Ralph Hasenhuttl

[Ted Bates Statue]

33 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Wow not our day! How close 

Not to worry. We will get another chance to call for Hasenhuttl's sacking very soon. West Brom can still overtake us.

[S-Clarke]

1 hour ago, SKD said:

Absolutely battered by them as well. Not even a smash and grab. 

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

Define battered?

As i said, what did you mean?

[SKD]

2 minutes ago, TWar said:

Showed character to turn it around after two mistakes. Clever substitution to bring on Salisu who won a few important headers. Significantly better side and are now safe. Wonder how long this will shut up the "Ralph out" mugs for. Give it maybe a couple of hours.

I agree. Although defence still a big concern. 

[SKD]

Just now, S-Clarke said:

As i said, what did you mean?

They were the better team and all over us for 20 minutes. That’s what I meant. 

[TWar]

Just now, SKD said:

I agree. Although defence still a big concern. 

Yeah I think Salisu Vestergaard will be the future of our defence if we can retain Vest. KWP had a bad game, way way off his normal standard, but tbh not that bothered by that. The lad is proper proper quality and everyone has off games. Normally one of the most reliable players in our side.

[S-Clarke]

1 minute ago, SKD said:

They were the better team and all over us for 20 minutes. That’s what I meant. 

That's not battering us. They didn't batter us at any point of that game.

We started off poorly, a diabolical start from us really, but at no stage were we battered by Burnley.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by S-Clarke

[SKD]

Just now, S-Clarke said:

That's not battering us. They didn't batter us at any point of that game.

We started off poorly, a diabolical start from us really, but at no stage were we battered by Burnley.

For the first 20 minutes we struggled to get out our half. More our doing then there’s, but they were very much battering us. That’s down to opinion of what you consider a battering I guess

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, SKD said:

They were the better team and all over us for 20 minutes. That’s what I meant. 

Could you not wait until full time before writing off the game and manager? The stats show it was Saints who did the battering, not Burnley. 

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, SKD said:

For the first 20 minutes we struggled to get out our half. More our doing then there’s, but they were very much battering us. That’s down to opinion of what you consider a battering I guess

Battering would be controlling possession and peppering the goal with shots. Burnley were not doing that even during the time they were 2-0. By half time Saints had far more shots and 67% of possession.

[S-Clarke]

 

2 minutes ago, SKD said:

For the first 20 minutes we struggled to get out our half. More our doing then there’s, but they were very much battering us. That’s down to opinion of what you consider a battering I guess

That's a strange opinion of what battering is tbh. But each to their own.

[SKD]

3 minutes ago, TWar said:

Yeah I think Salisu Vestergaard will be the future of our defence if we can retain Vest. KWP had a bad game, way way off his normal standard, but tbh not that bothered by that. The lad is proper proper quality and everyone has off games. Normally one of the most reliable players in our side.

Agree, 1 bad game from KWP is acceptable. Burnley are a big physical team, he isn’t. If I remember rightly he struggled against them last season as well. 
 

Bednerak has been poor for a few months now, coincidently since being throw into the wolves at RB

[Toadhall Saint]

3 minutes ago, SKD said:

For the first 20 minutes we struggled to get out our half. More our doing then there’s, but they were very much battering us. That’s down to opinion of what you consider a battering I guess

So would you say we battered them for 70% of the game?

[SKD]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Could you not wait until full time before writing off the game and manager? The stats show it was who Saints did the battering, not Burnley. 

Yes of course and hindsight I should have. A good turn around. Usually us on the other end of those. 

[SKD]

Just now, Toadhall Saint said:

So would you say we battered them for 70% of the game?

Yes. Credit where it’s due, a very good performance after going 2 down. 

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, TWar said:

KWP had a bad game

No he didn't. Just because he gave away a penatly it doesn't outweigh all the positive offensive and defensive work he did. He was constantly stretching Burnley and was solid defensively. 

[Toadhall Saint]

1 minute ago, SKD said:

Yes. Credit where it’s due, a very good performance after going 2 down. 

Well done keep it up.

[TWar]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

No he didn't. Just because he gave away a penatly it doesn't outweigh all the positive offensive and defensive work he did. He was constantly stretching Burnley and was solid defensively. 

He was dispossessed multiple times too, putting us under pressure.

[Chapel End]

SKD, deary me.

Take a break son, making yourself look even more of a laughing stock.

