Pitch Fixing

[Saint Billy]

Firstly, am not blaming the pitch on our woeful display saturday.

 

I noticed very quickly into the game that the pitch was cutting up badly, then a few saints players started losing their footing. I then watched the game again yesterday and noticed that a few of saints passes were running short.

 

It is obvious that the pitch was prepared in such a way that made it difficult for us to play our natural game.

 

Now I am sure most teams including us will do this but in my eyes it is a form of cheating, I thought the game was meant to be played on a level playing field.

 

Your thoughts!

[Colinjb]

Considering that Blackpool won the game thanks to consistently quick counter attacks and quick ball movement I think the condition of the pitch is an excuse.

 

We didn't turn up, plain and simple. Also it's easy to forget that Blackpool nearly beat us at St Mary's in December, they are a genuinely good team who have managed to get their tactics right against us.

 

As for cheating, we did exactly the same against Man Utd at St Mary's in 2003, it worked a treat that day.

Edited 2 April, 2012 by Colinjb

[notnowcato]

We prepare an immaculate pitch... would this not suit our needs?

 

I've no problem with a team preparing the pitch as they see fit as long as it does not increase the risk of injury.

[Didcot Saint]

Personally i only watched on TV but the pitch looked shocking. It looked rock hard and bobbly, the balling bouncing awkwardly most of the time and greasy on top.

Same for both sides i know but SMS is 100% better than that hence why we are so good at home, and will suit our football better next season if we go up, as PL pitches are mostly superb.

Still was a shocking display though.

[SaintNeil90]

I believe we water the surface of ours to increase the speed of the ball because it suits our play. Its not cheating, its just the advantage of being at home.

[Dimond Geezer]

I don't see a problem with a pitch being prepared to the home sides advantage, just a I didn't see a problem with the ball boys at Reading (I think), slowing down or speeding up the ball returns as they saw approrriatte, or tucking the away fans up in a distant corner of the stadium.

That's what home advantage is all about.

[alpine_saint]

Firstly, am not blaming the pitch on our woeful display saturday.

 

I noticed very quickly into the game that the pitch was cutting up badly, then a few saints players started losing their footing. I then watched the game again yesterday and noticed that a few of saints passes were running short.

 

It is obvious that the pitch was prepared in such a way that made it difficult for us to play our natural game.

 

Now I am sure most teams including us will do this but in my eyes it is a form of cheating, I thought the game was meant to be played on a level playing field.

 

Your thoughts!

 

Didnt affect the team so badly against Hull.

[FarehamRed]

Considering that Blackpool won the game thanks to consistently quick counter attacks and quick ball movement I think the condition of the pitch is an excuse.

 

That's not how they won. They scored three goals;

the first was a dodgy penalty

the second was poor defending

the third was frm a corner (which shuldn't have been given) when Jos went walkabout leaving their player unmarked.

 

I'm not saying they didn't deserve to win - they did - but it was down to our poor defending rather than Barca-like attacking play.

[Sour Mash]

Firstly, am not blaming the pitch on our woeful display saturday.

 

I noticed very quickly into the game that the pitch was cutting up badly, then a few saints players started losing their footing. I then watched the game again yesterday and noticed that a few of saints passes were running short.

 

It is obvious that the pitch was prepared in such a way that made it difficult for us to play our natural game.

 

Now I am sure most teams including us will do this but in my eyes it is a form of cheating, I thought the game was meant to be played on a level playing field.

 

Your thoughts!

Pointless excuse. Blackpool played it on the ground enough without too many problems. Pitch didn't look all that bad. What is our natural game that we weren't able to play because of the pitch?

[This Charming Man]

Firstly, am not blaming the pitch on our woeful display saturday.

 

I noticed very quickly into the game that the pitch was cutting up badly, then a few saints players started losing their footing. I then watched the game again yesterday and noticed that a few of saints passes were running short.

 

It is obvious that the pitch was prepared in such a way that made it difficult for us to play our natural game.

