We need Puncheon, we lack width etc

[mcbendy]

At the end of the transfer window there were many on here saying:

 

1. Letting Puncheon go was a massive mistake

2. We desperately need wingers/width

 

There were a few on here who politely (or otherwise) tried to explain the 4-2-3-1 system and the way in which (in theory) it should work. At the time, with both 1st choice full-backs out, admittedly it wasn't working perfectly.

 

Having seen the season unfold and (assuming these same posters are not blind) the frequency with which Clyne and Shaw overlap, provide width, support attacks etc, would those posters like to revise their earlier assessment?

 

Any votes for 'We need Puncheon'?

 

Any votes for 'We should sign a winger'?

[Glasgow_Saint]

If we had Puncheon and width we might be top?

[fish fingers]

Given we are 3rd in the league i'm pretty happy with what we have right now.

 

How's Puncheon getting on at Palace? many assists?

[stevegrant]

I still stand by my belief that it was a strange footballing decision to let him leave, considering he had fitted in perfectly well to the system last season, and it has still left us short of options should we either suffer injuries or a lack of ideas. In games like the Sunderland and Norwich ones earlier in the season where we didn't have both full-backs overlapping to create width (only one v Sunderland and neither at Norwich), he'd have been perfect to give us that wide option.

 

You'd imagine we would have to be very lucky for neither Clyne or Shaw to miss any further games this season, and while Chambers and Fox can do a job to varying levels of success for us, neither of them play the same way as our first choice pair, so if they're unavailable for whatever reason, we need to be able to adapt accordingly.

 

Puncheon almost certainly wouldn't be in our ideal first choice starting eleven, but he's better than most - if not all - of the backup players we currently have.

[Colinjb]

Punch fitted well within our system and I believe he still would. The best thing about his game was his communication and rapport with Clyne, it has taken us a little while to recover from that no longer being available and now Clyne is once again comfortable with those around him.

 

Do we need Punch? No, but he would still be a useful option.

Should we sign a winger? No, that's not how we play. Which is why Punch would still be a good option as he is better cutting inside and running at people while exchanging passes with his fellow attackers rather then going around the outside and delivering a cross. Clyne and Shaw are there for that.

 

It is a shame he wanted away.

[SaintBobby]

If the choice was "keep Puncheon" or "let Puncheon" go, surely the former is preferable.

 

My disappointment was I assumed his departure was to pave the way for some amazing new signing, but that was probably just me being greedy.

[shurlock]

Still think we lack width -and if the transfer rumours are correct, we've been looking at wingers/inside forwards.

 

The fact that Clyne and Shaw get as forward as they do suggests we value width; but what happens if they are injured -as has happened this season? On paper, it seems easier to slot in a winger than expect every fullback we have to be able to bomb on. The likes of Shaw and Clyne don't grow on trees. Fox can't defend and Chambers is still quite cautious.

 

I've been pleasantly surprised by how far Clyne and Shaw have been able to push up, especially away from home where the priority is to defend. It will be interesting to see how far we can stick to our principles at places like Arsenal and Chelsea.

[Bearsy]

On Sat I tuned in bit late on a dodgy stream and i was like, "Oh Chambers is playing right back, where is Clyne?". Then I watched bit longer and realised it weren't Chambers it was JWP, and he weren't playing right back it just looked that way cos Clyne was overlap so much.

[Joensuu]

Said at the time that loaning Punch was an excellent decision for all parties - and stick by it. I believe that:

 

 

• With the form of Jay, Adam and JWP, it is unlikely that Puncheon would be getting regular games (or even appearances) this season. (Would anyone now say that Jason should be selected ahead or Ward-Prowse?).
  
• As such, it is likely that by now he'd be disgruntled at best.
  
• Our current form is based largely upon team spirit. Disgruntled players don't tend to have the best impact on the dressing room.
  
• He's being rotated by Palace, and I haven't heard any overly positive reviews of his games down there.
  
• Punch is being kept fit - in the unlikely event we need him, I assume we can recall him(?).
  
• If he steps up his efforts Puncheon has the ability to take points off of our rivals.
  

 

I honestly can't see any downsides to the move. I can only view it as an excellent transfer for everyone involved.

