Saints 1 V 0 Bristol Rovers,post match sighs of relief..

[Saint Fan CaM]

We won - that's all that matters until the next game. My biggest fear is the number of players getting crocked by cynical fouls or from trying to go for a difficult ball. The tally is getting worse every game - we're fortunate our defence has not had too many injuries to this point.

 

Concerned that this weekend will see us slip back 1-2 places as I don't think Brighton will want to take their foot off the pedal now - there's some bad blood for some reason and they will want the win. The big test will come next Monday - how the players react and what kind of team Adkins can field. I am hoping Lallana has been rested for the Brighton match and that Morgan will be back to bolster the midfield either Saturday or the home game. I think Guly will partner Lambert with Connolly coming off the bench. We will draw at Brighton and win on Monday - will that be enough to stay 2nd? Who knows.

[Red and White Army]

I thought about this yesterday because of the dire central midfield, but came to a different conclusion. I would team Connolly up front with Guly and play Lallana and Forte wide. But in midfield I would replace the strolling Stephens with the strolling Lambert teamed with Hammond.

 

Lord save us from armchair managers. Another "fan" with a barely concealed anti-manager agenda..

 

Adkins is very orthodox and not at all innovative or original in his thinking

 

I am sure you were one of the muppets who consistently slagged Pardew off and now you're here with crackpot theories thinking you'll a better manager than Adkins... give it up already.

[Goalie66]

Lord save us from armchair managers. Another "fan" with a barely concealed anti-manager agenda..

 

 

 

I am sure you were one of the muppets who consistently slagged Pardew off and now you're here with crackpot theories thinking you'll a better manager than Adkins... give it up already.

 

All he did was make some observations and express some opinions. I did not interpret that he was anti Adkins but made some constructive criticisms. Adkins is cautious but he is winning games but does anyone think that our midfield dominates games ?

[St_Tel49]

All he did was make some observations and express some opinions. I did not interpret that he was anti Adkins but made some constructive criticisms. Adkins is cautious but he is winning games but does anyone think that our midfield dominates games ?

 

We don't but that is because we are missing a player that Derry thinks is useless.

[Wes Tender]

It looked as if it would be one of those days, where we huff and puff and get nothing because of missed half-chances. That type of game is exacerbated when the referee is poor and this one was as poor as they come, especially over the ridiculous card for the handball when the ball was going out. A succession of yellow cards from some non-entity trying to make a name for himself stopped the flow of play, so the game was played in fits and starts, several players afraid to make the full-blooded tackles that would have had the idiot in turquoise reaching for the red card.

 

And it must also be mentioned that their keeper played a blinder, making a string of superb saves from shots that most others at this level would have let in.

 

Noboby could reasonable moan at the lack of opportunity, that we were incapable of getting behind them. But they defended well, crowding their area whenever we pushed forward. We sorely missed Chamberlain for the direct play from his pace and Lallana for his defence splitting passes and trickery in the box. As a result, we didn't attack with pace, allowing Rovers to marshall their defence. Forte showed good pace, but as yet lacks the flair.

 

As others have observed, Lambert tends to sit back in midfield and although his passing from there has been excellent, I wonder why he isn't at the front to put away the goals alongside Barnard. Guly is a bit of a connundrum; He seems to have good ball skills sometimes and a poor touch at other times. He will do something brilliant to gain a real advantage, but then suffer from poor decision making with the final ball. This presents problems as to where he should be played to best advantage. But just when I thought it was time to get him off, he pops in a great goal to save our bacon and keep the pressure on Hudderfield and Posh, who also won.

 

But what is concerning, is the increasing number of injuries to key players that we are racking up at the most crucial time of the season. Barnard will be a big loss because of his industry and commitment. Without players like him, Lallana, Chamberlain, Schneiderlin, we begin to lack the quality and invention that has set us apart. I'm sure that we have players who give maximum effort and who have ability, but without as much flair.

 

One can only hope that there are players who will now come into the reckoning who have been patiently awaiting their chance, who will step up to the plate and take us over the line in second place. If we don't make it, I fear for our success in the lottery that is the play-offs.

[Nick65]

I must be one of the few people to be feeling more confident after this game than before it.

 

I thought we got steadily better as the game went on, despite Rovers obduracy, injuries, bizarre refereeing etc.

A really strong, gutsy team performance, with (as usual) Fonte being a cut above.

I thought Guly had a good game, but reckon his best position is maybe in 'the hole'. He has very good technique - great goal and unlucky not to score with that volley in the first half - and I don't think he's lazy either. He and Connolly could be very important for us in the next 3 weeks. Thought Stephens & Hammond were OK in midfield too. Will miss Barney and his work-rate, but Connolly is a class replacement.

Would like to think we can win 4 from the last 5 - reckon 3 wins and a draw could be enough. How great would a win at Brighton be though ...

