Saints Stuff

  • 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!
At least both Puel and MP have proven the saying"If you always do, What you have always done, You will always get, What you always got" absolutely correct
This is what concerns me most about MP that he isn't seeing what everyone else is seeing. RK was always very quick to change things if they weren't working and would always look at doing new things to get the edge and that was shown in his results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velcro Roy and hotbovril
fran-MLs little camera said:
That's all we need as well...conversion of chances. We are 5th in the EPL for chances created (just behind Spurs)...it's actual goals where we fall down. Pellegrino has the same problem as Puel....team set up to win...but doesn't. I'm sure he isn't above a few tweaks, but feels that the game plan is right and doesn't feel that major changes are required....or he feels he hasn't the players to play any other way. We may disagree, but he is the manager and his head is on the block. If management was easy, managers wouldn't get sacked left, right and centre.
Click to expand...

If that stat is true and it's a big IF,it's just about the best evidence that stats can be made to claim anything.Mind you who says whether it's a chance or not I bet I wouldn't agree with most of em!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Libby
I've said it before under Puel and maybe Pellegrino is the same. With the squad we have maybe the best way to get results is to set up defensively as that is where our strengths lie. I mean if Forster had been even average this year we would probably have at least 6 more points. No point going attacking when our attackers aren't great when you can try and grind out 1-0s based on the strength of our defence. We would've had a couple of them and a couple of 0-0s if Forster hadn't ****ed up.
 
Saintmagic said:
I've said it before under Puel and maybe Pellegrino is the same. With the squad we have maybe the best way to get results is to set up defensively as that is where our strengths lie. I mean if Forster had been even average this year we would probably have at least 6 more points. No point going attacking when our attackers aren't great when you can try and grind out 1-0s based on the strength of our defence. We would've had a couple of them and a couple of 0-0s if Forster hadn't ****ed up.
Click to expand...

On the flip side if we hadn't of tried to defend a lead for 85 minutes at Brighton we may have won comfortably which in turn may have bred more confidence in our forward players.

Sacrificing the attack for defence is a poor more when you always look like conceding in a game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Le Tissier’s Laces and Velcro Roy
The Liebherr Legacy said:
On the flip side if we hadn't of tried to defend a lead for 85 minutes at Brighton we may have won comfortably which in turn may have bred more confidence in our forward players.

Sacrificing the attack for defence is a poor more when you always look like conceding in a game.
Click to expand...

Maybe or we could've left ourselves more open to being hit on the counter and conceding. All ifs and buts, it was only 6 (?) minutes into the game when Davis scored so kind of hard to say we would've been massively on top for the whole game after such a short space of time.

As Fran said the manager's head is on the block based on results, he is going to set us up the best way he feels we can get results, and with our defence and defensive midfield options I can see why he (and Puel) may have chosen to set up defensively.
 
The Liebherr Legacy said:
We're not creating anywhere near as much as we were this time last year imo.

Always skeptical of these stats too, who and what defines a 'chance'?
Click to expand...
You could truss up the opposition, stick the ball on the opposition's goal line and then I'm confident Long and Redmond could tuck it away. Well 25% of the time anyway :1980_boogie_down:
 
  • Like
Reactions: HarryTipper, Libby, Velcro Roy and 1 other person
Velcro Roy said:
If that stat is true and it's a big IF,it's just about the best evidence that stats can be made to claim anything.Mind you who says whether it's a chance or not I bet I wouldn't agree with most of em!
Click to expand...
Don't claim to know what constitutes a chance in the analysis, which is why I added the fact that using the same system put Spurs only just ahead of us in 4th place....and they've definitely done better than us in converting these chances.
 
Saintmagic said:
The style we have been playing is exactly what we need to do going to Anfield and the Etihad (and any other tough away game). It is just not suited to when we play at home to the smaller teams. I think we will get battered on Saturday tbh but that's just because Liverpool's attack is very good. People say that these are the types of games Liverpool struggle with, but if you look at the games where they draw 0-0 lose 1-0 there is a common theme, they have loads of chances/shots but can't convert. All they need is 4 of their 30 shots to go on target and there is a good chance they score 3.
Click to expand...
Well seeing as we often have 20-30 shots ourselves. so same could be said of us. Yet amazingly we can't score. And the same can go for Liverpool
 
Saintmagic said:
Maybe or we could've left ourselves more open to being hit on the counter and conceding. All ifs and buts, it was only 6 (?) minutes into the game when Davis scored so kind of hard to say we would've been massively on top for the whole game after such a short space of time.

