Team playing well under Pochettino: MYTH

[tajjuk]

Quite simply apart from the odd game here and there where we have been a bit flat (but still played ok) performances in most games have been good throughout the season (WBA away is an exception). Many performances haven't got the points they deserved (Man Utd h/a, Wigan away, Everton home, Norwich home, Arsenal home etc.)

 

Even when battered 4-1 by West Ham, performance wise we played fairly well. We've thoroughly outplayed a poor Wigan team twice but have just one point against them.

 

Essentially two things have been clear to me ALL season, under BOTH managers:-

 

1. Our defenders make too many mistakes.

 

Our best back 5 is Boruc, Clyne, Fonte, Yoshida, Shaw and even these are making mistakes (but generally have improved as the season has gone on).

 

When one of Fox, Hooiveld, Davis, Gazzaniga has been introduced we make more mistakes, we concede more goals and the other defenders appear more nervous.

 

2. Without Lallana or Ramirez we struggle to create against teams that set out to defend deep.

 

Our midfield is 'workman' like without them and whilst Lambert is a legend his lack of pace and movement is a hinderance at times.

[Turkish]

It´s only relevant if it can be related to real life, your question can´t.

 

And even if so, I´m not the only one good at avoiding the question/s, am I?

 

And no, I am not talking about "shots per game ratio". I am looking at every single game as it´s own game. And in every game under MP we have been the more producing team. And I have said it has not given us the results yet, but I believe that in the long run it will, cause it usually does that. Why would you otherwise think the top teams are there year after year if they weren´t producing more than their opponents?

 

And results weren´t that much better under Adkins. 22 points from 23 games compared to 5 points from 6 games. Not that big a difference, is it?

 

Of course it can be, would could average 6 shots at goal a game and score 6 goals or we could average 20 shots and never score. What's more important how many shots we have or how many game we win? Does having more shots at goal make you a better team or is it how many games you win?

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

And results weren´t that much better under Adkins. 22 points from 23 games compared to 5 points from 6 games. Not that big a difference, is it?

 

I would suggest that performances are also very similar, should have won and chucked it away Wigan-Stoke, played really well second half but got nowt, Man Utd-Spurs, played well and won, Villa-Man City, got a draw when we should have won Norwich-Everton, and played shiete and lost a winnable game Sunderland-QPR.

 

Seeing as it's the same players, it's not really a surprise.

 

Some people need to get a grip, good job the internet wasn't around when Lawrie took over from Ted.

[Crazy Diamond]

 

2. Without Lallana or Ramirez we struggle to create against teams that set out to defend deep.

 

Our midfield is 'workman' like without them and whilst Lambert is a legend his lack of pace and movement is a hinderance at times.

 

Yet listening to many on here, we struggle WITH them, Ramirez in particular.

 

A lot of people sing the praises of Lallana, but he's far from the finished article. He still does the odd thing that frustrates me, I have to say.

[rpb]

I would suggest that performances are also very similar, should have won and chucked it away Wigan-Stoke, played really well second half but got nowt, Man Utd-Spurs, played well and won, Villa-Man City, got a draw when we should have won Norwich-Everton, and played shiete and lost a winnable game Sunderland-QPR.

 

Seeing as it's the same players, it's not really a surprise.

 

Some people need to get a grip, good job the internet wasn't around when Lawrie took over from Ted.

 

I keep thinking of when we beat United 6 - 3 only to lose to Everton 0 - 7 a week or so later - some of the posters would have been so confused.

[tajjuk]

Yet listening to many on here, we struggle WITH them, Ramirez in particular.

 

A lot of people sing the praises of Lallana, but he's far from the finished article. He still does the odd thing that frustrates me, I have to say.

 

They are both young attacking mids trying to create goals they are going to be frustrating at times. If they were much more successful they would be playing for Utd or Chelsea.

 

Ramirez on Saturday produced a lot of the 'pass before the key pass' type moments, he links the midfield and the more forward players very well and with a quick one touch passes or good movement he creates the space that leads to decent attacks. It's why he's wasted out wide.

