Millwall V Saints - Post Match Reaction

[Andy_Porter]

Just watched the game on football league iplayer, the Millwall goal was an absolute mess, i think it was Wotton that missed the vital header and then Otsemebor completely switched off it seemed, terrible defending.

 

Also, Lallana's future is not in the middle, not unless he bulks up a bit. IMO anyways.

 

Hammond is out for a few weeks too apparantly, but i think he has been off the boil for a while.

 

You don't need to be a 6foot brute to play in midfield.

 

Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Scholes, Modric etc

[Smirking_Saint]

You don't need to be a 6foot brute to play in midfield.

 

Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Scholes, Modric etc

 

All those players have decent midfielders covering them, i understand your point of building a team around him. But he is not good enough.

 

He has a lot of talent and don't get me wrong i do rate him, i do however have my concerns about his tactical knwoledge and positional play.

 

I'd love to be proved wrong though

[trousers]

felt sorry for Lambert, who had no support, and for Holmes who got some decent crosses in only to find no one in the box.

 

Why would Holmes cross the ball if there was no-one in the box? Was he crossing it to early or was he taking it to the byeline and still no saints players in the box?

[shurlock]

Why would Holmes cross the ball if there was no-one in the box? Was he crossing it to early or was he taking it to the byeline and still no saints players in the box?

 

Coz the instinct/reaction of our midfielders is to get a nosebleed if they're too high up in the pitch while Lallana was dropping deep to link up with Holmes. Pards must have said something at HT. At one point in the 2nd half, Holmes crossed with James and Schneiderlin around the 6 yard box - amusing that they were so far foward- almost as amusing as the botched header.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Coz the instinct/reaction of our midfielders is to get a nosebleed if they're too high up in the pitch while Lallana was dropping deep to link up with Holmes. Pards must have said something at HT. At one point in the 2nd half, Holmes crossed with James and Schneiderlin around the 6 yard box - amusing that they were so far foward- almost as amusing as the botched header.

 

 

Absolutely key point made here. We rarely score from a fast break to the byline and a great cross putting the oppositions defenders under pressure. With Holmes and perhaps Antonio, we have that option...BUT you've GOT to get players into the box to capitilise - we don't have the attacking skill in midfield to do it - Schneiderlin can't seem to hit a barndoor with a banjo.

[Wes Tender]

Wasn't at the match, so only have the Radio Solent commentary to go on. On the basis that Merrington was a player and manager in his time and was at the match, I'm taking it that his opinion ought to have at least the same, if not more validity than that of most on here, even those who were there.

 

Regarding the team selection, it seemed a bit negative to me, which was surprising when Pardew has stated that it was a match that we needed to win. It was asking a lot to bed in three new defenders and also Holmes too. When it became clear that the midfield was outplayed by Millwall's and that we lacked penetration in getting the ball up to the front, Merrington had been calling on Pardew to take off Holmes, who seemed to be exhausted and to replace him with Connolly or Papa , to inject some fresh legs and pace. As it was, Millwall introduced some fresh legs, but it still took some time to respond ourselves. It was a surprise when Antonio replaced James, although it seemed to be effective. How much more effective might it had been it the substitution had been made with half an hour to go, or even 45 minutes, as it was crystal clear at half time that things needed changing.

 

I got the impression that Fonte had a superb game and is a fantastic signing, also that Seabourne did OK. But I look forward to casting an eye of Otsemobor, as I was expecting runs of blistering pace up the right flank from deep, but do not recall the commentary mentioning any. Apparently he is not the most brilliant RB defensively, but his pace is supposed to balance that. What is the point of him if he doesn't make those runs putting pressure on the opposition defence?

 

So on balance, it seems that effectively four new players was too many to introduce to the team in one go. Therefore it appears that the team was too nervously cautious when they ought to have been much more aggressive if they wanted to win the match. We have pace out wide with Antonio and Papa and supposedly with Otsemobor, but didn't make use of it until the match was nearly over, even when it had become abundantly clear by half time that Millwall were dominating the midfield.

 

On the face of it, we might have been smarter to have spent a bit more time on the training ground before introducing so many players into the team, so that they had a better understanding of how we play as a team and how their colleagues play.

 

As for the equaliser, that was just plain naivety. Although Hammond was not on the field, we had three or four others who had been captains of teams. Surely it was not asking too much of any of them to tell their team mates to concentrate, to punt the ball into touch upfield, to keep possession.