As Fran said the manager's head is on the block based on results, he is going to set us up the best way he feels we can get results, and with our defence and defensive midfield options I can see why he (and Puel) may have chosen to set up defensively.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly and agree you can't sat we'd be on top for the whole game but we handed them the initiative when they looked there for the taking. Didn't take advantage of our momentum at all.

I also see your point about him setting up defensively, but again my issue is you're going to get limited success with that tactic if you always look like conceding which we do.
 
TheSecondStain said:
Well seeing as we often have 20-30 shots ourselves. so same could be said of us. Yet amazingly we can't score. And the same can go for Liverpool
Click to expand...

Liverpool have scored much more goals than us and I don't think there's too many games we have had 20/30 shots from this season. We also aren't creating many good chances.
 
SaintinNZ said:
There is literally nothing there to like.

20 games and he hasnt tried to fix the problems.
We dont actually dominate teams much at all
Posession football is boring, low scoring and susceptible to last minute 1 shot on target defeats it would seem
Its very important to win the way we've been playing but it doesnt ****ing happen much. Maybe its BECAUSE of the way we've been playing?
Cats land on their feet, toast lands butter side down. If you stick buttered toast on the feet of a cat it'll hover in space doing neither (science. fact.)
Thats our season so far. Hovering between defend and attack doing neither.

I cannot for the life of me understand this manager. Defend while you attack, attack while you defend? Its bollocks. all bollocks. And it makes no sense. I'm actually starting to think the man is an idiot. Either that or he's a genius and Im the idiot. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

As the likelihood of us winning is diminishingly small, and any amount of deliberations will not improve things, I've decided to change tack, ignore footballing issues, and expand on the butter/cat proposition. If you put butter on a cat's feet, both Laws of Physics invoked will be true - The cat will land on its feet, and the butter side of the cat will be downwards. HOWEVER, if you spread butter on a cat's back, the two Laws will be mutually incompatible, as the cat will always land on its feet, but the butter side will always hit the floor, so this will result in a permanently spinning cat, unable to land on its feet, as it would not then land butter side down, and unable to land on its back, as cats always land on their feet. This will result in a perpetual motion machine, which, if harnessed to a generator, will provide infinite amounts of electricity, thus solving the world's energy crisis at a stroke.

Oh, and in this beer-fuelled fantasy land I currently inhabit, Saints win 3-0, with goals from a Fraser Forster clearance, a deflection off the ref from a corner, and an own goal from Lovren, brought on to shore up Liverpool's defence. :emoticon-0167-beer:
 
  • Like
Reactions: hotbovril
The Liebherr [QUOTE="Lemons and Oranges said:
As the likelihood of us winning is diminishingly small, and any amount of deliberations will not improve things, I've decided to change tack, ignore footballing issues, and expand on the butter/cat proposition. If you put butter on a cat's feet, both Laws of Physics invoked will be true - The cat will land on its feet, and the butter side of the cat will be downwards. HOWEVER, if you spread butter on a cat's back, the two Laws will be mutually incompatible, as the cat will always land on its feet, but the butter side will always hit the floor, so this will result in a permanently spinning cat, unable to land on its feet, as it would not then land butter side down, and unable to land on its back, as cats always land on their feet. This will result in a perpetual motion machine, which, if harnessed to a generator, will provide infinite amounts of electricity, thus solving the world's energy crisis at a stroke.

Oh, and in this beer-fuelled fantasy land I currently inhabit, Saints win 3-0, with goals from a Fraser Forster clearance, a deflection off the ref from a corner, and an own goal from Lovren, brought on to shore up Liverpool's defence. :emoticon-0167-beer:
Click to expand...
Shroedinger's pat. That or the theory of relatikitty anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges and fran-MLs little camera
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back