 

I also don't think anyone else on our team would have scored that goal, yeh it was a rebound but Cesar actually got out well to cover his mistake, I rekcon most of our attackers would have just sidefooted it at him.

 

I can see the argument against both of them not being good enough defensively, but in home games against poor teams that will sit deep they are our best chances of creating chances and scoring IMO.

[Olallana]

Of course it can be, would could average 6 shots at goal a game and score 6 goals or we could average 20 shots and never score. What's more important how many shots we have or how many game we win? Does having more shots at goal make you a better team or is it how many games you win?

 

If one only could get what one wishes all the time.....hmm I think I want to win the lottery this weekend then....

 

I´m probably talking about a picture too big for you since I have to put myself on repeat all the time.

In the long run, which teams win most games?

The one that produces more chances than their opponents, or the ones that don´t?

[Bucks Saint]

If one only could get what one wishes all the time.....hmm I think I want to win the lottery this weekend then....

 

I´m probably talking about a picture too big for you since I have to put myself on repeat all the time.

In the long run, which teams win most games?

The one that produces more chances than their opponents, or the ones that don´t?

 

Can you define how long the long run is please? Is it before the end of this season?

[Turkish]

If one only could get what one wishes all the time.....hmm I think I want to win the lottery this weekend then....

 

I´m probably talking about a picture too big for you since I have to put myself on repeat all the time.

In the long run, which teams win most games?

The one that produces more chances than their opponents, or the ones that don´t?

 

It's quite simple but given your posting history I'm not surprised you don't understand. You claim we are playing 'much better' and quite shots at goal as evidence to support this, I'm saying that this is not nessasairly true and use more amount of points to gained from the same amount of fixtures. Does a team playing 'much better' have more shots at goal or gets more points? Interesting you seem to be claiming that having more shots at goal than Wigan and not winning equates to us being a better team in the future, brilliant bigger picture logic it seems only you canundertand.

Edited 4 March, 2013 by Turkish

[dubai_phil]

Two disappointing results in that mix

 

Were 2 of the games that Fox started

 

Assuming that many are arguing City did not turn up = having Fox was not an issue.

 

Answer to OP.

 

Judgement reserved until I have seen a fit Shaw & Fonte play a full 90 mins with Clyne & Yoshida

[Dig Dig]

Hard to say his points haul hasn't been very poor so far. One great result can't hide it.

 

But it's daft changing a good manager in January isn't it. I have zero idea if MP is any good, it's just about staying up and finding out next season. I think we'd have stayed up under NA, I think we'll stay up under MP but it's looking like they might make hard work of it and given the quality they've shown is there, that's frustrating.

 

I think we would have made hard work of it under Adkins as well. Agree though that if NC wanted MP, do it in the summer, either last summer or this summer

[Matthew Le God]

Saints had 17 shots to QPR's 5 on Saturday. So clearly something was working for them, if not scoring.

 

Yes, Saints weren't great, but they still largely dominated the game on Saturday and it was far from as bad as many on here are making out.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I am a responable guy and some say too generous. I dont expect dominance for 90 minutes and have judged our performances fairly above (50/50 so far Good/bad)

 

This is just a response to the SWF "experts" who claim that we have been "superb" since Pinocchio arrived.

 

Is this a large number of people, or is it the Turkish/110% school of everyone (one or two people) are saying this, blah blah blah?

 

I haven't really been on here since QPR, A) as I cannae be bothered with the usually knee jerking that was bound to occur and B) I was busy.

[Olallana]

It's quite simple but given your posting history I'm not surprised you don't understand. You claim we are playing 'much better' and quite shots at goal as evidence to support this, I'm saying that this is not nessasairly true and use more amount of points to gained from the same amount of fixtures. Does a team playing 'much better' have more shots at goal or gets more points? Interesting you seem to be claiming that having more shots at goal than Wigan and not winning equates to us being a better team in the future, brilliant bigger picture logic it seems only you canundertand.

 

 

Yes, english is my third language so I have to congratulate you to being able to understand that one better than me, hats off to you Sir.

 

I think producing more shots at goal than your opponents over a longer period of time will give you more success, and therefore you would be a better team. Not rocket science to me at least.

