Jump to content

Burnley 1 Saints 1 - Match & Reactions Thread

St Chalet

By St Chalet,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

5string

5string

Posted
Posted
In all fairness you should have mentioned that McCarthy handled outside the box but maybe that wasn’t shown on MOTD ?

I am overseas so didn’t see the highlights!

 

Ah, forgot that. It was shown.

 

McCarthy didn't handle outside the box, imo - it was very close, though. He dropped it just level with the edge, as far as I could tell. Would've been harsh to give it against him.

 

However... MotD did show that the Burnley forward tried to kick the ball out of McCarthy's hands at the time (which is why he dropped it), so would've been a free kick to Saints. I was surprised it wasn't given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eurosaint

eurosaint

Posted
Posted
Ah, forgot that. It was shown.

 

McCarthy didn't handle outside the box, imo - it was very close, though. He dropped it just level with the edge, as far as I could tell. Would've been harsh to give it against him.

 

However... MotD did show that the Burnley forward tried to kick the ball out of McCarthy's hands at the time (which is why he dropped it), so would've been a free kick to Saints. I was surprised it wasn't given.

 

Wasn’t judging the incident per se, just thought that it was worth adding to your list of pertinent points !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davefoggy

davefoggy

Posted
Posted
Of course they would :lol: and if they did its because they haven't watched them play enough.

 

Anyone who doesn't realise that, with the exception of Bertrand and Lemina, our squad is ****ing average is deluded.

 

You are deluded! Give me a list of players from West Brom, Swansea, Stoke etc that you would rather see in a Saints shirt to replace that we already have?? I will tell you, NO ONE

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davefoggy

davefoggy

Posted
Posted
Perhaps I should have read previous posts before answering what I thought was a simple question.

 

Btw, I don't love any footballers, in fact I dislike a big majority.

 

Sorry Saint Billy. I'm just in a bad mood with the current state of our club, so bloody frustrating with this idiot in charge. Or should I say 'idiots'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted

In five+ years in charge, Dyche has very very rarely brought an extra defender on to hold on to what he's got. Sometimes he's brought an extra defender to play as a sort of stopping midfielder, but he doesn't go flat back five. Anyway, we didn't have any centre halves on the bench - he could have brought on a third full back, but that would be a strange sort of tactic!

 

He has been known to bring on an extra forward and switch to 4-4-2 if he thinks the opponents are putting us under too much pressure. Evidently he didn't think that applied yesterday. There wasn't a lot form Southampton after the shot which Pope tipped onto the post, IMO. It took a helpful intervention by the ref to put us off our stride and give you the chance to score - if that hadn't happened and it had finished 1-0, it would have been just like so many other home games where those tactics have worked. Barnes is a very good forward for holding the ball up and stopping the opposition playing, better than Vokes for that, and Wood hasn't played for weeks; NKoudou is more an attacking winger than a defensive winger, and Marney (midfield) hasn't played for over a year. Obviously bringing on no subs didn't work, but I don't think it wasn't a wrong tactic.

 

However you look at it, Dyche isn't clueless.

 

Dyche isn't clueless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
In five+ years in charge, Dyche has very very rarely brought an extra defender on to hold on to what he's got. Sometimes he's brought an extra defender to play as a sort of stopping midfielder, but he doesn't go flat back five. Anyway, we didn't have any centre halves on the bench - he could have brought on a third full back, but that would be a strange sort of tactic!

 

He has been known to bring on an extra forward and switch to 4-4-2 if he thinks the opponents are putting us under too much pressure. Evidently he didn't think that applied yesterday. There wasn't a lot form Southampton after the shot which Pope tipped onto the post, IMO. It took a helpful intervention by the ref to put us off our stride and give you the chance to score - if that hadn't happened and it had finished 1-0, it would have been just like so many other home games where those tactics have worked. Barnes is a very good forward for holding the ball up and stopping the opposition playing, better than Vokes for that, and Wood hasn't played for weeks; NKoudou is more an attacking winger than a defensive winger, and Marney (midfield) hasn't played for over a year. Obviously bringing on no subs didn't work, but I don't think it wasn't a wrong tactic.

 

However you look at it, Dyche isn't clueless.

 

Dyche isn't clueless.

 

Thanks for giving us your point of view.

 

The ref didn’t do anything, he just stood still where he was which is what he should do. You can’t accuse him of doing something because he didn’t do anything. A ref is like a wooden post in the middle of the field. It’s up to the players to play around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
A helpful but accidental intervention. He didn't do anything, but he still intervened. I'm not blaming him - well I am, but I don't think he was at fault. It was just sod's law - a law that hasn't done us any favours in the last few minutes this season.

 

I think you need to look up the meaning of ‘intervene’. It’s not as though he rugby-tackled anybody. It was a bright day, surely the players can see a big lump in the middle of the pitch?

 

Anyway, how can you blame somebody who was not at fault?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the saint in winchester

the saint in winchester

Posted
Posted
A helpful but accidental intervention. He didn't do anything, but he still intervened. I'm not blaming him - well I am, but I don't think he was at fault. It was just sod's law - a law that hasn't done us any favours in the last few minutes this season.

 

Yeah, the ref didn't DO anything to intervene (it wasn't like that ref that tripped the player up and then sent him off), the Burnley player turned and almost ran into him. He couldn't get out of the way. Anyway, that was 30 seconds before the goal. A lot happened after that.

Has anyone else taken issue with Barnes charging our keeper and then handling the ball into the goal. How did that stand? After the Decoure (Watford) handball goal, we seem to be the team getting the rough end of the stick.

However, I like Burnley, good to see a team of low value assets working so well and getting results. And we'd like Jack Cork back, and the Southampton born Sam Vokes as well please.. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graffito

Graffito

Posted
Posted
A helpful but accidental intervention. He didn't do anything, but he still intervened. I'm not blaming him - well I am, but I don't think he was at fault. It was just sod's law - a law that hasn't done us any favours in the last few minutes this season.

 

Dyche was highly critical of the ref in his after match comments. For some reason he left off his list of failings that the ref failed to spot Barnes handled the ball into the net for Burnley’s “goal”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted

I'm a football fan. You want me to be fair and rational as well? I can't do both.

 

OED definition 1.1 of intervene: "(of an event or circumstance) occur as a delay or obstacle to something being done.

‘Christmas intervened and the investigation was suspended’ "

 

The referee occurred as an obstacle to Burnley defending properly! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OttawaSaint

OttawaSaint

Posted
Posted
A helpful but accidental intervention. He didn't do anything, but he still intervened. I'm not blaming him - well I am, but I don't think he was at fault. It was just sod's law - a law that hasn't done us any favours in the last few minutes this season.

 

You don’t need to complain to us about Sod’s law. We virtually invented it :lol:

 

Had a goal punched in against us this season costing us 2pt (Watford). Last minute goals to Arsenal and City. Goal ruled out in last year’s league cup final that VAR would have given us this year. The list goes on but I’m boring you and depressing myself so I’ll stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
In five+ years in charge, Dyche has very very rarely brought an extra defender on to hold on to what he's got. Sometimes he's brought an extra defender to play as a sort of stopping midfielder, but he doesn't go flat back five. Anyway, we didn't have any centre halves on the bench - he could have brought on a third full back, but that would be a strange sort of tactic!

 

He has been known to bring on an extra forward and switch to 4-4-2 if he thinks the opponents are putting us under too much pressure. Evidently he didn't think that applied yesterday. There wasn't a lot form Southampton after the shot which Pope tipped onto the post, IMO. It took a helpful intervention by the ref to put us off our stride and give you the chance to score - if that hadn't happened and it had finished 1-0, it would have been just like so many other home games where those tactics have worked. Barnes is a very good forward for holding the ball up and stopping the opposition playing, better than Vokes for that, and Wood hasn't played for weeks; NKoudou is more an attacking winger than a defensive winger, and Marney (midfield) hasn't played for over a year. Obviously bringing on no subs didn't work, but I don't think it wasn't a wrong tactic.

 

However you look at it, Dyche isn't clueless.

 

Dyche isn't clueless.

Neither is our manager. Actually he's even better. Honest. Care to swap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Albert

Saint Albert

Posted
Posted

I’m not fussed about the referee getting in the way for the tying goal. After that, it still required Redmond to do a good job carrying the ball to the penalty area (he looks decent in a central role), distribute it to Sims, who played a lofted ball to Carrillo at the far post, who played it (a little behind) to Gabbiadini, who came back to the ball and finished after getting tangled with Long. There were many opportunities for Burnley to intervene after the ref got in the way.

