mrfahaji

It's quite incredible how the final result can influence people's views of the game. If we had scored the fifth goal instead of Fulham (with everything else in the match the same), I'm sure most people would be praising most aspects of the team. I didn't think anybody played particularly badly if I'm honest. With one exception. When you're at the game it's sometimes hard to see who was at fault for the goals if it's to do with marking or tracking a run. Having watched the goals back I don't understand why Yoshida didn't get closer to Mitrovic for the opening goal, he's stood right in front of him. It's one thing zonal marking for corners, but it was like we were zonal marking in open play! As for Wesley Hoedt... well I didn't think he was too bad actually. The trouble is he consistently makes one or two terrible decisions or errors in games that present the opposition with a chance. I'm not sure whether the "just boot it" argument necessarily holds weight. Our second goal came from an ambitious, not particularly well executed crossfield pass from Hoedt, after all. And we wouldn't have scored the second goal against Palace if Hoedt had just booted it out of play instead of playing a good ball out to Targett. The key thing seems to be knowing when to take risks and when to play safe, and I think this is true for the whole team. There was one time where we had lots of the ball, but no-one ever took a risk and played it down the wings. In the end Hojbjerg plays a terrible and incredibly risky pass that set Fulham breaking down the other end and they could have scored. It's just more obvious when Hoedt does it, partly because as a centre back if he gets it wrong we probably concede a goal, partly because he looks so awkward, and partly because people seem to be waiting in gleeful anticipation for his next mistake. After a brilliant crossfield pass, the guy behind me says "best thing he's done all season. He's sh1t." In the end I felt like I was Hoedt supporter, which I definitely am not, simply because the negativity towards him was ridiculous. I thought going forward we were pretty good. Mario Lemina was the best player on the pitch. Hojbjerg is a bit dodgy at times but still had a good game. There were times where Armstrong was a bit anonymous defensively but at least he was popping up in attacking positions and actually scored two goals. Redmond had an excellent game, he finally seems to be mixing up whether he cuts inside or goes outside the defender. My only issue with him is that once he gets to the byline he always dinks it to the far post when sometimes he'd be better off just drilling it across the face, because when do we ever win headers? And then we get to the exception I mentioned earlier. Charlie Austin. In my opinion, there is still a time and a place for Charlie Austin. But it isn't starting the game. Everyone seems to know this, except Hughes. I get that we didn't have many options, and after Gabbiadini's decent display vs Watford I would have been reluctant to move him back centrally again, as when he plays there we tend to lose our shape a bit and end up hitting hopeful balls towards him (as we did for a brief spell on Saturday), but anyone has to be better than Austin as a starter. Unless he gets a chance in the first 15 minutes he's done as a usable resource. I think what the fans get frustrated at is the lack of effort, but I think that's just down to lack of fitness. How can a footballer in his twenties not be fit? It's unacceptable from the management and the player. As for Hughes: well this wasn't a performance to sack him on. We had possession, we played good football, we were attacking, but every time they got forward they scored. It was like playing a video game where the AI has fixed it that you won't win! But, the crucial thing is that we do keep dropping points from games where we play well for long periods or look the better side. In individual games you have to look past the result, but over a period of time sometimes you have to look past the performances. In addition, I think the specific reasons why we lost are as follows: - Defensive organisation. Yes, individual mistakes don't help, but we just don't look very solid. - Starting Charlie Austin. Contrary to opinion, I didn't actually think Mitrovic did a lot, Fulham didn't have enough of the ball for him to. But what he did do showed the difference it makes to have a proper (i.e. not knackered) centre forward. - Failure to get behind the Fulham defence. For all our attacking play, it was ridiculous how little we got the ball into dangerous positions behind their full backs. The crazy thing is, when we did do it, we invariably created a chance! So keep doing it! But most of the time it was hesitation, pass back inside to a congested area, pass back to CBs, switch sides, start again. It's ok to keep the ball, but you have to be prepared to get behind defenders and put crosses over quickly. Fulham did this, which is why even though they didn't create a lot, when they did attack they nearly scored. And the concern I have with Hughes is that these things continue to happen and don't look like changing any time soon. Always enjoy trips to the Cottage, thought the Saints fans were in good voice, although not sure I agree with singing "sacked in the morning" while the game is still going on. And I could really do without people like the guy stood behind me (as mentioned earlier in the Hoedt paragraph). Why is it that the people with cretinous thoughts are also the ones incapable of remaining in place when we score? He landed on me and I twisted my knee in the process, so instead of being able to celebrate our goal, I was instead condemned to crouching down, unable to move until this idiotic oaf found a way of getting back to his feet.

