mrfahaji

In the Premier League I never expect to win by 3 or 4. I'd take a win however it comes but I'd be happy with a win and a good performance, even if it's a narrow victory.

Thought first half was an enjoyable game, both teams getting stuck in without it being nasty, lots of end to end football. We gave as good as we got for most of it, and it was a shame they made the breakthrough just on HT. It's no good consistently playing well for large parts of the game only to be hit by a break, or a defensive mishap, or a poorly defended set piece. I'm certainly not a 'results above all else" supporter, but of course you need to get the points from time to time too. That being said, there were still plenty of positives from tonight, we certainly looked capable going forward. So what gives? Our defence looked a bit desperate at times, but that's not unheard of against this lethal Chelsea attack. They may not dominate games but it feels like they could score whenever they attack, regardless of their oppositim! A better centre half would probably instill more confidence and make a marginal but decisive difference to how we fare. Furthermore in midfield we are passed too easily. Romeu does a decent job but doesn't get much support. Davis and JWP both do well from a possession point of view though, and I think this is the crux of the tactical decision: do we starve the opposition of the ball, but risk being vulnerable on the occasions they do have it? Or do we surrender more possession in exchange for greater defensive protection? With a solid defence that includes VVD, I think you can do the former, but with Stephens & Yoshida (& Forster) perhaps it needs to be the latter. We also only really have he personnel for the former, as no-one else plays the 2nd "destroyer" well.

Freak own goals, both excellent shots that rebounded off the woodwork onto the keeper and back into the goal. A bit like Cech earlier in the season for us from Tadic's free kick.

That's a very strange leap for you to make. There are plenty of footballing reasons to dislike Tottenham, particularly in relation to Saints. If they won the league I just feel we'd never hear the end of it, and even though I don't despise Pochettino, it would make it a bitter pill to swallow to see him go to them and then have such success. I know so many Tottenham fans, many of them perfectly reasonable human beings, both in life and in regard to their team. Unfortunately I also have a few Spurs friends who will be insufferable, and as a whole, if not individually, their fans must be one of the most irritating bunches in the country. I would like for them to fall away again, then have their excellent team picked apart by the teams (albeit few) above them in the pecking order. I really couldn't give two hoots (*checks google to make sure this expression has no anti-semitic connotations*) about any religious link, and I wonder more about those that immediately want to jump to such conclusions!

Neither do I, I hold hatred in my heart for Tottenham. Even on sad days like today.

Fair summary, though given we had already reached the EFL Cup Final when we played Arsenal, I was neither surprised nor particularly bothered that we went out of the FA Cup at that stage, not sure it warrants scorn or scrutiny.

I do actually recall him losing the ball by dawdling, agree it's very frustrating and he does it far too much. I think that's why using him as a defensive midfielder will cost us, because he always wants to take an extra touch and look for a way to turn out of trouble. A bit further forward it normally works but getting dispossessed 20 yards from your own goal is a problem. Before then he'd been playing well though, and after that he did a lot of things I thought were good. Ok, "very good" is an exaggeration, but not a huge one as "decent" or "played well" would be fair. By contrast to say he "wasn't any better than JWP" is a ridiculous assertion and it's that level of disparagement which brings out an overreaction in others. I don't even think Davis is that good, if he is a starting DM or our main AM next season it means we haven't done the right business in the summer.

Davis was very good in the first half. Second half display took a dip (which I guess most players did).

Sorry, why would that be great? Obviously a Saints victory should always be cheered but if we're going to lose any game, I'd rather it be one to keep the title away from White Hart Lane.

Perhaps I was too young for that. Cockerill was playing when I started going to the Dell but was near the end of his career. I played football against his son in fact! The Dell felt like a family and while I'll never forget the anti-Branfoot chants, in general I don't recall the fans getting on the back of the team in the same way. If anything, the 'spirit' we had came from the supporters getting behind the team in times of adversity. Perhaps because such a high percentage of the attendance were there every week. While the move to St Mary's was necessary, it also felt like the sense of entitlement had gone up, and more fans were quick to turn on the team when we were struggling. Maybe it's more to do with football at large and life in general now though rather than Saints specifically.

He was poor. However one thing that I will always remember was him coming on as sub (I think to replace Svensson), and loads of fans booed when his name was announced. Strachan turned round and sarcastically applauded the Saints fans. It's one thing to get frustrated with someone not being very good, it's another to actively boo them before they've kicked a ball. A sad indictment of the new breed (not necessarily younger) of 'supporters'.

Was that Pochettino, 3-1? I recall that being one of the best games we've played since our return to the Prem, our central midfield was brilliant - Schneiderlin, Cork & Davis completely played them off the park. I don't mind us setting up a bit more tactically/defensively/cautiously against the teams at the top, but I'd like to think that we don't automatically play that way just because we're playing a top team. Does that make sense? So if Puel looks at City or Liverpool and thinks that's the best way to beat them, so be it, but I hope it's not the default to go defensive and basically show too much respect (fear) to the opponents.

