Match Day Thread +++++Man Utd v Saints Friday 19th August 8pm+++++

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
My measured response to last night... we were boringly average. Sadly, I can already see a pattern emerging for not only performances, but the subsequent results gained and excuses made. None of it good.

It was all very "13th to 16th" in the League-ish.

Long is not the answer up front on his own. Did he and Redmond exchange a single pass?

How anyone can look at our starting XI and bench and think that is strong enough for a campaign on two fronts, is beyond me.

I was thinking we needed 2 more "ready to go straight into 1st team" players. Now, I think a minimum of 4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomw24 and Ian Thumwood
Ian Thumwood said:
This is obvious and it is clearly the one thing that we do well under Puel. However, this takes the debate in to a really interesting place. Possession stats were amongst the first thing collated when the influence of Moneyball started to manifest itself in football but , as I understand things, there was a major re-think several years ago when it was realised that football tacticians were often compiling the incorrect data. I am not sure that this applies 100% to the game at squad level, but I know that stats for such things as completed passes and interceptions were reassessed so that they were applied to how much a player contributed to a team performance. In simple terms, completed passes in the oppositions half are the ones that are important. Possession in your own half helps to a degree in that it denies the opposition the ball but is won't lead to goals. The possession football under Puel would make interesting reading. How many of the completed passes lead to attempts on goal? What percentage of them are completed in our own half or with the majority of the opposition all behind the ball? Watching the Saints matches so far, the possession is not manifesting itself in attempts on goal.

I concede that Koeman was not an immediate success and everyone was concerned when Poch turned up at St Mary's. It is fair enough for fans to be concerned by something new. The problem with Puel is that whilst he could be applauded for having his own systems, the one we had employed for the last three - four seasons did not need changing! Whilst the quality of football is certainly better under Puel, I am fearful that is may prove to be as intransigent as Branfoot . If something is working, there is no need to break a successful system.
Click to expand...

Ian, in two matches we've had 37 attempts at goal. There are plenty of attempts, they're just not being executed well.
 
Something to ponder. Saints COULD afford to pay £89.3m for a single transfer.

(I know a player of that calibre wouldn't come to us, but it's not a lack of financial clout that is holding us back in the transfer market)
 
Archers Road said:
It matters what you do with the ball, of course. It also matters what you do without it; under Koeman the emphasis was on getting into defensive position and retaining shape when we lost the ball; I am not sure we were ever that good at it tbh (although our finishing position suggests perhaps we were better than it sometimes looked). We certainly weren't Juventus, even with Forster playing the role of Buffon and VVD playing Chiellini.

Under Poch, the emphasis was always on winning the ball back as soon as we gave it away, preferably in the opponents half; I'm not sure we were ever that good at that either.
Click to expand...

Koeman's sides sometimes had spells of futility, but ye gods were they well organized. I think it's telling that we had two season in a row where the goals dried up and we still won 1-0 several times in short order. And when the leash came off, we were pretty damned good in open space, particularly with Long up top and Mane wide. Early on, we're just not stretching defenses enough; while we have taken plenty of shots, more than half of them have come from outside the box (it was less than a third last season). We aren't going to score from 25 yards with any regularity...our midfield does some things well, but that's not one of them.

Part of the reason we weren't so great at it under Poch, IMO, is that we didn't look to attack quickly enough off of those changes in possession; we'd pinch the ball in a potentially dangerous area, but by the time we made up our minds to attack, the opposition would have men behind the ball. Under Puel, the concern isn't merely that we won't look to attack quickly enough, but that we cannot; our two strikers are being pulled to the flanks, so if we do wrest possession away, Tadic is the only person forward, and he isn't exactly a player likely to break behind the defense (his natural inclination is rather much that of a midfielder: he wants to come toward the ball, receive it and initiate)...and his passing ability is diminished somewhat if there's no one to whom he can pass.

From what (very little of course) we have seen so far under Puel, it looks like the emphasis is back on possession, and I'm happy with that. As for our defensive shape, I don't think we were ever overwhelmed last night; we were undone by United's undoubted class in attack, rather than by our own defensive weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Some of both, for me. In both matches, our defensive shape has dissolved pretty easily when placed under pressure, and the fullbacks have been left on an island. Tadic being left forward doesn't help; he isn't a great defensive winger, but he tracked back (as did Mane, who was/is a tenacious little bugger without the ball, even if he's a lousy tackler).
 
Last edited:
Ian Thumwood said:
This is obvious and it is clearly the one thing that we do well under Puel. However, this takes the debate in to a really interesting place. Possession stats were amongst the first thing collated when the influence of Moneyball started to manifest itself in football but , as I understand things, there was a major re-think several years ago when it was realised that football tacticians were often compiling the incorrect data. I am not sure that this applies 100% to the game at squad level, but I know that stats for such things as completed passes and interceptions were reassessed so that they were applied to how much a player contributed to a team performance. In simple terms, completed passes in the oppositions half are the ones that are important. Possession in your own half helps to a degree in that it denies the opposition the ball but is won't lead to goals. The possession football under Puel would make interesting reading. How many of the completed passes lead to attempts on goal? What percentage of them are completed in our own half or with the majority of the opposition all behind the ball? Watching the Saints matches so far, the possession is not manifesting itself in attempts on goal.

I concede that Koeman was not an immediate success and everyone was concerned when Poch turned up at St Mary's. It is fair enough for fans to be concerned by something new. The problem with Puel is that whilst he could be applauded for having his own systems, the one we had employed for the last three - four seasons did not need changing! Whilst the quality of football is certainly better under Puel, I am fearful that is may prove to be as intransigent as Branfoot . If something is working, there is no need to break a successful system.
Click to expand...


