Russell Martin

[Give it to Ron]

1 hour ago, Master Bates said:

He's too entertaining 

Stinks of fish 

[SaintNewForest]

Can tell its the summer holidays and the kids are getting bored

[CSA96]

Exclusive with Russell Martin in the Daily Telegraph - paywall removed: https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/08/15/russell-martin-interview-southampton-manager-premier-league/

[Midfield_General]

Interview with Martin in the Guardian: 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/aug/16/russell-martin-southampton-premier-league

Extract: "Some people will hate it and say: ‘Why are they passing that close to their own goal?’" 

😬 

 

Edited August 16 by Midfield_General

[sfc4prem]

47 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Interview with Martin in the Guardian: 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/aug/16/russell-martin-southampton-premier-league

Extract: "Some people will hate it and say: ‘Why are they passing that close to their own goal?’" 

😬 

 

It is fucking pointless sometimes, it is. I don't care what Martin says about drawing teams in to allow quick-passing counters with more space to play in. It works sometimes, but more often than not we'll lose possession. Why? Because our players aren't fucking Pedri, Zubimendi, or Carvajal, they're Taylor, Bednarek and McCarthy.

[Patches O Houlihan]

Am concerned that when Chelsea sack Enzo Maresca, that RM is next on their manager shopping list. He plays the same style, so they won’t need to replace the 75 players currently in their first team squad. 😕

[HKsaint]

45 minutes ago, Patches O Houlihan said:

Am concerned that when Chelsea sack Enzo Maresca, that RM is next on their manager shopping list. He plays the same style, so they won’t need to replace the 75 players currently in their first team squad. 😕

He will take most of our players at hugely inflated prices. 

[Midfield_General]

On 16/08/2024 at 18:22, Midfield_General said:

Interview with Martin in the Guardian: 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/aug/16/russell-martin-southampton-premier-league

Extract: "Some people will hate it and say: ‘Why are they passing that close to their own goal?’" 

😬 

 

Fair play to Russ, he called that one.

I’ll be the first to say it, seeing as it’s cost us our first and only match so far. 

I hate it. Why are they passing that close to their own goal? 

[Whitey Grandad]

39 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Fair play to Russ, he called that one.

I’ll be the first to say it, seeing as it’s cost us our first and only match so far. 

I hate it. Why are they passing that close to their own goal? 

Me too. Is there any answer to this question?

[Midfield_General]

4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Me too. Is there any answer to this question?

Because Russ is after the Vincent Kompany route into the Bayern Munich job? 

[Fabrice29]

54 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Fair play to Russ, he called that one.

I’ll be the first to say it, seeing as it’s cost us our first and only match so far. 

I hate it. Why are they passing that close to their own goal? 

It's beyond comprehension that people still ask this after watching us do it for a year and be successful. 

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

It's beyond comprehension that people still ask this after watching us do it for a year and be successful. 

Successful? You might want to think again. 

[Fabrice29]

4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Successful? You might want to think again. 

I've had a thought and yep, the promotion was pretty successful.

[austsaint]

15 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

It's beyond comprehension that people still ask this after watching us do it for a year and be successful. 

Perhaps we could have been more successful (last season) had we not relied on it so much.

[Whitey Grandad]

18 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

I've had a thought and yep, the promotion was pretty successful.

As Wellington said, “a damned close-run thing” (paraphrased).

Were it not for the possession obsession I believe that we would have finished higher and more probably than not in an automatic spot. 
 

Yours is a classic case of Outcome Bias.

Edited August 18 by Whitey Grandad

[ErwinK1961]

8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

As Wellington said, “a damned close-run thing” (paraphrased).

Were it not for the possession obsession I believe that we would have finished higher and more probably than not in an automatic spot. 
 

Yours is a classic case of Outcome Bias.

And yours is pure conjecture.

[Fabrice29]

14 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

As Wellington said, “a damned close-run thing” (paraphrased).

