Brighton 1-1 Saints - Match Thread

[notnowcato]

NOT CLEAR and NOT FUCKING OBVIOUS. FUCK OFF. 

[RTW Saint]

That was better tonight. We seem to be playing through the press with a bit more regularity and we’ve also developed a speed and urgency to our counter attacks. Dibling such a talent. 
 

I think I can see some progress from the players. End of the day it’s about points though and we don’t have anywhere near enough of those. 

Edited November 29 by RTW Saint
Sp

[kevdoh]

22 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

I didn’t say I wanted to be a Brighton fan you halfwit. I said id rather be in their position. 

You literally said " I'd rather be brighton thanks". Dickhead

[Gloucester Saint]

8 minutes ago, notnowcato said:

NOT CLEAR and NOT FUCKING OBVIOUS. FUCK OFF. 

This outburst was brought to you by Harvey’s of Lewes, fine Sussex ales.

[notnowcato]

4 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

This outburst was brought to you by Harvey’s of Lewes, fine Sussex ales.

Haha. 
Anything that takes 6 minutes to decide is clearly not obvious. 
Anyway, improved performance in the 2nd half. Lost count the number of times Dibling was fouled, what a class act he was, unplayable. 

[Lighthouse]

55 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

The goal has been given against us. Arsenal away. 
 

Corrupt. 

And people were aggrieved by it, which is my point. Both should have been disallowed.

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Harry_SFC said:

Yeah, have you ever seen a keeper stand at the back post when a cross is coming in?? No way is he saving Archers shot whether Armstrong is there or not.

I don’t think that is the issue. Armstrong is in an offside position and makes an attempt to play the ball. That makes him interfering with play I assume. If a player is in the middle of the goal and the ball is played across him when he is in an offide position I don’t see how that isn’t interfering which is why I don’t understand why we conceded one like that this season.

It’s all too complicated and open to interpretation now. We need to go back to the old days when a player is offside if he is beyond the last player when the ball is played forward.

Edited November 29 by sadoldgit

[Graffito]

41 minutes ago, macca155 said:

You looked that up! If that came out of your brain you need to get out more.

I'm still waiting to use pusillanimous on here .. suspect that opportunity is coming soon

Which gives me the opportunity to say sesquipedalian on here.
 

 

[Nordic Saint]

43 minutes ago, macca155 said:

You looked that up! If that came out of your brain you need to get out more.

I'm still waiting to use pusillanimous on here .. suspect that opportunity is coming soon

You could use it nearly every time McCarthy plays.

[Whitey Grandad]

19 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I don’t think that is the issue. Armstrong is in an offside position and makes an attempt to play the ball. That makes him interfering with play I assume. If a player is in the middle of the goal and the ball is played across him when he is in an offide position I don’t see how that isn’t interfering which is why I don’t understand why we conceded one like that this season.

It’s all too complicated and open to interpretation now. We need to go back to the old days when a player is offside if he is beyond the last player when the ball is played forward.

I’ve just managed to see the highlights through Remote Desktop since the videos aren’t supported in my location.

In my opinion Armstrong is clearly in an offside position and interfering with play by making a movement towards the goal. You could almost describe him as making a decoy run.

[Graffito]

Robbed by VAR. How on earth can anyone reasonably argue that Armstrong’s vain flick at a ball that’s gone behind him impact the defending or scoring of that goal? 

[sadoldgit]

12 minutes ago, Graffito said:

Robbed by VAR. How on earth can anyone reasonably argue that Armstrong’s vain flick at a ball that’s gone behind him impact the defending or scoring of that goal? 

If it had been a cross and well over his head you could argue that, but he was in the middle of the goal and attempted to play the ball. I really don’t think we have anything to complain about other than the current offside rules are too open to interpretation.

[Whitey Grandad]

14 minutes ago, Graffito said:

Robbed by VAR. How on earth can anyone reasonably argue that Armstrong’s vain flick at a ball that’s gone behind him impact the defending or scoring of that goal? 

Just the run is enough in itself.

[Graffito]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Just the run is enough in itself.

I think that’s wrong. As I understand it, the goal was disallowed because Armstrong made an attempt to play the ball. Therefore, had he not made an attempt to play the ball the goal would have been allowed. In other words, Armstrong’s run and his position (the point sad git has made) are relevant factors only insofar as he attempted to play the ball.