That's because we have 40 points! Dalek's holy grail! Regarding the criticism (not from you) of our 'approach', in the first half at least, let's not forget that we probably had the best chance of the game which Tadic inexplicably and unacceptably blasted over. If that goes in, Puel is a master tactician, is he not? Their first goal was arguably a foul - Kompany made so many of those kinds of fouls throughout the game - who knows if we could have kept them at bay for longer, obviously the first goal was crucial and conceding from a corner does not clearly point to a poor strategy (though how often in games when the big teams are struggling to break down the opposition does the breakthrough finally come from a corner or penalty?) It's fair to question the decision to put Boufal on alongside Tadic and Redmond again, especially with Long up front who doesn't hold it up. We saw against Bournemouth what happens to our midfield, and City took advantage. In hindsight, we would have been better to keep it tight and look to capitalise on a corner, mistake etc, much like we did at their place. But I can at least see why we went for it, we were losing after all.

Well clearly it's preposterous to think that we should like/dislike all other teams in the league equally. I'd certainly revel in two wins over Spurs each year more than two wins over... well, anyone actually. I've always wanted the teams in the region (with one obvious exception) to do well, though the needle with Brighton during League One means I've struggled to root for them in the same way since. I think when we play the likes of Brighton & Bournemouth it's a case of wanting to beat them to keep them quiet rather than because we desperately want to lord it over them. A typical big brother-little brother dynamic.

The strangest thing for me about PEH is that at the start of the season it was his passing that really impressed me. He rarely gave it away, his short passing was crisp and he even made successful long/through balls. Now it seems like passing is his biggest weakness!

If Davis carried Hojbjerg I hate to think what he did for JWP, airlifted him?

On the face of it you could argue there’s no shame in losing to Man City, and it’s true they play very well and it’s not easy to get the ball off them. However, things could have been very different. It looked to me like we set out to restrict them to half chances, which they had a few but didn’t take. At the same time, we might not create much, but against their defence there was reason to think we would get a chance or two, and that they’d be good ones. We did, but we didn’t take them. I don’t expect Tadic to be prolific but I expect a player of his calibre to hit the target with space, a nice rolling ball, from 10 yards out. At half time, I felt we’d done decently though, keeping them at arm’s length while looking dangerous ourselves. Second half it all fell a bit flat. Steven Davis had been excellent first half, but seemed to want an extra touch in the second. Hojbjerg did ok at times but looked hesitant in possession, and I barely remember JWP touching the ball in either half until he went off. Criticism of Tadic being anonymous was frequent on here, and while he didn’t have a good game, when we hardly had the ball in their half, I’m not sure what people want him to do. Gabbiadini barely touched the ball either. Redmond looked spritely again, though made a few wrong decisions when he had space either inside or outside. One thing I have noticed about our play is that we often take two touches when a single pass may do the job. Defensively I think that’s ok, it means we play out well from the back and chance fewer risky passes. However, when we’re attacking, sometimes that extra pass slows the attack down, and it’s a split second longer the defence have to get into position. We also saw that once again the introduction of Boufal to play alongside Tadic proved our undoing, as well as obviously we were chasing the game and being more open. And yet, I don’t really blame Puel for making the sub, we had to try and find an equaliser. Boufal even started well, playing some short passes and making runs before he clicked into the playground-hogger mode a bit later. I assume we were taking precautions with Gabbiadini, but also I think Long was a good idea to close down the defenders & goalkeeper, as they were taking chances at the back. I think the problem is that our starting midfielders just aren’t good enough, or we at least don’t have good or different enough options. As soon as Hojbjerg and Davis started tiring we seemed to lose all threat, but then we don’t have any alternatives in there. Would Clasie for JWP have made any real difference? I don’t think so. Oh, and the game may yet have been different if Forster could react to a ball within a yard of his body... Put your hand out man!

Unfortunate that Sane was the other player breaking, as Cedric actually had the pace to get back, but obviously couldn't cover both. FFS, 3.

It's not easy to have a storming game when you hardly ever get the ball, and when you do it's normally following a clearance when you have few players in support.

True, but I can't help but feel that decision would have gone to video ref, and much like the people in the studio, they'd be jumping over themselves to give a penalty to City, whereas at the other end it would have been "inconclusive".

Don't let facts get in the way of the agenda!

Ward-Prowse's ability from free kicks gets a mention from the commentator? TICK. JWP has a decent, but ultimately not good enough, shot from resulting free kick? TICK!

It does at least give a great example of why video technology wouldn't necessarily work...

Cedric? It's an example of how "going to ground" shouldn't automatically be a booking. Hardly the same as Hojbjerg's earlier!

Me neither. Think Davis has played quite well though.