Saints 0 Burnley 0 - Post Match

[SuperSAINT]

I have never seen a change in formation have such a dramatic impact as that.

 

Ings is a class above, and Armstrong (hope he is ok for next week)

 

Gabbiadini and Ings are going to love Mo and Armstrong. Redmond was much better when playing a little deeper and more central but frustrates as he doesn’t release the ball quickly enough.

 

One thing I do worry about is that Hughes is incredibly stubborn with his 3 at the back formation and that is why stoke went down. He wouldn’t change it to 4 when fans were crying out for it. We have signed players for this formation which doesn’t help :/

 

I don't disagree. When was the last time Hughes started us with 4 at the back?

 

Wasn't it the West Ham drubbing? So I don't really blame him being cautious.

[Bit of a plonker]

All of the new signings showed real promise for us, especially Vestergaard who was very assured. Lemina looked good, he plays a bit more on the edge to try to make things happen, but that does mean he will make mistakes. Stephens is not good enough for RB cover, he was a fish out of water when he was high up the pitch wide right. Ings looked like he loved being on the pitch. I hope he scores goals, because the rest of his play was very bright and he could prove to be a bargain. Need Yoshi back into defence. Not convinced by McCarthy. He made 1 good save, from lennon I think it was in teh first half, but the rest were pretty standard saves, the type you would expect him to make. Thought his distribution put us in trouble on more than one occasion. Glad we have good competition in goal.

[S-Clarke]

Wtf was that first half, seriously. No point mentioning any more on that.

 

2nd half was better (after about 55-60 mins). We looked more comfortable and familiar, like we knew what we were supposed to be doing. I've never seen a back 3 be any good for us, I remember the occasions when Komean tried it and it was often reverted before the first half had ended. Glad that Hughes wasn't like MP and Puel in the stubborn sense though.

 

Hoedt is bambi on ice, a truly horrific professional footballer. He's never going to improve.

 

Vesterguard is everything we have needed. Strong, good on the ball, dominant in the air. Early signs, but he has potentially filled a HUGE hole in our back 4. Burnley aren't an easy team to come up against on your debut, but he swatted them away. Looks quality and everything Hoedt isn't.

 

Austin looked slow and unfit, not sure what he offers us apart from being a fox in the box type. Ings offered far more in an all-round game when he came on than Austin has offered us for a long time.

 

So, first half - something to forget. A decent side would have put us to bed on that showing (but credit to Vesterguard and McCarthy for keeping them at bay). 2nd half, learnt from our mistakes and benefited from a tiring Burnley. Lots to improve on, but also plenty to take into the next game at Everton.

 

Still a familiar Southampton-Nill at home ring to proceedings though..

[red&white56]

I was not that excited by the signing of Ings, but I thought he brought energy, activity, invention and engagement when he came on. If this is his impact and it continues this way then his signing will be money well spent.

 

Also we shouldn't forget that Burnley had a great season last time out and could be viewed as a better team than us. As much as I would have loved to win, I'm happy with a draw.

 

And the saves of McCarthy were outstanding - we could have been 2 - 0 down and out of the game by the 60 min - my motm

[Appy]

Redmond was excellent today, took players on and made things happen, something that’s been lacking in his game.

[Paul.Studio]

McCarthy & Vestergard both with MOM displays. Awful first half (ok 60 minutes) but then we were Saints of old. Ings the best striker we have - Charlie's time is up. When we get Yoshida with Vestergard the defence will be ok. 1 point better off than last year. Look at the positives.

[shurlock]

I thought we were going to get hammered after losing that massive game a week before

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Glad to see you're continuing your rich pre-season form of posting utter w**k. Who said you can't learn anything from pre-season, eh?