There is normally not a very big difference of "shots per goal ratio" if you look at a longer period of time. Therefore it is simpel mathematics that the more shots you produce, the more likely you will get more goals. And more likely through getting more goals, you will get more wins.

Dont you agree?

 

And all your logics you build on the single games or season. You claim Reading had lower shot per game ratio last year and because of that my theory would be wrong.

And now you take one example of Wigan.......you really want to build your theories on the odd occassions or should we build it on the bigger picture?

Yet again, why do you think Man U, Man C, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs are successful year after year.....because they produce more or fewer chances?

[Junior Mullet]

On Saturday the full-backs were allowed to bomb on and leave Yoshi and Jose exposed to swift counter attacks. This is how we began the season under Adkins. Adkins and the coaches IMO worked wonders turning our defence into one of the Prem's meanest. This in part was due to the full-backs staying deeper and giving us a proper back four. Saturday was particularly disheartening because it looks like the good work has been undone.

 

Saturday was also the highest I've seen our attacking 3 and 1 play when we are in attack. They weren't coming deep and giving options. The outcome was we resorted to lumping it forward which was meat and drink to QPR.

 

Also worrying was the team's apparent reluctance to chage tactics when it was obvious we were getting nowhere. MP was tactically outclassed by Harry on Saturday and that's poor I'm afraid.

 

If this emerging style of play is the way MP is going to play between now and the end of the season I think we will go down.

[Bucks Saint]

Yes, english is my third language so I have to congratulate you to being able to understand that one better than me, hats off to you Sir.

 

I think producing more shots at goal than your opponents over a longer period of time will give you more success, and therefore you would be a better team. Not rocket science to me at least.

There is normally not a very big difference of "shots per goal ratio" if you look at a longer period of time. Therefore it is simpel mathematics that the more shots you produce, the more likely you will get more goals. And more likely through getting more goals, you will get more wins.

Dont you agree?

 

And all your logics you build on the single games or season. You claim Reading had lower shot per game ratio last year and because of that my theory would be wrong.

And now you take one example of Wigan.......you really want to build your theories on the odd occassions or should we build it on the bigger picture?

Yet again, why do you think Man U, Man C, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs are successful year after year.....because they produce more or fewer chances?

 

Again, how long is this longer period of time please? Will it be much before the end of the season? We need some points in the meantime you see

[Turkish]

Yes, english is my third language so I have to congratulate you to being able to understand that one better than me, hats off to you Sir.

 

I think producing more shots at goal than your opponents over a longer period of time will give you more success, and therefore you would be a better team. Not rocket science to me at least.

There is normally not a very big difference of "shots per goal ratio" if you look at a longer period of time. Therefore it is simpel mathematics that the more shots you produce, the more likely you will get more goals. And more likely through getting more goals, you will get more wins.

Dont you agree?

 

And all your logics you build on the single games or season. You claim Reading had lower shot per game ratio last year and because of that my theory would be wrong.

And now you take one example of Wigan.......you really want to build your theories on the odd occassions or should we build it on the bigger picture?

Yet again, why do you think Man U, Man C, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs are successful year after year.....because they produce more or fewer chances?

 

Anyone that was at the game will know that despite us having 20 odd shots at goal we only really tested their keeper on 3 or 4 occasions. So shots on target are irrelevant if none of them threaten to go in. You could get one of the half time relay people to take pot shots at goal for 90 minutes, would that make us a better team?

[Whitey Grandad]

Playing well is irrelevant. All that matters are points won.

[simo]

So sre you going on record to say we have been playing badly ?

[Glasgow_Saint]

So sre you going on record to say we have been playing badly ?

 

50% of the time yes.

 

P6 W1 D2 L3 here (win rate of 16%)

 

Some say the next bit is irrelevant (not me)

 

Include Pinicchios last 12 games at Espanyol and his recent record is

 

P18 W1 D4 L13

 

* Has anyone noticed how quickly Espanyol improved (perfomances and results) since Tino left them?