The decision may be within the letter of the law but it’s complete nonsense. The ball was behind armstrong. No way does that affect the keeper’s ability to defend his goal. Common sense has gone out of the window with some of these laws and their interpretation.

[Whitey Grandad]

35 minutes ago, Graffito said:

I think that’s wrong. As I understand it, the goal was disallowed because Armstrong made an attempt to play the ball. Therefore, had he not made an attempt to play the ball the goal would have been allowed. In other words, Armstrong’s run and his position (the point sad git has made) are relevant factors only insofar as he attempted to play the ball.

The decision may be within the letter of the law but it’s complete nonsense. The ball was behind armstrong. No way does that affect the keeper’s ability to defend his goal. Common sense has gone out of the window with some of these laws and their interpretation.

The keeper's position would have been affected by Armstrong's run, not that he'd have got across to make a save but yes, the letters of the IFAB decision do seem to say that he would have had to touch the ball in some way. 

Did he affect the keeper's ability to track the path of the cross? It all used to be so much simpler.

Whatever, if it takes over 4 minutes it's not clear either way.

[LoyalSaintSO50]

Decent second half. Usual decisions going the wrong way. Nice to see Russ on the front foot interview wise and call it out. Stick with him, we’ll be be fine in the long term 

[kevdoh]

5 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

And people were aggrieved by it, which is my point. Both should have been disallowed.

But they weren't both disallowed. That is the issue

[saintant]

8 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Brighton had a poor second half so perhaps that's why we looked better. I agree with the tippy tappy rubbish. It drives me mad. 

Come on, give us a little credit for the second half improvement - it wasn't on Brighton being poor, we stepped up our game as we needed to do after such a poor opening 45 minutes.

[saintant]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Obviously that’s not the case, if Armstrong had been offside by the corner flag or even just a couple of yards the other side of Archer, the goal would have stood.

I reiterate; if that goal is given against us, every man and dog on this forum is screaming, "how the f**k is he NOT interfering!"

Not me.

[saintant]

8 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Nope don’t agree. If that happened against us I would expect the goal to have stood. Especially if it was for a team in the top 6.

Yeah, Arsenal actually scored a goal (Martinelli I think)against us when one of their players was offside and would have impacted on Ramsdale's decision making but of course that was allowed.

[saintant]

8 hours ago, macca155 said:

Next time we moan about a ref remember Robert Jones went above and beyond to keep him on the pitch. Downes was absolutely cruising for it tonight.

Maybe but I think Brighton have plenty of players who throw themselves down holding their face at the first opportunity - the foreigners mainly and they were doing it at every opportunity last night. Downes was robust but did nothing major to warrant a second yellow card.

[Daft Kerplunk]

8 hours ago, OttawaSaint said:

I guess I need to get out more. 😆 I'm a teacher now but used to do biomedical research on muscles and muscle disease. 

I knew the word, and I can also spell lose correctly. 

[Daft Kerplunk]

7 hours ago, Nordic Saint said:

You could use it nearly every time McCarthy plays.

Russ would never use it, bravery only for that lad.

[saintant]

10 minutes ago, saintant said:

Maybe but I think Brighton have plenty of players who throw themselves down holding their face at the first opportunity - the foreigners mainly and they were doing it at every opportunity last night. Downes was robust but did nothing major to warrant a second yellow card.

Also, they kicked Tyler from pillar to post but he always tried to stay on his feet unlike their players. Same old Brighton for me.

[tdmickey3]

9 hours ago, kevdoh said:

Go and support Brighton then you halfwit.I spent most of the 90's watching my team bottom of the league. For what it's worth Brighton spent most of my life in the bottom leagues with attendances of 3000. I don't give a shit where we are in the league. You're the fucking helmet

You should stick to soft drinks, the strong ones make you act like a bit of a twat

[tdmickey3]

3 hours ago, LoyalSaintSO50 said:

Decent second half. Usual decisions going the wrong way. Nice to see Russ on the front foot interview wise and call it out. Stick with him, we’ll be be fine in the long term 

Do you mean mid table in the championship?

[austsaint]

17 minutes ago, saintant said:

Come on, give us a little credit for the second half improvement - it wasn't on Brighton being poor, we stepped up our game as we needed to do after such a poor opening 45 minutes.

It was a much improved second half.  The tempo was quicker; the ultra short passing at the back stopped and there seemed a purpose to our play in attacking areas…surely this should be the blueprint.    Through my eyes we were one attacking player short.   Playing Manning again in that wing/back role looked a mistake.  Yes, he delivered a good cross and a few decent corners, but I counted six passing turnovers and a lack of both defensive or attacking quality.  Just about everything worthwhile came through Dibling (what a player he is already), and Fernandes.   If only Lallana was 26 and on the pitch - a trio like that, and a change of manager could revive the faint hope of staying up.

[Football Special]

8 hours ago, Graffito said:

Robbed by VAR. How on earth can anyone reasonably argue that Armstrong’s vain flick at a ball that’s gone behind him impact the defending or scoring of that goal? 

Corruption , once again. 

That's vital goals at Wolves and Brighton ruled out now, I won't miss this league, genuinely they're welcome to.it , let's get back to the Championship away from all this nonsense. 

Fuck VAR 

[Football Special]

34 minutes ago, saintant said:

Also, they kicked Tyler from pillar to post but he always tried to stay on his feet unlike their players. Same old Brighton for me.

Joao Pedro seemed more interested in trying to get our players booked than actually playing himself

Great reminder last night how much better it is having our ground in a city with actual pubs, trains were a joke getting to AMEX stuck out of town 

Thought our support was good 

[Farmer Saint]

So, re-watching the game from last night.

Looks like we're playing a back 4 with shoehorn shoehorned in as a defensive mid in front of the back 4. Then when we have the ball we transition into a back 3 with him falling back into defence and Suga and Manning pushing up.

BTW, considering how shit he is defensively, Manning's ball's in can be brilliant.

Quite funny that we'd prefer to have KWP at CB than Stephens.

Edited November 30 by Farmer Saint

[Football Special]

Just now, Farmer Saint said:

So, re-watching the game from last night.

Looks like we're playing a back 4 with shoehorn shoehorned in as a defensive mid in front of the back 4. Then when we have the ball we transition into a back 3 with him falling back into defence and Suga and Manning pushing up.

BTW, considering how shit he is defensively, Manning's ball's in can be brilliant.

Manning played well I thought, put a ball in first half that deserved someone to be on the end of it 

[Charlie Wayman]

A bore fest if ever there was one. We are a very poor side now.

 

[Farmer Saint]

Lumley did OK as well - feel far better with him in goal than Macca.

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Charlie Wayman said:

A bore fest if ever there was one. We are a very poor side now.

 

Yes we are, we are the worst team in the PL, as we were predicted to be by pretty much every media outlet and every pundit in the country at the beginning of the season.

It wasn't a bore fest last night though.

[Convict Colony]

We didnt lose and i'll till take that, another undefeated weekend.

1st half poor, 2nd half much better.

Wee man made a difference when he came on, Armstrong kept his KPIs up of always hitting someone when shooting, archer seems to be the sort of 3/4 chance per goal striker.

Thought Aribo helped when he came on retaining the ball, both wingbacks didnt have great games, also shout out to lumley who i thought did pretty good both with hands and feet.

Fernandes and Dibbling our magicans.

[Saint86]

7 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The keeper's position would have been affected by Armstrong's run, not that he'd have got across to make a save but yes, the letters of the IFAB decision do seem to say that he would have had to touch the ball in some way. 

Did he affect the keeper's ability to track the path of the cross? It all used to be so much simpler.

Whatever, if it takes over 4 minutes it's not clear either way.

The official reason it was ruled out as offside was because Armstrong stopped the defender playing the ball. One of them is in front of Armstrong and misses the ball, which then goes behind Armstrong. The other one is on the other side of the 6yard box and a meter behind Archer. Armstrong therefore had no impact on either defender's ability to play the ball. Which means var were making it up as they went along to justify ruling out the goal. 

 

I actually wouldn't have an issue with it being ruled out for him impacting on the keeper... but that isn't how the rules are applied - time after time after time, offside players 'positions' interfere on other defenders and the keepers resulting in goals and it's generally ignored. So it would be typical if that was used to punish saints.... But it wasn't, and that wasn't the reason given. 

Edited November 30 by Saint86

[Wiggles31]

There is no way that interfered with either the defender or GK. The ball came whipping across, Armstrong didn’t touch the ball. Should have had 3 points. Much better second half. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 hours ago, notnowcato said:

NOT CLEAR and NOT FUCKING OBVIOUS. FUCK OFF. 

