Fulham 0-0 Saints - Reaction

[Pierre]

I think we're a bit hard on the new lads in the team. It not all down to 'quality'. They have all hardly played al season. We all give Ings the benefit of the doubt, 'being rusty' after a few wëks out. These guys need to build up match fitness too. I'm convinced they will improve if given longer runs in the team. Even Long wasn't as bad as he wa made out to be, but you need games to get that feeling for timing your runs. 

Ralph obviously had instructed the team to play more directly because he thought Fulham would drop deep. In fact they just came at us which meant we just gave away possession. It was corrected in the second half but still our passing was just to sloppy to create a lot. A lit of that I think is down to 'needing to read' each other on the pitch. Always hard with new players in.

[OldNick]

41 minutes ago, Chez said:

I'm a realist and know Saints wining the league is a pipe dream, but it can be done. Not sure it can be done without Ings at his best though. 

Chez i always respect your opinion but to think we had the smallest ever chance to win the PL is mad. Th team/squad we had when Leicester won the league was far stronger in real terms than now and had Koeman been given more investment at that time we may have challenged rather than dropping away.

We are lacking in so many places around the pitch and to hear that Ralph said that we may get one loan in shows we dont have any ambition to push on.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Thought I’d watch match of the day this morning as you sometimes get a different perspective watching twice. However, it was unwatchable and I had to mute it after a couple of minutes. Anyone who thinks that bird is a competent commentator is plain wrong. Horrendous. 

[East Kent Saint]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Thought I’d watch match of the day this morning as you sometimes get a different perspective watching twice. However, it was unwatchable and I had to mute it after a couple of minutes. Anyone who thinks that bird is a competent commentator is plain wrong. Horrendous. 

I found it hard to work out what she was saying, probably due to her accent , wasn’t sure if she was Australian or what !

[OldNick]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Thought I’d watch match of the day this morning as you sometimes get a different perspective watching twice. However, it was unwatchable and I had to mute it after a couple of minutes. Anyone who thinks that bird is a competent commentator is plain wrong. Horrendous. 

she was terrible, but that doesnt mean that all are likely to be poor, most of the male commentators drive me mad

[East Kent Saint]

I think in the old days of if the attacker was level he was onside , to encourage more goals , Saints would have won that ! MOTD suggested that there might of been 2 penalties earlier in the season .....

[Appy]

1 minute ago, East Kent Saint said:

I think in the old days of if the attacker was level he was onside , to encourage more goals , Saints would have won that ! MOTD suggested that there might of been 2 penalties earlier in the season .....

But he wasn’t level. 

[East Kent Saint]

Just now, Appy said:

But he wasn’t level. 

But he could have been judged level by the human Lino in real time and the benefit of doubt given as was the thinking at the time!

Che looked as shocked as Mike Gatting when the ball bounced high and spun out of reach !

[Chez]

31 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Chez i always respect your opinion but to think we had the smallest ever chance to win the PL is mad. Th team/squad we had when Leicester won the league was far stronger in real terms than now and had Koeman been given more investment at that time we may have challenged rather than dropping away.

We are lacking in so many places around the pitch and to hear that Ralph said that we may get one loan in shows we dont have any ambition to push on.

 

We are a mid table side. The Arsenal and Fulham games demonstrated that, but Leicester were a `mid table' side when they won the league. I'm gpnna dream big whenever we make a good start to a season.

We will spend what we have, no more. Our ambition is to win as many games as we can with the best side we can afford. 

 

Edited 27 December, 2020 by Chez

[Teddeer]

Just watched the highlights on the Southampton FC official site. It was 100% a penalty because the Fulham player moves towards the ball with his arm. Only slightly but enough to signify that his intentions were deliberate.

[S-Clarke]

3 minutes ago, Teddeer said:

Just watched the highlights on the Southampton FC official site. It was 100% a penalty because the Fulham player moves towards the ball with his arm. Only slightly but enough to signify that his intentions were deliberate.

For me, that shout fell into the category of 'seen them given'. I don't think it was 100% stonewall, but they have been given.

[Teddeer]

Watch the slow motion replay and you will see the Fulham player make a clear and obvious movement towards the ball with his arm. It's a penalty.

