Gillingham 3-1 Saints - Match Thread

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

. I don't really see why you couldn't play stephens, he dragged him all the way there to sit on the bench. Leicester are playing Faes again today, are we really suggesting Jack is incapable of playing Tuesday and Saturday. Simeu has at least played Cb at league 1/2 level if he was determined not to play Jack.

Probably because if he got injured we woukd be forced to play Lyanco on Saturday. He probably weighed it up and didn't consider it worth the risk. 

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Any suggestions? Bearing in mind that he didn't want to risk a key player in Jack and Bednarek only returned from injury on Saturday. 

But that’s like having a new tractor and not using it in case it gets muddy,

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But that’s like having a new tractor and not using it in case it gets muddy,

It's like driving your new tractor through a field with land mines in when you have the farm show next week. I'd rather keep my new tractor safe in the barn for next week and use my horse and cart even if it does a shitty job  because I don't really care about the mined field and I'd really like to win a rosette on Saturday. 

[Baird of the land]

26 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Probably because if he got injured we woukd be forced to play Lyanco on Saturday. He probably weighed it up and didn't consider it worth the risk. 

Then own the decision.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Baird of the land said:

Then own the decision.

I'm pretty sure he did? See his comments re team selection. 

[Dman]

41 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who would you have played? Only suggestion so far is Simeu which is at best a marginal judgement call given that he's never played for the club before. 

Genuinely people dpn't realise how shite Simeu is.. He'll never play a game for the club. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Dman said:

Genuinely people dpn't realise how shite Simeu is.. He'll never play a game for the club. 

The that just emphasises my point. People are very quick to criticise Perraud being played at CB, but can't name an alternative other than the two who played on Saturday who Martin clearly didn't want to risk unless he had to. 

[Patches O Houlihan]

42 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who would you have played? Only suggestion so far is Simeu which is at best a marginal judgement call given that he's never played for the club before. 

So if not Simeu, then why not play the new guy Zach Awe? He's a CB, aged 19 and Aresnal describe him as commanding and a leader.

Then you can start Peraud at LB. Meghoma misses out but Awe is older, and Perraud isn't played out of position in his first match after returning from injury.

[Baird of the land]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm pretty sure he did? See his comments re team selection. 

No he deliberately hung out a bunch of players (inlcuding Perraud who he played horribly out of position).

To me snidely going its my fault i picked those awful players is not owning up to making bad positional choices

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Patches O Houlihan said:

So if not Simeu, then why not play the new guy Zach Awe? He's a CB, aged 19 and Aresnal describe him as commanding and a leader.

Then you can start Peraud at LB. Meghoma misses out but Awe is older, and Perraud isn't played out of position in his first match after returning from injury.

Probably because he walked in the door yesterday? 

[Dman]

3 minutes ago, Patches O Houlihan said:

So if not Simeu, then why not play the new guy Zach Awe? He's a CB, aged 19 and Aresnal describe him as commanding and a leader.

Then you can start Peraud at LB. Meghoma misses out but Awe is older, and Perraud isn't played out of position in his first match after returning from injury.

I assume you're on a wind up..

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

No he deliberately hung out a bunch of players (inlcuding Perraud who he played horribly out of position).

To me snidely going its my fault i picked those awful players is not owning up to making bad positional choices

The players were absolutely shite and didn't follow his instructions. Calling that out post match was the least they deserved. 

[Dman]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The that just emphasises my point. People are very quick to criticise Perraud being played at CB, but can't name an alternative other than the two who played on Saturday who Martin clearly didn't want to risk unless he had to. 

Personally I'd have probably played Charles or possibly even Bree at CB. Perraud for me was a bit of a daft choice, but I get the point you're making!

I think had Awe been here more than like 3 hours, he'd have started. 

[Baird of the land]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

The players were absolutely shite and didn't follow his instructions. Calling that out post match was the least they deserved. 

