Saints 0-3 Villa - Match Thread

[Eric The Red]

19 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It was stupid because he was guaranteed to give away a penalty and it was clumsy because he actually did give away a penalty. There was no need for him to go flying in like that. Even getting a solid touch on the ball is no good if he touches the other player first.

Whitey, I hesitate to argue with someone with reffing credentials but having looked again at the highlights I still believe:

1 Stephens didn't 'go flying in' but made a very necessary challenge as without it McGinn was through in the penalty area.

2 I still think he gets the ball first (and before McGinn) before catching him.

As I said I can see why it wasn't overturned and obviously a high risk challenge but a necessary one.

His positioning for the second goal however .................

[OldNick]

18 minutes ago, Eric The Red said:

Whitey, I hesitate to argue with someone with reffing credentials

Oh come on, having come up against amateur refs over the years, a lot of them were poor (not saying Whitey was lol ) . Blind the lot of them. 

[AlexLaw76]

Cooking 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, OldNick said:

Sounds reads like Dave Merrington !! give it a go etc etc and beats the drum of 'his side'. Yes great to have a go and gung ho, but as in the Spurs, Brentford games etc sides would pick us offand be scoring a hatfull. Playing with this side as a defensive unit was the only way IMO. We did so and created the best chance in the first half only for our forward to not go for goal or cross the ball for a chance, but do a hybrid bit of both. Going a goal up may have helped and no doubt we would be lauding the manager. 

It took a world class finish to break us, as well as our usual f@@@ up

We got well stuffed anyway. 
 

What were we playing for? To keep the score down? We were already comfortably relegated. The way we played was like a condemned man refusing his last meal because he was trying to lose weight.

[pimpin4rizeal]

On 12/04/2025 at 23:48, Whitey Grandad said:

The right approach? You have to be joking. Five at the back at home? Sit back inside our own area and pack the box? We were set up to fail right from the start. It was the most negative approach to a game that I’ve ever seen. We were like a lower league team playing at home in the Cup against a team several leagues above us and hoping to play for a replay.

Rusk had a free shot today. At the very least he could have tried to give us long-suffering fans some entertainment. Instead we go down with not even a whimper.

What was the effing point of it all?

Yeah I agree on formation Id also prefer a back four with two holding dms but downes was out also so maybe that played a part ..

I do think rusk is talking a lot of common sense though after having martins playing suicide shit passing out from back and juric leaving the midfield wide open it makes a lot of sense to try and keep games tight and defend first .. think our best approach would be try to limit the space for the opposition as much as possible and then try to counter so there’s much more space on the break when we counter. pretty much opposite of what Martin was doing .

at least rusk is recognising our limitations .. defense first is a good approach when you have a limited squad 

Edited Monday at 22:32 by pimpin4rizeal

[StrangelyBrown]

7 hours ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

Yeah I agree on formation Id also prefer a back four with two holding dms but downes was out also so maybe that played a part ..

I do think rusk is talking a lot of common sense though after having martins playing suicide shit passing out from back and juric leaving the midfield wide open it makes a lot of sense to try and keep games tight and defend first .. think our best approach would be try to limit the space for the opposition as much as possible and then try to counter so there’s much more space on the break when we counter. pretty much opposite of what Martin was doing .

at least rusk is recognising our limitations .. defense first is a good approach when you have a limited squad 

Is defence first really a good strategy when you have defenders who aren't very good at the basics of defending and have too few defensively capable midfielders?

Edited 18 hours ago by StrangelyBrown

[Whitey Grandad]

9 hours ago, pimpin4rizeal said:

Yeah I agree on formation Id also prefer a back four with two holding dms but downes was out also so maybe that played a part ..

I do think rusk is talking a lot of common sense though after having martins playing suicide shit passing out from back and juric leaving the midfield wide open it makes a lot of sense to try and keep games tight and defend first .. think our best approach would be try to limit the space for the opposition as much as possible and then try to counter so there’s much more space on the break when we counter. pretty much opposite of what Martin was doing .

at least rusk is recognising our limitations .. defense first is a good approach when you have a limited squad 

Your defence starts at the other end of the pitch. As for trying to limit their space we surrendered the whole of the midfield to them and sat back in our own penalty area. This will only ever end one way.

[OldNick]

16 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

We got well stuffed anyway. 
 

What were we playing for? To keep the score down? We were already comfortably relegated. The way we played was like a condemned man refusing his last meal because he was trying to lose weight.

We did lose by 3 but playing gung ho was like inviting a Kamakazi pilot to fly you on a short break. Imagine if by going gung ho that we were 2 down in 15 minutes, it was sad to see so many leave when they scored the 2nd. Our fnbase is pretty demoralised as it is, but to risk a proper thrashing against one of the best teams in the league would be madness. How can we ever think that the team could 'go for it' is pie in the sky. Perhaps tyr to be more aggressive and attack on Saturday or perhaps at Leicester (they are looking better, and i dont hold out much hope there) where the quality of opposition is lower may be valid.

[OldNick]

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Your defence starts at the other end of the pitch. As for trying to limit their space we surrendered the whole of the midfield to them and sat back in our own penalty area. This will only ever end one way.

Yes the defenc does start at the front, but we havent the physically or type of player to do so. Tall Paul can cause problems with the ball up to him but he is not built to keep running down defenders. Its horses for courses. As for giving the midfield away, that is true but there was no combination availible to stop it. Perhps Flynn coming back with Lesley may provide a better more solid midfield this weekend

[Holmes_and_Watson]

31 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Yes the defenc does start at the front, but we havent the physically or type of player to do so. Tall Paul can cause problems with the ball up to him but he is not built to keep running down defenders. Its horses for courses. As for giving the midfield away, that is true but there was no combination availible to stop it. Perhps Flynn coming back with Lesley may provide a better more solid midfield this weekend

Summary:

We've no forwards with the work rate or fitness levels to close down, let alone form a press.

We've no midfield. No one that can form a link with our forwards and certainly no one who can control or stop our opponents.

We've a defence that comes with at least one individual error per game in each of them. So the last thing you want to do is invite pressure onto them.

If it wasn't for our 'keeper being quite good, I'd worry we might struggle. 🙂

[OldNick]

1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Summary:

We've no forwards with the work rate or fitness levels to close down, let alone form a press.

We've no midfield. No one that can form a link with our forwards and certainly no one who can control or stop our opponents.

We've a defence that comes with at least one individual error per game in each of them. So the last thing you want to do is invite pressure onto them.

If it wasn't for our 'keeper being quite good, I'd worry we might struggle. 🙂

Have i got it wrong ?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

14 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Have i got it wrong ?

Nope, and having extended it a few of the other posts that was me posting in despair. 🙂

[Whitey Grandad]

9 hours ago, OldNick said:

We did lose by 3 but playing gung ho was like inviting a Kamakazi pilot to fly you on a short break. Imagine if by going gung ho that we were 2 down in 15 minutes, it was sad to see so many leave when they scored the 2nd. Our fnbase is pretty demoralised as it is, but to risk a proper thrashing against one of the best teams in the league would be madness. How can we ever think that the team could 'go for it' is pie in the sky. Perhaps tyr to be more aggressive and attack on Saturday or perhaps at Leicester (they are looking better, and i dont hold out much hope there) where the quality of opposition is lower may be valid.

I think you’ve missed my point.

What were we trying to do? We were already relegated so goal difference doesn’t matter any more. We were thrashed anyway and I firmly believe that our team setup contributed to that.

Again, what was the point of it all?