Edited 27 December, 2020 by Teddeer

[St_Tel49]

19 hours ago, madge said:

Not sure what half of you expect? And a reality check I think. It’s obvious our squad isn’t deep enough to sustain us in the top six. We are good, very good at present and it’s a well earned point, could have been three. When you get upset about that game maybe think back to life under puel and pellegrino.. honestly some of you need your head examined.

Well said!

[Sarnia Cherie]

2 hours ago, Chez said:

Leicester won it with a wafer thin squad. They got on a roll and then the belief took them places. 

They had a charmed season with players, particularly Vardy, bang on form, no injuries to key players and the Big 6 clubs shooting themselves in the foot. 

[eelpie]

1 hour ago, Pierre said:

I think we're a bit hard on the new lads in the team. It not all down to 'quality'. They have all hardly played al season. We all give Ings the benefit of the doubt, 'being rusty' after a few wëks out. These guys need to build up match fitness too. I'm convinced they will improve if given longer runs in the team. Even Long wasn't as bad as he wa made out to be, but you need games to get that feeling for timing your runs. 

Ralph obviously had instructed the team to play more directly because he thought Fulham would drop deep. In fact they just came at us which meant we just gave away possession. It was corrected in the second half but still our passing was just to sloppy to create a lot. A lit of that I think is down to 'needing to read' each other on the pitch. Always hard with new players in.

Well said.

[egg]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

For me, that shout fell into the category of 'seen them given'. I don't think it was 100% stonewall, but they have been given.

Yep. I'd have gone nuts if that was given against us. Besides, we shouldn't be relying on borderline decisions to win games against teams near the bottom of the league. 

[eelpie]

19 hours ago, Forester said:

A good clean sheet, Fulham one shot on target all game, and while disappointed not to win the game I feel that taking out Vest and Romeu meant that we would all have been delighted not to concede before the start of the game.

 

To be fair thought Fulham were one of the very few teams to match Saints’ workload this season hence it all feeling a bit frenetic and scrappy.  As they say, if you can’t win it don’t lose it

I think we were fortunate to be up against Fulham without Romeu and Vestergaard. Imagine if it had been the likes of Aston Villa and those higher up. There were positives from the newcomers, and Long hit a powerful shot on target. Let's hope that Ralph has time to settle and inspire the team before West Ham. We can perform better with the same team , and with changes. 

[Medrurkin]

1 hour ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

They had a charmed season with players, particularly Vardy, bang on form, no injuries to key players and the Big 6 clubs shooting themselves in the foot. 

Without Vardy, they are bang average, same as we are without Ings.

[Teddeer]

40 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. I'd have gone nuts if that was given against us. Besides, we shouldn't be relying on borderline decisions to win games against teams near the bottom of the league. 

It wasn't borderline. Unfortunately Moss was on VAR duties - say no more.

[Archers Road Stand]

Pretty poor performance from us, but missing the spine of the team. Felt Diallo done well, certainly grew into the game. 

 

Unlucky not to get a penalty, not sure what went on with VAR as they seemed to have a quick check to see if Bertrand was offside, I was pretty certain it was going to be given at that point. 

 

Front four just didn't click, Long took about 40 minutes to even touch the ball. The decision to give him a new two year deal is a poor one. He isn't even Championship standard these days, offside regularly, doesn't win headers, can't pass the ball and appears to have lost his pace. 

 

Fulham had a couple of nearly moments and we were lucky with them, great block by Stephens at the death as that looked goal bound. Think they're better than their league position shows, I expect them to stay up.

 

Overall, I'll say its a good point. We were away from home and didn't play well. Just hope there is a bit of a positive reaction against West Ham on Tuesday. They've deservedly beat us everytime we've played them under Ralph. Time for that to change. 

[egg]

50 minutes ago, Teddeer said:

It wasn't borderline. Unfortunately Moss was on VAR duties - say no more.

Of course it was borderline otherwise VAR wouldn't have looked at it for an eternity and then not given it.

There's not one Saints phone who could honestly say that they would have been happy if a pen was given against us for that.

Nonetheless, I repeat that we shouldn't have to rely on decisions like that to win football matches. Fulham were there for the taking and we weren't good enough on the day. 

[Chickendippers]

Had to remind myself to keep breathing when JWP put the ball down for the free kick - deserved a goal but a great save to push it on to the post. Reminded me of the Wolves game, there was no space for our passing game and there were too many long balls just handing possession back. Although Long did OK (just stay onside for once, you can't get away with it these days) I'd have preferred to have seen Walcott up front and Djenepo on from the start. Tella for Armstrong on 60 mins (why didn't this happen Ralph?).