[saintant]

I am amazed that Mark Hughes and his coaches all of who will be incredibly well paid have allowed us to drift through and virtually waste pre-season persisting with three at the back. The clamour from the majority of fans has been loud and clear - they neither believe in this system nor want to see it employed. Yet we spent an hour of the first game of the season toiling away with three at the back and in the process making a fairly ordinary Burnley side look good - during this time we could easily have been out of the game had their finishing been better and McCarthy not done his job. The minute we switched formation there was a sea-change and everyone seemed to know their jobs and we were on top and could have won the game. We have potentially dropped two very valuable points as surely we might well have won this game had we not started with three at the back. Hopefully lessons have been learned although I know the Stoke fans claim Hughes was stubborn and stuck to this horrible formation even when it was obviously not working. I just don't think we have the players to get to grips with this system but I fear Hughes might continue the experiment in the belief that he can make it work. If so he could be in for a rude awakening.

[OldNick]

The first half showed how Burnley were more match fit and first to the ball.

All those fans who were against Ings are at least put into a box for a while , as his zip skill and enthusiasm was a class apart.

Redmond was brilliant, and reading back at the this there are a few who it still cat give him the credit he deserved.

McCarthy won us the point, superb saves.

Vestergaad very solid

 

The Burnley players in the main all had massive legs, such a strong team and physical. Those who say they'd prefer Vokes to Ings lol

[Chez]

We’re one point up on last season

 

post of the day for me

[shurlock]

The first half showed how Burnley were more match fit and first to the ball.

All those fans who were against Ings are at least put into a box for a while , as his zip skill and enthusiasm was a class apart.

Redmond was brilliant, and reading back at the this there are a few who it still cat give him the credit he deserved.

McCarthy won us the point, superb saves.

Vestergaad very solid

 

The Burnley players in the main all had massive legs, such a strong team and physical. Those who say they'd prefer Vokes to Ings lol

 

Calm down, old boy. Very few are against Ings as a player; just wary of the injury risk he presents, if as reports suggest we're obliged to buy him.

[musesaint]

Why didn’t Hughes start with the team we ended with (Armstrong apart) ??

 

Amazed more people aren’t talking about Elyounoussi. He didn’t put a foot wrong. Ran into great positions and put every corner into a perfect position. Amazed if we keep him for more than a couple of years

 

The other new players were excellent. If Danny Ings can stay fit he’ll be a huge asset.

[Shroppie]

McCarthy & Vestergard both with MOM displays. Awful first half (ok 60 minutes) but then we were Saints of old. Ings the best striker we have - Charlie's time is up. When we get Yoshida with Vestergard the defence will be ok. 1 point better off than last year. Look at the positives.

Agree with this especially, sadly, that Austin gave us nothing at all today. McCarthy saved us (again), Vestergaard did what he was bought to do - dominate in the air - Armstrong and Elyounoussi looked good and once the formation changed, Redmond began to threaten.

 

Still not totally sure about the DM pairing. Not sure we can afford Lemina against strong opposition away from home.

 

We should give up three at the back unless we're parking the bus and keeping the FBs back. Two CBs (Yoshida and Vestergaard) plus two DM is the way to go. Whether we go 442 or revert to 4231 doesn't matter if we gave the right players on the pitch.

 

I'm just praying we don't start with the same 11 next week.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[saintant]

This is my point. The whole idea of pre-season is to sort out your favoured team and formation yet we started the game evidently without a clue on either. That is very poor management.

[OldNick]

Calm down, old boy. Very few are against Ings as a player; just wary of the injury risk he presents, if as reports suggest we're obliged to buy him.

Every player is an injury risk. There were many who didn't rate him and critical of his signing ( I wasn't sure of your position on that , but as you are being a bit defensive, perhaps you were as well), and at least 1 poster said he wanted Vokes in front of him lol

[S-Clarke]

Redmond was excellent today, took players on and made things happen, something that’s been lacking in his game.

 

Yeah, something I noticed today. Always been really critical at his reluctance to take people on, but he did that plenty of times today and committed their centre backs.

[shurlock]

Every player is an injury risk. There were many who didn't rate him and critical of his signing ( I wasn't sure of your position on that , but as you are being a bit defensive, perhaps you were as well), and at least 1 poster said he wanted Vokes in front of him lol

 

If you think Ings poses no more injury risk than any other player (and I thought he'd just been unlucky till I saw the injuries he picked prior to joining Liverpool), then you're clearly on the wind-up.

 

Again, to repeat, its perfectly consistent to rate the player but have concerns about the structure of deal if, as reports suggest, the club has little protection in the event of an injury. Not a particularly difficult position to understand unless you're being obtuse.

[John Boy Saint]

Hughes said post match, what I noted early on that Burnley looked like a team that had already played 3 competitive games not the team, that we were, having just played mass change mid game friendlies. It was mentioned last week that West Ham came out of the traps quickly having played Europa league qualifiers previously. You can slag Burnley’s workman like team and style until the cows come home, there are no superstars in the team, but Sean Dyche has them superbly drilled, he got them into Europe last season, we nearly got into the Championship by comarision.

I thought after 20 minutes we were getting more of a grip on the game, but like everyone has said things changed when the subs were made, and what a breath of fresh air to actually see a noticeable change after a couple of season of just shuffling the deckchairs.

Whilst there are some on here defending Austin, quite frankly he offered very little, he did not win one header in a challenge, and no sooner had he received the ball than he was bullied off it, which had us on the back foot again and again. Whilst Hoedt looked the weak link in the defence alongside an imperious Vestergaard, some of you really need to take the Jack Stephens is carp blinkers off.

Whilst it was only a point, we saw things and endeavour that we have rarely seen over the past season and a half, had we started against City or Liverpool we could have been smashed to bits in the first half, but coming up against a dogged Burnley was probably not a bad test to kick the season off with.

As an aside looking at the screen on the concourse the head to head stats were on show and it is equal Wins- Draws-Losses.

 

I know it’s the forum norm, but jeez some of you need to put the rusty razor blades out of reach!!

Edited 12 August, 2018 by John Boy Saint

[eurosaint]

It is too easy to dismiss the starting formation of 3/5 at the back if it isn't being played to its strengths, which it wasn't today. To work properly, it needs two pacey wing backs to get up the pitch when we are playing out, to give width, and three solid central midfielders, at least one of them possessing pace. It requires a solid midfield ahead of them. It also needs the three CBs to have a good understanding between themselves and confidence in each other and the keeper. Cedric didn't get up the field much, so was an obvious candidate for substitution. The lack of pace at the back probably needs to be addressed by playing Yoshida. Vestergaard was solid and reliable, but it is understandably early days for him to meld with the others at the back. He had a good game though.

 

For these reasons, it seems that this formation was responsible for a very poor half an hour. There might have been an element of Burnley partly having a game plan to put us under immense pressure at the start, combined with some nervousness following our systematic dismantling by Burussia Munchenglabach, and we were constantly losing the 50/50 balls in midfield, aiding them with the usual passing sideways and backwards dross that we have come to loathe during the past couple of seasons. The match had evened out by the last quarter of an hour of the half as either we found our feet or they tired a little. A couple of great saves from McCarthy and some last ditch defending kept us in it, but Austin wasn't getting much service up top and one of the few highlights was Armstrong's willingness to surge forward with the ball at his feet, until he went off injured.

 

As we had shown improvement towards the end of the half, it wasn't necessary to change the starting 11, but we started the second half in the similar dire style of the first half. Fortunately Hughes recognised it early and made the substitutions that totally changed the game for us. Replacing the injured Armstrong with Ings maintained the forward attacking thrust, maybe even increased it. Elyounoussi for Cedric and making a back four with Stephens at right back gave us more movement and inventiveness in midfield and suddenly the momentum switched in our favour and we strung together a succession of attacks. Redmond put in one his best performances for some time, switched to the right where he is at his best and was a real threat running at Burnley's defence. Ing's ball control and movement was very good and when Gabbiadini came on for Austin, it was very much a case that for the last 20 minutes we were in total command, keeping possession and passing forwards at every opportunity and shooting at will. A succession of last ditch blocks and some good saves by Hart, combined with some blatant time wasting gained them the point.

 

Just a few incidental mentions in passing. Cork provoked Stephens into pushing him over and he was lucky to escape without a yellow. Shades of the incident with Wilshere; he needs to control his temper. The referee gave free kicks for the merest of contacts. That red carpet is truly awful, as was the interval and pre-match music. We have Sammy Saint drumming up the atmosphere and it seemed to work.

 

Stand out performances from McCarthy, Armstrong, Vestergaard, Lemina, Redmond, Ings and Elyounossi

 

At the equivalent match last season, they beat us 1-0, so we're one ahead of last season already. We started off with a 0-0 draw last season against Swansea

 

It may seem strange to some people but both of those things really bug me ! The red carpet is so bright that it seems to reflect towards your eyes and is really off-putting and the music totally kills the art of conversation !

One ray of hope though, they did play the "Woolston Ferry" at HT which I haven't heard at SMS for years

[Wade Garrett]

Makes me laugh to read so many posts eulogising 4-4-2.

 

Whenever I've suggested it in the past I've been called a dinosaur.

 

Obviously doesn't work too well on Football Manager

 

As Mike Bassett said "4-4-f*cking 2"!

[Batman]

Makes me laugh to read so many posts eulogising 4-4-2.

 

Whenever I've suggested it in the past I've been called a dinosaur.

 

Obviously doesn't work too well on Football Manager

 

As Mike Bassett said "4-4-f*cking 2"!

 

Was hardly a typical 442

Ings was all over the show

[Batman]

I think that that once we shifted to 4 at the back.

We looked a lot like saints under koeman

[Chewy]

Think some of the pessimism on show here today is a little ott. We were poor for the first 20 mins of the first half and 10 mins or so of the second, reasonable for the rest of the first half, and dominant for the rest of the second. Didn't think anyone had an especially bad game, and thought all of our debutants put in creditable performances.

 

Clearly the Ings change provided the second half impetus and it's fine to criticise the decision to start with 3/5 at the back, but even here there's reason for optimism - at least we have a manager prepared to change things!

 

My marks out of ten

McCarthy 7.5

Stephens 6

Vesti 8

Hoedt 6

Cedric 6

Romeu 6

Lamina 6.5

Bertrand 6

Redmond 7

Armstrong 7

Austin 5

Ings 8

Eli 7

Gabbi 6

 

Mom vesti for me. Ings was head and shoulders the best player on the pitch when he came on, but can't give mom for half an hour. Thought vesti barely put a foot wrong. There will be far tougher tests ahead but thought it was an impressive debut.

[John Boy Saint]

It may seem strange to some people but both of those things really bug me ! The red carpet is so bright that it seems to reflect towards your eyes and is really off-putting and the music totally kills the art of conversation !

One ray of hope though, they did play the "Woolston Ferry" at HT which I haven't heard at SMS for years

3 games in now and to be honest I hardly noticed the iridescent red cinder track today.

 

As you say at last we get to hear the “Woolston Ferry” song, I got the strangest of looks from Mrs JBS for not only singing along but knowing the words, interestingly I could hear a other few folks singing along to the chorus too.

[Sidney Fudpucker the 3rd]

I'm not expecting us to get anything against Everton next week but if we go with 3 at the back they'll hammer us.

[Matthew Le God]

Makes me laugh to read so many posts eulogising 4-4-2.

 

Whenever I've suggested it in the past I've been called a dinosaur.

 

Obviously doesn't work too well on Football Manager ��

 

As Mike Bassett said "4-4-f*cking 2"!

 

It was not 4-4-2 in the second half, it was 4-2-3-1.

[CB Fry]

I didn't see the game, heard commentary on bits but lost it as we drove further north.

 

Nice to see such positivity about all of our new faces today, even in a match where it sounded like we were dreadful for huge parts of.

 

Let's hope we click and the new additions genuinely improve us. And Ings stays fit.

[Wade Garrett]

It was not 4-4-2 in the second half, it was 4-2-3-1.

 

Wouldn't know. Was at work and didn't watch the game.

[Marching Halos]

People hoping we start learning but played 5 at the back and lost 3-0 against Borussia Mönchengladbach, mark changed to a back 4 and we played better. The today starts with back 5 again. Maybe by January he will figure it out

[eurosaint]

For all of those who are slating the 3-5-2 formation, please cast your minds back to the final 8 games of last season when Mark Hughes dragged us from the brink of disaster :

ie. http://www.skysports.com/football/swansea-vs-soton/teams/373404

It may not be perfect all the time but it has had it's uses when required !

Just saying, like !

[doddisalegend]

This is my point. The whole idea of pre-season is to sort out your favoured team and formation yet we started the game evidently without a clue on either. That is very poor management.

 

That's not really true though is it? Hughes clearly did sort out his favourite team and formation he has been playing three at the back all pre-season and started the first game using the same system. It turned out to be the wrong system for this game but you can't accuse him of not using his favoured formation.

[doddisalegend]

Every player is an injury risk. There were many who didn't rate him and critical of his signing ( I wasn't sure of your position on that , but as you are being a bit defensive, perhaps you were as well), and at least 1 poster said he wanted Vokes in front of him lol

 

every player is an injury risk one with four major knee injuries by 26 is more of a risk than most.

[saintant]

Ok Doddisalegend, bad choice of words...I meant to say you try to find a system and team that works. Hughes continued with a system/team that was not working pre-season and then selected it for the first game. Makes no sense to me.

[LeBizzier69]

We were absolute garbage until Ings came on. One of the dullest, most tedious, lacklustre first halves I have seen. Outplayed by Burnley, no movement, accuracy, zilch. Why the hell were playing long "target-man" balls up to Austin I have no idea. Pelle/Lambert maybe. Austin...no. Much better last half hour, but Christ.......very rarely do I head down for a pint on 38 minutes.

[OttawaSaint]

I get the feeling from the quotes in this article that the 3 at the back will be back next week.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/16414078.southampton-manager-mark-hughes-on-stuart-armstrong/?ref=rss

 

Ffs!

[verlaine1979]

For all of those who are slating the 3-5-2 formation, please cast your minds back to the final 8 games of last season when Mark Hughes dragged us from the brink of disaster :

ie. http://www.skysports.com/football/swansea-vs-soton/teams/373404

It may not be perfect all the time but it has had it's uses when required !

Just saying, like !

 

I think it was more the case that after getting spanked by West Ham in his first league game, Hughes decided that any further hammering was likely to be fatal to our survival chances and so made us ultra defensive for the final stretch. It worked just well enough for us to survive by the skin of our teeth, but it's not as if we transformed into Chelsea circa Conte's first season.

[whelk]

Ashley fcking Barnes. What a wnker

[whelk]

Tadic totally anonymous today

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Can someone explain to me why three at the back isn't working anymore when it basically turned around our session last year, and England used it so successfully in the world cup?

 

I'm not trying to be provocative as I saw how much of a difference the change made today

[Viking Saint]

Couple of observations:

- was it Pochettino who talked about playing out of formations rather than in them, and that the formations are a starting point? I think the argument here is that professional footballers should be smart and adept enough to adapt to what's in front of them. We clearly didn't need three CBs today with only Woods patrolling the CF area for Burnley

- Armstrong's removal was injury enforced but was surprised to see Cedric taken off and Stephens moved to RB. Was Cedric carrying a knock? Stephens lacks the pace for a fullback and can't cross a road, let alone a ball. Glaring lack of RB cover. Was releasing Pied a smart move? Is Valery worth looking at?

- Surely it's not too much to expect the manager to be flexible enough to deploy different formations depending upon the opposition rather than being wedded to a set system?

[Matthew Le God]

- Armstrong's removal was injury enforced but was surprised to see Cedric taken off and Stephens moved to RB. Was Cedric carrying a knock? Stephens lacks the pace for a fullback and can't cross a road, let alone a ball. Glaring lack of RB cover. Was releasing Pied a smart move? Is Valery worth looking at?

 

I'd guess it was more that Cedric has only had 1 week of training at Saints since last season, played no pre-season games since the World Cup, recently had a stomach bug and wasn't fully match fit.

[danjosaint]

Can someone explain to me why three at the back isn't working anymore when it basically turned around our session last year, and England used it so successfully in the world cup?

 

I'm not trying to be provocative as I saw how much of a difference the change made today

 

The same England that created and had the same amount of chances as Iran, this is what this crap system does unless you have a world class team, recent top teams and teams that won a world cup have played a variation of 433, we use it for a different reason , most of cbs are poor and we leak like a sieve, burnley at home and were playing 5 at back and 2 holding mids, come on sparky u need to wise up

[Forester]

On holiday and missed this one, so thanks for the good balanced posts from most.