Except his special little daisies who he absolved of any blame.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The that just emphasises my point. People are very quick to criticise Perraud being played at CB, but can't name an alternative other than the two who played on Saturday who Martin clearly didn't want to risk unless he had to. 

Bree has played there for our B team. When I saw the line up I expected him to play there. Perraud was a mental decision. If Selles or Jones had put that side out, people would have got their pitchforks out. 

[Dman]

6 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

No he deliberately hung out a bunch of players (inlcuding Perraud who he played horribly out of position).

To me snidely going its my fault i picked those awful players is not owning up to making bad positional choices

They deserved it. They've deserved it for a few years now. Bunch of useless, arrogant cunts. 

That team he put out, on papper, should have been more than good enough to beat fucking Gillingham. 

[Patches O Houlihan]

So for some reason I thought he had signed with us four or five days ago - long enough for a couple of training sessions, not literally just arrived. 

I still think Simeu (CB) and Perraud (LB) is better than Meghoma (LB) and Perraud (CB)

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Dman said:

Personally I'd have probably played Charles or possibly even Bree at CB. Perraud for me was a bit of a daft choice, but I get the point you're making!

I think had Awe been here more than like 3 hours, he'd have started. 

You're probably right. I get the thinking behind players bg Charles but if he were ti get injured we really would have been up hsit creek on Saturday. In some ways Charles being fit is even more important than Stephens if we don't have Lavia or jwp. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Bree has played there for our B team. When I saw the line up I expected him to play there. Perraud was a mental decision. If Selles or Jones had put that side out, people would have got their pitchforks out. 

So who is playing rb in your team? 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Except his special little daisies who he absolved of any blame.

You mean the youth players making their debuts, Ameyew who played well or Armstrong who was excellent last week? 

[Dman]

We should have been good enough to not need to worry about Perraud being CB, other than him being on the ball. 

but they weren't. They were dog shite, the lot of them 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Patches O Houlihan said:

So for some reason I thought he had signed with us four or five days ago - long enough for a couple of training sessions, not literally just arrived. 

I still think Simeu (CB) and Perraud (LB) is better than Meghoma (LB) and Perraud (CB)

Fair enough and that's a judgement call isn't it. It's certainly not some sort of giant managerial error, Simeu has never played for us nor has he shown any ability to do so (does he even have a squad number?) 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

So who is playing rb in your team? 

That wouldn't have been my team. It was ridiculous. 

From that line up though, if Bree was at CB, I'd have expected Meghoma or Perraud at RB. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Dman said:

We should have been good enough to not need to worry about Perraud being CB, other than him being on the ball. 

but they weren't. They were dog shite, the lot of them 

Reports from people at the game do not back this up. Ameyew supposedly performed well. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Patches O Houlihan said:

So for some reason I thought he had signed with us four or five days ago - long enough for a couple of training sessions, not literally just arrived. 

I still think Simeu (CB) and Perraud (LB) is better than Meghoma (LB) and Perraud (CB)

Simeu didn't get near the squad for a reason. The kid could barely get off the bench on his loan spell last season. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That wouldn't have been my team. It was ridiculous. 

From that line up though, if Bree was at CB, I'd have expected Meghoma or Perraud at RB. 

So two players out of position instead of one? 

[Dman]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Reports from people at the game do not back this up. Ameyew supposedly performed well. 

Sorry, yeah I should have been clear - Dog shit from the supposidly 'senior' players. i.e all but 2 or 3. SAA is a superstar, I think i said as much last night. Should be starting for me. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So two players out of position instead of one? 

I repeat, that wouldn't have been my team. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

I repeat, that wouldn't have been my team. 

What would your team have been? 

[Baird of the land]

7 minutes ago, Patches O Houlihan said:

So for some reason I thought he had signed with us four or five days ago - long enough for a couple of training sessions, not literally just arrived. 

I still think Simeu (CB) and Perraud (LB) is better than Meghoma (LB) and Perraud (CB)

Simeu who has played 50 league games(in his natural position), over an unsuitable player coming back from injury player out of position and a kid who has never played. Yeah (to me that an error not a judgement call). I’d have had Stephens, like Leicester decided to play 2 of their first choice defenders, rather than getting humiliated

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

What would your team have been? 

I CBA mate. It's irrelevant. He played a short, back from injury, full back at CB and quell surprise we got smashed by a league 2 team. We had Stephens available and Charles. It was a shocker.  

[Patches O Houlihan]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Reports from people at the game do not back this up. Ameyew supposedly performed well. 

This is correct. The players were not all "dog shit". This is standard Dman negative bullshit. He's basing this opinion on radio commentary and post match reports, we know he didn't attend the game. 

A good number of them were naive/young/inexperienced or rusty/still not up to speed with the season or style of play. 

And yes there were a few that really need to find a new club. But you can't describe the whole team like that, without seeing the game, and call your self a Saints supporter. It makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

Edited 9 August, 2023 by Patches O Houlihan

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

I CBA mate. It's irrelevant. He played a short, back from injury, full back at CB and quell surprise we got smashed by a league 2 team. We had Stephens available and Charles. It was a shocker.  

He didn't want to risk Stephens because we have no alternatives to him for Saturday. Likewise Charles was played in midfield I think his normal position because he didn't want to risk Smallbone for the same reasons. All logical decisions imo. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

He didn't want to risk Stephens because we have no alternatives to him for Saturday. Likewise Charles was played in midfield I think his normal position because he didn't want to risk Smallbone for the same reasons. All logical decisions imo. 

Putting Perraud at CB was as logical as putting pepper in your pants. 

[The Kraken]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

He didn't want to risk Stephens because we have no alternatives to him for Saturday. Likewise Charles was played in midfield I think his normal position because he didn't want to risk Smallbone for the same reasons. All logical decisions imo. 

Personally I’d have added just one or two senior players. Stephens at CB, Smallbone at CM. That then allows Perraud and Armstrong to,play in more natural positions. Martin said he didn’t want to, fair enough, but this is a league where we’re gonna be playing Saturday-midweek-Saturday, so there’s going to be some risks at some point. Martin has also said in his interview that in hindsight it wasn’t a good decision to go with what he did, so I don’t thinks it unfair to speculate on what he could/should have done. Perraud at centre back after zero pre season games is a shocker.

They may be ‘logical’ decisions, and in the end, who gives a fuck about going out in this cup? But it doesn’t mean themtewm selected was right, or that the small potential for injury should override the need to get players bedded in and teaching a new system to their peers.

 

Edited 9 August, 2023 by The Kraken

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Personally I’d have added just one or two senior players. Stephens at CB, Smallbone at CM. That then allows Perraud and Armstrong to,play in more natural positions. Martin said he didn’t want to, fair enough, but this is a league where we’re gonna be playing Saturday-midweek-Saturday, so there’s going to be some risks at some point. Martin has also said in his interview that in hindsight it wasn’t a good decision to go with what he did, so I don’t thinks it unfair to speculate on what he could/should have done. Perraud at centre back after zero pre season games is a shocker.

They may be ‘logical’ decisions, and in the end, who gives a fuck about going out in this cup? But it doesn’t mean themtewm selected was right, or that the small potential for injury should override the need to get players bedded in and teaching a new system to their peers.

 

There will be risks at some point. In league games. I'd rather not take unnecessary risks in the cup this year. I accept that some people would prefer to but I'm with the manager on this one. 

[The Kraken]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

There will be risks at some point. In league games. I'd rather not take unnecessary risks in the cup this year. I accept that some people would prefer to but I'm with the manager on this one. 

And there’s the difference I guess, I don’t see it as a risk. Stephens was in the bench; it’s only fair to think that if Perraud or Lyanco got injured early then Stephens would replace them. In fact, Stephens was the only defender on our bench, the manager would’ve factored that in. Then we get to Alcaraz, an absolute jewel, and he came on at 59 minutes. So that’s a risk too, one Martin was happy to take.

I don’t buy this risk argument, not to the degree we went to. And as Martin said, he made a mistake on selecting that line up, so I’m just going along with what he said. If he’d come out and said “terrible performance but I stand by the side I picked” then fair enough, but he absolutely did not say that.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, The Kraken said:

And there’s the difference I guess, I don’t see it as a risk. Stephens was in the bench; it’s only fair to think that if Perraud or Lyanco got injured early then Stephens would replace them. In fact, Stephens was the only defender on our bench, the manager would’ve factored that in. Then we get to Alcaraz, an absolute jewel, and he came on at 59 minutes. So that’s a risk too, one Martin was happy to take.

I don’t buy this risk argument, not to the degree we went to. And as Martin said, he made a mistake on selecting that line up, so I’m just going along with what he said. If he’d come out and said “terrible performance but I stand by the side I picked” then fair enough, but he absolutely did not say that.

Agreed. I saw it as another pre=season game with a chance to  get fitter and build on team relationships.

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

And there’s the difference I guess, I don’t see it as a risk. Stephens was in the bench; it’s only fair to think that if Perraud or Lyanco got injured early then Stephens would replace them. In fact, Stephens was the only defender on our bench, the manager would’ve factored that in. Then we get to Alcaraz, an absolute jewel, and he came on at 59 minutes. So that’s a risk too, one Martin was happy to take.

I don’t buy this risk argument, not to the degree we went to. And as Martin said, he made a mistake on selecting that line up, so I’m just going along with what he said. If he’d come out and said “terrible performance but I stand by the side I picked” then fair enough, but he absolutely did not say that.

He probably figured that we had other attacking players which made giving Alcaraz a run out for the last half an hour worth the risk. It obviously is a risk playing any player, you might consider it a small one but it's still a risk clearly. 

[The Kraken]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

He probably figured that we had other attacking players which made giving Alcaraz a run out for the last half an hour worth the risk. It obviously is a risk playing any player, you might consider it a small one but it's still a risk clearly. 

It’s obviously a risk. So is getting humped by League 2 opposition, then the manager admitting that there wasn’t enough on the pitch to get his ideas across and get us playing how he wants us to play.

The good thing is that he’s seen how shite some of the second string are. But when the manager admits he got it wrong with the team selection, I’m just surprised to see such a reaction to the suggestion from posters on here that the first XI wasn’t right.

[hypochondriac]

12 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

It’s obviously a risk. So is getting humped by League 2 opposition, then the manager admitting that there wasn’t enough on the pitch to get his ideas across and get us playing how he wants us to play.

The good thing is that he’s seen how shite some of the second string are. But when the manager admits he got it wrong with the team selection, I’m just surprised to see such a reaction to the suggestion from posters on here that the first XI wasn’t right.

All I was saying was that if he didn't want to start Bednarek or Stephens (which he clearly didn't want to) then there were really very few options which made it very likely that he was going to pick some players out of position. Anyway, the poster who went to the game on an earlier page said it was mostly Bree and Lyanco that messed up for the goals so I expect playing anyone other than Lyanco especially would have resulted in an improved performance. Maybe that's what he meant by getting the team selection wrong. 

[The Kraken]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

All I was saying was that if he didn't want to start Bednarek or Stephens (which he clearly didn't want to) then there were really very few options which made it very likely that he was going to pick some players out of position. Anyway, the poster who went to the game on an earlier page said it was mostly Bree and Lyanco that messed up for the goals so I expect playing anyone other than Lyanco especially would have resulted in an improved performance. Maybe that's what he meant by getting the team selection wrong. 