 

Now I am sure most teams including us will do this but in my eyes it is a form of cheating, I thought the game was meant to be played on a level playing field.

 

Your thoughts!

 

It's called home advantage. Just like if we soak the pitch at SMS before a game, the away team don't get a say in what they want.

[Window Cleaner]

Pointless excuse. Blackpool played it on the ground enough without too many problems. Pitch didn't look all that bad. What is our natural game that we weren't able to play because of the pitch?

 

Don't know but we seem to be hoofing a bit more every game now, Fox is the principal culprit.Whether that's a tactical thing decided by Nigel and his coaches or not I couldn't begin to guess.Perhaps we have more than one player playing on through some sort of knock or niggle and hoofing helps on that front.

[Saint Billy]

Guys, some of you are missing the point.

 

We would have lost that game regardless of the pitch, see my scathing comments after the game. I am talking about football in general and not making excuses for saints................................Jeez.

 

My point is, and I know saints do it as well, preparing pitches either to enhance your own game or to make life difficult for the opposition somehow does not sit right with me.

 

Boxers have to use identical gloves so that an advantage cannot be gained other than their boxing skills. Athletes cannot take drug enhancers for the same reason and so on.

[Window Cleaner]

Pitch fixing or not it must be pretty clear to all opposition managers and tacticians by now that nippy wingers will probably undo us.

Bristol City with Adomah,Doncaster last week with Diouf playing wide, that lad at Millwall and many more .Our full backs can't defend and Jos is way way too slow to cover on his side at least.It's not about the pitch it's about our full backs.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's called home advantage. Just like if we soak the pitch at SMS before a game, the away team don't get a say in what they want.

 

This, home advantage, just like choosing the size of the pitch.

[Big_Bald_Si]

I believe we water the surface of ours to increase the speed of the ball because it suits our play. Its not cheating, its just the advantage of being at home.

 

This.

 

There's also a range of dimensions you're allowed to work within in setting how long and wide the pitch is. You can also use this to your advantage depending on your game - a wider pitch would suit teams with wingers etc.

 

Fair play to Blackpool, sadly.

[saintant]

To say we water our pitch to gain an advantage is rubbish. Does anyone seriously think we only water it on match days? I'm sure the sprinklers are on every day during dry spells. Our pitch is a credit to the groundstaff and gives equal opportunity to both sides to play proper football. The point about Blackpool's pich is that it had clearly been grossly overwatered up the centre yet the flanks were fine. Whilst there are no laws within the game to prevent this I don't think it is in the spirit of the game. All clubs should be responsible for providing a good playing surface and it's time referees were given the power to report clubs suspected of doctoring the pitch. That's not to say Blackpool didn't deserve their win because clearly they were the better side thanks to them having two quality wingers playing down the only decent areas of a shocking pitch.

[Mowgli]

NA has said himself that we water the pitch to get a bit of zip on the ball just before kick off. he has also commented on other clubs doing it which 'suits our style of play'. Champions can play on all sorts of pitches though. Not that we were ever Champions but Saints of the 60's and early 70's always seemed to have the advantage when the pitches got really heavy during the winter months. The classier sides like Liverpool seemed to struggle more. Of course Derby County rarely played on grass.....

[CB Saint]

We lost because we, not the pitch, was sh1te.

[The9]

This.

 

There's also a range of dimensions you're allowed to work within in setting how long and wide the pitch is. You can also use this to your advantage depending on your game - a wider pitch would suit teams with wingers etc.

 

Fair play to Blackpool, sadly.

 

You do have to set those at the start of the competition and not change them for matches in that competition though. Not quite the same as carving up the pitch before kick off to ensure it's bobbly as a one-off, for instance.

 

Blackpool weren't playing a short passing game, they were shifting it quickly to their wingers and running at us before crossing it (usually a cut back). A lot easier to do that on a pitch that's bobbly in the middle - as the ball's not in the middle for long. Can't really complain about that though, we were poor all over the place, and lost more due to bad defending than anything else.

