Saint Charlie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 If it is the case i'd really like us to give Reed a go in that role, won't happen though. Reed isn't good enough on the ball to play that role. Davis would be a huge miss. He been excellent in the last couple of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 fancy a result here. another 1-0 to saints or else a late 1-1 draw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris27687 Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Reed isn't good enough on the ball to play that role. Davis would be a huge miss. He been excellent in the last couple of games. Will probably have to be Tadic in for him then - as everyone else has said, big loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 If it is the case i'd really like us to give Reed a go in that role, won't happen though. Won't be Reed. Either Tadic or JWP, although if Clasie and Wanyama are the defensive two, I'd be interested to Give Romeu a chance there. If it is the case i'd really like us to give Reed a go in that role, won't happen though. Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Looks like Steve Davis may be missing tomorrow. Noticeably absent from the training videos (Shane Long interview) and pictures that I have seen. Couple of people on here will be pleased. Gaston is in them - must mean he is playing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baird of the land Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Won't be Reed. Either Tadic or JWP, although if Clasie and Wanyama are the defensive two, I'd be interested to Give Romeu a chance there. Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Can't see it being Tadic, lacks the attributes fill in for Davis, especially away from home. Assume it'll be JWP after his goals last week. Think the balance would be better served by (Wanyama/Romeu), (clasie/JWP), (Davis/Reed) pairings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Won't be Reed. Either Tadic or JWP, although if Clasie and Wanyama are the defensive two, I'd be interested to Give Romeu a chance there. Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Like to see VW and OR in the middle and JC in the SD role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Surely if Davis isn't available Koeman will just drop Mane in behind Austin and Long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Surely if Davis isn't available Koeman will just drop Mane in behind Austin and Long? What, Kamikaze formation you mean! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint IQ Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Davis definately out is it just speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Davis definately out is it just speculation? Apparently he's not to be seen in the training photos. Don't think it's any more definite than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Surely if Davis isn't available Koeman will just drop Mane in behind Austin and Long? What, Kamikaze formation you mean! Why is having 3 attacking players "Kamikaze" if there are 3 centre backs, 2 wing backs and 2 defensive midfielders behind them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Why is having 3 attacking players "Kamikaze" if there are 3 centre backs, 2 wing backs and 2 defensive midfielders behind them? He probably thinks, as do I, that having three players on the pitch who contribute nothing defensively is a little risky when playing away at the team 5th in the table. We know Mane doesn't do much defensively to the point Koeman plays Yoshida at right back when Mane plays wide. And we know that two forwards don't defend (because they shouldn't). I can't remember the last time we started three players on the pitch who don't help out defensively. I am sure someone can enlighten me, but I am fairly sure we don't do it much and certainly not away from home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 He probably thinks, as do I, that having three players on the pitch who contribute nothing defensively is a little risky when playing away at the team 5th in the table. We know Mane doesn't do much defensively to the point Koeman plays Yoshida at right back when Mane plays wide. And we know that two forwards don't defend (because they shouldn't). I can't remember the last time we started three players on the pitch who don't help out defensively. I am sure someone can enlighten me, but I am fairly sure we don't do it much and certainly not away from home. Pretty weird to think Long doesn't help out defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Gaston is in them - must mean he is playing How do you work that out?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 He probably thinks' date=' as do I, that having three players on the pitch who [b']contribute nothing defensively[/b] is a little risky when playing away at the team 5th in the table. We know Mane doesn't do much defensively to the point Koeman plays Yoshida at right back when Mane plays wide. And we know that two forwards don't defend (because they shouldn't). I can't remember the last time we started three players on the pitch who don't help out defensively. I am sure someone can enlighten me, but I am fairly sure we don't do it much and certainly not away from home. What is your definition of helping out defensively, because if you press high you need the forwards to do a lot of work which both Mane and Long do. That is helping out defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Pretty weird to think Long doesn't help out defensively. He'll work hard in his part of the pitch. But when the other team are attacking he's not a part of the play when he starts as a striker. He's not tracking runners, he's not goal side of the ball, he's not a part of the defensive unit that works off the ball. He'll defend as much as a striker does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 What is your definition of helping out defensively, because if you press high you need the forwards to do a lot of work which both Mane and Long do. That is helping out defensively. That is a fair point about pressing but I suppose my definition is a set of players who are expected to contribute significantly in defending when we don't have the ball. I don't expect the strikers to do that much beyond a press and not making it easy to pass out of defence and we know Mane switches off defensively as I said. I like Mane centrally but behind a striker