Battered 🤣🤣

[SKD]

7 minutes ago, Chapel End said:

SKD, deary me.

Take a break son, making yourself look even more of a laughing stock.

Battered 🤣🤣

Shut up always

[Chapel End]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

 

That's a strange opinion of what battering is tbh. But each to their own.

Indeed, strange is the optimum word. 

Agenda getting in the way of reality,  typical 

[SKD]

15 minutes ago, Chapel End said:

Indeed, strange is the optimum word. 

Agenda getting in the way of reality,  typical 

You don’t think that being 2-0 down to Burnley and that start today was shocking? 
 

Argumentative agenda getting in the way of reality, typical. 

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, SKD said:

You don’t think that being 2-0 down to Burnley and that start today was shocking? 
 

Argumentative agenda getting in the way of reality, typical. 

It was not a battering by Burnley in the first half. We had 67% possession and 14 shots in the 1st half. Sure we fucked up defensively for the two goals, but it was not a battering from Burnley like you claimed.

[SKD]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It was not a battering by Burnley in the first half. We had 67% possession and 14 shots in the 1st half. Sure we fucked up defensively for the two goals, but it was not a battering from Burnley like you claimed.

First 20 minutes it was. 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, SKD said:

First 20 minutes it was. 

Nope, even during the opening 20 minutes we had more of the ball and more shots. 

[SKD]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Nope, even during the opening 20 minutes we had more of the ball and more shots. 

Cool. My opinion, they were the much better team and all over us for the first 20. 
 

if you don’t think that, then you do you. I don’t care. 

[OttawaSaint]

This is worse than the match thread. 😂 

[Chapel End]

8 minutes ago, OttawaSaint said:

This is worse than the match thread. 😂 

Yep, some should just stop digging and embarrassing themselves further 

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Chapel End

[Red]

2 hours ago, TWar said:

Showed character to turn it around after two mistakes. Clever substitution to bring on Salisu who won a few important headers. Significantly better side and are now safe. Wonder how long this will shut up the "Ralph out" mugs for. Give it maybe a couple of hours.

Yes the team did, not sure Ralph helped much to that end. Tactics first 20 minutes were completely different and strange - clearly the fast press was out of the window - Burnley did more of that than we did. No real attacking intent or taking the game to them. Lack of authority at the back. Once again changes were slow (although earlier than most games) and strange. Ok Armstrong was spent but why change a winning formation and invite pressure on us? We were lucky today and needed four times the chances Burnley had to score one more than them - this will not happen against better sides.

I like Ralph (just about) but he is no messiah and is tactically very limited and doesn't know how to change things when we are on the back foot. Could we do better than Ralph in our circumstances - where's that black box?

[S-Clarke]

4 hours ago, TWar said:

He was dispossessed multiple times too, putting us under pressure.

I think that comes with KWP, really. Sadly today it lead to a goal. He does overplay quite a bit, that's part of his game.

But he's still very important to the way we press and play down the right hand side of the pitch. We will always concede chances on his side though, just the way it is.

[SKD]

1 hour ago, Red said:

Yes the team did, not sure Ralph helped much to that end. Tactics first 20 minutes were completely different and strange - clearly the fast press was out of the window - Burnley did more of that than we did. No real attacking intent or taking the game to them. Lack of authority at the back. Once again changes were slow (although earlier than most games) and strange. Ok Armstrong was spent but why change a winning formation and invite pressure on us? We were lucky today and needed four times the chances Burnley had to score one more than them - this will not happen against better sides.

I like Ralph (just about) but he is no messiah and is tactically very limited and doesn't know how to change things when we are on the back foot. Could we do better than Ralph in our circumstances - where's that black box?

I do tend to agree with this. Having a player of ings class got us off the hook today. 
 

Defensively were an absolute shambles. That second goal was Sunday league style. Very poor 

[S-Clarke]

1 hour ago, Red said:

Yes the team did, not sure Ralph helped much to that end. Tactics first 20 minutes were completely different and strange - clearly the fast press was out of the window - Burnley did more of that than we did. No real attacking intent or taking the game to them. Lack of authority at the back. Once again changes were slow (although earlier than most games) and strange. Ok Armstrong was spent but why change a winning formation and invite pressure on us? We were lucky today and needed four times the chances Burnley had to score one more than them - this will not happen against better sides.

I like Ralph (just about) but he is no messiah and is tactically very limited and doesn't know how to change things when we are on the back foot. Could we do better than Ralph in our circumstances - where's that black box?