 

As for making the play-offs, surely that is still a possibility. Didn't I see it posted on here that to achieve it we need to average two points a match until the end of the season? OK, so we have a point and need a win in the next match to balance it to a two point average. It would have been nice to have had the three points and then only need a draw somewhere else along the line to balance it up, but we have until the 26th to get some understanding between the new players and their colleagues before the next league match and a couple of Cup matches in the meantime.

 

Of course, there are also a couple of weeks of the transfer window in which to make the signings we need to strengthen the midfield or give the attack more teeth.

[Andyb1]

Just watched the game on football league iplayer, the Millwall goal was an absolute mess, i think it was Wotton that missed the vital header and then Otsemebor completely switched off it seemed, terrible defending.

 

Also, Lallana's future is not in the middle, not unless he bulks up a bit. IMO anyways.

 

Hammond is out for a few weeks too apparantly, but i think he has been off the boil for a while.

 

How would you conclude that Lallana shouldn't play in cntral midfield from 20 seconds of footage?

 

I thought we did ok. Millwall are an in your face team, they don't stop and give you no time n the ball. We defended well but lacked a little up front. There is a reason why Millwall have only lost once at home this season and beat Leeds comfortably.

 

We didn't deserve to win.

[Nick65]

Have to say that was one of the worst games I've ever seen Saints involved in.

Basically you've got to get down and really scrap against the likes of Millwall, which we did, but at the expense of playing decent football. Maybe that's the way it has to be done sometimes.

Thought the defence did well - as others have said, Fonte looks a class act and reminiscent of Claus. Seaborne did OK too, not convinced by Otsemabor yet, but he did at least get to the byline once in the second half - don't remember anyone else doing that except Holmes right at the death.

Have to agree with others who say midfield seems to be a problem. A number of times we had the ball on halfway and no-one seemed to want to drive forward with it. Whether that's down to personnel or tactics, I don't know. Our only options seeemed to be lump it up to RL, or give it to Holmes, who has a lot of skill and can hit a good cross, but doesn't beat his man much. As a result, momentum is lost and the opposition regroup.

Antonio was great when he came on - totally changed the feel of the game and his pace and directness really troubled the Millwall defenders. Almost scored too. Not sure about him starting, but as an impact sub he's really useful.

Great strike from Lambert for our goal, must have been 30 yards and I reckon the goalkeeper would have struggled even without the deflection. Equaliser made it feel like a defeat - we can't afford to lose 2 points like that if the play-offs are the target.

 

Finally - what a cheerless matchday experience away fans get at Millwall - herded about by shedloads of police from London Bridge to the ground and back again. Must cost the club a fortune.

[Chez]

At one point in the 2nd half, Holmes crossed with James and Schneiderlin around the 6 yard box - amusing that they were so far foward- almost as amusing as the botched header.

 

That was the one thing that dissapointed me about Schneiderlin on Saturday. For me he didn't stick his head in where it hurts on that occasion. I think he could have won that header and if he had he would have scored no question.

[Chez]

Why would Holmes cross the ball if there was no-one in the box? Was he crossing it to early or was he taking it to the byeline and still no saints players in the box?

 

he didn't really get into their final third all that often. Lots of nice interplay with Lallana though especially in the first half. Not all that many crosses and Lallana tended to be out wide with Holmes so not much to aim for.

 

Even less in the second half, although two incidents do stand out. One lovely cross that Schneiderlin didn't quite get to (but would have if he was Gerrard, Speedie, Jordan...you get the idea) the other a lovely cross into the right area but Lallana had dropped too deep in the build up and Lambert didn't do enough to get in the box either - the game was stretched at this point.

[kpturner]

Just watched the game on football league iplayer, the Millwall goal was an absolute mess, i think it was Wotton that missed the vital header

Which vital header was it that Wotton missed? There was only one header that I recall in the build up and that was contested by Morison and Seaborne wasn't it? Edited 18 January, 2010 by kpturner

[Chez]

On the basis that Merrington was a player and manager in his time and was at the match, I'm taking it that his opinion ought to have at least the same, if not more validity than that of most on here, even those who were there.

 

I see where you are going with that. Because Dave is an expro he sees the game better than fans. I have to say thats a good point, but I've listened to Merrington and he preconceived ideas about players that he just never can let go. I've listened to his post match round ups after some home games and sometimes I wonder what game he has been watching.

 

When it became clear that the midfield was outplayed by Millwall's and that we lacked penetration in getting the ball up to the front, Merrington had been calling on Pardew to take off Holmes, who seemed to be exhausted and to replace him with Connolly or Papa , to inject some fresh legs and pace.