 

After Decoure, I don’t think we need to apologize for strokes of good fortune that occur in our favour this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarrettIvo

GarrettIvo

Posted
Posted

It appears to be lost on some that Sims was already getting ready to come on before they scored, meaning MP had already opted for a change.

 

He would have come on if that ball had have gone out of play no matter what. Unfortunately it went in the net instead.

 

Still very much in the Pellegrino out camp obviously, but it's clear he's going nowhere until the end of the season.

 

If then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kingsland Codger

Kingsland Codger

Posted
Posted
After Decoure, I don’t think we need to apologize for strokes of good fortune that occur in our favour this season.

 

Quite. A phrase often used in football is “these-things-even-themselves-out-over-a-season” (though I’ve never seen any stats to back it up). It was about time we got a lucky break. Of course, the referee providing an assist is way, way different from Decoure’s deliberate cheating but we must take what crumbs come our way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
Quite. A phrase often used in football is “these-things-even-themselves-out-over-a-season” (though I’ve never seen any stats to back it up). It was about time we got a lucky break. Of course, the referee providing an assist is way, way different from Decoure’s deliberate cheating but we must take what crumbs come our way.
throw in the ref not blowing up when McCarthy handled the ball outside the box
Link to comment
Share on other sites
stu0x

stu0x

Posted
Posted
What’s everyone’s obsession with 4-4-2 it’s like everyone has got Merringtonittis. Our issue isn’t not playing 2 up front it’s zero goals and support from the 3 behind the 1. Tadic, Redmond, Boufal, Davo & JWP goal scoring record is woeful & their chances created are just as bad. They also rarely get behind the 1 & break from midfield. It worked yesterday because we had nothing to lose and were getting men into the box, you can get just as many men into the box with a 4-2-3-1 as was proved when we played similar systems under previous managers. If we play a 4-4-2 with these players and this manager, we will lose control of the ball, get out numbered in the centre of midfield and will leave our top 2 isolated up front. One change could be Gabbi in the 10, but I’m not sure how he’d do in that system, another way could be a diamond in midfield, although the forum experts derided that last season.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The 'problem' with 451 is that it can be either very aggressive or very defensive, depending on what your forward midfielders do. When we played 451 under Poch it was arguably closer to a 433. Mane was never truly a midfielder, nor was Rodriguez, they were wide forwards. We looked to turn the ball over high up the pitch and use speed of movement (both players and the ball) to overload where the other team looked defensively weak. Both Lambert and Pelle were just as effective feeding the wide forwards on the overlap as they were converting chances as the 'point of the spear'.

 

Compare and contrast that with Pellegrino's 451. It is relentlessly defensive because it treasures possession over everything else. Possession football is all good but it is inherently reliant on a level of speed and technique with the ball that we simply don't have to create space. As a result there is very little pressure put on the opposition defense of any kind, the 'one up top' is hopelessly isolated so that, regardless of what style of forward they are, the majority of the time they are up against 3 of the 4 defenders. When we play wide forwards (primarily Redmond), they don't behave as such, compressing rather than stretching the backline by cutting in and back across the middle of the pitch.

 

I'm not sure 442 is (necessarily) 'the answer' because, given the manager's approach, I think we'd just end up with two isolated forwards instead of one. But i suppose the logic is that if we played two attacking players with complementary characteristics, it would give them half a chance of at least troubling the opposition backline.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shroppie

Shroppie

Posted
Posted
The 'problem' with 451 is that it can be either very aggressive or very defensive, depending on what your forward midfielders do. When we played 451 under Poch it was arguably closer to a 433. Mane was never truly a midfielder, nor was Rodriguez, they were wide forwards. We looked to turn the ball over high up the pitch and use speed of movement (both players and the ball) to overload where the other team looked defensively weak. Both Lambert and Pelle were just as effective feeding the wide forwards on the overlap as they were converting chances as the 'point of the spear'.

 

Compare and contrast that with Pellegrino's 451. It is relentlessly defensive because it treasures possession over everything else. Possession football is all good but it is inherently reliant on a level of speed and technique with the ball that we simply don't have to create space. As a result there is very little pressure put on the opposition defense of any kind, the 'one up top' is hopelessly isolated so that, regardless of what style of forward they are, the majority of the time they are up against 3 of the 4 defenders. When we play wide forwards (primarily Redmond), they don't behave as such, compressing rather than stretching the backline by cutting in and back across the middle of the pitch.