Our start felt a bit laboured, took them 20 mins to actually switch on. Not sure it was particularly tactically a problem.

No complaints with the changes, we were absolutely on top - certainly in the attacking third, so didn't feel the need for any early changes. I don't think any of the changes were designed to bring pressure onto us, it was to give us some legs up the pitch and on the break. Your point is a bit confused though - you say the changes were slow, and then moan about the changes as they stopped our momentum. As you said, Armstrong was spent - we have to manage him as has been said numerous times. Same with Theo, he's just got back from a long lay off so it needed freshening up a bit.

We played with purpose and verve in the attacking third today (after 20 mins!) and that is much like we were under Ralph during the good times, and unsurprisngly that return of attacking verve coincides with the return of our attacking players from injury. 

The link up play has clearly been worked on during the break and we looked so much sharper in the final third. This is not an 'in spite of Ralph' win as some are trying to make out.

[TWar]

2 minutes ago, SKD said:

I do tend to agree with this. Having a player of ings class got us off the hook today. 
 

Defensively were an absolute shambles. That second goal was Sunday league style. Very poor 

We had a couple of defensive blunders but I don't think it's fair to say Ings really carried us. We had over three times the number of shots as them and a much higher xG, we would have been expected to win considering the chances created.

He is a difference maker as said in the other thread but others did play well.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by TWar

[SKD]

3 minutes ago, TWar said:

We had a couple of defensive blunders but I don't think it's fair to say Ings really carried us. We had over three times the number of shots as them and a much higher xG, we would have been expected to win considering the chances created.

He is a difference maker as said in the other thread but others did play well.

I agree, other than the first 20 minutes, which were appalling, we were very good. 
 

Ings pretty much single handily brought us back into the game though, imo. 
 

My point was more that if we didn’t have his extra bit of quality, I don’t think we score 3 goals today. 

[Red]

24 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Our start felt a bit laboured, took them 20 mins to actually switch on. Not sure it was particularly tactically a problem.

No complaints with the changes, we were absolutely on top - certainly in the attacking third, so didn't feel the need for any early changes. I don't think any of the changes were designed to bring pressure onto us, it was to give us some legs up the pitch and on the break. Your point is a bit confused though - you say the changes were slow, and then moan about the changes as they stopped our momentum. As you said, Armstrong was spent - we have to manage him as has been said numerous times. Same with Theo, he's just got back from a long lay off so it needed freshening up a bit.

We played with purpose and verve in the attacking third today (after 20 mins!) and that is much like we were under Ralph during the good times, and unsurprisngly that return of attacking verve coincides with the return of our attacking players from injury. 

The link up play has clearly been worked on during the break and we looked so much sharper in the final third. This is not an 'in spite of Ralph' win as some are trying to make out.

Our start was shite not laboured - against a better team we would have lost the game within the first 20 minutes. Of course the changes were not designed to put pressure on us (not sure where you got that idea from?), but they did - because we reverted to a more defensive set up and hence invited Burnley on to us. What I meant was make the changes to freshen things up but keep the formation, so by all means sub a tiring Armstrong but replace him with a like for like.

Yes we recovered well but it took us four to five times as many chances as Burnley to score one more goal, even with Ings and an improved Redmond - which is a worry as we will not get that against better sides. Chance conversation is a big concern as some of the top teams in some games only have one chance and they convert it. Great we won, but we need to keep learning and improving and not sure that is the case or has been under Ralph. Still we should be safe now and let's rejoice in that for now.

[SKD]

3 minutes ago, Red said:

Our start was shite not laboured - against a better team we would have lost the game within the first 20 minutes. Of course the changes were not designed to put pressure on us (not sure where you got that idea from?), but they did - because we reverted to a more defensive set up and hence invited Burnley on to us. What I meant was make the changes to freshen things up but keep the formation, so by all means sub a tiring Armstrong but replace him with a like for like.

Yes we recovered well but it took us four to five times as many chances as Burnley to score one more goal, even with Ings and an improved Redmond - which is a worry as we will not get that against better sides. Chance conversation is a big concern as some of the top teams in some games only have one chance and they convert it. Great we won, but we need to keep learning and improving and not sure that is the case or has been under Ralph. Still we should be safe now and let's rejoice in that for now.

In fairness, you can’t blame the manager for that. Ings aside (maybe Armstrong) our attacking players just aren’t natural goal scorers. 
 

The defence is absolutely something we can criticise the manager over though. It a big concern. It’s absolutely garbage. 
 

Obviously we don’t see what is going on in training, but Ralph’s reluctance to drop Bednerak is a worry for me. 

[JustinSFC]

We won the game but Ralphs tactics were still a bit suspect.

We invited a lot of pressure from Burnley with some of the sub choices had we been against a better attacking side than Burnley we almost certainly would have chucked 3 points from a winning position again.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by JustinSFC

[Give it to Ron]

43 minutes ago, JustinSFC said:

We won the game but Ralphs tactics were still a bit suspect.

We invited a lot of pressure from Burnley with some of the sub choices had we been against a better attacking side than Burnley we almost certainly would have chucked 3 points from a winning position again.

Don’t agree we brought on Salisu to beef up defence and he did ok the plan was to catch them on the break but poor final pass and a bad miss stopped that from totally working

For a change I think subs were correct. 

 

 

 

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Give it to Ron

[S-Clarke]

54 minutes ago, Red said:

Our start was shite not laboured - against a better team we would have lost the game within the first 20 minutes. Of course the changes were not designed to put pressure on us (not sure where you got that idea from?), but they did - because we reverted to a more defensive set up and hence invited Burnley on to us. What I meant was make the changes to freshen things up but keep the formation, so by all means sub a tiring Armstrong but replace him with a like for like.

Yes we recovered well but it took us four to five times as many chances as Burnley to score one more goal, even with Ings and an improved Redmond - which is a worry as we will not get that against better sides. Chance conversation is a big concern as some of the top teams in some games only have one chance and they convert it. Great we won, but we need to keep learning and improving and not sure that is the case or has been under Ralph. Still we should be safe now and let's rejoice in that for now.

It was a shite and laboured start, we started too slow and just seemed a little off it. Stood off Burnley a little. Was not happy with those first 20 mins and I'm fairly sure Ralph wouldn't have been either.

But overall that performance was a real positive. Lots of inventive attacking play, lots of chances created. The subs to me made sense, I'd have made them if I was a manager to be honest - not that I am.

One of Burnley's tactics was pinging balls to the far post and isolating players against KWP. Putting an extra CB in there killed that dead, so that avenue for them was no more. At the end of the day Burnley's approach was balls into the box, so having as many CB's in the closing stages made entire sense to me. 

Our first win at home after what feels like forever was never going to be perfect, but we got over the line and showed a side that I haven't seen before from this lot (in terms of recovering from a very low ebb). It was always going to be a nervy end, it would have been more suicidal to just throw more attackers on and just carry on as we were hoping for the best - If we'd have dropped points from that approach I'm sure Ralph would have been crucified (in essence, that would have been going like for like and playing the same way - a criticism which has been put on his door for the last few months). But he did alter things today in order to see the game out, and for some reason that's still a problem.

I still think we're on for 40+ points quite comfortably this year, and with this squad and with the disjointed injuries we've had this year, that's probably around right. 

Edited 4 April, 2021 by S-Clarke

[Harry_SFC]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

It was a shite and laboured start, we started too slow and just seemed a little off it. Stood off Burnley a little. Was not happy with those first 20 mins and I'm fairly sure Ralph wouldn't have been either.

But overall that performance was a real positive. Lots of inventive attacking play, lots of chances created. The subs to me made sense, I'd have made them if I was a manager to be honest - not that I am.

One of Burnley's tactics was pinging balls to the far post and isolating players against KWP. Putting an extra CB in there killed that dead, so that avenue for them was no more. At the end of the day Burnley's approach was balls into the box, so having as many CB's in the closing stages made entire sense to me. 

Our first win at home after what feels like forever was never going to be perfect, but we got over the line and showed a side that I haven't seen before from this lot (in terms of recovering from a very low ebb). It was always going to be a nervy end, it would have been more suicidal to just throw more attackers on and just carry on as we were hoping for the best - If we'd have dropped points from that approach I'm sure Ralph would have been crucified (in essence, that would have been going like for like and playing the same way - a criticism which has been put on his door for the last few months). But he did alter things today in order to see the game out, and for some reason that's still a problem.

I still think we're on for 40+ points quite comfortably this year, and with this squad and with the disjointed injuries we've had this year, that's probably around right. 

Totally agree with this. 