I have to say I Holmes' legs didn't look gone, even right up tot he pont he went off. Lallana's certainly did just before AP took him off. I agree though that Papa should have come on earlier.

 

As it was, Millwall introduced some fresh legs, but it still took some time to respond ourselves. It was a surprise when Antonio replaced James, although it seemed to be effective.

James saw a fair bit of the ball in the period just before he came off so I can see why you would think that it was a surprise (no doubt his name was mentioned a fair bit on the radio), but it wasn't.

 

But I look forward to casting an eye of Otsemobor, as I was expecting runs of blistering pace up the right flank from deep, but do not recall the commentary mentioning any. Apparently he is not the most brilliant RB defensively, but his pace is supposed to balance that. What is the point of him if he doesn't make those runs putting pressure on the opposition defence?

to be fair to him we were on the back foot (not to mention never having the ball) and so he had his hands full defending. When he did go forward his pace served him well and we created a good half chance from his overlap. I have to agree though that I wasn't bowled over by him. We'll see.

 

even when it had become abundantly clear by half time that Millwall were dominating the midfield.

it was pretty even in the first half. I wouldn't say they dominated midfield at all in that first half. The ball was in the air 90% of the time.

 

As for the equaliser, that was just plain naivety. Although Hammond was not on the field, we had three or four others who had been captains of teams. Surely it was not asking too much of any of them to tell their team mates to concentrate, to punt the ball into touch upfield, to keep possession.

You've seen the goal right? Straight from the kick off they deliver a long ball which is half won by us, Waigo then dangles a leg into a tackle and Trotter is then one on one with Semi, comes inside and shoots into the far corner. Not sure captains advice or putting balls into touch etc come into it at all. Win the first header and the goal is avoided - but you have to win it. Unfortunately we struggled to win headers at the back all day long.

[Chez]

Which vital header was it that Wotton missed? There was only one header that I recall in the build up and that was contested by Morisson and Seaborne wasn't it?

 

it wouldn't surprise me. Morisson beat him all day long so if Seaborne only got half a head on it that would be about right. Very dissapointed with seaborne, but then again Morisson is very underated IMO.

[SaintNeil90]

Our goal + Celebration + Millwalls celebration.

 

 

Video still processing. Should be in HD soon

 

Im glad all you could do was laugh when they equalised. I think I did that as well, not knowing what else to do!

[RonManager]

Im glad all you could do was laugh when they equalised. I think I did that as well, not knowing what else to do!

 

Yes, that kind of slightly mad, semi-hysterical laugh. There was a lot of that around me, including me.

[1976_Child]

Im glad all you could do was laugh when they equalised. I think I did that as well, not knowing what else to do!

 

I didnae laugh. I just knew they would equalize. Follow our boys around the country for long enough and you know that it was going to be so. Am I a pessimist? Perhaps depressed. I dunno. Just knew it was going to happen. I put it down to Leon Best missing the penalty at Pride Park. And then the rain. The sodding rain. Been in a mood ever since. Bloody skates.

[Liquidshokk]

I didnae laugh. I just knew they would equalize. Follow our boys around the country for long enough and you know that it was going to be so. Am I a pessimist? Perhaps depressed. I dunno. Just knew it was going to happen. I put it down to Leon Best missing the penalty at Pride Park. And then the rain. The sodding rain. Been in a mood ever since. Bloody skates.

 

Post made me laugh. Bizarrely. I think a piece of me died that evening too as I walked from the pub covered in everyones beer from all the jumping up and down as goals went in. Biggest Anti-climax of my life.

[kpturner]

Post made me laugh. Bizarrely. I think a piece of me died that evening too as I walked from the pub covered in everyones beer from all the jumping up and down as goals went in. Biggest Anti-climax of my life.

You clearly didn't go to Saints vs Anderlecht, second leg of Cup Winners Cup quarter-final - 1977. Affected me more than any football match other than the Cup Final the previous year. Edited 18 January, 2010 by kpturner

[Wes Tender]

I see where you are going with that. Because Dave is an expro he sees the game better than fans. I have to say thats a good point, but I've listened to Merrington and he preconceived ideas about players that he just never can let go. I've listened to his post match round ups after some home games and sometimes I wonder what game he has been watching.

 

I have to say I Holmes' legs didn't look gone, even right up tot he pont he went off. Lallana's certainly did just before AP took him off. I agree though that Papa should have come on earlier.

 

James saw a fair bit of the ball in the period just before he came off so I can see why you would think that it was a surprise (no doubt his name was mentioned a fair bit on the radio), but it wasn't.

 

to be fair to him we were on the back foot (not to mention never having the ball) and so he had his hands full defending. When he did go forward his pace served him well and we created a good half chance from his overlap. I have to agree though that I wasn't bowled over by him. We'll see.

 

it was pretty even in the first half. I wouldn't say they dominated midfield at all in that first half. The ball was in the air 90% of the time.

 

You've seen the goal right? Straight from the kick off they deliver a long ball which is half won by us, Waigo then dangles a leg into a tackle and Trotter is then one on one with Semi, comes inside and shoots into the far corner. Not sure captains advice or putting balls into touch etc come into it at all. Win the first header and the goal is avoided - but you have to win it. Unfortunately we struggled to win headers at the back all day long.

 

Thanks for the heads up on this Chez, as I usually have respect for your opinions on the play. Merrington's preconceived ideas about players are not exclusive though, as many have their own ideas about players on here too. But I often found when I'm listening to away matches that he does seem to be able to identify fairly accurately where the weaknesses are in the team and where we need to make the changes.

 

With the substitution, I wasn't surprised that Antonio had come on for James, but surprised from what was said on the commentary that it was Antonio who had come on rather than Papa or Connolly and that it was James who had come off rather than Holmes. For myself, it would have made some sense to have had Lallana go to the left wing and to have put Connolly or Papa up front with Lambert. As it turns out reading this thread and the Holmes one, Holmes seemed to have done pretty well and I look forward to seeing him the next home match if he plays. I used to be a fan of his when he played before his injury and thought that it was reasonable to assume that he was still not as match sharp as he could have been

 

I only saw their goal once it had been posted on the internet. As you say, there was not much possible in the way of dealing with it beyond Wotton waking up and closing down their player and Papa might have done better, but he isn't a defender. Had we made the sustitutions earlier and been more adventurous, we might well have scored earlier and had the chance of doing something about their equaliser too.

 

I also noticed your remark that the ball was in the air most of the time. I agree that this is one of the most irritating aspects of our game, when we should be playing the ball across the ground instead of playing head-tennis which is mostly a lottery. Pardew ought to introduce fines for all the players who head the ball in midfield instead of playing it on the ground when there is time and space to do that. I thought that we we supposed to be better than that.

[VectisSaint]

Just watched the game on football league iplayer, the Millwall goal was an absolute mess, i think it was Wotton that missed the vital header and then Otsemebor completely switched off it seemed, terrible defending.

Not sure Wotton missed a vital header, but he should have been contesting the ball that Seaborne headed out, with whatever part of his body was most appropriate. But instead he was just dilly-dallying around. I note that Wes Tender also spotted this, but on another thread my comment about this was greeted with a response from a meathead of "utter bollix", glad some others have realsied. I'm not one normally to criticise Wotton, who comes in for stick unfairly, but in this particular case, he was largely (not completely) responsible for the goal.

[kpturner]

Not sure Wotton missed a vital header, but he should have been contesting the ball that Seaborne headed out, with whatever part of his body was most appropriate. But instead he was just dilly-dallying around. I note that Wes Tender also spotted this, but on another thread my comment about this was greeted with a response from a meathead of "utter bollix", glad some others have realsied. I'm not one normally to criticise Wotton, who comes in for stick unfairly, but in this particular case, he was largely (not completely) responsible for the goal.

LOL - so anyone who disagrees with your opinion (of which there are many on the thread in question) is a "meathead". Seaborne barely got his head to the ball and it spooned off diagonally to Trotter - and it is Wotton's fault for not standing where Trotter was?! Now you are trawling around trying to find any scraps that may indicate somebody agrees with your assessment. S_S thought Wotton was the one who messed up the header, and you are taking that as an agreement with your view on matters. Oh dear - sad or what? Edited 18 January, 2010 by kpturner

[humber]

You clearly didn't go to Saints vs Anderlecht, second leg of Cup Winners Cup quarter-final - 1977. Affected me more than any football match other than the Cup Final the previous year.

 

I went to the Anderlecht game it was hard but not as hard as the FA semi V everton

[kpturner]

I went to the Anderlecht game it was hard but not as hard as the FA semi V everton

I was older then. The Anderlecht game was probably my first real major gut-wrenching moment. There have been so many since I have probably gotten used to it, but The Everton semi was a killer it is true.