Were it not for the possession obsession I believe that we would have finished higher and more probably than not in an automatic spot. 
 

Yours is a classic case of Outcome Bias.

I think a whole season of doing something and being successful is a better indicator of success and, in answer to the original question, a pretty good explanation as to why we're doing it rather than a hypothetical opinion of yours. 

Edited August 18 by Fabrice29

[Master Bates]

Russell Martin = Aaron Martin's long lost cousin.

Edited August 18 by Master Bates
Only had one 'l' in Russell.

[Midfield_General]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

It's beyond comprehension that people still ask this after watching us do it for a year and be successful. 

It was a light-hearted comment mate - just quite funny that that was Russell's quote in the week and then we lose 1-0 to a goal given away from trying to pass out from our own goal. 

I fully understand the concept of possession-based football and all the arguments for and against, but thanks for your interest 👍

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, ErwinK1961 said:

And yours is pure conjecture.

No different from any other opinion.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

I think a whole season of doing something and being successful is a better indicator of success and, in answer to the original question, a pretty good explanation as to why we're doing it rather than a hypothetical opinion of yours. 

But we weren’t ‘successful’ all season. There were periods where we were going wrong. 
 

Let’s see how we get on this season.

[Whitey Grandad]

31 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

It was a light-hearted comment mate - just quite funny that that was Russell's quote in the week and then we lose 1-0 to a goal given away from trying to pass out from our own goal. 

I fully understand the concept of possession-based football and all the arguments for and against, but thanks for your interest 👍

Please remind me of the arguments ’for’

[Saint Billy]

2 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

It's beyond comprehension that people still ask this after watching us do it for a year and be successful. 

That was the championship, this is the Premier League. We will regularly get destroyed with those tactics. I'm all for possession but not a couple of metres away from our own goalmouth.

[danjosaint]

2 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

I've had a thought and yep, the promotion was pretty successful.

Ironically because we changed slightly to accommodate AM in goal

[VectisSaint]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

As Wellington said, “a damned close-run thing” (paraphrased).

Were it not for the possession obsession I believe that we would have finished higher and more probably than not in an automatic spot. 
 

Yours is a classic case of Outcome Bias.

But we equally could have done much worse. Yours is a classic case of Never Satisfied 😉

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, VectisSaint said:

But we equally could have done much worse. Yours is a classic case of Never Satisfied 😉

Or rather Not Good Enough 

[Fabrice29]

35 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But we weren’t ‘successful’ all season. There were periods where we were going wrong. 
 

Let’s see how we get on this season.

Oh it's perfection you want, success all season. Good good. 

29 minutes ago, Saint Billy said:

That was the championship, this is the Premier League. We will regularly get destroyed with those tactics. I'm all for possession but not a couple of metres away from our own goalmouth.

Yeah, we didn't get regularly destroyed yesterday doing it but good point.

15 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

Ironically because we changed slightly to accommodate AM in goal

That's not true though but wonderful point anyway. 

[Midfield_General]

49 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Please remind me of the arguments ’for’

I realise that you're joking, but this actually is quite a useful and balanced summary of the benefits of the approach:

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/article/tactical-theory-playing-out-from-the-back-tactical-analysis-tactics

How Saints apply it as a team, whether we execute it effectively, whether we have the players to do it at this level etc I will leave to be discussed! 

Edited August 18 by Midfield_General

[danjosaint]

19 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Oh it's perfection you want, success all season. Good good. 

Yeah, we didn't get regularly destroyed yesterday doing it but good point.

That's not true though but wonderful point anyway. 

I know you seem to think more than any other supporter but we did play differently with AM in goal and although did use him but nowhere near what had been if GB in goal, sorry if that distracts from you being the best supporter ever but that actually did happen 

Edited August 18 by danjosaint

[Patches O Houlihan]

59 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Please remind me of the arguments ’for’

You remember all those PL years when we used to complain about how our team couldn't break through a team that sat back and defended? We'd be good against Chelsea or Arsenal, and shit against Sean Dyche's Burnley? Which meant that at the end of the year we were lower in the table than we should have been because we lost many of the six pointers against our rivals.

THAT

By playing out from the back you draw the opposing team forward to try to press you. This creates space for skilled, practised players to pass through. A good pressing team will try to close off those gaps: So the possession focused team recycles the ball ,and tries again until they do find a gap to pass an incisive through ball through. I know you hate stats but we were right up at the top of the Championship teams for incisive through balls last season.

When those balls get through they are received by one of our attackers in the final third. Instead of facing six to eight outfield players between them and the goal they now have two to five.

It means we get to avoid the clusterfuck that was the second half yesterday. Normally Newcastle wouldn't be playing that way, but it proves that we still struggle breaking down teams that sit back.

At this point you will now argue that it was the playing out from the back that caused the loss of the goal. But I will argue that our outfield players barely put a foot wrong playing that way all game. Yes maybe in that moment Jack shouldn't have played back to McCathy. BUT if in that moment he had been playing back to someone with reasonable feet, or the sense to boot it long then we would have been fine.  

Edited August 18 by Patches O Houlihan
spelling

[Hopper]

There’s a lot of route one merchants on this forum. When you play against the best sides and lump it forward from the keeper guess what? Most of the time the pressure is coming straight back at you and you’ve not had time to set your shape. Does no one remember how much that happened 22/23 we spend moments in matches just trying to clear our lines only to be punished time and again. We were especially guilty of this in the last few minutes of matches and lost countless points because of it.

[Whitey Grandad]

9 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

I realise that you're joking, but this actually is quite a useful and balanced summary of the benefits of the approach:

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/article/tactical-theory-playing-out-from-the-back-tactical-analysis-tactics

How Saints apply it as a team, whether we execute it effectively, whether we have the players to do it at this level etc I will leave to be discussed! 

Thank you for this. As far as I can see it is an unproven theory. It depends on the opposition being enticed towards your own goal in order to create spaces amongst them but thus giving this theoretical 11:10 advantage but if the opposition hasn’t read the theory and doesn’t play along it’s like tossing an expensive Ming vase around and inviting the other team to come and get it.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, Hopper said:

There’s a lot of route one merchants on this forum. When you play against the best sides and lump it forward from the keeper guess what? Most of the time the pressure is coming straight back at you and you’ve not had time to set your shape. Does no one remember how much that happened 22/23 we spend moments in matches just trying to clear our lines only to be punished time and again. We were especially guilty of this in the last few minutes of matches and lost countless points because of it.

It doesn’t have to be one extreme or the other. It needs to be mixed up a bit, or a lot. Otherwise we’re predictable.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, Patches O Houlihan said:

You remember all those PL years when we used to complain about how our team couldn't break through a team that sat back and defended? We'd be good against Chelsea or Arsenal, and shit against Sean Dyke's Burnley? Which meant that at the end of the year we were lower in the table than we should have been because we lost many of the six pointers against our rivals.

THAT

By playing out from the back you draw the opposing team forward to try to press you. This creates space for skilled, practised players to pass through. A good pressing team will try to close off those gaps: So the possession focused team recycles the ball ,and tries again until they do find a gap to pass an incisive through ball through. I know you hate stats but we were right up at the top of the Championship teams for incisive through balls last season.

When those balls get through they are received by one of our attackers in the final third. Instead of facing six to eight outfield players between them and the goal they now have two to five.

It means we get to avoid the clusterfuck that was the second half yesterday. Normally Newcastle wouldn't be playing that way, but it proves that we still struggle breaking down teams that sit back.

At this point you will now argue that it was the playing out from the back that caused the loss of the goal. But I will argue that our outfield players barely put a foot wrong playing that way all game. Yes maybe in that moment Jack shouldn't have played back to McCathy. BUT if in that moment he had been playing back to someone with reasonable feet, or the sense to boot it long then we would have been fine.  