and not behind two as defensively I think we leave ourselves very exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 That is a fair point about pressing but I suppose my definition is a set of players who are expected to contribute significantly in defending when we don't have the ball. I don't expect the strikers to do that much beyond a press and not making it easy to pass out of defence and we know Mane switches off defensively as I said. I like Mane centrally but behind a striker and not behind two as defensively I think we leave ourselves very exposed. We'd probably have 7 defensively minded players plus the keeper. I'm not sure what else beyond pressing you want the 3 attacking players in a 3-5-2 system to do. If they are constantly deep we'd have no outlet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 (edited) Davis definately out is it just speculation? Speculation based on available evidence. May be ********, just offered up as an observation. Perhaps he was doing an interview at the time. Ronald did hint at a few minor issues, though he only specifically mentioned Pelle's knee. Would have thought if Davis isn't available then play Clasie in his place with Wanyama and either Romeu or JWP. Edited 22 January, 2016 by VectisSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfahaji Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 What is your definition of helping out defensively, because if you press high you need the forwards to do a lot of work which both Mane and Long do. That is helping out defensively. I'd say it's more positional. Mane in that role tends to play more of a support striker whereas Davis more of central midfielder that gets forward. It might work in a 3-5-2 but where Mane has played the attacking midfielder in a 4-3-3 there has been a gaping hole between midfield and attack, meaning we struggle to build attacks and when the opposition pick up the ball in defence they can carry it about 20 yards before they even see a Saints player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobbysouth Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 So do you expect mane to attack as aggresively as he does then instantly be sprinting back and defending? Are cb's aren't sprinting up the pitch taking on loads of players then running back and defending, with possible exception of vvd at times. Unrealistic to expect any player to constantly be working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggles31 Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Saw Davis training in the Austin video. That was the early part of the week though. Huge loss if he's out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallagroth Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 (edited) My cloakroom/WC analysis for what it's worth; Haven't felt truly positive and excited about Saints momentum at any point this season until now. Felt we haven't done anything about our stagnant form from the end of last season and suspect certain player attitudes have played a part. I suspect one too many players thought they were 'stars' and already better than Saints after half a good season. As the truth is beginning to show in the form of these individuals, we have addressed key weaknesses by giving chances to our newer players with the right attitude, they themselves have begun to find their feet and cut more predominant figures on the pitch. I think that Austin will complement Longs attitude and work rate for example and both have high confidence going into this with something to prove to external sources. JWP, Romeu and Clasie are feeling more important to the team and Vic realises he's going to have to put in some decent displays to ensure his move and regular place. Mane will also need to prove to himself that he can still do it, as his confidence is clearly very low, he will be desperate to not lose his place to the new boy. Defense with Bertie in is looking good, Targett playing in front, makes him free to be more aggressive with attacks on the wing and both can put a tackle in. Cedric and Martina are now in a battle for Right back. Only player on the pitch who doesn't have to look over his shoulder for competition is Steven Davis, but he works his nuts off 80% of the time anyway and for that reason his goal return is excusable when everyone else is firing. So with the addition of Austin and his desire to get back amongst it in the prem, I think we are in the right place to replicate our performance against Arsenal at will. Man Utd haven't been great all season, and are no better than last. Got a feeling we can really get at them, when no one, including Man Utd team is expecting much from us. Van Gaal's talk of the title suggests he thinks 3pts is a done deal. So on the basis of this complacency, our improved spirit, our trashing of arsenal, our recent goal scoring form without Austin factored, and Man Utd definitely being ****ter than Arsenal and more open at the back... ...i'm going to go for an unlikely/ridiculous 0-3+ Old Trafford win to Saints... Van Gaal sacked by Monday afternoon... ...Unless Yoshida starts in which case reverse the score and scrap everything I said (it may be advisable to do that anyway) Edited 22 January, 2016 by Mallagroth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 How do you work that out?! Davis isnt in the training footage = he isn't playing. If you apply the same logic and gaston is in the footage = he must be playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 A win could put us 7th, assuming Stoke (Leicester away) lose and Palace (Spurs home) and Liverpool (Norwich away) draw or worse, which isn't inconceivable. Think it will be a scrappy game with few chances - let's hope we're more clinical than usual. Time for Mane to start scoring again. I've just dropped him from my fantasy league team for the first time this season so you might as well stick a few quid on him now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Gaston is in them - must mean he is playing Gaston has been sold to Middlesbrough hasn't he ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Davis isnt in the training footage = he isn't playing. If you apply the same logic and gaston is in the footage = he must be playing. Bull****. If Gaston is in the videos it merely indicates he probably would be available for the squad, doesn't mean he'll be in the matchday squad, and certainly not that he will play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Bull****. If Gaston is in the videos it merely indicates he probably would be available for the squad, doesn't mean he'll be in the matchday squad, and certainly not that he will play. Lol you do make me laugh - was it not you that said that Davis wasn't in the footage. I don't believe for a minute that gaston will eve n feature but just because someone isn't in a bit if video doesn't mean they will not be playing. So wind your neck in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shance Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Well I had three tickets in the home end sorted. They've fallen through. If anybody's got any going spare that can't make it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonnick Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Preview now up on: http://theitchenperspective.blogspot.