 

I'm mostly annoyed that we went into a game knowing Ince and Phillips were on good form and had Butterfield and Fox defending against them - well, Butterfield at least did some defending, Fox was doing his usual thing of getting the wrong side and forcing the centre back to cover. As for "whack it up to Sharp"... we should have had a man over in the middle of the park but never passed it in there.

Edited 2 April, 2012 by The9

[Window Cleaner]

N Not that we were ever Champions but Saints of the 60's and early 70's always seemed to have the advantage when the pitches got really heavy during the winter months. The classier sides like Liverpool seemed to struggle more. Of course Derby County rarely played on grass.....

 

 

Ooh là, we were good in winter because we could catch them to kick them.Our sides of the 60s and 70s were pretty rugged.

That's why Shankly called us an ale house team.

[Colinjb]

That's not how they won. They scored three goals; the first was a dodgy penaltythe second was poor defendingthe third was frm a corner (which shuldn't have been given) when Jos went walkabout leaving their player unmarked. I'm not saying they didn't deserve to win - they did - but it was down to our poor defending rather than Barca-like attacking play.

The goals didn't really credit Blackpool's attacking play. Quick passing to the wings where they carried the ball forward. If the pitch was that bad it would have worked against them.

[Dimond Geezer]

To say we water our pitch to gain an advantage is rubbish. Does anyone seriously think we only water it on match days? I'm sure the sprinklers are on every day during dry spells. Our pitch is a credit to the groundstaff and gives equal opportunity to both sides to play proper football. The point about Blackpool's pich is that it had clearly been grossly overwatered up the centre yet the flanks were fine. Whilst there are no laws within the game to prevent this I don't think it is in the spirit of the game. All clubs should be responsible for providing a good playing surface and it's time referees were given the power to report clubs suspected of doctoring the pitch. That's not to say Blackpool didn't deserve their win because clearly they were the better side thanks to them having two quality wingers playing down the only decent areas of a shocking pitch.

 

Of course we water the pitch to gain an advantage, why else do the sprinklers come at about 10 minutes before kick-off, when there are still people milling around or warming-up, when it would be feasible to do a routine watering in the morning, or after the match when there is no-one on the pitch?

[Window Cleaner]

The goals didn't really credit Blackpool's attacking play. Quick passing to the wings where they carried the ball forward. If the pitch was that bad it would have worked against them.

 

Not if it wasn't so bad on the wings,we don't play there,well not in their half anyway:smug:

[The9]

The goals didn't really credit Blackpool's attacking play. Quick passing to the wings where they carried the ball forward. If the pitch was that bad it would have worked against them.

 

You don't need a decent pitch to play a ball into space and knock it past a defender, the odd bobble actually helps with that sometimes as it lures them in. Having said that, the pitch didn't seem as bad out wide.

 

The real issue with the wings was that Lallana was operating in the same area of the pitch (at least to begin with) and barely got the ball out there to go at them in return. De Ridder and Guly seemed to be having loads of problems overrunning the ball, De Ridder in the same bit of pitch that Ince wasn't having any problems with. Anyone there know if they dug that wing up at half time ?

[The9]

Of course we water the pitch to gain an advantage, why else do the sprinklers come at about 10 minutes before kick-off, when there are still people milling around or warming-up, when it would be feasible to do a routine watering in the morning, or after the match when there is no-one on the pitch?

 

Quite. It's when only one half of the pitch is being watered that it's particularly dubious though. As a basic rule attackers benefit from a damp pitch as the ball moves more quickly and defenders suffer from it because they prefer the play to be slower and predictable so they can organise themselves.

 

None of this explains the 2nd goal though, Hooiveld lost a routine-looking header 50 yards from goal in an area where maybe Fox should be attacking it, Kelvin drops off the flick-on instead of coming out and probably clearing, Fonte's starting position was a couple of yards off and he can't get there, the striker hits it the only time he can, the only place he can, and scores. Even so, far too easy - and if anything the bumpy pitch was against the striker there.