[rallyboy]

sorry Nick, don't share your optimism for a change.

I fear the away games, more than I did before Saturday.

Orient was a battle, Rochdale and Rovers were not much better, the squad is getting battered and I hoped Huddersfield would crack by now.

 

Not normally one of the wrist-slitters but I have a bad feeling about the next seven days and I think we need MK Dons to do us a big favour.

I look forward to the physio and then the players proving those doubts to be unfounded.

Cheer me up Nige, produce two or three of the injured players fully recovered at the weekend.

 

And on a different issue, I saw the Rochdale manager post-defeat saying his players were exhausted after putting everything into the game on Tuesday.

Cheers guys, raise your game for us and then have a breather against other teams.

Nice.

That's what we have to put up with week in week out, it's not our arrogance, just small clubs in their cup finals.

[scotty]

sorry Nick, don't share your optimism for a change.

I fear the away games, more than I did before Saturday.

Orient was a battle, Rochdale and Rovers were not much better, the squad is getting battered and I hoped Huddersfield would crack by now.

 

Not normally one of the wrist-slitters but I have a bad feeling about the next seven days and I think we need MK Dons to do us a big favour.

I look forward to the physio and then the players proving those doubts to be unfounded.

Cheer me up Nige, produce two or three of the injured players fully recovered at the weekend.

 

And on a different issue, I saw the Rochdale manager post-defeat saying his players were exhausted after putting everything into the game on Tuesday.

Cheers guys, raise your game for us and then have a breather against other teams.

Nice.

That's what we have to put up with week in week out, it's not our arrogance, just small clubs in their cup finals.

 

Couple of good points there. The fact is, teams like rochdale do see us as a big scalp, and will throw everything at us, which is possibly one reason for our recent spate of injuries. There is nothing we can do about that, we will just have to cope with it.

 

And I have to say that I disagree about the feeling post-rovers, thats just exactly the kind of match I was expecting us to slip up on. Personally I'm feeling optimistic about the run-in, thought we looked good in the last batch of home games and think that will continue.

[West End Saint]

We got the 3 points that is what mattered kept going & trying to score eventually we wore them down there keeper was top class fantastic save from Guly's volley

 

DC came on & changed the game he could be very important with Barny getting injured he was very lively very clever with his movement & got his foot in

 

Another game done & 3 hard points earned onto Brighton we could do with getting something out of this game COYS

[Chez]

Lord save us from armchair managers. Another "fan" with a barely concealed anti-manager agenda..

 

He doesn't have an anti-manager agenda, he just likes to introduce some unorthodox thinking to the proceedings, albeit, in the case of Lambert in midfield, a somewhat ill thought out idea IMHO. Lambert is the slowest player in the side. To see him trying to go up and down the pitch for 90 minutes would be painful. Having said that Stephens could not have impressed me less so far.

[Chez]

I must be one of the few people to be feeling more confident after this game than before it.

 

I thought we got steadily better as the game went on, despite Rovers obduracy, injuries, bizarre refereeing etc.

A really strong, gutsy team performance, with (as usual) Fonte being a cut above.

I thought Guly had a good game, but reckon his best position is maybe in 'the hole'. He has very good technique - great goal and unlucky not to score with that volley in the first half - and I don't think he's lazy either. He and Connolly could be very important for us in the next 3 weeks. Thought Stephens & Hammond were OK in midfield too. Will miss Barney and his work-rate, but Connolly is a class replacement.

Would like to think we can win 4 from the last 5 - reckon 3 wins and a draw could be enough. How great would a win at Brighton be though ...

 

I agree with some of your points. I thought there was a period in the second half when we started to go long and looked a bit desperate, but that was only a short phase and it might have been Connelly coming on, it might not, but we recomposed ourselves and got it down and were extremely patient despite the groaning crowd. FFS when we play it backwards to keep possession that is actually a good thing. I'd much rather we went backwards and kept the ball than whack it long in hope. We did this to great effect and the continuous possession created pressure which eventually told. Over the last month or so we have been extremely professional. Maybe not playing great, but solid and trying to do the right things.

 

Guly was woeful in the first half. He does not look happy at right midfield (you are right ion the hole is his position - but Lambert plays there!). He doesn't know where to stand, where to move to, how much work to do. He is a liability defensively. I would say he was lazy. Look at how bad Butterfield played. How many times his passes were intercepted. The reason for that was the total lack of effort by Guly to make himself available. What he does have is quality at times and that's why Forte went off and not him and he will always have a goal up his sleeve.

 

I disagree with you also abut Stephens. OK is not the term I'd use to describe his first half display. Complete and utter **** would be more in line. Woeful, poor, not good enough are other phrases. He improved in the second, well he certainly made very few mistakes (unlike the first half) but he still didn't really grab the game and run it. Hammond had a decent game for me. Average them out and you get an OK I suppose!