Probably true. If our aim is to stay in the Premier League this season and beyond, then Allardyce is the best candidate. But is that all people care about? I'm actually not that bothered which league we're in. I'd like us to play decent football (that doesn't necessarily mean possession football btw) and win some games, and if we were doing that in the Championship I'd be fine with it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want us to be relegated. But I have no desire for us to replace Hughes with a manager of similar ilk or with someone who simply grinds out results by playing turgid football and cynical tactics. Because it's only a matter of time before we're all here again complaining and wanting somebody new.

Yep. It's like some people never actually watched or attended any of the games at the end of the season, they are just going by what BBC or Wikipedia tells them.

Yep. Ridiculous that we lost today. That being said, we DID lose. Eventually your lives run out. If we had beaten Watford or Newcastle then today could have been written off as a good performance and an unlucky result. But we didn't.

Just back from the game. Thought this was pretty poor taste tbh, even if I agree that he should go.

Can't remember the last time I went to see us play at Fulham thinking that we need a win but that a win will also mean the manager staying. Actually I can - January under Pellegrino!

"How much do you want for Salah?" "£100m" "Ok" "Ah but you have to pay that extra charge remember?!" "Ok, we offer you £0m" "Right, so 0 + 100 = £100m... sold." Is pretty much how it will work. Utterly pointless. No-one forces Liverpool to sell for a price they're not happy with.

I thought it was known (not by me admittedly) that Krueger wanted to get rid earlier but Reed was the man wanting to keep him on? And that was something I/we heard soon after the sacking, maybe even before he was sacked, not something that has come out in the last few weeks. In fairness you can appreciate that point of view, after siding with the players on the Puel situation, maybe it dawned on them that the power had shifted. That being said, I think the players liked Pellegrino because he was nice to them and didn't work them too hard in training and performances on the pitch looked much more of a tactical/style issue than player downing tools.

Have to disagree on both counts.

I'd rather see some more women than any more bl00dy scousers! I do wonder whether it's just a case of getting used to them and giving them a chance, but the fact that I don't find Gabby Logan or Eni Aluko (and one or two others) annoying suggests that it's much more of an individual thing than just being intolerant of women. One thing I used to find if I ever heard Georgie Bingham talking was that she was always so keen to make HER opinion count, even if it wasn't controversial in the slightest. For example, "now it seems to me, that Harry Kane is playing quite well at the moment" or "in my opinion, Southampton are struggling at home a little". It's not your opinion, it's what everyone thinks! It always makes me think there is an inferioity complex and that she feels like she has to say that these things are her views to prove that she knows things. Agree that female commentators are a bit annoying, but realise this of all things could be where I'm just not used to it and being a bit sexist. Not going to tar them all with the same brush, but often it sounds like they are using football phrases they have learnt and think they should be using rather than speaking more naturally (can't quite put my finger on why, and perhaps that's where I'm being unreasonable). Always found Jacqui Oatley a bit irritating in this respect. I'm sure there are plenty of capable commentators out there, and let's face it, none of them could be as awful as Peter Drury, but maybe it will just take a while for the better ones to get a job and be accepted. In a similar vein, I never understood why the late Peter Brackley was rarely heard commentating on English football where there is a plethora of dreadful male commentators out there. Perhaps the people making the appointments are the ones to blame (which comes back to my original point about scousers...!)

Maybe he'll go all Ron Noades and appoint himself as manager.

Yep, I remember that exactly. And I seem to recall Nigel not willing to join us unless we compensated Scunny appropriately.

Possibly, but they both played well, so he has no reason to drop them now. Regardless of how or why we reach that point, the important thing in terms of our prospects is that they should now be playing - because of Hughes or in spite of him! I also thought we played some nice football at times in the first half v Watford. I think mainly because of the players on the pitch - if Austin or Long were playing then most of those moves wouldn't have been possible.