But the opposition doesn’t have to play along. They can leave a player or two up top to chase and press but the rest of them can relax and get organised.

We would have been fine if Stephens had simply turned outside and looked forward instead of towards our goal. What he did was an unnecessary risk.

[benjii]

That was one of the most dominant performances I've ever seen from Saints in an away match in the top flight and but for one error and some goal-line heroics it would have got as a result.

Anyone using yesterday's match as justification for a gripe at Martin is a balloon.

Edited August 18 by benjii

[Patches O Houlihan]

19 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But the opposition doesn’t have to play along. They can leave a player or two up top to chase and press but the rest of them can relax and get organised.

We would have been fine if Stephens had simply turned outside and looked forward instead of towards our goal. What he did was an unnecessary risk.

When I'm describing Burnley I'm not describing how they play when they have the ball (play long). I'm describing how they defend; two rows of 4 big lumps and the two tallest big lumps stood only just in front of them.

Those two players pressing get beaten all day long by 4 or 5 skilled defenders - every one knows that. Which is why coaches use 'pressing triggers' so that 4 or 5 players know to press in sequence as a team. Beating this requires the defender on the ball to only release the ball when their opposite number is close; otherwise their pass is cut out by an opponent.

Look at live PL games. It is now common to see a defender stationary with his foot placed vertically on top of the ball. This position is literally inviting the press. The vast majority of teams cannot be patient for longer than 20 seconds before attempting to press, and thus creating space to play through. 

It is risk vs reward.

We might have differing opinions but we both know Saints are shit at breaking down 2 regimented banks of four, so why not try something different.

Edited August 18 by Patches O Houlihan
clarity

[Fabrice29]

21 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

I know you seem to think more than any other supporter but we did play differently with AM in goal and although did use him but nowhere near what had been if GB in goal, sorry if that distracts from you being the best supporter ever but that actually did happen 

It didn't though. The goal we scored that literally promoted us starts with us playing with the ball next to our goal. I'm sorry that distracts you from realising I am the best supporter ever.

[derry]

The fact remains that we changed everything on May 4th when we were in the final league game with McCarthy in goal after several defeats. Three centre backs and very little risky passing at the back. Following on we entered the play offs and didn't concede in three matches winning promotion. If we had continued our form prior to the Leeds game we probably wouldn't even have made the final. Our last four games were totally different defensively to the rest of the season.

[ErwinK1961]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

No different from any other opinion.

Getting promotion isn’t an opinion, it happened.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, ErwinK1961 said:

Getting promotion isn’t an opinion, it happened.

Of course it did. But how and why it happened is open to debate. So is our poor defensive record.

[danjosaint]

2 hours ago, derry said:

The fact remains that we changed everything on May 4th when we were in the final league game with McCarthy in goal after several defeats. Three centre backs and very little risky passing at the back. Following on we entered the play offs and didn't concede in three matches winning promotion. If we had continued our form prior to the Leeds game we probably wouldn't even have made the final. Our last four games were totally different defensively to the rest of the season.

100% shame some posters don't realise this or maybe to stubborn like RM to admit it 

[Kermitzasaint]

12 hours ago, benjii said:

That was one of the most dominant performances I've ever seen from Saints in an away match in the top flight and but for one error and some goal-line heroics it would have got as a result.

Anyone using yesterday's match as justification for a gripe at Martin is a balloon.

Dominant yes, also completely ineffective. We dominate possession in areas with zero threat. They can let us have the ball because we won't do anything with it other than put ourselves under pressure.

If Russell Martin doesn't want what we did  in the second half, why didnt he change it? He nullified one of our attacking threats and watched us do the exact same thing over and over again, each time at a snails pace. 

[Dman]

6 hours ago, Kermitzasaint said:

Dominant yes, also completely ineffective. We dominate possession in areas with zero threat. They can let us have the ball because we won't do anything with it other than put ourselves under pressure.