 

Connelly is class, but can he shine as he did on Saturday for the whole 90 minutes. It's a lot easier to stand out when opponents are tired. Great to have him back. Really missed him and have been annoyed at the number of people on here giving him stick for being injured and devaluing how good he was last season.

[Pat from Poole]

I agree with some of your points. I thought there was a period in the second half when we started to go long and looked a bit desperate, but that was only a short phase and it might have been Connelly coming on, it might not, but we recomposed ourselves and got it down and were extremely patient despite the groaning crowd. FFS when we play it backwards to keep possession that is actually a good thing. I'd much rather we went backwards and kept the ball than whack it long in hope. We did this to great effect and the continuous possession created pressure which eventually told. Over the last month or so we have been extremely professional. Maybe not playing great, but solid and trying to do the right things.

 

Guly was woeful in the first half. He does not look happy at right midfield (you are right ion the hole is his position - but Lambert plays there!). He doesn't know where to stand, where to move to, how much work to do. He is a liability defensively. I would say he was lazy. Look at how bad Butterfield played. How many times his passes were intercepted. The reason for that was the total lack of effort by Guly to make himself available. What he does have is quality at times and that's why Forte went off and not him and he will always have a goal up his sleeve.

 

I disagree with you also abut Stephens. OK is not the term I'd use to describe his first half display. Complete and utter **** would be more in line. Woeful, poor, not good enough are other phrases. He improved in the second, well he certainly made very few mistakes (unlike the first half) but he still didn't really grab the game and run it. Hammond had a decent game for me. Average them out and you get an OK I suppose!

 

Connelly is class, but can he shine as he did on Saturday for the whole 90 minutes. It's a lot easier to stand out when opponents are tired. Great to have him back. Really missed him and have been annoyed at the number of people on here giving him stick for being injured and devaluing how good he was last season.

 

 

Agree with pretty much all of this, particularly Stephens. I'm probably being harsh, but he just doesn't look like he has much about him at all.

[um pahars]

Agree with pretty much all of this, particularly Stephens. I'm probably being harsh, but he just doesn't look like he has much about him at all.

 

I too thought he was poor (particularly the first half), but should we cut him some slack as (a) he's still settling in, and (b) he was part of a very makeshift midfield??????

 

Another point might be that I think we should have tried to get someone more established (and dare I say experienced) in the loan window once we knew Schneiderlin was out injured??? Obviously not the easiest time to get players and not sure who was available, but not sure Stephens was the player we needed at that point as I think we needed someone who could hit the ground running and impose themself.

[Wes Tender]

FFS when we play it backwards to keep possession that is actually a good thing. I'd much rather we went backwards and kept the ball than whack it long in hope. We did this to great effect and the continuous possession created pressure which eventually told. Over the last month or so we have been extremely professional. Maybe not playing great, but solid and trying to do the right things.

 

 

Yes, it is a good ploy to pass backwards in order to keep possession, rather than hoofing it upfield, but we often pass backwards because we have some players who lack the imagination to go forwards with the ball, or to make a telling forward pass. That is what was frustrating in the Rovers match, where it was essential that we picked up the three points and had found it hard to break down their defence for much of the match. So what won the match? A player with the ball at his feet attacking the defence and causing havoc in their box.

 

All too often when we are behind late in a game, we throw caution to the wind and get the ball into the box as quickly and as often as possible. Very often it produces results and scoring chances. So why should we be happy with the tippy tappy stroking the ball about, sideways, backwards, mostly all to no effect beyond keeping possession, when there is often space opening up in front of a player, or options to pass forwards out wide?

 

The possession figures might look impressive when we're passing the ball about and many teams are perfectly happy for us to run down the clock passing without penetration, but ultimately what counts more is the number of shots on target.

[Ampersound]

The racist in front of me wanted him taken off after two minutes.

 

Jam you must sit just behind me. Did he get a mouthful from me after Guly scored.

[Barry the Badger]

The possession figures might look impressive when we're passing the ball about and many teams are perfectly happy for us to run down the clock passing without penetration, but ultimately what counts more is the number of shots on target.

 

As far as I could tell the times we went backwards was because there was nothing on rather than because nobody was prepared to go forwards. I think you are being unrealistic and I don't think we did it too much.

 

You have to strike a balance, attack when its possible, but when it's not on be realistic, turn around, go back and start again rather than trying to force it.

 

If those who groan every time we do this had their way we would be panicking and desperately hoofing it into the box for the last half hour, because that's worked out well in the past hasn't it?

Edited 18 April, 2011 by Barry the Badger

[Wes Tender]

As far as I could tell the times we went backwards was because there was nothing on rather than because nobody was prepared to go forwards.

 

You have to strike a balance, attack when its possible, but when it's not on be realistic, turn around, go back and start again rather than trying to force it.