What’s done is done. Take the positives I guess, there aren’t many. I think Lyanco was already in last chance saloon and (my speculation only) he’s probably gone even further down the standings, wouldn’t be surprised if Charles is for now the de facto number 3 CB (not good but we are where we are). Personally (and unfortunately) I don’t think expect to see ABK in a saints shirt again, very much hope that’s wrong. But if not we obviously need to sign someone decent, as a 19 year old is unlikely to be a viable solution when it comes to it, and Lyanco certainly isn’t,

I actually agree with Martin giving lots of the team a run out. Just that 11 changes was too many IMO. As I said, play Stephens and Smallbone, it gives the whole team a better balance and sets us up better, and you can learn a bit about the whole shape rather than that complete mess.

Meh, we’re out of the cup which is good and the rest of august is going to be turbulent. At least the manager has a better idea of who he wants in and out long term, up to Wilcox and co now.

[Pamplemousse]

Normally I like a good cup run but it's just extra games that we really don't need at this stage, so not too fussed we're out tbh. I'd rather we have a go in the FA Cup.

[Bad Wolf]

We'd have got Luton! They only came out one ball before Pompey too by the looks of it.

[CB Fry]

7 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

We'd have got Luton! They only came out one ball before Pompey too by the looks of it.

Gutted we've missed the opportunity to test ourselves against one of the Premier League big boys.

[UpweySaint]

I would suggest the merits of the line up would be better judged after the Norwich game. If we get a decent result the dross we served up midweek will feel marginally more justified. That being said are woeful ability to defend set pieces is such a frustration - at least we've recognised the issue and got a dedicated set piece coach in with a good reputation.

The poor showing does illustrate the importance of keeping our best XI fit and firing this season. For such a big squad we are lacking in depth/quality for key positions.

Until we've got past Sept and have time to bed in whatever new recruits we end up with things could be rocky. Provided we're still in touch towards the top of the table by Oct I personally would be happy.

All the same fair play to Gillingham. It sounds like they had a game plan, worked hard and executed well. They've had a few tough years so good to see them on the up.

[saintant]

11 minutes ago, UpweySaint said:

I would suggest the merits of the line up would be better judged after the Norwich game. If we get a decent result the dross we served up midweek will feel marginally more justified. That being said are woeful ability to defend set pieces is such a frustration - at least we've recognised the issue and got a dedicated set piece coach in with a good reputation.

The poor showing does illustrate the importance of keeping our best XI fit and firing this season. For such a big squad we are lacking in depth/quality for key positions.

Until we've got past Sept and have time to bed in whatever new recruits we end up with things could be rocky. Provided we're still in touch towards the top of the table by Oct I personally would be happy.

All the same fair play to Gillingham. It sounds like they had a game plan, worked hard and executed well. They've had a few tough years so good to see them on the up.

I take your point about the set-piece coach but currently, unless he can put a few on a rack and stretch whist at the same time beef them up physically we are going to continue to be bullied at corners and free kicks. Opponents will know this and target the weakness which is exacerbated by having a smallish keeper who generally stays rooted to his line and offers no help.

[UpweySaint]

9 hours ago, saintant said:

I take your point about the set-piece coach but currently, unless he can put a few on a rack and stretch whist at the same time beef them up physically we are going to continue to be bullied at corners and free kicks. Opponents will know this and target the weakness which is exacerbated by having a smallish keeper who generally stays rooted to his line and offers no help.

To an extent yes, if we're not the most physical we will always be vulnerable at set pieces. That being said with some organisation and intelligence we could be better than we are even with the limitations of the squad. Christ, we couldn't really be much worse!  

[suewhistle]

Funnily enough we were doing a defending corners session at our most grassroots of grassroots teams on Tuesday. We didn't mark zonally and as most of the team are short arses the instruction was to disrupt so that the attackers didn't get a clean jump. Wish Saints could manage that..

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, suewhistle said:

Funnily enough we were doing a defending corners session at our most grassroots of grassroots teams on Tuesday. We didn't mark zonally and as most of the team are short arses the instruction was to disrupt so that the attackers didn't get a clean jump. Wish Saints could manage that..

Quite so. Zones don’t score goals, players do.