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 (edited) Lol you do make me laugh - was it not you that said that Davis wasn't in the footage. I don't believe for a minute that gaston will eve n feature but just because someone isn't in a bit if video doesn't mean they will not be playing. So wind your neck in No-one ever said it did. Why do I need to wind my neck in for making an observation based on evidence? Why do you think he is missing? Any sensible suggestions, probably a bit hard for you. Edited 22 January, 2016 by VectisSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 No-one ever said it did. But to suggesy as you did that someone would play because they were in the video is such a stupid thing to say is incredible, guess yoou still don't quite understsnd how stupid you mske yourself look. I don't need to wind my neck in for making a perfectly reasonable observation, but you seem to need to crael back under your stone. Post 150 - was that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Davis isnt in the training footage = he isn't playing. If you apply the same logic and gaston is in the footage = he must be playing. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non+sequitur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Davis isnt in the training footage = he isn't playing. If you apply the same logic and gaston is in the footage = he must be playing. So everyone who trains plays the matches? Sound logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 So everyone who trains plays the matches? Sound logic. Jesus h Christ ( no he's not playing either) go back to vectis saints post - 150. Where he says looks like Davis will be missing tomorrow because he's not in the training footage. Gaston is in the training footage does that mean he will be playing? Perhaps I should have put a smiley winky thing on my original post just to help you and vectis out. To answer your q tho - obviously not. As you well know but hey you carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Jesus h Christ ( no he's not playing either) go back to vectis saints post - 150. Where he says looks like Davis will be missing tomorrow because he's not in the training footage. Gaston is in the training footage does that mean he will be playing? Perhaps I should have put a smiley winky thing on my original post just to help you and vectis out. To answer your q tho - obviously not. As you well know but hey you carry on he is available for selection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 We need a lesson in basic logic. If A implies B, it does not follow that not A implies not B. Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pass the Dutchie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 We need a lesson in basic jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 We need a lesson in basic jokes. This too. :-D Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 We need a lesson in basic logic. If A implies B, it does not follow that not A implies not B. Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Or A doesn't always mean B, and not A doesn't always mean not B. Which is what Toads was saying, like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Fair enough. If we're saying that we're not even sure A implies B then not A clearly implies s0d all. Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintTex Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Looks like Steve Davis may be missing tomorrow. Noticeably absent from the training videos (Shane Long interview) and pictures that I have seen. Couple of people on here will be pleased.well something could have happened between Monday and now, but SDavis was seen training in the Charlie Austin video. [video=youtube;wn-ryylqqdw] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stknowle Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Fair enough. If we're saying that we're not even sure A implies B then not A clearly implies s0d all. Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Never did understand algebra. Is Gaston (aka Gashton/Gashy/The Gash LOL!!!) starting or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simo Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Do people actually sit there with a pen and paper and note down every player that is or isnt in any training footage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Never did understand algebra. Is Gaston (aka Gashton/Gashy/The Gash LOL!!!) starting or not? I would strongly bet not Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Do people actually sit there with a pen and paper and note down every player that is or isnt in any training footage? No. Its pretty easy to watch and casually notice each first team regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stknowle Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 Do people actually sit there with a pen and paper and note down every player that is or isnt in any training footage? I would strongly bet yes, if only a couple of pedantic weirdos (they know who they are). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 I would strongly bet yes, if only a couple of pedantic weirdos (they know who they are). Your name vil also be in ze book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 22 January, 2016 Share Posted 22 January, 2016 We need a lesson in basic logic. If A implies B, it does not follow that not A implies not B. Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Yes, but it does imply not B implies not A. In other words, this has 0-0 written all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts