Southampton v Swansea

Only for as long as Monk remains in charge. He's clearly "The Albatross" around our necks.

Where's "Jack" Nicklaus,when we need him?

 

No I think Monk's gameplan ended up working quite well. Maybe the team didn't have enough confidence/skill to play good football and maybe some of this reflects back on Monk. But I do think the gameplan was to defend in numbers, and then just catch them on the break get the ball up to gomis who then could hold it up and lay it off. Gameplan was probably also to retain possesion a lot better so the play could for periods been further up the pitch, but that wasn't really the case.

 

Or I don't know but **** it.. We'll see what happens with this team. Monk is doing well playing it safe with quality signings and hungry players such as gylfi, montero, fernandez, naughton

 

[QUOTE="jonasbrothers, post: But I do think the gameplan was to defend in numbers, and then just catch them on the break

Stoke-esque almost. That's Stoke's third team,by the way.

 

Southampton were without;
Rodriguez, Long, Schneiderlin, Wanyama, and Alderweireld

They had also just sold us Cork and had the heart ripped out of their team last summer.
They still played good football and dominated the game.

 

We were at full strength ?

 

What happened in post 365?

 

Try click to expand in faint blue print .

 

?

 

Its what happens when the reply is typed in the quoted text, rather than outside of it. You cannot really work out who says what.

 

Like this?

 

I'm still confused

 

But they weren't the tactics - the tactics were (as stated by Monk in his interview after the game - which changed to being the tactic in sentence 6) to play our usual game (TBF that does usually involve huge amounts of defending in and around the box) but we weren't given the chance. Please don't ask me accept it was the tactic to hand the ball back to Southampton at every opportunity and sit back! Surely not Monk's style, "We'd be to (sic) reluctant to go for it in games and it cost us.....At Sheffield United, Chris Morgan, their centre back asked me if we were going to start putting them under pressure, seeing as it was a win or bust game for us. We didn't." Guess who's talking about whom!

As it panned out Southampton failed to take their clear chances and we scored with a speculative shot from 25 - 30 yards.
Nothing wrong with any of that - don't want to see it week in week out but nothing wrong with defending well even if you weren't planning to do so. But I'd have some respect for someone who admitted it.
If that was a tactic it was a stupid one and we got even more lucky.
Stupid, because we didn't pick a team to deliberately spend 40 minutes with backs to the wall in the first half;
Lucky, because a goal for them (and given the amount of attacking they achieved the chances of them scoring was high) and we'd have been chasing the game against the tactic.

Why do so many people believe that to accept we responded well and got lucky is a weakness?

 

Bob i am with you. the first half was almost as bad as the Chelsea game, we were totally outplayed and couldnt string 2 passes together. If GM tactics was to be totally useless and give the ball away and hope Southampton dont take their chances then he got his tactics spot on. For anyone of us to think that first half performance was anything other than poor, I will be amazed. However credit where credit is due we actually give it a bit of a go in the second half even though they still had the better chances it was a vastly improved performance.

Even with my one jack eye on we got lucky in this game and surely no one can describe it as anything other than that. But a win is a win and I will take anything at the moment, especially with the way we have been playing in recent weeks.

 

Tlf and Bob

So according to you two we had no tactics at all, is that right?

At home, Southampton overload their flanks, particularly their right and have midfield run the box - Thats their tactics, yes?

Knowing this and with an appreciation of the players we had on the pitch Monk changed both our style of play to defensive along with our formation; from 4-2-3-1 to 4-4-1-1 (two banks of four). These were OUR tactics.

In doing this we conceded possession and put up two brick walls of four and challenged Sotton to come at us, hence Sotton having so much ball. All game we had one squeaky bum moment which Ash saved us from, but for the rest our, Garrys, tactics worked a treat.

Guys, just what are you two on? whatever it is stop taking it, its messing with your ability to see the bloody obvious

 

We beat a top 4 side on their own pitch with a weakened side and excellent tactics and some fans are still not happy... Are they really fans at all as all they do is moan if we win lose or draw...you decide..

 

No of course they had tactics, that is an idiotic thing to ask. But to suggest that we won the game because of those tactics is even more idiotic. We were out played and out thought in the first have and looked absolutely shapeless. What are you on to believe that GM tactics won that game take the rose tinted glasses off and accept we got lucky.

Can i ask did you speak to GM and did he confide in you that these were the tactics as far as i can see every week we start 4-4-1-1 and evey game we should be defending with 2 banks of 4 when we havent got the ball, but perhaps you can tell me what GM says every week as you are so sure that we don't or maybe you can explain to me your qualifications that make you the expert in this. This is about opinions and take yours and keep it. Yes we improved in the second half, but the first half pertormance was on a par with the 4 we conceded at liverpool and the 5 we conceded against Chelsea.

The result was down to the fact that Southampton had the boots on the wrong feet in front of goal and should have been out of sight with the chances they created in the first half. By the way it was a fantastic result but we finally had a bit of luck that has eluded us this season.

 

we were never out played at all. we had no choice with the team we put out to defend as we knew fully well what the saints are capable of on their own pitch. Credit to monk for learning from the Chelsea game that you cant take them on like we normally do and we had to play defensively and wait for a chance of a break away and that's how it worked out.... so credit to the fine tactics used and well learned from the Chelsea game...

 

Do you seriously believe we weren't out played in the first half. They could have been out of sight.