[Wes Tender]

LOL - so anyone who disagrees with your opinion (of which there are many on the thread in question) is a "meathead". Seaborne barely got his head to the ball and it spooned off diagonally to Trotter - and it is Wotton's fault for not standing where Trotter was?! Now you are trawling around trying to find any scraps that may indicate somebody agrees with your assessment. S_S thought Wotton was the one who messed up the header, and you are taking that as an agreement with your view on matters. Oh dear - sad or what?

 

Perhaps Vectis called that poster a meathead because of the erudite fashion that he expressed his opinion (not), rather than because he didn't agree with Vectis' opinion.

 

I had presumed that the conceded goal came because of an inability to defend the lead tactically, but when Chez pointed out how quickly it had happened, I studied the footage on the League show. IMO it was clear that when the header that Seabourne contested fell to Trotter, Wotton had time at the very least to close the gap between him and Trotter and therefore to cut off the angle for the shot as a minimum. Whether he might have had time to have tackled Trotter is debateable, but if he was at least more in his face, he could have either blocked the shot, or made it off target.

[kpturner]

Perhaps Vectis called that poster a meathead because of the erudite fashion that he expressed his opinion (not), rather than because he didn't agree with Vectis' opinion

is it any more erudite to call someone a clueless **** when the matter is discussed further then? Anyone getting upset over responses like that is in the wrong forum. I don't think there are many that haven't responded like that at some point. As for the wotton point in question, despite being a pointless debate, I (and many others) do not agree with you.

[kpturner]

They even closed the bloody tube station gates to the public just to walk us through. Anyone would think we were cardiff or pompey!! Abit over the top I thought.

Perhaps they do it for the protection of the away fans, not the other way around. That aside, once they have a policy for match days, you can't expect them to vary it depending on the reputation of the club in question. They have to decide on one policy and stick with it consistently.

[Lets B Avenue]

Perhaps they do it for the protection of the away fans, not the other way around. That aside, once they have a policy for match days, you can't expect them to vary it depending on the reputation of the club in question. They have to decide on one policy and stick with it consistently.

 

Agreed. It was no different 3 years ago, in the League Cup and there were less than half of Saturdays number there that night.

[kpturner]

Yes but when police refuse to let you out of Waterloo after the game and forced us onto a train back to Southampton even though we didn't have return tickets it is over the top. We went dressed to the game so we could meet a friend in Leicester Square and go out for the evening. We were basically pushed on the train and were told if we got off they would issue us with a section 27. We were not causing any trouble at all and it ruined our planned evening out.

That does sound OTT. Once we got off at London Bridge we saw no police at all. We were completely free to go wherever we wanted - it just so happens that we went to Waterloo East and then got on to the 18:05 to Weymouth, but we could just as easily got the tube to Leicester Square. Were you escorted from London Bridge to Waterloo East then?

[eelpie]

I'm puzzled about the police control over a small group of Saints supporters after the match. I was pretty quick to get out of the stadium and was near the front by the gates before the narrow passageway leading to the trains. Already, there were a small group of about 30 fanss corralled into a corner by the police including a child on someones' shoulders -(this pair surely couldn't have been involved in 'bovver'.) Were they caught up in a group that had left early intending to meet up with Millwall supporters? I don't know if there had been 'previous' before the match with the same group. But there was no trouble at all, and even a little humour between some fans and the police cordon. Despite the discomfort of everyone being packed in like sardines, we knew that we were being contained en masse until home supporters had left on the trains. It was quite well organised considering up to 1500 Saints fans were trapped in the tiniest of spaces between ground and station, and we had to wait a good 40 minutes. (I was mighty relieved to get to a loo at London Bridge though).

 

Then later at Waterloo the same seemingly small well-behaved but distinctly fed-up group, including child still on dad's shoulders, were corralled again by police at Waterloo.

So did this group have a previous history of trouble? Doesn't make sense otherwise. Why only them?

[rick1976.4.38]

i think the group coralled in are our normal mob you see at away games,most of the time just beerd up and having a laugh.couldnt understand why the old bill had the dad with the nipper on his shoulders kept back

[Wes Tender]

is it any more erudite to call someone a clueless **** when the matter is discussed further then? Anyone getting upset over responses like that is in the wrong forum. I don't think there are many that haven't responded like that at some point. As for the wotton point in question, despite being a pointless debate, I (and many others) do not agree with you.

 

Anybody who is not able to argue their corner without redress to insults, has probably lost the argument to begin with, as they diminish the opinion of others towards them.