 

I'm not sure 442 is (necessarily) 'the answer' because, given the manager's approach, I think we'd just end up with two isolated forwards instead of one. But i suppose the logic is that if we played two attacking players with complementary characteristics, it would give them half a chance of at least troubling the opposition backline.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Good post, and reflects what I've been thinking. I looked back over our 4-5-1 lineup in our successful seasons to try to see what was different.

 

And the answer is exactly as you say. When we were doing well, the three behind the striker always included one, or usually two players who could be considered strikers in their own right - Do Prado, Lallana, Mané, Rodriguez, etc.

 

And they were all capable of rotating across the three, and even as striker. When Ricky was playing, he often drifted out to the wing to pull the opposition around and open up central space for someone else.

 

It's my view that all our current AMs lack the flexibility and all-round game to do that. Boufal and Redmond both tend to cut in, can do something effective with the ball but then don't connect with the striker. Tadic isn't a finisher. JWP has shown he can finish and has got into scoring positions this season, but his prime function is ball retention, not opening up defences.

 

In the last few minutes on Saturday I finally became hopeful that Carrillo and Sims can fill the roles of creative, goal scoring attacking MF. Sims does seem to have the all-round game - pace, guile and he can shoot. I know we bought Carrillo as a striker, but I'm wondering if he can be more effective behind Austin or Gabbiadini. And I think another key player we need to develop into this role is Hesketh. His career seemed suddenly to stall, but I'm still hopeful that he can be a goal scoring 10.

 

It's a shame that we're not comfortably mid table. Whilst we're fighting relegation there's an obvious nervousness about trying something different, but I'm running out of patience with Redmond, Tadic and Boufal.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint_clark

Saint_clark

Posted
Posted
think what?
It's debatable whether his hands were touching the ball once he stepped out the box, plus I would argue it was a foul by Lennon anyway (if that was in the 6 yard box from a corner the ref would blow for it every time) and regardless it would have been a booking and a free kick, hardly likely to have massively affected the game in the same way punching the ball into the net does.

 

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted

All the p1ssing and moaning about the contentious Burnley goal (I personally didn’t see much wrong with it) doesn’t change the fact that this result won’t singularly relegate us - only add to the succession of inept performances and sh1te results that preceded it.

 

I think even Burnley fans would admit they’re a bit fragile at the moment and this was a perfect opportunity to have a real go... but alas, not with this pr1ck in charge

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
All the p1ssing and moaning about the contentious Burnley goal (I personally didn’t see much wrong with it) doesn’t change the fact that this result won’t singularly relegate us - only add to the succession of inept performances and sh1te results that preceded it.

 

I think even Burnley fans would admit they’re a bit fragile at the moment and this was a perfect opportunity to have a real go... but alas, not with this pr1ck in charge

 

I agree. I've just wasted some more of my time by looking at the MOTD 'highlights' and from what little you can see if looks as if Barnes's goal cones off the point of his shoulder, of the very top of his sleeve and above the flesh. Poor goalkeeping in my opinion but McCarthy can't be criticised these days.

 

As for his 'handling outside the box' again, not clear or obvious . If you accept that he has both hands on the ball then the attempt to kick the ball is a foul on the goalkeeper.

 

All minor points in a long season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
waylander

waylander

Posted
Posted
All the p1ssing and moaning about the contentious Burnley goal (I personally didn’t see much wrong with it) doesn’t change the fact that this result won’t singularly relegate us - only add to the succession of inept performances and sh1te results that preceded it.

 

I think even Burnley fans would admit they’re a bit fragile at the moment and this was a perfect opportunity to have a real go... but alas, not with this pr1ck in charge

 

Burnley's last home result on Feb 3rd was 1-1 with Man City whic IMHO shows they're a pretty tough nut to crack at home

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKD

SKD

Posted
Posted
Any idea how many Saints fans were at the game?.

 

Understand the reasons for people not going but the away end looked very sparsely occupied on the TV

 

It always does (unless you fill whole allocation, which when it's a standard trip to Burnley, you won't) as they pack you in at the back of the stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...