Matchday Thread Southampton v PNE - 16/04/24 - KO:8PM - Championship

[Naughton's moustache]

It's just complete bollocks to act like 'they're not trying hard enough' is the reason we didn't win games against good teams.

Like I fully agree that RL should have been going for it against Watford, caution to the wind. But it's no lack of effort on the players behalf, they're not downing tools or any of that shit. It's a lazy way to ignore the actual facts and players involved in the games played.

Hang on, did I say the players weren't interested?
I was talkin more of the club as a whole.
Although you cannot excuse the half arsed defending on display at St Mary's.
They are all comfortable though arn't they?
Players, management, owners, job done

 

[HunterLionheart]

Hang on, did I say the players weren't interested?
I was talkin more of the club as a whole.
Although you cannot excuse the half arsed defending on display at St Mary's.
They are all comfortable though arn't they?
Players, management, owners, job done

The club as a whole doesn't have a level of effort, so you'll need to point the finger a bit more specifically.

You can say the ownership isn't spending appropriately, or making high enough demands of the manager?
You can say the manager is not throwing caution to the wind when he should be, or isn't tactically astute enough?
You can say the players are lacking effort or aren't of the required quality?
But they're all very separate criticisms, and can be discussed in their own rights.

I don't think it's a lack of effort or 'half arsed' if the players were defending to instruction- standing off rather than engaging. It was crap, but the criticism for it needs pointing at the correct person, and that one would be Ryan Lowe and his hope that putting enough men behind the ball would be enough to stop a really good footballing team from making chances.

 

[Naughton's moustache]

The club as a whole doesn't have a level of effort, so you'll need to point the finger a bit more specifically.

You can say the ownership isn't spending appropriately, or making high enough demands of the manager?
You can say the manager is not throwing caution to the wind when he should be, or isn't tactically astute enough?
You can say the players are lacking effort or aren't of the required quality?
But they're all very separate criticisms, and can be discussed in their own rights.

I don't think it's a lack of effort or 'half arsed' if the players were defending to instruction- standing off rather than engaging. It was crap, but the criticism for it needs pointing at the correct person, and that one would be Ryan Lowe and his hope that putting enough men behind the ball would be enough to stop a really good footballing team from making chances.

Of course, all of those for me.
I'm sure you've realised by now, I'm no fan of Lowe an want someone else in with fresh ideas.
I don't think he told Holmes to inexusably clear the ball straight to their player though.
An I'm hoping he didn't tell Hughes an Lindsay to back off even further than the 6 yard box to let their player have a free shot!

 

[Jürgen Krapp]

no idea, i'm talking about the last few games, when they have been a big loss.

I understand what you're saying, but surely the injuries we had at the start of the season were a big loss too? Yet we picked up results then and were the closest to the plays offs we've been all season. Moreover ,if said players were so integral, surely we'd have picked up more points between October and January when they were available?

I feel this indicates that there are factors other than these injuries as to why we will miss out on the play offs.

 

[Bodney Rewes]

I don't really agree with everyone saying that if it wasn't for the injuries we would've made it into the playoffs. The injuries aren't enough of an explanation for me for a few reasons:

1. We went top of the league with an injury crisis. Against Stoke when we went top of the league; Will Keane was our only striker, Andrew Hughes was playing LWB. On the bench we had Rodriguez-Gentile, Mawene, Seary, Best, and Bauer. Woodburn got subbed on. We were really lacking quality depth when the season started but still managed to pull a good run of results together. There's a lot that can be done with good coaching and good management even with a lack of options.

2. Having good players available doesn't mean Lowe will play them. During our poor run in the middle of the season, we had most of the squad fit. Frokjaer was still sitting on the bench for a large part of it though. Having good players available also doesn't necessarily mean they will play well either. Frokjaer hasn't been great recently and Riis looked too casual the past couple games.

3. Dismissing it as just an injury crisis washes responsibility from those at the top. We largely don't have any central midfielders fit because we don't have any right wing backs. Potts wouldn't still be injured if he wasn't thrown back into the side too soon because we didn't have any other options for right wing back. Browne has been playing right wing back. If he didn't need to be shoved out wide so often, he could've been rested more. Duane Holmes wouldn't need to be played at right wing back currently due to Browne and Potts being injured. All three of them can play central midfield. We could've rotated our players and given them all more rest if we actually had a right wing back. Since we don't, we've been running our players into the ground playing a style of football where everyone has to be constantly alert in defence and ready to bust a gut bombing up the pitch for the odd chances we get. The one thing about playing a more possession based style is that your players get more time to rest during a match as you're controlling possession. You can move more slowly up the pitch too. The way we're playing at the moment means almost every player we have on the pitch has to throw themselves into defending for most of the game.

