I realise you are being flippant but, yes, we expect a lot more of defenders nowadays that simply being 'stoppers'. Even goalkeepers. How often, on this very forum, have goalkeepers been criticised for being poor distributors of the ball?
You think I hate. Wanyama I don't. Its true that I don't particularly rate him when we are in possession but I'm not that dumb that I don't recognise his effectiveness in breaking up play. It is why I have been suggesting for ages that he and Cork would play well together, I think they would compliment each other nicely. I want to point out that I'm not picking on Wanyama but its the only thing that people seem to want to respond on. All I am saying is that I didn't think he played well against Spurs. This is based on my observations of him over the course of the season so far, I believe he has played a lot better and therefore I now have higher expectations of him than I did last season. If you really believe he played well yesterday then your opinion of him is obviously a lot lower than mine. He is not going to play well every week and I think this was one of them. But then none of the midfield played well so what can you expect? The one thing I do find surprising though is your lack of faith in our midfield without Wanyama. Our midfield has really been the backbone of our success (with or without Wanyama) and yet you conclude ("guaranteed") that without Wanyama our midfield would have been, "ripped a new one". Since when have our midfield suddenly become so bad that you expect them to be dominated by Eriksen/Lamela/Adebayor? This is not Barcelona we are talking about. As a team we never really got going. We were pressured by decent, but not world beating, players all over the pitch. They should have been worrying about our ability but it never happened, This was not Vic's fault.
I didn't think Toby had a very good game but that might be something to do with Morgan not having his best game in front of him. Also thought that Mane went down far too easily again even though the ref did give him a couple. Tadic is much better in front of Clyne who also didn't have his best game. Davis was a bit anonymous but Spurs were quite busy around our midfield and I think Davis needs more space. Wanyama had a stormer I thought and we miss JWPs contribution a lot. Morgan over hit a few deep balls which JWP tends to get on the money. We also got in each other's way a couple of times in the first half. I don't agree with 'Tottenham played well' statements though. I thought both teams played pretty poorly yesterday and a goal edged it. Referee was ridiculously home biased though giving multiple ticking offs to Rose then booking Tadic the first time he fouled Rose. That happened all over the park.
"This was not Vic's fault" but it was him you'd have taken off at half time because he was playing so badly. Despite the stats backing up that he was the most effective player at stopping their attacks. How are you still struggling with the fact I disagree with your assertion he should have been hauled off at half time? I'm not saying he was playing like Messi, I'm saying that he, more than most, was effectively doing the job he was there to do. As you rightly say, our problem was not creating and people losing the ball to the high press. Without him there doing that destructive role then yes, their midfield would have been dominant and those drifting players (Lamela and Eriksen) would have (in my opinion) run riot.
Because I would have approached the game differently. I would have preferred to take the game to them not the other way round. I'm not remotely struggling with the fact that you and I disagree on it, but after a fairly ineffective first half I would have tried something different, thats all.
Some of us were a little critical of Saints, and some not critical but just a bit disappointed. None were so critical or disappointed as much as the Captain of the side. It's a good attitude: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/11515832._/?ref=mac
By taking off the person who was demonstrably the most effective at stopping us losing, and keeping on those who, by your own admission, are causing the issue. Thank goodness you're not our manager!
Ha ha. Did we win then? But in answer to your question, yes. I would have attempted to alter the pattern of play so we were less on the defensive and more on the offensive. Nothing particularly radical or unusual about that. Had we been winning 1-0 you wouldn't question taking off an attacker and bringing on a defensive player to secure the win. I don't see why you wouldn't consider it the other way round.
Koeman not too happy with the fans targeting Mauricio, as he was with Redknapp. Hasn't grasped that fans in this country don't have a pragmatic action to what is regarded as betrayal...we would happily greet some ex-managers and players. However, although fun, it is better to concentrate on supporting the team. After all, I doubt that the target of anger is always obvious from the pitch...the players might prefer more positive chants.
I suppose he was asked the question and gave his answer. He has already mentioned that Dutch crowds are worse. He'll get used to it, and realise that the Saints crowd don't do these things without decent motivation.
It's usually (for the mentally stable) done with a bit of tongue-in-cheek too. Like a pantomime villain (particularly when we're doing well). It's for that very reason I'm going to make sure I'm available for the Liverpool game - because I think it's going to be a whole lot of fun!
I think you are entirely missing my point. I never once said that Wanyama was our worst player today and by some way he actually was not. I just reacted when someone said he played well because really he can and has played a whole lot better. Of course our attacking players were poor but if you need to liven up an attack you generally don't do so by strengthening the defence. You have to take a risk sometimes. Maybe we would have lost 3-0 but your guaranteeing it doesn't make it so. We might just have caused them a few problems ourselves. As it is, our best chance came after Long came on. Yes, we were maybe more suspect at the other end but really Mane should have scored and we'd have all been happy.
I still haven't watched the game, so I can't contribute to the performance, however I had a question about Tadic. He played fairly poorly/average against QPR for the first 70 and he played wife right again yesterday and I assume not hugely effective. Surely we should be playing him left and occasionally switch him to right during a game. For me, this could be the first test of Ron's reign... Will he see this and play Tadic left?
But that would mean switching Mane right, and would that work. If sometimes a bit overexciteable and prone to an iffy pass, Mane has looked like the person that scares defences in the last couple of games.
We agree!! But I also agree with FLT that Tadic does look better on the left, although even when he's started on the left he has often switched to the right. So, yes, a bit of a conundrum to get the best from both.
I thought Mane (from two games and some you tube clips) looks like he can go either way; Tadic looks far more comfortable on the left. I'd certainly be trying Mane on the right.