Sickening. But as Lighthouse says, not that surprising either.

I think the fact that we play quite well for periods of the game fairly regularly supports this. If our players were terrible, we'd struggle to look decent for more than a brief spell of fervent pressure. First half against Watford (who have been pretty good this season) we were encouraging and fairly enjoyable to watch. That says to me that this squad is capable of doing more.

As much as the immediate reaction might be to think this is a problem, I actually think this is close to the right setup. The manager should certainly have a say in the transfer by identifying where the team needs improving and being part of the team reviewing the targets, but in general I'm not sure he should be saying "we need to get this player or that player". He's paid for man management, tactics and coaching. Not scouting. In fact, this is one reason I thought Hughes might be an ok appointment, because one of his failures at previous clubs was paying lots of money for average players, and perhaps our setup would prevent that. But, at the same time, such a setup also depends on the club's scouting department actually being good and doing their jobs properly, which ours hasn't been of late. And why we would suddenly abandon such a set up (because clearly, we did) to sign Carrillo for £19m is beyond comprehension.

When I saw "half season tickets" I assumed the club was giving current STHs the opportunity to abandon them for the rest of the season.

I must say I thought today he looked like a little boy on the pitch. He hit a nice pass towards the end, but he seems to spend most of the time 5-10 yards from the ball or man - each situation could be viewed as him taking up a sensible position but eventually you actually have to do something, not just be "near" the action. And I know his clearance was partly bad luck, but really he should be doing better than panicking and smashing it into an opposition player from there. If Hoedt did that he'd be getting pelters.

I thought Hughes needed 4 points from Watford & Fulham. I think now it has to be the case that only a win at Craven Cottage is acceptable. BUT, given we now have a two week break, I wouldn't be surprised by or against replacing him already. Today, I think he should have some credit for his team selection and our first half performance. It might not have been perfect (and look where we are in the table, can we expect perfection?) but it was quite an enjoyable performance irrespective of the goal, but obviously that helped too! Even Unbelievable Jeff commented that "maybe it was Les Reed all this time" - as if we needed any more evidence that it was going well! The issue is that once again we can't keep that level of performance up for any longer than 45 minutes. If it was 80 minutes of good performance without a second goal and then conceding you could forgive it, but it's not even 60 minutes. I know that the fragile mentality definitely plays a part, and I think that's more an issue with the players, although Hughes does still have some influence. The big one for me is that we don't look fit enough. Some of our players are dead on their feet mid way through the second half and that's not acceptable at this level. A good half is reason to be optimistic, because it shows that the players are capable of Premier League level football. But when you continually fail to ever play well for more than 45 minutes, in the end you have to attribute that to coaching/management. Whereas with Pellegrino I was desperate for him to go and every week grew more aghast that he still had a job, I don't feel like that with Hughes, it's more of a "the evidence stacking up against him" situation.

First half was decent - Watford had chances but we played some good stuff and looked up for it - pressed and passed well. The trouble is, we can't sustain it. Whether it's mentality or fitness or combination of both. Thought Hoedt and Yoshida played well though. Think our fragility comes from the midfield, Hojbjerg is industrious but a little sloppy at times, but the main problem is our third midfielder - in this case Armstrong or JWP just don't look up to it. You need a third battler or, preferably, someone who is good on the ball and makes the team tick (at least in an attacking sense). We didn't have either today, and Hojbjerg was a bit off, so it's no wonder the defence had to deal with a lot. Cedric can p1ss off with his hiding-hands-back-turning routine though.

Birtles annoys me but I agree with him about players putting their hands behind their backs.

Btw as a side note to the ridiculous decision, anyone think Austin's celebration was at the crowd? He seemed to be gesturing towards them. I may have read that wrong, initially I thought there was some booing towards it/him but that was probably due to the crowd realising it had been disallowed.

Ward-Prowse a big favourite at St Mary's apparently - surely not now Les has gone?

Not sure if that's relevant, as he's in an offside position when Austin shoots. (Still the wrong decision, just not sure how the deflection makes it any worse)