 

If you disagree with the opinion of Vectis and me, then fine; it's a forum of opinions. You think that Wotton couldn't have done anything about it, whereas we believe that he was slow and should have closed down Trotter. Is it pointless debating whether we might have had an extra two points? Again, your opinion. Even the fact that many others saw it differently from us doesn't make them right and us wrong. Again, opinions differ on here about most things.

[kpturner]

Anybody who is not able to argue their corner without redress to insults, has probably lost the argument to begin with, as they diminish the opinion of others towards them.

Are you saying that that I won the argument because he had cause to stoop to insults then? :-D I, on the other hand, started low and worked my way up to reasoned debate without any further insults. I have the high ground surely ;-)

[Wes Tender]

Are you saying that that I won the argument because he had cause to stoop to insults then? :-D I, on the other hand, started low and worked my way up to reasoned debate without any further insults. I have the high ground surely ;-)

 

Well, I also stayed calm and reasoned and as I argue the same point as Vectis, I'm afraid that I must share the moral high ground with you and just accept that our opinions differ.

[kpturner]

Well, I also stayed calm and reasoned and as I argue the same point as Vectis, I'm afraid that I must share the moral high ground with you and just accept that our opinions differ.

Utter B o l l o x.........doh! Fallen off my perch

[Wes Tender]

Yes but when police refuse to let you out of Waterloo after the game and forced us onto a train back to Southampton even though we didn't have return tickets it is over the top. We went dressed to the game so we could meet a friend in Leicester Square and go out for the evening. We were basically pushed on the train and were told if we got off they would issue us with a section 27. We were not causing any trouble at all and it ruined our planned evening out.

 

I've just been reading up on this Section 27

 

http://www.urban75.org/football/football-section-27.html

 

and it seems like something that would have been imposed by the Gestapo. When used against people who are not causing any kind of problem, it is draconian and using this legislation in such a way is open to abuse by over-zealous officers. The site where I read about it, recommended that if somebody thought that they were being mistreated, they should demand to speak to a senior officer whilst still moving on. If I were in the position that I had made prior arrangements in town to meet somebody at Leicester Square, I'd have been pretty miffed with the Police if they attempted to corral me onto a train I did not wish to board for good reasons. This sort of episode severely oversteps Civil Liberties and somebody needs to take the Police to court or petition the Government to rescind it, if we hope to be considered a civilised society.

[Window Cleaner]

is it any more erudite to call someone a clueless **** when the matter is discussed further then? Anyone getting upset over responses like that is in the wrong forum. I don't think there are many that haven't responded like that at some point. As for the wotton point in question, despite being a pointless debate, I (and many others) do not agree with you.

 

Do you actually know what erudite means?

It means someone who knows a whole lot about a whole lot of things .

So how erudite and meathead can be coupled in the same phrase I just don't know.

 

Leave you all to your argument now.....

[kpturner]

Do you actually know what erudite means?

It means someone who knows a whole lot about a whole lot of things .

So how erudite and meathead can be coupled in the same phrase I just don't know.

 

Leave you all to your argument now.....

I think you quoted the wrong post, but thank you for making my point for me anyway :-)

[kpturner]

I'm puzzled about the police control over a small group of Saints supporters after the match. I was pretty quick to get out of the stadium and was near the front by the gates before the narrow passageway leading to the trains. Already, there were a small group of about 30 fanss corralled into a corner by the police including a child on someones' shoulders -(this pair surely couldn't have been involved in 'bovver'.) Were they caught up in a group that had left early intending to meet up with Millwall supporters? I don't know if there had been 'previous' before the match with the same group. But there was no trouble at all, and even a little humour between some fans and the police cordon. Despite the discomfort of everyone being packed in like sardines, we knew that we were being contained en masse until home supporters had left on the trains. It was quite well organised considering up to 1500 Saints fans were trapped in the tiniest of spaces between ground and station, and we had to wait a good 40 minutes. (I was mighty relieved to get to a loo at London Bridge though).

 

Then later at Waterloo the same seemingly small well-behaved but distinctly fed-up group, including child still on dad's shoulders, were corralled again by police at Waterloo.

So did this group have a previous history of trouble? Doesn't make sense otherwise. Why only them?

Sounds like complete bad luck for that group if you ask me. We were in the same group as you (or just behind you). When we came out of the ground we actually ended up moving to the left of the crowd and ended up near the guy with the kid on his shoulders. After a few tannoy announcements we then moved back to the right. When the gate was opened we were free to walk through up the alley way to the station (after a couple of scheduled stops by the police). If we had stayed put, we would have been trapped in the same "final" group that you are talking about. If the police were being selective about who they kept behind they were not doing it very well.