[doc oli]

On Sat I tuned in bit late on a dodgy stream and i was like, "Oh Chambers is playing right back, where is Clyne?". Then I watched bit longer and realised it weren't Chambers it was JWP, and he weren't playing right back it just looked that way cos Clyne was overlap so much.

 

This worked really well, and on the left side Morgan often slotted in behind Shaw who was all the way up in the left wing position. For JWP this makes sense because if the ball breaks to him when he's lying deep, he's often in a great position to deliver one of his incredible dipping crosses. I think the fact that crosses (or corners) have set up most of the goals in the last few games would suggest we're getting the ball wide enough (and delivering it well).

[Big_Bald_Si]

I would have kept Puncheon here, but it was quite obvious he wanted to leave when we signed Osvaldo, and believed his chances would be limited. Don't blame the bloke to be fair, he just wants to play football.

 

Width - it was more obvious in the Fulham home game than against Hull, but our width came directly from the full backs. Did anyone notice that (against Fulham in particular) Schneiderlin and Ward-Prowse would cover the full back positions whilst Shaw and Clyne bombed forward pretty much whenever we had the ball?

[Big_Bald_Si]

This worked really well, and on the left side Morgan often slotted in behind Shaw who was all the way up in the left wing position. For JWP this makes sense because if the ball breaks to him when he's lying deep, he's often in a great position to deliver one of his incredible dipping crosses. I think the fact that crosses (or corners) have set up most of the goals in the last few games would suggest we're getting the ball wide enough (and delivering it well).

 

I completely didn't read this prior to my post - but 100% spot on assessment.

[SNSUN]

With Poonchen still here, JWP wouldn't have been getting the game time he has, so in hindsight it was an excellent decision to ship him out.

 

My biggest concern at the start of the season was that we lacked creativity - but I didn't reckon on the form of both Lallana and JWP - both have been outstanding. I'd still bring in a Ramirez replacement in January (if he's really not going to play any games) but as for Puncheon? We don't miss him one jot.

[Barry Sanchez]

I still believe a wide man is a great outlet if you want to hold onto a lead, whether that was Puncheon is open to debate but we should not have let him go without a replacement if we were ever going to employ that tactic so its pretty emphatic what the management team think of that really.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

If the choice was "keep Puncheon" or "let Puncheon" go, surely the former is preferable.

 

My disappointment was I assumed his departure was to pave the way for some amazing new signing, but that was probably just me being greedy.

 

Better than a signing, it gave a clearer path for JWP - with the level of improvement in his performances this season he is almost like a new signing.

 

He is offering us much more than puncheon did last season.

 

Really don't think Puncheon is that great in all honesty, flatters to deceive.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I still believe a wide man is a great outlet if you want to hold onto a lead, whether that was Puncheon is open to debate but we should not have let him go without a replacement if we were ever going to employ that tactic so its pretty emphatic what the management team think of that really.

 

That's not how we keep a lead though Bazza.

 

We attempt (whether it works or not is another matter) to hold leads simply by keeping possession. It's pretty simple really, if we have the ball the opposition can't score - plus chasing the ball will (in theory) knacker them out.

 

Wingers, like Puncheon, aren't necessarily great for this tactic. Particularly Puncheon, who runs, does a drag back, does another drag back, turns into an oppo player and loses the ball. Yes, he may gain some territory in doing so, but he loses the ball, which gives the oppo a chance to mount an attack.

[Patrick Bateman]

No. Puncheon is a very good player and had a great purple patch for us last year and as tw*tty as it feels to say this, we're now playing beyond his "level".

[Batman]

he struggles to get into the palace team

which is surprising, considering he did well last year

[shurlock]

With Poonchen still here, JWP wouldn't have been getting the game time he has, so in hindsight it was an excellent decision to ship him out.

 

My biggest concern at the start of the season was that we lacked creativity - but I didn't reckon on the form of both Lallana and JWP - both have been outstanding. I'd still bring in a Ramirez replacement in January (if he's really not going to play any games) but as for Puncheon? We don't miss him one jot.

 

Also helps Clyne was back to full fitness, having missed the west brom, sunderland and norwich games.