[Window Cleaner]

You don't need a decent pitch to play a ball into space and knock it past a defender, the odd bobble actually helps with that sometimes as it lures them in. Having said that, the pitch didn't seem as bad out wide.

 

The real issue with the wings was that Lallana was operating in the same area of the pitch (at least to begin with) and barely got the ball out there to go at them in return. De Ridder and Guly seemed to be having loads of problems overrunning the ball, De Ridder in the same bit of pitch that Ince wasn't having any problems with. Anyone there know if they dug that wing up at half time ?

 

 

If only we still had Ox or a reasonable replacement for him,we could tell if the wings were utilisable or not.

12 million £ and we get De Ridder instead, yeah total logic.

[The9]

If only we still had Ox or a reasonable replacement for him,we could tell if the wings were utilisable or not.

12 million £ and we get De Ridder instead, yeah total logic.

 

I think De Ridder still has the potential to achieve something, but he's not going to do it by running past the ball all the time and losing the ball to divots. Also seemed to have 2 on him a lot of the time, not surprising given the natural positions in a 4-3-3, but we didn't seem to get anything going no matter what the formation was.

[Maggie May]

We were never going to beat Blackpool on their turf. It's not about the pitch being a bit rubbish or the players not turning up, it was a predetermined astral event. It was written in the stars (a million miles away).

[Norm]

We were never going to beat Blackpool on their turf. It's not about the pitch being a bit rubbish or the players not turning up, it was a predetermined astral event. It was written in the stars (a million miles away).

 

Of course it was! I read it in Playboy that we would not win.

 

Or was it the Eagle?

[Thedelldays]

we will struggle against reading too

the double up on the wings more so than blackpool...

[Lord Duckhunter]

We dont seem to defend as a unit. Most sides revert to 2 banks of 4 when the opposition have the ball, but we seem to leave our full backs too exposed. I thought having Chaplow play would help us with this, but he seems to charge around like a headless chicken, trying to win the ball and getting pulled out of position. If you look at the game Saturday, Blackpool let us have the ball in our half, hense the possesion statistics, but closed us down as a unit, once we got into their half. Sometimes our midfield go and try to win the ball off the Full backs or centre halves and leave too big a gap behind them.

[eurosaint]

Their pitch was krap !

Their pen never was !

Their corner for the 3rd never was !

All valid points BUT......

We were sh#t and have nobody else to blame but ourselves !

Thankfully Nigel also saw it that way, blue line drawn, lessons learnt and we move on to the 'big one' on Saturday !

COYS

[Saint_DB]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you can draw a comparison with cricket, where I think it's allowable to grow a wicket which is advantageous towards a particular style of play (batting pitches and bowling pitches, etc) but only up to a certain point. After that point, if it is too hard, too soft or too green the wicket becomes 'poor' and to a degree unsafe which is when teams get docked points for it. Isn't that what happens in football as well?

 

Personally I think it's a perfectly legitimate tactic as long as you stay within what is safe.

[sadoldgit]

The pitch was the same for both sides. The first ball was out of shape but that was soon changed. We lost because we were out thought by the manager and outplayed on the pitch. We struggle against pace on the wings andHolloway knows that. The team were poor but I am particulalry worried by Sharp. He is either unfit ot not good enough for this level.

[The9]

We dont seem to defend as a unit. Most sides revert to 2 banks of 4 when the opposition have the ball, but we seem to leave our full backs too exposed. I thought having Chaplow play would help us with this, but he seems to charge around like a headless chicken, trying to win the ball and getting pulled out of position. If you look at the game Saturday, Blackpool let us have the ball in our half, hense the possesion statistics, but closed us down as a unit, once we got into their half. Sometimes our midfield go and try to win the ball off the Full backs or centre halves and leave too big a gap behind them.

 

They're not "exposed", they're usually on the half way line attacking.