If Russell Martin doesn't want what we did  in the second half, why didnt he change it? He nullified one of our attacking threats and watched us do the exact same thing over and over again, each time at a snails pace. 

I'm not sure that's true. We had a couple of 'good' chances and BBD should have put us 1-0 up with his header. 

We desperatley need more attacking threat in the midfield though . 

[Challenger]

6 hours ago, Kermitzasaint said:

Dominant yes, also completely ineffective. We dominate possession in areas with zero threat. They can let us have the ball because we won't do anything with it other than put ourselves under pressure.

If Russell Martin doesn't want what we did  in the second half, why didnt he change it? He nullified one of our attacking threats and watched us do the exact same thing over and over again, each time at a snails pace. 

Promising start to game, create lots of chances but convert none.

Gift wrap goal for the opposition.

Make numerous substitutions often involving the removal of the players performing well.

Drying up of chances as game progresses.

Game drifts away to defeat.

Not a rare pattern of events in many of our games. 

 

[benjii]

6 hours ago, Kermitzasaint said:

Dominant yes, also completely ineffective. We dominate possession in areas with zero threat. They can let us have the ball because we won't do anything with it other than put ourselves under pressure.

If Russell Martin doesn't want what we did  in the second half, why didnt he change it? He nullified one of our attacking threats and watched us do the exact same thing over and over again, each time at a snails pace. 

We had several good chances.

- Smallbone / Stephens offside 

- BBD header

- Armstrong dipping effort 

- Armstrong/BBD goal line heroics

Plus decent half chances for Alcaraz and Archer.

By contrast, Newcastle DID NOT CREATE A SINGLE SHOT ON TARGET, other than the one McCarthy gifted them.

So you can criticise if you want, but you'll need to make a bit more sense if you do.

[Kermitzasaint]

13 minutes ago, benjii said:

We had several good chances.

- Smallbone / Stephens offside 

- BBD header

- Armstrong dipping effort 

- Armstrong/BBD goal line heroics

Plus decent half chances for Alcaraz and Archer.

By contrast, Newcastle DID NOT CREATE A SINGLE SHOT ON TARGET, other than the one McCarthy gifted them.

So you can criticise if you want, but you'll need to make a bit more sense if you do.

Newcastle didn't need to. We did. Yet we made sure we let them get everyone behind the ball before we attacked. We literally stopped and waited for them to line up. 

[AlexLaw76]

He talks about 'bravery' all the time, and he demands it from his players.

Where the feck is his bravery? The set up is weak and cowardly. 3/5 at the back at home to Forest, with the forwards hugging the touchlines - get over yourself.

Time for the manager to show a bit of bravery when we play fellow bottom half sides.....4231/433

Keeper (feck knows who)

Suga, THB, Bed, KwP/Taylor

Les, Downes

Dibling/Arma Fernandes Diaz/Sully

Archer/Stewart/New striker

 

[Sarisbury Saint]

22 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

He talks about 'bravery' all the time, and he demands it from his players.

Where the feck is his bravery? The set up is weak and cowardly. 3/5 at the back at home to Forest, with the forwards hugging the touchlines - get over yourself.

Time for the manager to show a bit of bravery when we play fellow bottom half sides.....4231/433

Keeper (feck knows who)

Suga, THB, Bed, KwP/Taylor

Les, Downes

Dibling/Arma Fernandes Diaz/Sully

Archer/Stewart/New striker

 

Spot on.

[Weston Super Saint]

I wonder if he reflects on the last two games and thinks "fucking nice one, most possession two games in a row.  All those doubters can fuck off ThE sYstEM iS wOrkInG"?

[Kermitzasaint]

If you were offered a decent keeper, decent striker or a decent coach but you can only choose two of the three. What would you choose? 

 

Russell Martin lost us that game doing exactly what he is known for on his worst days. He is out of his depth and is completely unable to change a game. Once again the same subs, need a goal? Put on Edozie who carries zero threat. 

Only Dibling was dangerous purely because he isn't locked in to RM's cowardly football.