 

If those who groan every time we do this had their way we would be panicking and desperately hoofing it into the box for the last half hour, because that's worked out well in the past hasn't it?

 

Several times the last match I noted us passing sideways or back when the player could have advanced himself several yards towards their box. But then we were missing the players like Lallana, or Chamberlain, Schneiderlin etc who would have used pace or guile to progress the ball forwards. Instead, we had some players who either lacked the confidence or the imagination to be a bit more adventurous. Even hoofing the ball forward has its advantages once in a while, provided that the players are available with the positioning skill or the pace to run onto it.

 

We lack a midfield playmaker and in his absence, much of the midfield passing lacks penetration. With the injuries we currently have, I see it as much more of a problem than it has been earlier in the season.

[Wade Garrett]

Yes, it is a good ploy to pass backwards in order to keep possession, rather than hoofing it upfield, but we often pass backwards because we have some players who lack the imagination to go forwards with the ball, or to make a telling forward pass. That is what was frustrating in the Rovers match, where it was essential that we picked up the three points and had found it hard to break down their defence for much of the match. So what won the match? A player with the ball at his feet attacking the defence and causing havoc in their box.

 

All too often when we are behind late in a game, we throw caution to the wind and get the ball into the box as quickly and as often as possible. Very often it produces results and scoring chances. So why should we be happy with the tippy tappy stroking the ball about, sideways, backwards, mostly all to no effect beyond keeping possession, when there is often space opening up in front of a player, or options to pass forwards out wide?

 

The possession figures might look impressive when we're passing the ball about and many teams are perfectly happy for us to run down the clock passing without penetration, but ultimately what counts more is the number of shots on target.

 

I thought we created quite a few chances. Much better than the hit and hope we played in the last 15 minutes of games last season.

[Thedelldays]

I thought we created quite a few chances. Much better than the hit and hope we played in the last 15 minutes of games last season.

 

23 apparently

 

which was more than huddersfield and Posh combined in their games..

[NickG]

Fonte started the game partnering Radhi Jaidi in the centre of defence, but the Tunisian was substituted after just over half an hour with Dan Seaborne coming on to try and nullify the threat of Jo Kuffour.

 

Fonte had words of support for Jaidi.

 

“Because he’s (Kuffour) quick and he’s always on the shoulder, the manager decided we needed a little bit more pace and I think that’s why they took off Radhi, but he has been great for us,” he explained.

 

“It was just a tactical move.

 

 

 

Was Jaidi an injury? We looked better when Seaborne came on, changed our shape.

I would go for Dickson over Harding

Morgan - big loss

Lallana - we need him!

 

As others have said Connolly looked good when he came on, and remember Guly was keeping Barnard out playing as CF prior to his injury.

 

I like Harding, just think Dickson offers more.

 

When Jaidi went off, Seaborne played a lot wider, FBs pushing more forward. Left more of gap between CBs. Don't know if deliberate or just way different CBs play. Seaborne then carried the ball out a lot more meaning midfield pushed up.

 

Seaborne didnt play bad but saying that we looked better when seaborne came on is complete gash mate. What planet are you on? Jaid is a million times better than cborne.

 

We were just as poor for the rest of the first half as we were for the first 30 mins of it. Marginally better in the second, but not that had loads to do with Seabourne over Jaidi (who I reckon was injured and not tactical anyway).

 

Roger let me know if you want anymore post game analysis.

[um pahars]

Fonte started the game partnering Radhi Jaidi in the centre of defence, but the Tunisian was substituted after just over half an hour with Dan Seaborne coming on to try and nullify the threat of Jo Kuffour.

 

Fonte had words of support for Jaidi.

 

“Because he’s (Kuffour) quick and he’s always on the shoulder, the manager decided we needed a little bit more pace and I think that’s why they took off Radhi, but he has been great for us,” he explained.

 

“It was just a tactical move.

 

Roger let me know if you want anymore post game analysis.

 

 

Fonte's take is interesting as the Official Site match report has Jaidi down as succumbing to an injury and having to go off. If it was tactical then not overly impressed with Adkins having to change the side and format half an hour in (and using up a sub) as Kuffour is a regular for Rovers and we should have known about his pace and guile beforehand.

 

That said, what is wrong with Roger's and my view that we didn't look any better after the change?? Personally, I saw nothing that would suggest the change improved us, but you're more than welcome to your view that we did improve.

 

Football is all about opinions, it's what makes it so special and intriguing, so not sure why you're trying to play the I'm right, you're wrong card.

[toofarnorth]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13123644.stm

 

Interesting report from Graeme Murty on late kick off.

[NickG]

um, it was more Roger's comments about what planet you are on etc that was wrong.

 

I noticed and commented on a tactical change which helped. Roger missed it and got arsey but hey never mind we won.