Edited 4 March, 2013 by Glasgow_Saint

[Dig Dig]

Who knows, I think the performances would have been there, results could have been better but I don't think they'd have been worse overall. Fine lines though, if we'd beaten QPR it would look like a pretty good start for MP, and it's daft to have an opinion that could swing on the basis of one result. I'm reluctant to comment on his abilities this season really.

 

Yes I agree. Either way, we've never looked like pulling away from the relegation scrap all season, Adkins or no Adkins

[Turkish]

Yes I agree. Either way, we've never looked like pulling away from the relegation scrap all season, Adkins or no Adkins

 

Two weeks ago we were going to finish 10th.

[CB Fry]

Two weeks ago we were going to finish 10th.

 

With the information available at that time, that was the only reasonable prediction anyone could have made.

 

The fact that we are not currently tenth does not mean said prediction was wrong. On the contrary it was the only correct prediction. Everyone else was, and still is, wrong. And have sad lives or something.

[hasper57saint]

It's impossible to 'plan' against inferior refereeing eg.Manure,Newcastle,Wigan and QPR. It is patently obvious that we would get nothing against QPR with Webb (he still owes us for the first Man City game) Next week against 'Narch' we have Clattenberg. Another non-friend. We have to be able to play against the twelf man and to date we haven't bunged them enough!!!!

[adrian lord]

I would be interested to know what team morale is like now after several weeks of MP's double training and team talks through an interpreter.

 

Newcastle and Saturday's no-show v QPR make me worried that they are missing the kindly Adkins.

[Turkish]

It's impossible to 'plan' against inferior refereeing eg.Manure,Newcastle,Wigan and QPR. It is patently obvious that we would get nothing against QPR with Webb (he still owes us for the first Man City game) Next week against 'Narch' we have Clattenberg. Another non-friend. We have to be able to play against the twelf man and to date we haven't bunged them enough!!!!

 

Are you for real? What on earth did Webb do wrong on Saturday? How was the ref to blame for Man U & Wigan?

[Dig Dig]

Two weeks ago we were going to finish 10th.

 

We'd need to win 3 or 4 in a row to even have half a chance. Considering that we've won 6 games all season, I'm not sure what people expect. We have some good players but a weak squad and are 16th on merit.

[110_Persaint]

We'd need to win 3 or 4 in a row to even have half a chance. Considering that we've won 6 games all season, I'm not sure what people expect. We have some good players but a weak squad and are 16th on merit.

Weaker manager than squad though.

[CaneNero]

Heard this alot since the QPR nightmare - few selected quotes below since Saturday........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Got me thinking have we really been "brilliant" "excellent" World class" "Technical genuis" ect ect

 

1) Everton game we looked good for first 60 minutes

2) United away - shocking in 1st half, good 2nd

3) Wigan same as Man united very poor in 1st 45 good for 2nd half

4) Man City good for 90

5) Newcastle again good for 40 (1st 20 minutes of each half) poor for 50

6) QPR very poor for 90 minutes

 

So imho we have played well for 280 minutes under Tino and been poor for 260. or 50/50

So we have been good for the 90 minutes only once, we have won one game in 6 and we are not in a real relegation battle.

 

 

The myth that we have been "superb" since Tino arrived is now dead.

 

Hello? We are certainly in the relegation battle mate!

[Dig Dig]

Weaker manager than squad though.

 

I don't think so, two managers who are no mugs IMO have got similar performances out of this group of players. Which manager would you say would be a good fit for us if you don't rate MP?

[Bucks Saint]

Has Olallana got concussion like Lallana? Seems unable to answer simple questions about his "shots at goal is all we need to worry about to progress" theory

[Glasgow_Saint]

Hello? We are certainly in the relegation battle mate!

 

Good spot dude, i have edited my post. Thank you

[Wildgoose]

undoubtabally our best result under Mopo was home against City..

On the day Mancini decided to play a midfielder in central defence instead of Kompany

On the day Gareth Barry scored the most outragious own goal and Englands best keeper makes a right ricket and drops the ball at S. Davis feet.

