My post above yours, raises the point that if you have dominated a team in the first half, the if expect the opposition to be trying to corect that and hence second half may or start as well.
No, I don't believe that. It's not like only one side can change tactics. They counteract our dominance, we react to their adjustment. When we play certain clubs, they have a bit more talent than us on the pitch and more options and fresh legs on the bench. I understand why those teams will seize control of the game. But we have a bit too much trouble against lesser teams as well. If those teams had the tools to consistently beat teams in the upper half of the table by switching tactics, they wouldn't be in the position they are in. If anything, we should be the ones who will have run them ragged, exposed their flaws via superior possession and constant testing of their defense, and so come out and put the game away in the second half. All things being equal, you'd expect us to have some good first halves and some good second halves and bad first and second halves all in about equal measure. But it seems to me that we consistently play worse in the second half. And the thing is, all things are NOT equal. The players all talk about how hard MP pushes them in practice and the high fitness levels they achieve. You would think that the combination of constant pressing, domination of possession, and stamina is designed to give us more and more of an advantage as the game goes on and the opposition becomes mentally and physically fatigued. So something seems off there. Now let me ask you a question. If it is only ever possible to dominate a game for certain periods of the game, and opposition coaches will respond then what would you do knowing that Saints tend to own the first half and especially the first 20 or so minutes? I'd tell my team to try and ride it out and if they can, then there will be chances to seize the game later. Which only makes it more likely that we will "dominate" early, and then lose late. I believe we've lost more points from a winning position than any other team in the league. People have been lamenting because we fail to "seize our chances" early in the game. Obviously, I agree. We should be doing better at converting first half opportunities. But what I am saying is... that's not the only avenue. You put immense pressure on the team then to score early. Perhaps we would score more both early AND later if we didn't feel like if we don't score within 30 minutes we lose.
Ironically there were penalties in every other premier league game and 'ours' was one of the more obvious shouts.
Yes i get that, but if that were the only factor then every time a team had a great 1st half they would have a rubbish 2nd half. Are we being worked out too easily? Does poch do some tinkering to try and get the breakthrough but it backfires? Do we lack motivation? The fact that it happens frequently, and severely (spurs away) makes me wonder if we could do more.
I'll just say [and I'm sure it's been debated within this thread] that the penalty appeal is pretty damn valid. I've watched it at least 6 times on MOTD in the last few minutes and I can't see why it's not been given. Whilst it isn't a definite movement, the Villa defender puts his hand in the position where it is going to be hit. The very least I can say is that I've seen those given. In all honesty, I think we've been denied a goal [well, Rickie is going to take it, after all] yesterday.
On another note, I was out with Jason Puncheon's dad this evening. Suffice to say, lovely bloke, and I won't break any confidences here, but it was interesting! I will tell you though, that Jason and all the squad have a huge respect for Pochettino, and very much trust in him, like him, and think he absolutely knows his onions.
That is certainly a part of it. But like I said earlier, we seem to suffer from loss in performance in the second half to weaker teams as well as the bigger clubs. Like the last two weeks. If those teams had the kind of squad depth where they could beat a top half side with second half substitutions, they wouldn't be near the bottom of the table.
He's been fast tracked through the u21s but as other have mentioned had Osvaldo of been sane then in an ideal world he would probably have seen about as much game time as Harry Reed has had. I agree it's been tough for him and even in highlights for u21/u18 games he looked a little awkward and I wondered whether his physical dominance at that level was his only asset, but I think back to his performance against Yeovil in the cup and I was pleasantly surprised. He showed he had a bit of skill about him, a decent bit of acceleration and an eye for goal.