After the first 30 mins we were the better team for the rest of the match. You could see what Ralph had worked on with the players during the international break - creating chances. I can't remember a match where we looked so threatening in the final third.

[stevy777_x]

Those whining to sack him look a little silly now.

We ll confortably go past the 40 pt mark now.

Judge a manager over a season not a run of 15 games.

[JustinSFC]

23 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

Those whining to sack him look a little silly now.

We ll confortably go past the 40 pt mark now.

Judge a manager over a season not a run of 15 games.

That's well and good, but no other manager in the Premier League would get the run of games he's had. None.

We have some of the softest fans in the league.

[Archers Road Stand]

40 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

Those whining to sack him look a little silly now.

We ll confortably go past the 40 pt mark now.

Judge a manager over a season not a run of 15 games.

Last 20 games has us sitting 17th in the form table. Very lucky today, his Salisu sub for Stu put us on the back foot and he won't have Ings to bail him out next season. 

Cult of Ralph is still strong. 

[MarkSFC]

24 minutes ago, JustinSFC said:

That's well and good, but no other manager in the Premier League would get the run of games he's had. None.

We have some of the softest fans 

Steve Bruce has...

[saintwbu]

9 minutes ago, MarkSFC said:

Steve Bruce has...

Graham Potter won something like 1 home game in a whole calendar year, and he’s still surviving. I personally am glad we have a club who don’t chop and change and are willing to back a longer term view - whether it works or not remains to be seen. 

Edited 4 April, 2021 by saintwbu

[Give it to Ron]

7 hours ago, Archers Road Stand said:

Last 20 games has us sitting 17th in the form table. Very lucky today, his Salisu sub for Stu put us on the back foot and he won't have Ings to bail him out next season. 

Cult of Ralph is still strong. 

No it didn’t Burnley were always going to throw the kitchen sink at us bringing on Salisu added another body in way to win and allow us to break on them. It was his plan B that you all moan about he doesn’t have today he did and you still moan

Cult of Ralph FFS how fcking childish are our fans jeesh come  on explain how we sack him and staff without a pot to piss in?

To be clear I am not his biggest fan but we are stuck with him for a while yet.

[JustinSFC]

8 hours ago, MarkSFC said:

Steve Bruce has...

No he hasn't.

He hasn't had a 9-0 beating. If he had, even for Mike Ashley, that would have been unlikely he'd still be there now.

[JustinSFC]

1 hour ago, Give it to Ron said:

Cult of Ralph FFS how fcking childish are our fans jeesh come  on explain how we sack him and staff without a pot to piss in?

To be clear I am not his biggest fan but we are stuck with him for a while yet.

Ralph isn't going to be on some massive £20M payoff Jose Mourinho contract clause to sack him. It'll be £3m TOPS possibly, I mean really possibly pushing the upper echelons of probability, it might... MIGHT... be £5m.

We could if we really wanted to. But we can't and not for why you think it is either.

We've structured the entire club infrastructure around him, that's what makes him hard to sack. Not the money.

Edited 5 April, 2021 by JustinSFC

[Give it to Ron]

57 minutes ago, JustinSFC said:

Ralph isn't going to be on some massive £20M payoff Jose Mourinho contract clause to sack him. It'll be £3m TOPS possibly, I mean really possibly pushing the upper echelons of probability, it might... MIGHT... be £5m.

We could if we really wanted to. But we can't and not for why you think it is either.

We've structured the entire club infrastructure around him, that's what makes him hard to sack. Not the money.

You think a 3 year contract would only cost us 3m? Ok I am not sure I agree with you go and have a look at Mark Hughes pay off

[MarkSFC]

1 hour ago, JustinSFC said:

No he hasn't.

He hasn't had a 9-0 beating. If he had, even for Mike Ashley, that would have been unlikely he'd still be there now.

It's points that matter. 

Last 16 games Newcastle are bottom of the league. 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/formtabelle/wettbewerb/GB1?saison_id=2020&min=15&max=31

 

[Toadhall Saint]

1 hour ago, JustinSFC said:

Ralph isn't going to be on some massive £20M payoff Jose Mourinho contract clause to sack him. It'll be £3m TOPS possibly, I mean really possibly pushing the upper echelons of probability, it might... MIGHT... be £5m.

We could if we really wanted to. But we can't and not for why you think it is either.

We've structured the entire club infrastructure around him, that's what makes him hard to sack. Not the money.

I’m trying to think what ex poster you remind me of.....