4. Even if we had all of our players fit, we still could've missed out on playoffs. It's all hypotheticals and optimistic thinking. We're assuming that we could've maintained our good form from a few games ago. Our run of games finishing off this season isn't that easy. We're up against a bunch of teams who have something to play for. Norwich have an easier run and have been on track to finish on more points for a while now. Even if it wasn't Norwich, there's still Coventry, Hull and Middlesbrough in the mix. If we had beaten Norwich, that's still no guarantee that we would've finished above the others. For all we know all of our players could've been fit but then Woodman suffers an injury and then we're relying on Cornell for the final few games. Literally anything can happen in a hypothetical because they're things that didn't actually happen. Injuries happen. All you can do is make sure that they don't harm your chances too much.

 

[Libertine]

Latest stats saints 16 shots, pne 1 shot.Saints 75 % possesion pne 25 %.No change from last few away games.

Leicester 34% possession, 17 shots, 6 on target.
Southampton 66% possession, 7 shots, 0 on target.

Leicester 5-0 Southampton.

I don't know what it tells us but it just goes to show there really is only one important stat.

 

[Tommmm12345]

Leicester 34% possession, 17 shots, 6 on target.
Southampton 66% possession, 7 shots, 0 on target.

Leicester 5-0 Southampton.

I don't know what it tells us but it just goes to show there really is only one important stat.

I listened to his pre game interview after on Sky said they started thr 2nd half well and should of done ok end of day Leicester did a Job on them. They can do that against us.

 

[Bobbage]

I don't really agree with everyone saying that if it wasn't for the injuries we would've made it into the playoffs. The injuries aren't enough of an explanation for me for a few reasons:

3. Dismissing it as just an injury crisis washes responsibility from those at the top. We largely don't have any central midfielders fit because we don't have any right wing backs. Potts wouldn't still be injured if he wasn't thrown back into the side too soon because we didn't have any other options for right wing back. Browne has been playing right wing back. If he didn't need to be shoved out wide so often, he could've been rested more. Duane Holmes wouldn't need to be played at right wing back currently due to Browne and Potts being injured. All three of them can play central midfield. We could've rotated our players and given them all more rest if we actually had a right wing back. Since we don't, we've been running our players into the ground playing a style of football where everyone has to be constantly alert in defence and ready to bust a gut bombing up the pitch for the odd chances we get. The one thing about playing a more possession based style is that your players get more time to rest during a match as you're controlling possession. You can move more slowly up the pitch too. The way we're playing at the moment means almost every player we have on the pitch has to throw themselves into defending for most of the game.

For me, it was a lack of rotation when players were fit which has cost us. I said it to @Danielson back in January that Lowe lacks the intelligence or tactical flexibility to rest players to prevent burnout or protect against injury before they happen. It was made far, far worse when the penny dropped with the manager that people were seeing past his turd rolled in glitter and The Brand™️ wasn't working, so we went to a high energy, battling, scrapping (at first) pressing game that he could claim was "our identity" because that was what other managers were calling it on Sky. But our plucky bottom half squad were absolutely gassed after a few games of it.

There's no doubt the team has a great spirit and will die for the shirt when the backs are against the wall, but we always rigidly use the same formation and flog our best players for each position until they break, and it's only then that someone else steps in. There's never been any freshening up of the strikers until 80+ minutes, wingbacks are a case of last man standing, and there's no selecting of different midfield pairing or - gasp - a back four depending on the opposition.

It's all data and stat based. We keep our "best" players on the pitch at all times and play the numbers game. Computer says no.

 

[Danielson]

For me, it was a lack of rotation when players were fit which has cost us. I said it to @Danielson back in January that Lowe lacks the intelligence or tactical flexibility to rest players to prevent burnout or protect against injury before they happen. It was made far, far worse when the penny dropped with the manager that people were seeing past his turd rolled in glitter and The Brand™️ wasn't working, so we went to a high energy, battling, scrapping (at first) pressing game that he could claim was "our identity" because that was what other managers were calling it on Sky. But our plucky bottom half squad were absolutely gassed after a few games of it.

There's no doubt the team has a great spirit and will die for the shirt when the backs are against the wall, but we always rigidly use the same formation and flog our best players for each position until they break, and it's only then that someone else steps in. There's never been any freshening up of the strikers until 80+ minutes, wingbacks are a case of last man standing, and there's no selecting of different midfield pairing or - gasp - a back four depending on the opposition.

It's all data and stat based. We keep our "best" players on the pitch at all times and play the numbers game. Computer says no.

I’ve given him the benefit of the doubt, primarily because I do think we’re over achieving based on club size. I get the fact that Luton, Bournemouth and others have got there and just wish it was us.

However, I’ve lost it with him because the football is shite to watch and he’s full of the same shite, I thought he said we’ll score more than them?