You really aren't going to like me judging by your last reaction Your very first sentence in this reply is so unrealistic and lacks understanding of professional team sport. It is incredibly naive. You just answered my point by saying that we will just counteract whatever tactics am opposing team uses against us? Really? Just like that? How long does it take for the coach to see something has changed? 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 or even 20 minutes? If we are suddenly not dominating, we may continue our plan for a few more minutes to see if we can work through whatever problem is there and thus the opponent is having more control while our coach is assessing the situation and thinking of how to react to it. If something has been altered to counter our style (say at halftime) and even if it is spotted immediately a coach still may wait a few minutes to assess things rather than change straight away. If he did then that would stop our rhythm and flow while players adjust to new plan. You asked me a question and then answered it yourself, but in a way that is irrelevant to the situation. What does how i would ask my team to play out the first 20 minutes have to do with whether a team can dominate a whole game or not? To give you an answer, I would tell them to pressurise saints high up the pitch and force saints to play it long; most times we do that, we give the ball away. I'll come back with a question: how does a team "ride it out for 20 minutes?" Do you mean "be lucky" for 20 minutes or "hope saints don't take a chance" for 20 minutes? As for the first half/second half thing, we clearly don't agree in how football matches can pan out. You seem to expect Saints just to carry on without allowing for the fact that there is another team on the pitch trying to do something about how well we are playing. I genuinely believe this to be very naive (don't take offence again at this word, as it is not a rude word, but one that best describes how I see this view). Your point on the other teams becoming more and more fatigued - do you know how hard they train, or how fit they are? Who is the fittest team in the league? Just because we are told how hard MP pushes them in training, doesn't mean the other teams can be equally as fit or fitter. You started that paragraph by saying that all things are not equal - well there is your answer!! Nobody can plan out the perfect game, because all things are not equal. Stuff happens that you can't control. Your last line. Is this for real, or is it. Just how you feel? I think it is just how you feel because I don't believe that our team believe this line: "Perhaps we would score more both early AND later if we didn't feel like if we don't score within 30 minutes we lose" - really? The players feel like that. Clearly this is how you feel. Finally from me, lets look at the Newcastle game. Clearly Saints were miles better in the first half than the second. Newcastle hardly had a kick in the first 45 but had a lot more of the ball in the second. We scored 1 goal in the first half when we were playing better and 3 on the second when we didn't dominate as much; how the hell did that work out? I don't know. Just shows that you are right about all things not being equal; it is a sport. I will apologise for all this as I know you think I'm being rude, but I read people moaning about games and performances and players as if they are robots and expect utopia most of the time. I jut find your two posts to lack understanding and acceptance that for all Saints are trying to do to win a game of football, there are lots of factors working to stop them. I just think you are frustrated that we don't win every game. Bill Shankly said that football is a simple game. He lied and in lying he has lulled years worth of football fans into thinking it is straight forward and simple. Football is a complicated game that has no end of possibilities and outcomes of incidents during the match. If it was that easy, I'd be winning the pools every week along with thousands of others, or we'd all be football managers.
They are not the only factors. There are loads of factors effecting a game. For me, the last two games have been about wasting clear chances. We need to be more clinical, but that isn't always simple.
Here is another view on it: different teams have different approaches. Against us, some teams come and park the bus. In the first half we try and try to break them down. If we don't score, perhaps we run out of ideas or have no new options on the bench because of squad depth, but (and this is key) the opposition don't so anything different. We just run out of ideas and so don't look so good. You must remember that as soon as we do score a goal, then the teams who sit back have to change their plan. We don't score, they don't change, or in Cardiff's case they put an extra attacker on for the last 25 minutes hoping to catch us on the break. It might just be that we are a mid table team at the moment and not a top 4 side.
It has been a bit of a topsy turvy Season and not everything has been under our own control, decisions on and off the pitch have been significant in affecting results, otherwise I think we could have been somewhat higher in the League. With a stronger squad and hopefully keeping our best players we can impact the top four, again it is not in our hands, fate and maybe KL will decide.
Mauricio has looked fairly laid back about this game and, having seen the highlights, I can see why. We played well throughout the game, but couldn't get that final touch or piece of luck. As we are in a good league position, I can see that the manager can have few complaints about effort. Shaw had a good game again. Lambert had a couple of chances, but not to be. A game to put to bed really.
I know all fans of every club think that theirs is singled out for unfair decisions, but sometimes it does seem we get a disproportionate number of them. The penalty shout yesterday was more nailed-on than Azpilicueta's foul on Altidore, but hey ho. There were a lot of positives to go with the frustrations yesterday, notably Shaw's and Wanyama's performances, plus the fact that we didn't concede any stupid goals, or any good ones for that matter. The biggest worry is that we haven't scored in open play for 3 entire games. That has to be addressed, urgently.
What's happened in the last two games is that we've dominated but failed to convert possession into goals. Any team that is on top in the first half but can't take advantage is liable to be made to pay in the 2nd. Same thing happened to Chelsea last night.
No, I pressed "send" by mistake before I got round to the, "Butâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.." Funnily enough, he did play well but the one thing that I disagree with that many people are saying it freed up Schneiderlin to be more attacking. Now, I only saw the second half but I would have said the opposite was true. Anyway, its the best Wanyama has played for ages. I still think that Cork is by far the better player though. Its a shame they can't find some way of playing both.