[Bearsy]

That's not how we keep a lead

 

I'm not sure it's how anyone does. I don't see a lot of clubs defending a lead looking anxiously at their bench to see what wingers they've got.

[Barry Sanchez]

I'm not sure it's how anyone does. I don't see a lot of clubs defending a lead looking anxiously at their bench to see what wingers they've got.

 

Counter attacking football and a winger will keep players back as he can exploit spaces as the opposite team pushes up the field.

 

As an example of the top of my head Ramires against Barcelona in Champions League semi final, at the very highest level, of using a winger as an outlet.

 

Do you guys play football? I do and this tactic is as old as the hills whatever standard, the sucker punch if you will.

[Bearsy]

Gotcha, yeah we could use a proper winger, like Ramires at Chelsea

[shurlock]

Counter attacking football and a winger will keep players back as he can exploit spaces as the opposite team pushes up the field.

 

As an example of the top of my head Ramires against Barcelona in Champions League semi final, at the very highest level, of using a winger as an outlet.

 

Do you guys play football? I do and this tactic is as old as the hills whatever standard, the sucker punch if you will.

 

Agree- bringing Jrod on against Swansea when they were pushing up to get an equalizer certainly helped. Even got us a goal.

[Batman]

Agree- bringing Jrod on against Swansea when they were pushing up to get an equalizer certainly helped. Even got us a goal.

 

that was to play centre forward though

[Bearsy]

Agree- bringing Jrod on against Swansea when they were pushing up to get an equalizer certainly helped. Even got us a goal.

 

Exactly. Proper wingers like Ramires at Chelsea and Rodriguez at Southampton are invaluable when defending a lead. We should get a winger like that, at least as an option on the bench.

[Barry Sanchez]

that was to play centre forward though

 

The point is to have someone with turn and pace, Arsenal use this with Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain, the reason is I have made this point and they want to argue.

[shurlock]

that was to play centre forward though

 

It was all about his pace - bringing someone on who could stretch them as they chased an equalizer. Similar to the way in which you might deploy a winger.

[Bearsy]

The point is to have someone with turn and pace, Arsenal use this with Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain, the reason is I have made this point and they want to argue.

 

Who wants to argue! I'm sarcastically agreeing with you!

[OldNick]

Just as the nonsense after NCwas sacked we had nearly the same regarding puncheons loan. He did not fit in with MP's plans and so surplus to requirements. I don't think he is even in Palaces first 11

[UpweySaint]

Hindsight is a lovely thing aint it! I stand by my conviction that having a variety of players allows us to play different systems when or if required with players with more natural width being something we dont have. Also, to be fair, most of us suggested signing what Hodgson has called "wide forwards" such as Ince who could play out wide in a four or in a front three.

[OldNick]

Counter attacking football and a winger will keep players back as he can exploit spaces as the opposite team pushes up the field.

 

As an example of the top of my head Ramires against Barcelona in Champions League semi final, at the very highest level, of using a winger as an outlet.

 

Do you guys play football? I do and this tactic is as old as the hills whatever standard, the sucker punch if you will.

I would always wish for pace in the team, but they have to have a brain and skill. Puncheon was decent in the Championship, but he is not a team player IMO

[jamesfp1]

Pretty sure we just failed to get a replacement in time. Pretty sure one will arrive in Jan.

[Mowgli]

It was Jason's call. He would get games here but he wants to play week in week out - can't blame him for that. Can't see him keeping osvaldo, lallana or j rod out of the starting line up can you.

[Dig Dig]

Pretty sure we just failed to get a replacement in time. Pretty sure one will arrive in Jan.

 

Wouldn't be so pretty sure I were you pal.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You just have to respect Punch for opting to give up a pretty safe berth here for a guaranteed relegation scrap at Palace. This displays a good attitude towards the game if you ask me. After all, at his age a real player will want to play.

 

Having said that I do sometimes wonder if he's still happy with his decision.

[revolution saint]

At the end of the transfer window there were many on here saying:

 

1. Letting Puncheon go was a massive mistake

2. We desperately need wingers/width

 

There were a few on here who politely (or otherwise) tried to explain the 4-2-3-1 system and the way in which (in theory) it should work. At the time, with both 1st choice full-backs out, admittedly it wasn't working perfectly.