Yes we played well, they let us, in fact they encouraged us..

we got very lucky that day

 

I have an almost totally different perspective on this. I thought we played very well that night, and yes they made errors, but rather than City letting us play well, I would say we forced them into making those errors because of the pressure we put on them. To coin a phrase from Dad's Army, "They don't like it up 'em"

 

Back to the main subject, it does seem strange to me that when we win or play well people (mainly the media, granted) often put it down to the opposition having a bad day rather than us playing well.....and when we lose its because we played badly rather then the opposition playing well......It looks and sounds to me as if we have played quite well in most of the games without getting the results we need. I think , and hope, that will come sooner rather than later. But hey, that's just my opinion and my hope......

[Olallana]

Has Olallana got concussion like Lallana? Seems unable to answer simple questions about his "shots at goal is all we need to worry about to progress" theory

 

Not at all, I´m just sitting here and thinking about peoples sense of logics....

 

The same people that all season has said that they would bite the hand off if they were offered a 17th spot are now saying that our results are not good enough and we´re in 16th spot!!

Cant get my head around that logic I´m afraid.....

 

And then I think a bit further about the logics....

After 28 games we have 27 points, teams below us are on 24, 24, 23 and 20. Still the common logic seems to be that they will get more points than us the last 10 games, even though they haven´t been able to do that in the first 28 games.....and I wonder why is that??

 

Surely the reason can´t be that they will perform better in the last 10 games, cause we have all learned that it is all about the results.....and still the results show that we have done better.....

 

Well, maybe I should get that concussion instead, would probably help to understand the logics of this board.....

[Bucks Saint]

Not at all, I´m just sitting here and thinking about peoples sense of logics....

 

The same people that all season has said that they would bite the hand off if they were offered a 17th spot are now saying that our results are not good enough and we´re in 16th spot!!

Cant get my head around that logic I´m afraid.....

 

And then I think a bit further about the logics....

After 28 games we have 27 points, teams below us are on 24, 24, 23 and 20. Still the common logic seems to be that they will get more points than us the last 10 games, even though they haven´t been able to do that in the first 28 games.....and I wonder why is that??

 

Surely the reason can´t be that they will perform better in the last 10 games, cause we have all learned that it is all about the results.....and still the results show that we have done better.....

 

Well, maybe I should get that concussion instead, would probably help to understand the logics of this board.....

 

Er, think you need to read the OP again? And then maybe you can answer the simple questions posted your way, which you seem reluctant to do, about your shots taken theory

[110_Persaint]

I don't think so, two managers who are no mugs IMO have got similar performances out of this group of players. Which manager would you say would be a good fit for us if you don't rate MP?

erm someone with premier league experience? Or just general football managerial experience for 15-20 years?

 

And no way were the performances under Adkins comparable to MP's. Under Nigel we played FOOTBALL. Attractive, entertaining, attacking football. Under MP we just keep the ball more (in our half) and run around like headless chickens under the pretense of "pressing." Had Joe Hart not made a once in a lifetime error and Barry not score a once in a lifetime own goal we'd all be awake to how f**king inept and clueless this muppet really is.

[Olallana]

Er, think you need to read the OP again? And then maybe you can answer the simple questions posted your way, which you seem reluctant to do, about your shots taken theory

 

I read the OP before, thought it was about performances. During the thread I have learned that it´s all about results.

 

 

And why am I forced to follow the OP btw, don´t seem that important in most threads here....?

The only question you have asked is about time frame, nothing else so please refer correctly when you are trying to correct someone else.

[Bucks Saint]

I read the OP before, thought it was about performances. During the thread I have learned that it´s all about results.

 

 

And why am I forced to follow the OP btw, don´t seem that important in most threads here....?

The only question you have asked is about time frame, nothing else so please refer correctly when you are trying to correct someone else.

 

And so the answer is? And you ignored Turkish's questions too

[Dalek2003]

With the information available at that time, that was the only reasonable prediction anyone could have made.

 

The fact that we are not currently tenth does not mean said prediction was wrong. On the contrary it was the only correct prediction. Everyone else was, and still is, wrong. And have sad lives or something.

 

Very droll, CB Fry. I must remember YOU are NEVER wrong and the font of all wisdom.

[Olallana]

And so the answer is? And you ignored Turkish's questions too

 

You mean like the way you are ignoring my questions?