<laugh> I was with you right up until you mentioned the B word (Branfoot)!
 
CBK said:
Long is not the answer up front on his own. Did he and Redmond exchange a single pass?
I was thinking we needed 2 more "ready to go straight into 1st team" players. Now, I think a minimum of 4.
Click to expand...

Harsh but not unfair. Long did well for us last year but he was never prolific enough to be our number one striker.
We absoutely need one attacking mid, possibly two with a left sider attacker but the question is will we be able to use Austin and JRod. We've got attackers but they've barely seen action for months.
 
SaintinNZ said:
Harsh but not unfair. Long did well for us last year but he was never prolific enough to be our number one striker.
We absoutely need one attacking mid, possibly two with a left sider attacker but the question is will we be able to use Austin and JRod. We've got attackers but they've barely seen action for months.
Click to expand...

Long is a good player, but I think he peaked last season having the likes of Mane & Pelle opening up gaps for him to exploit. Defenders don't have that distraction right now and on his own, Long is quite an easy player to mark (as was shown in the Euros where he didn't get a sniff).

And as shown last night, if he does get a good opportunity he's more likely to fluff it than score from it. He will chip in with 10 or 12 goals, which is ok if there are 2 or 3 other players also scoring that many for us. I don't think there are.

Sadly, I just can't see J-Rod doing anything. Austin, maybe, but not as a lone striker.
 
CBK said:
Something to ponder. Saints COULD afford to pay £89.3m for a single transfer.

(I know a player of that calibre wouldn't come to us, but it's not a lack of financial clout that is holding us back in the transfer market)
Click to expand...

That assumes that all the money gained from transfers sits in an old treacle tin on the mantelpiece and isn't used for anything else at all, such as paying players' wages or the 250 (I think) other employees of the club or even any other running costs.

Vin
 
CBK said:
My measured response to last night... we were boringly average. Sadly, I can already see a pattern emerging for not only performances, but the subsequent results gained and excuses made. None of it good.

It was all very "13th to 16th" in the League-ish.

Long is not the answer up front on his own. Did he and Redmond exchange a single pass?

How anyone can look at our starting XI and bench and think that is strong enough for a campaign on two fronts, is beyond me.

I was thinking we needed 2 more "ready to go straight into 1st team" players. Now, I think a minimum of 4.
Click to expand...



You can see all that after two games? You must be a very rich and succesful gambler then, with foresight like that.

I think we all know we need to strengthen. Won't be 4 players though, as you obviously realise.
 
Onionman said:
That assumes that all the money gained from transfers sits in an old treacle tin on the mantelpiece and isn't used for anything else at all, such as paying players' wages or the 250 (I think) other employees of the club or even any other running costs.

Vin
Click to expand...
And that it is unnecessary for a company to keep a contingency fund.

I know CBK wasn't being serious, but we are caught by two things...1) wages structure 2) as said, that kind of player won't come here.
 
The comment about Long and Redman not linking up has also been made by Merrington. Redman is the big plus this season but I would concur that Austin and J-Rod are big injury risks and I am not convinced that we will ever see the kind of form from the latter again that led to his England call up.

The question mark over Koeman regarding the youth players is interesting as I have also been impressed by Targett. I would have liked to have seen more of Harrison Reed but was really surprised that JWP was retained as he is a squad player at best. Other than these three players, the fact that so many fringe layers have also been moved on this summer seems to strongly vindicate Koeman's argument especially as I think Ward-Prowse got more first team game time than his ability warranted. Interesting to see that he was on the bench last night. Just hope that he stays there!!
 
Onionman said:
That assumes that all the money gained from transfers sits in an old treacle tin on the mantelpiece and isn't used for anything else at all, such as paying players' wages or the 250 (I think) other employees of the club or even any other running costs.

Vin
Click to expand...

I realise this. It would be a huge stretch to pay that for a single player, and the owner would probably have to chip in.

But, they could do it. They really could.

So, why are we still shopping for bargains? Why can't we even attempt to sign a player from another current Premiership team? (more than backup goalkeepers)

I'm not for throwing dosh all over the shop, but if you have the money, what good is it sat in a bank? Unless of course it's now going somewhere else.
 
Onionman said:
That assumes that all the money gained from transfers sits in an old treacle tin on the mantelpiece and isn't used for anything else at all, such as paying players' wages or the 250 (I think) other employees of the club or even any other running costs.

Vin
Click to expand...

Which still, at current, leaves a very large wedge of money above and beyond any of those expenses. No one is against running the club sustainably, but in the current climate, one can flex some muscle in the transfer market and still be extremely prudent. Current numbers aren't yet out, but our wages and turnover have been diverging sharply even before the large jump in TV revenues and sponsorship deals we saw this summer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBK
CBK said:
Long is a good player,
He will chip in with 10 or 12 goals, which is ok if there are 2 or 3 other players also scoring that many for us. I don't think there are.

Sadly, I just can't see J-Rod doing anything. Austin, maybe, but not as a lone striker.
Click to expand...

Made this point myself earlier. We need 50-60 goals a season. Not at all clear where they'll come from. I'm backing Redmond to outscore Long this season but Long's scoring record isnt great 6-10 would be about expectation.

We are manned up to be hard to score against and not score many - yet again. But we're adopting a new formation which absoutely requires us to take more than one in 37 chances because we are a lot more likely to concede.

Tricky times.
 
Some people judging the team so harshly after two games is a bit naive. Yes it's clear that we need 1-2 more attackers, but we played some good football and made chances. Yes we need to convert them, but creating chances is a good sign. I'd be more worried if we weren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back