KWP was excellent and should have had a pen when he got clattered or at least a free kick. And we should have a pen for the handball.

The xG stat doesn't seem to work for us, 0.17 yet we hit the bar, missed an open goal, had the ball in the net twice (ruled out for offside). See the villa game for another example, scrappy first hour, xG of .35 yet we're 4-0 up.

Need to beat WHU on Weds.

[Teddeer]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Of course it was borderline otherwise VAR wouldn't have looked at it for an eternity and then not given it.

There's not one Saints phone who could honestly say that they would have been happy if a pen was given against us for that.

Nonetheless, I repeat that we shouldn't have to rely on decisions like that to win football matches. Fulham were there for the taking and we weren't good enough on the day. 

I'd have accepted that if it had been one of our players handling and a penalty was given. Very clear arm movement towards the ball and no surprise that Moss couldn't or maybe wouldn't see it even with the benefit of slow motion from various angles. Clear and obvious all day long.

[benjii]

If it makes anyone feel better, Burnley got rogered hard by the ref today.

[saintadjg]

4 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

For me, that shout fell into the category of 'seen them given'. I don't think it was 100% stonewall, but they have been given.

You're entitled to your opinion but that is a 100% stonewall penalty. He intentionally moved towards the ball . paint it how you like but VAR should have given that as that is what VAR is there for.

[benjii]

And Dunk has just clearly handled then scored and VAR says its OK.

WTF?!

[davefizzy14]

I still can't believe how we didn't get a penalty for that handball in the second half yesterday. The Fulham defender had his arm in an unnatural position! Bad decision that was.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Teddeer said:

I'd have accepted that if it had been one of our players handling and a penalty was given. Very clear arm movement towards the ball and no surprise that Moss couldn't or maybe wouldn't see it even with the benefit of slow motion from various angles. Clear and obvious all day long.

If you’re going to give that as a penalty to us then you also have to give one against Bednarek earlier. Personally I would hate to see that type of incident as a handball.

[Whitey Grandad]

8 minutes ago, saintadjg said:

You're entitled to your opinion but that is a 100% stonewall penalty. He intentionally moved towards the ball . paint it how you like but VAR should have given that as that is what VAR is there for.

If it was that certain it would have been given and we wouldn’t still be debating it on here 24 hours later.

[S-Clarke]

edit

Edited 27 December, 2020 by S-Clarke

[Lord Duckhunter]

16 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

If it was that certain it would have been given and we wouldn’t still be debating it on here 24 hours later.

And Alan Shearer wouldn’t have said it wasn’t on MoTD. 

[skintsaint]

Felt a long time since we have had a 0-0?

[Teddeer]

15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

And Alan Shearer wouldn’t have said it wasn’t on MoTD. 

So if Shearer says it wasn't a penalty we all roll over and accept it because, after all, he would know. Jeez.

[trousers]

43 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

If you’re going to give that as a penalty to us then you also have to give one against Bednarek earlier

They weren't 'like-for-like' scenarios though. Bednarek was trying to move his arm out of the way of the ball whereas the Fulham defender was trying to move his arm towards the path of the ball. However, both player's arms were in a 'natural' position so I've no idea if that trumps intent or not? (I gave up trying to keep up with the nuances of the handball rule a long time ago...)

Edited 27 December, 2020 by trousers

[Dark Munster]

36 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Felt a long time since we have had a 0-0?

Yes indeed, 69 matches apparently. Surprised no-one has mentioned it. It's been a long 2 years for Lord Trousers, not being able to say "this has 0-0 written all over it." 

[Whitey Grandad]

46 minutes ago, trousers said:

They weren't 'like-for-like' scenarios though. Bednarek was trying to move his arm out of the way of the ball whereas the Fulham defender was trying to move his arm towards the path of the ball. However, both player's arms were in a 'natural' position so I've no idea if that trumps intent or not? (I gave up trying to keep up with the nuances of the handball rule a long time ago...)

I looked at MOTD again this afternoon (yes, I am that bored) and the player was running towards his own goal line and actually moves his arm backwards away from the path of the ball..

And yes, the handball rulings are a nonsense these days.

