your last point applies to everyone. I made the point first half that were comfortable without the ball and were defensively very organised and disciplined. We were also without 6 first team players. But like you say, some just see what they want to see.

 

First half tactics suggest we played for a draw. Nothibg wrong with that as we all would have been happy with a point. Second half we became more attacking (change in tactics) as the game opened up and we went on to win the game. There wasn't anything lucky in it. Hell I even called it in the matchday thread.

 

I think we're goibg to be going roubd in circles fir the rest of the season