You are correct, and VAR agreed with you.
 

You do realise that the on field  decision was that AA’s movement affected the Brighton players don’t you? 
 

Therefore the VAR had to determine whether THAT was a clear and obvious error. 
 

🤡🤡

[Wiggles31]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You are correct, and VAR agreed with you.
 

You do realise that the on field  decision was that AA’s movement affected the Brighton players don’t you? 
 

Therefore the VAR had to determine whether THAT was a clear and obvious error. 
 

🤡🤡

It didn’t affect there players. It went behind Armstrong. It didn’t change the goalkeepers reactions. That was absolute robbery of a goal. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

We need to go back to the old days when a player is offside if he is beyond the last player when the ball is played forward.

Don’t be so ridiculous, he’s also  got to also be interfering with play. Therefore a subjective decision has to be made regarding players who don’t touch the ball. 
 

[trousers]

Was out last night so didn't get to see the game but, once again, it appears that VAR was misused by the officials. A VAR decision should never take circa 5 minutes. I've said this time and time again: if it takes that long to work out whether the on field decision was right or wrong then, by definition, it's not a "clear and obvious" error. There should be a 30 second time limit on VAR decisions. If they can't work it out in that time frame then stick with the on field decision. It's that simple (or should be...)

Edited November 30 by trousers

[Harry_SFC]

50 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

So, re-watching the game from last night.

Looks like we're playing a back 4 with shoehorn shoehorned in as a defensive mid in front of the back 4. Then when we have the ball we transition into a back 3 with him falling back into defence and Suga and Manning pushing up.

BTW, considering how shit he is defensively, Manning's ball's in can be brilliant.

Quite funny that we'd prefer to have KWP at CB than Stephens.

Weirdly Manning has been better in the Premier League than he was in the Championship. 

[Farmer Saint]

2 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

Weirdly Manning has been better in the Premier League than he was in the Championship. 

True story

[Saint-Michael]

Sad to say that every week in the premier league the the biggest talking point is VAR and referees poor decisions not the football.I though VAR just needed fine tuning I now think its destroying the games and shoud be scrapped.

[VectisSaint]

2 hours ago, saintant said:

Maybe but I think Brighton have plenty of players who throw themselves down holding their face at the first opportunity - the foreigners mainly and they were doing it at every opportunity last night. Downes was robust but did nothing major to warrant a second yellow card.

He more likely warranted a second yellow for the number of fouls, not any one in particular. 

[Hatch]

Ironically the only time Armstrong interfered with play all night was the only time we didn't want him to.

[gio1saints]

Thought the away support was brilliant all match. Yet again.

Bad first half epitomised by Archer shinning a chance someone like Vardy (or insert 90% of forwards in this league - ) would score in their sleep. Second half competitive but not dominant. VAR has not been our friend this season but neither have our set pieces or general defending - which is bottom of the league standard rubbish. 

Noticeably our main goal threat last bunch of games appears to be mostly from fast breaks on the transition - and it’s planned - and seemingly effective - Archers goal v Arsenal, his contentious disallowed goal and the Fernandes goal v Liverpool all last few weeks examples. Kind of disappointing if you are one of the many who like to go on about how boring and slow we are as a team.  Kind of ruins the narrative. 
 

The team is evolving. The style is evolving. Arguably, progressively in recent matches there’s signs. Probably way too slowly to avoid relegation.
 

None of Liverpool, Arsenal, Brighton or Man City have made us look “out of our depth”. The top four in this league. Decapitate the boss, install a new regime and unsettle this now near 18months in the baking evolving team with some breakout young stars now flourishing and leading it - like TD and MF - at your peril SR! Each match they look better and better. And that’s been versus the best in the league. Credit where it’s due. 

 

Edited November 30 by gio1saints

[LoyalSaintSO50]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

Do you mean mid table in the championship?

No. Very confident we’ll come back up under Martin and learn from this season. A bit of stability wouldn’t go a miss rather chucking the dart at manager roulette again. What’s your solution out of interest? 

[Sheaf Saint]

Just seen the highlights.

I have to say I agree with the offside call. Arma being where he was clearly would have influenced the keeper's position, because he had to assume that the ball in was meant for him so he could set himself to try and save any resulting shot. It was absolutely the right call.

[Farmer Saint]

44 minutes ago, trousers said:

I've said this time and time again: 

I hate it when people repeat themselves constantly...