 

Having seen the season unfold and (assuming these same posters are not blind) the frequency with which Clyne and Shaw overlap, provide width, support attacks etc, would those posters like to revise their earlier assessment?

 

Any votes for 'We need Puncheon'?

 

Any votes for 'We should sign a winger'?

 

I love threads like this - it's almost as if the season has ended already and we can bask in a champions league qualification and start berating people for an opinion. Thing is Puncheon did fit the system and did offer something different as well so I would have thought keeping would have been a bonus even if he wasn't used often. I don't buy the "but he'd be disgruntled about not being in the team" that's just second guessing and it's by no means fact that that happened when Adkins dropped him. Neither do I think he'd have hindered JWP - Pochettino would have picked who he thought suited the game regardless.

 

Neither do I believe that wingers are constrained by playing in only one position, indeed MP said as much in his last pre-match interview when he said aside from the goalkeeper all outfield players need to be adaptable. So if we have someone capable of playing as a winger and also fits the system we play at the moment then surely that's a good thing?

 

Personally I don't think we need to be so slavish to any particular system anyway (didn't Morgan mention we change it around anyway to avoid being too predictable?) - surely it should be about finding the best system to both suit the players you have and to counter the opposition? Sometimes that might involve using a player who you could class as an out an out winger and other times not. It's great having an overall philosophy but not sure that precludes changing things around if it needs it.

 

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to bringing in someone with a bit of pace who can play as an orthodox winger if we need it - can't think why anyone would object.

[Huffton]

Palace is his boyhood club, he had the chance to go and asked to leave. Everyone knows what he's like when he gets in a strop so it was clearly the best decision for both parties to let him go.

[jamesfp1]

Wouldn't be so pretty sure I were you pal.

m

[Dan Johnson]

I had first hand information from a source directly inside the dressing room the day before Punch moved, he stated that punch requested a move for Family reasons ONLY, he has recently had another baby (his 3rd) and his wife still lived in London

 

It wasn't a footballing decision at all, on his part or the clubs, to let him leave.

 

A replacement was never lined up

[alpine_saint]

Letting him go is exactly the sort of decision which suggests insufficient awareness of our lack of squad depth by club management.

 

But WTF, as long as no-one is injured and therefore we dont run out of options, no doubt no-one on here, or at the club, really gives a f**k...

[alpine_saint]

I had first hand information from a source directly inside the dressing room the day before Punch moved, he stated that punch requested a move for Family reasons ONLY, he has recently had another baby (his 3rd) and his wife still lived in London

 

It wasn't a footballing decision at all, on his part or the clubs, to let him leave.

 

A replacement was never lined up

Last time I checked London was only an hour away from Southampton....

 

He could take longer getting home from Selhurst Park..

[Dalek2003]

Should have sent Ramirez on loan instead.

[Toon Saint]

Was sitting behind a Scottish fella in the Kingsland on Saturday who was regaling the person behind me of how he met Puncheon at Warwick service station after Stoke game.

 

Apparently Puncheon was sad to leave us and only did so because of system that Poch intended to employ with full backs providing the width. Top guy who is always looking out for Saints results and apparently there is a chance he could return in January, which suggests there is a call back option on the loan. Might be of mild interest to some of you lot...

[Leslie Charteris]

Letting him go is exactly the sort of decision which suggests insufficient awareness of our lack of squad depth by club management.

 

But WTF, as long as no-one is injured and therefore we don't run out of options, no doubt no-one on here, or at the club, really gives a f**k...

 

Apparently Puncheon was sad to leave us and only did so because of system that Poch intended to employ with full backs providing the width.

 

Now who's football nous should we trust?

[NickG]

Guess he must be on a wind up...

 

Three years ago we were towards bottom league one now third, done by club who don't give a ****, with players (Schneiderlin, JayRod, Lallana ) he didn't want and a summer transfer policy of a bunch of amateurs. Still reckon should have given up on promotion from league 1 and saved ourselves for play offs!

[hutch]

We attempt (whether it works or not is another matter) to hold leads simply by keeping possession. It's pretty simple really, if we have the ball the opposition can't score - plus chasing the ball will (in theory) knacker them out.

You haven't watched the Hull game, have you?