Well if I ever find myself employed to write legislation I'll be sure to be precise. On here I'll use as many tautologies as I like, ta.
I meant that Wanyama was not the worst on the pitch on Sunday. He was definitely not MOTM either but you have decided what I meant and it is not fact. It excited me that Wanyama was signed because he looked really good for Celtic on quite a few occasions that I saw him. It excited me that Gaston was signed because he looked good at the olympics and I had seen him play a couple of times for Bologna. The jury is out on both of them because we know what they can do. We know what they could become....but they aren't yet doing what we want them to do. I said last year we needed a Mulumbu type midfielder in there. So last year I was saying that either Cork or Schneiderlin was going to become an option rather than a first choice. However Wanyama has not performed as well as Mulumbu does yet. I think maybe I do make it sound a little cut and dry. I am not against giving players time to bed in and for players to reach their potential but not at the expense of Southampton. Especially when they are more likely to jump ship when they get the slightest bit better. I think Cork is and has played better than Wanyama is and has played this season and I also suspect (although of course I cannot say) that he would be much more loyal to Saints if he does get noticed. In this same way I like JWP but he is nowhere near consistent enough (or indeed good enough yet) to be more than a rotation player or substitute. In posts over this and last season it may sound like I want Gaston out. I do if we aren't going to use him however if we are then I hope he does improve. I am not waiting for anyone in a Saints shirt to fail to pour my vitriol out to the interweb. That is a strange thing to think. I hope every player that Saints sign or bring through turns into a worldie. I want my team to succeed. All I want is that we pick teams to win every game. We just have differing opinions on who is better which is fine. As to why we lost those games. I think the Arsenal game was a turning point. If we won we went 2nd? or was it top for a day? seems so long ago now. We lost that game to a very poor (on the night) Arsenal team by a mistake from our goalie and a penalty that Skrtl is getting away with 30 times a match. I bet the team were hurting like mad that night. Then we were away to Chelsea and went 1-0 up. looking good and even though Chelsea won 31 they didn't look good to me. Add to that Ramires' constant fouling without being sent off it could quite well be a factor that the team were feeling hard done by on those 2 games which sent us from a posiible heady height to way way down. Add to that the Aston Villa smash and grab and team morale may well have contributed significantly to the games from there one just to add to the squad injury woes and to top it off our new star striker seems to have been upsetting the camp well before his departure. So its far too simplistic to harp on about the first 10 games when arguing Wanyama's defence. It may be a factor but how large?? I'll leave off him though. This forum seems very protective of Wanyama. I just prefer Cork. Simples.
See Impsaint this is why a beer in a pub is better than a forum. Your middle sentence on its own shows me you didn't digest what I said, more than once and even in bold at the end of my post. You have written that we differ on who is better. I actually stated that I am not saying one is better than the other. I just defend Vic because I think he gets unnecessary criticism from people who I think are missing what he has delivered. Where we do differ is that you say hasn't shown what he can deliver and I say I think he has; that is our difference. I hope I am pretty clear in my view that both Cork and Vic are excellent and have both been excellent and poor for Saints. I also mentioned on the other thread that I don't know how to solve that puzzle of who should play and when. I will say though that I have got you to say that he may have been a factor in those first 10 games..... give me another 45 posts and we may even have you saying he did ok in those games
We just have a difference of opinion. Not a problem, we're consenting adults. Maybe I did misread what you wrote. don't think I misunderstood it but reading through 39 pages of matchday thread is enough to make anyone scan every other thread and want to turn the laptop off
I confess that my original problem with Wanyama was that he replaced my favourite player in the team, Cork. I am sure that that coloured my view of his early performances. However, now that I have got over myself and Cork is, hopefully, back in favour I can look at Wanyama more objectively. And my considered opinion (taking into account fatletiss's analysis) is that he just isn't a very good footballer. Most people on this forum would, I imagine, liken the SPL to the English championship at best. Having watched a few games this season I would argue that even that could flatter some of the teams. Maybe Wanyama did look good at Celtic but, lets face it, the opposition wasn't really up to much. When I can spare the time I'm going to re-watch the match against Barcelona and see if he really was as good as we all thought he was. We all know how we can have differences of opinion about things in football, and sport in general, but I've never quite known a situation like this where some people thinks he's brilliant and some rubbish. I know that many people think he's excellent "at what he does". I understand this point (FLT) but my opinion, for what it is worth is that I just don't think that what he does is enough, even if he is good at it. There, I've said it. To the Wanyama admirers, please don't hate me
Yes, precisely. I don't actually know how one could misunderstand a tautology. By definition it's just a redundancy in a sentence, so if anything it's too clear!
Since we're being pedants, surely "most optimal" isn't a tautology anyway. A tautology is saying the same thing twice as in, "a round circle". This is just an unnecessary adjective. Having said that, it hardly detracts from the meaning.
Nah, it's a tautology. The word "most" is implied in the word "optimal". It's the same as saying "most fattest".