 

Would just offer one thought and that is to avoid a “never play 3 at the back” or “we must play 4 at the back” etc set of black and white statements. Good managers recognise that there can be a time and place for all formations and if you play a team with two out and out strikers three at the back can work well. Clearly today wasn’t one of those but it doesn’t mean you banish a particular formation for ever more.

 

Hughes I think is tactically flexible, as was Koeman, and I think that is a good thing

[Graffito]

Hard to know how much of the second half improvement was due to formation and how much to personnel (forthcoming selections may answer that question) but from the moment Ings and Elyanoussi came on their impact and that of the change in formation was instant. Chalk and cheese with what went before. I was impressed with Ings coming deep to link up play. Redmond looked effective playing deeper. The full backs got further up the pitch (we really need Bertrand’s crossing) and the whole team was galvanised. Both Elyanoussi and Armstrong look useful. Mightily ****ed off with how we started and very encouraged by how we finished. Overall a fair result.

[Saint-Fred]

Can someone explain to me why three at the back isn't working anymore when it basically turned around our session last year, and England used it so successfully in the world cup?

 

I'm not trying to be provocative as I saw how much of a difference the change made today

 

England's record at the World Cup was something like W3 D1 L3....despite the easiest draw it was by far the worst record of any of the semi finalists.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Can someone explain to me why three at the back isn't working anymore when it basically turned around our session last year, and England used it so successfully in the world cup?

 

I'm not trying to be provocative as I saw how much of a difference the change made today

 

We’ve just got some ****ing idiot supporters who now have their new campaign, abandon 3 at the back (previously it was The Diamond). 4 at the back was a ****ing disaster last season, we’d have gone down had we kept it. Koeman preferred 4 at the back, but switched to 3 centre half’s occasionally. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Hughes doing the same (only in reverse). Of course our forum experts are now demanding 4-4-2 because we played better TODAY when deploying that, mainly because Ings played between the lines. Had Ings started in a 3-4-1-2 we may have played better, who knows.

 

In my opinion the issue with the system today was giving the ball away too much, getting pushed back into a back 5 and not having an out ball because Charlie hasn’t got the legs. Blaming the system is too easy, the players were poor, I think they’d have been poor in a 4-4-2 as well. It took Ings coming on & maybe Burnley tiring to fire us up.

 

Having been at Newcastle & West Ham I’m not convinced Cedric is ideal in a 4.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dark Munster]

I think people are being a little unfair on Romeu he,was awful until the formation change then he really upped it looked much more like his old self.

Agreed. First half he was anonymous, but second half I thought he was very good.

[Dark Munster]

Redmond or Vestegaard man of the match for me.

McCarthy or Vestergaard for me. Both excellent (apart from one hair-raising pass by McCarthy).

[saintwbu]

We’ve just got some ****ing idiot supporters who now have their new campaign, abandon 3 at the back (previously it was The Diamond). 4 at the back was a ****ing disaster last season, we’d have gone down had we kept it. Koeman preferred 4 at the back, but switched to 3 centre half’s occasionally. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Hughes doing the same (only in reverse). Of course our forum experts are now demanding 4-4-2 because we played better TODAY when deploying that, mainly because Ings played between the lines. Had Ings started in a 3-4-1-2 we may have played better, who knows.

 

In my opinion the issue with the system today was giving the ball away too much, getting pushed back into a back 5 and not having an out ball because Charlie hasn’t got the legs. Blaming the system is too easy, the players were poor, I think they’d have been poor in a 4-4-2 as well. It took Ings coming on & maybe Burnley tiring to fire us up.

 

Having been at Newcastle & West Ham I’m not convinced Cedric is ideal in a 4.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Or a 5. Probably a 6 either, and maybe not a 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 to be honest.

[wild-saint]

Calm down, old boy. Very few are against Ings as a player; just wary of the injury risk he presents, if as reports suggest we're obliged to buy him.

 

Can’t be arsed to look but pretty sure there were a fair few comments suggesting that the injuries he had had also impacted his pace / performance etc as well.