[Dig Dig]

erm someone with premier league experience? Or just general football managerial experience for 15-20 years?

 

And no way were the performances under Adkins comparable to MP's. Under Nigel we played FOOTBALL. Attractive, entertaining, attacking football. Under MP we just keep the ball more (in our half) and run around like headless chickens under the pretense of "pressing." Had Joe Hart not made a once in a lifetime error and Barry not score a once in a lifetime own goal we'd all be awake to how f**king inept and clueless this muppet really is.

 

Easy to forget the home losses against Wigan and Sunderland under Adkins where we looked clueless and unable to muster much in front of goal. Not to mention most away we played under him.

 

Saying you want someone with 15-20 years prem experience as manager is a bit of a cop out. Name some names.

 

If you're truly not on a wind up, staggered that you can form such a strong opinion against MP based on what you've seen to date.

[110_Persaint]

Easy to forget the home losses against Wigan and Sunderland under Adkins where we looked clueless and unable to muster much in front of goal. Not to mention most away we played under him.

 

Saying you want someone with 15-20 years prem experience as manager is a bit of a cop out. Name some names.

 

If you're truly not on a wind up, staggered that you can form such a strong opinion against MP based on what you've seen to date.

FFS we lost at home to the whipping boys and bottom team of the division. If that won't make you turn against the manager what will?!?!?!?!

[110_Persaint]

As for names there's Tigana, Van Marwijk, Curbishley, even Hoddle would of done better ffs.

[Dalek2003]

As for names there's Tigana, Van Marwijk, Curbishley, even Hoddle would of done better ffs.

 

Ooooooooooooooohhhhhh! Dangerous ground on that one mate !

[Dig Dig]

FFS we lost at home to the whipping boys and bottom team of the division. If that won't make you turn against the manager what will?!?!?!?!

 

Haha, bit of a contradiction to what I read in your post in the amnesty thread.....something about extreme views?

[Bucks Saint]

You mean like the way you are ignoring my questions?

 

I think its polite to answer the questions posed to you, first, several hours ago. But as you kept ducking Turkish, and now me, I won't hold out much hope.

[Olallana]

I think its polite to answer the questions posed to you, first, several hours ago. But as you kept ducking Turkish, and now me, I won't hold out much hope.

 

Well if you read my posts again a bit more thoroughly you will see that I have already answered his questions, some of them several times but the same semantic kept coming back, why should I bother to repeat myself all the time?

 

About your question. In one post I said that I believe we are staying up, that would answer your question if I think we will get the points in the right time frame....dont you think??

[110_Persaint]

Haha, bit of a contradiction to what I read in your post in the amnesty thread.....something about extreme views?

Nothing extreme about this view mate. After Wigan and Newcastle (despite major inner anger) I bottled my frustration and let him off the hook. Now though I've had enough as he's clearly been found out by other managers, is proving to be a one-trick pony, and the City game after I got over the euphoria was actually a major fluke. This guy is inept. We may well stay up this season, but he's not the man to take us forward and I hope to God that Nicola has another rabbit to pull out of the hat in the summer.

[Dig Dig]

Nothing extreme about this view mate. After Wigan and Newcastle (despite major inner anger) I bottled my frustration and let him off the hook. Now though I've had enough as he's clearly been found out by other managers, is proving to be a one-trick pony, and the City game after I got over the euphoria was actually a major fluke. This guy is inept. We may well stay up this season, but he's not the man to take us forward and I hope to God that Nicola has another rabbit to pull out of the hat in the summer.

 

Be upset about the QPR result by all means we should have won a home game like that. A draw against Wigan was better for ue than for them and Newcastle would expect to beat us at their place which they did but it wasn't easy for them. We won't win every game we play no matter who the manager is. If you would have expected all 9 points from those games then I suspect you will forever be angry and frustrated.

[110_Persaint]

Still misinterpreting me Dig Dig: it's the performances not the results!!! You think I'm not happy with the three points against City despite it being a fluke? The guy can get us results all he likes that way (good luck to him with that) but the fact remains our performances have gone DOWN since Nigel left. We played better football under him. That is my point. Over time I think we can all agree playing better football is what brings results.