It could well be the way the team is set up, although alot of teams now play 4231. Our U21s with all our good young things failed to score against West Ham and have only scored 4 in 5 games,Dodd is also bemoaning his sides poor performances in the final third. It might well be that the first team is lacking that quality player that can split a defence with a pass like Coutinho which could be solved with one signing, or it may need 3 or 4 top quality players to solve the problem of not being able to break down well drilled defences. If you look at our attacking 3 they all have areas where defenders can get the upper hand. Lallana, dont get too close or he will twist your socks off, he does not have the speed to run past most defenders. Stick close to JRod as his first touch is poor. Rickie starve his service with the CBs sticking close and he will wander in search of the ball, Rickie is most dangerous in the box but plays his best football in a no10 role where he can find abit of space. So for this season I would play Rickie no10, with Lallana and JRod with Sam upfront learning from Rickie. Davis has been brilliant but he would be the one that misses out
Systems are just there to be tinkered with, if you have read management system theory then you will be aware of the next stage, namely contingency theory. What alternatives do we have if the system isn't functioning as was clearly the case on Saturday? Does MoPo do contingency? Last season Puncheon, with Clyne behind him provided an alternative, or rather a contingency should the system malfunction. Clearly Gaston is the unavailable potential game changer. The substitutions on Saturday brought on better players(the first 2) but didn't change the system. Maybe playing both Chambers and Clyne, i.e. giving Clyne a freer role might have given Sunderland more to think about. There again if you leave out your best goal keeper, your best available central defender, your 2 best available midfield players and your top goal scorer you can tinker to the cows come home and you will be still likely to lose..
Well, who'd have thought we'd be on a football forum debating English grammar!? Anyway, I still don't think it is a tautology. "Most fattest" is simply bad grammar as you could legitimately say, "most fat". tautology |tôˈtäləjē| noun ( pl. tautologies ) the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession). • a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words. • Logic a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. "Most" and ""fattest" don't have the same meaning. Its a bit like "very unique". A meaningless statement really but not a tautology. If I were to say, "in my opinion I think you are wrong" ….. that is a tautology. Wait a minute, I've just changed my mind! You're right if you are the fattest, by definition you are also the most fat. I really should delete the drivel above but its 5 minutes of my life
good grief I hate the people who invented the internet and mobile phones. I check in every couple of days to read about the opinions of fellow saints fans (i.e. are we playing the optimal system) - seems so, we're 8th in the hardest league in the world with a team costing nothing compared to the team in 7th. Instead I get an English lesson. Then I go down the pub with my mates and they spend 80% of the time talking on their mobiles to other people who couldn't be arsed to to go down the pub and talk! aaaaaargh
Do you know Lff, I loved the honesty and the only issue I can take with your post (as after all it is clearly your opinion) is that you said you have "got over yourself" since Corkie got back in the team. This means that you have either judged Vic on the 45 minutes v Fulham and the Sunderland game, from memory of the start of the season, or you have sat down and watched 90 minute recordings of those early games Still, I did appreciate your post.
The current system is better to stay on the front foot in games and maximize possession. Most teams play with one striker. There's no point playing 3 at the back against 1 striker. You've got a 3 vs 1 there. If the other team is playing 4-3-3 then you've got the same problem. You are forced to push Clyne/Chambers and Shaw back as cover. You've then got 5 vs 3 at the back. Both situations mean you're always outnumbered somewhere else , as you've got 2 extra men in defence compared to their attackers. The other option is to leave the game wide open, leaving yourself 3 vs 3 at the back. We took a similar risk against Villa at home with our current style. We left the centre backs 2 vs 2 and got punished. 3-4-3 would be a very good option against 4-4-2. But 3 at the back formations have basically gone out of fashion as hardly anyone plays 4-4-2 anymore at kick off, most teams are playing with one or three attackers. Obviously most teams don't have the personnel to play both 3 and 4 at the back. In particular they don't have the wing backs. We do though. We've got Shaw, Clyne and Chambers who all have the energy to play as proper wing backs in 4 at the back. We have a player in Wanyama that can play centre back and defensive midfielder. If you want more of a 3 at the back look then I certainly wouldn't be playing Cork as a central midfielder over Davis. I think against certain teams going into the game with a three at the back would be wiser. The best actual 3 at the back would be Fonte, Yoshida and Lovren for me personally. Wanyama's strength may be his power but Yoshida is better in the air than him. Yoshida is an out and out actual centre back too and Wanyama isn't the best passer. The middle centre back isn't so challenging of a position in terms of passing compared to the left and right centre backs. But, if your opponent decides to play 3 up top you can't adapt if you start Yoshida over Wanyama. So Wanyama would always have to start over Yoshida even if you intended to start with 3-4-3. This also highlights that if you play one of the current two systems with Wanyama over Cork you could effectively change to this system during any match, without making a substitution. I prefer Cork over Wanyama personally, with the current 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3, but there is a strong argument there for playing Wanyama over Cork.