[Teddeer]

Are you sure you weren't watching it played in reverse? The arm movement is forward towards the ball.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Teddeer said:

So if Shearer says it wasn't a penalty we all roll over and accept it because, after all, he would know. Jeez.

Not at all. Merely pointing out that it wasn’t a “stonewall”.

Had it been, one of the referee or VAR would have given it, every poster on here would have said it, & Alan Shearer would also have said it. It was open to debate, and that’s what people are having. I was disappointed it wasn’t given, but equally would have been annoyed if we’d conceded one like that. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Teddeer said:

Are you sure you weren't watching it played in reverse? The arm movement is forward towards the ball.

Jeez, you're obsessed pal. The game's over, we didn't get a pen, people have a different opinion to you, move on. 

[Teddeer]

Well you keep responding so maybe you are the one who is obsessed. It was a penalty plain and simple. We didn't get it because Moss was on VAR duties.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Teddeer said:

Are you sure you weren't watching it played in reverse? The arm movement is forward towards the ball.

Not at all. His body was moving forwards but he started to move his arm backwards. A classic case of ball to arm and not the other way round which would never have been a handball until recent times. If you give that penalty for us then you also have to give one against Bednarek.

I don’t want to see football where half the goals are penalties. Forwards will spend the whole game trying to hit defenders’ arms.

[Whitey Grandad]

15 minutes ago, Teddeer said:

Well you keep responding so maybe you are the one who is obsessed. It was a penalty plain and simple. We didn't get it because Moss was on VAR duties.

Or because it wasn’t even close to a penalty.

[Scummer]

VAR looked at the offside earlier in the move, which they would only ever do if they've decided it was handball. So it seems they were going to give it, then changed their mind for some reason. It would be very helpful for fans if they came out and gave their reasoning in situations like this.

[Professor]

Just started reading this thread but after the first dozen or so posts on page 1, I gave up, was convinced I wasn't on a site for Saints' supporters. If all people want to do is to slag off our team, why not do it where such negative attitudes will be appreciated. On a Pompy website perhaps.

But, having come to this page, there's some good discussion on the VAR decisions.  There's no doubt in my mind that if it had been anticipated by the original rule makers that offside would be measured by by body extremities, by millimetres, and by seconds, the rules would never have been framed as it is.  The clearest evidence is the rule saying that players are not offside if they are level. Under the microscopic examination now operating, level is simply impossible except for a fraction of a second.  . 

[egg]

21 minutes ago, Scummer said:

VAR looked at the offside earlier in the move, which they would only ever do if they've decided it was handball. So it seems they were going to give it, then changed their mind for some reason. It would be very helpful for fans if they came out and gave their reasoning in situations like this.

Yep, if we persist with VAR, they should give an explanation like the do in rugby. 

[trousers]

16 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

the player...actually moves his arm backwards away from the path of the ball..

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Don't really want to dwell on it (especially as doing so attracts the wrath of the Saintsweb intelligentsia... )

[Saint Billy]

44 minutes ago, Professor said:

Just started reading this thread but after the first dozen or so posts on page 1, I gave up, was convinced I wasn't on a site for Saints' supporters. If all people want to do is to slag off our team, why not do it where such negative attitudes will be appreciated. On a Pompy website perhaps.

But, having come to this page, there's some good discussion on the VAR decisions.  There's no doubt in my mind that if it had been anticipated by the original rule makers that offside would be measured by by body extremities, by millimetres, and by seconds, the rules would never have been framed as it is.  The clearest evidence is the rule saying that players are not offside if they are level. Under the microscopic examination now operating, level is simply impossible except for a fraction of a second.  . 

Wow, some people really do not understand the word "OPINIONS". 

[Mr X]

20 hours ago, Medrurkin said:

Without Vardy, they are bang average, same as we are without Ings.

We were average with him after his injury, I know it takes time to come back from injury he's not going to be at the same level instantly & now he's injured again, not saying he can't recapture his early form but it's looking increasing unlikely we will see the same ings in a saints shirt again.... Hope I'm proved wrong as quality player 

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, Saint Billy said:

Wow, some people really do not understand the word "OPINIONS". 

Some people don't know how to express an opinion without being derogatory or downright offensive. 

[Totton Saint]

I see the rest of the results from the teams around us, that played after us, fell in our favour. What a pity we did not get a win at Fulham