Jump to content

Joensuu

Members
  • Posts

    2,219
  • Joined

1 Follower

Joensuu's Achievements

  1. I haven't read any of this thread so do forgive me if I'm repeating old ground. My take is that Yoshida is likely to have become the nominated scapegoat; although I feel he played to his ability, but that his adequacies were highlighted by a failure elsewhere in the balance of the team. I observed two larger issues with our squad: the right flank; and upfront. Right Flank Our right flank was completely ineffective. Tadic offered nothing, either going forwards, or backwards. He didn't seem interested in the game, didn't track back, didn't cover Cedric - his removal at half time helped to stabilise the team significantly. I'm not sure what has gone wrong with Tadic. He hasn't really offered anything beyond the odd flash of quality since, what, November, or December last year. Has he been 'found out'? Or is he struggling for some other reason? Perhaps Tadic was largely covered by Clyne last year. With a weak right back behind him, Tadic looked totally exposed and wasn't worth including in the squad. Which brings me to Soares; I was not impressed at all. Cedric didn't seem to offer anything. Fonte was dragged out wide to cover him defensively (exposing Yoshida and Targett), and going forwards Cedric seemed to be incapable of finding a cross, normally relying on Mane, Long or at one stage even Fonte to actually put the cross in. Unless he has more to offer I think we need a better replacement for Clyne before this window closes. Feel that this right-sided issue caused both Wanyama and Fonte to be dragged wide, putting large gaps on the centre and left for Everton's counter attacks to channel into. After half time, Romeu's introduction (and more importantly Tadic's removal) brought us shape and stabilised our game. Up front All four of our forward players failed to consistently track back. I noticed a number of occasions when our already stretched midfield and defence were simply not supported by the four players all wanting to play centre forward. Mane, Pelle, Long and Tadic all seemed to be walking or jogging back, and leaving our back 6 heavily out numbered. The wide players especially need to be taught to track back and support the defence. I feel even that isn't enough, we can't afford to leave both Pelle and Mane up the pitch, one of them should be instructed to sprint back to support the rest of the team. Pelle was woeful on Saturday, but I feel this was mostly because of the lack of supply, but even so he looked off the pace, and even when presented with a largely free header, he put the ball over the bar instead of aiming low (isn't this 101 basic stuff for any tall striker to learn?). We lack any form of replacement for Pelle in the squad, and right now he doesn't strike me as someone on top of his game. I'd suggest that a lot of the above issues can easily be coached out of the squad, however, we do lack depth and options in a number of positions. It it brutally obvious that we need: A first choice left-sided centre back A first choice right back/wing back A 'Pelle' alternative I'd also suggest that we could do with selling Tadic now. We could probably raise 10M for him this summer, and I can honestly only see his price dropping from this point onwards. Do we have any need for him in the squad?
  2. This is definitely the song to work on. "Oh Yoshida, they won't defeat ya, but you won't let those [?] defeat ya" Not really liking 'Skatebots' - thinking perhaps changing that word to suit the opponent (e.g. Scousers, or Geordies, or Plastics etc).
  3. My spelling lets me down on these - there's a difference between knowing the answers and remembering how to spell Kachloul
  4. More interesting is the quote at the bottom of the article: “I see 2016-17 there will be a lot more invested in the stadium than in this season.”
  5. IMO, currently, when both are fit, Boruc despite his moments of madness is the better keeper - not just because he could pull off hollywood saves, but mainly for the confidence he gave the back four. However, Boruc has two critical flaws, age and his proneness to getting injured. He doesn't have too many seasons left at this level, and is currently only fit for c. 60-70% of games maximum (this will no doubt decline over forthcoming years). Forster seems to have some learning to do regarding his decision making (when to come off the line, when to punch etc). A few years at this level and hopefully he should pick up the experience to improve this area of his game. Forster seems more level-headed than Boruc. I'm hopeful that in, say, 3 years time he will be a superb keeper. In 3 years time, Boruc might be lucky to have a professional contract at any level. All in all, I think the club made the right decision to replace Boruc - it's a temporary step backwards in quality that will hopefully pay off in the long run. The biggest headache it presents is backup - Gazzaniga is only 23, he is the right age to start providing regular backup. He probably has the technical ability, if his confidence hasn't been completely destroyed.
  6. If we're 1 nil up (or playing against a team likely to attack us) - J Rod, Elia, Mane If we're 1 nil down (or playing against a team sitting back) - Tadic Don't see any debate in the rest of the squad - it picks itself.
  7. Koeman had worked wonders at Feyenoord, but his record at AZ and Valencia was hardly spectacular. It's not hard to find other clubs not being overly wowed by his appointment (c.f http://www.redcafe.net/threads/ronald-koeman-watch.392824/ etc). Don't get be wrong, I think he's been superb for us, but we shouldn't make out that his stock was all that outstanding last summer. Yes his appointment showed ambition - but it didn't clearly show the intent of the owners. They could easily have still been trying to withdraw capital, either with, or without Koeman's prior knowledge. You are not alone in having listened to Reed and Kreuger. If I recall correctly, on here Reed was being slated for interviews he made prior to Pochettino's departure - e.g. "pick up the details of any contract talks in the summer" etc. Kreuger was also being attacked by many on here for his 'PR style'. They were consistently positive, but certainly didn't command total faith by the majority during the early parts of the summer - if I recall, by the first week of August the stock of both men wasn't being held is great esteem by the majority of our fanbase. Irrelevant - hindsight. We had a new coach with excellent playing record and mixed management career, two of best, but unproven, players in the EDV, a new director who was well regarded in the ice hockey, but hadn't convinced our fanbase, Reed being less than 100% convincing (e.g. http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?51089-The-Les-Reed-is-a-Waste-of-Space-thread&highlight=les+reed#.VLfSmEesXoI), and a sh*t load of money for each want away player - but no idea how the owners intended to spend it. Feel free to dream, but don't paint a fake picture of the past. In the middle of last summer (c. 1st week of August), anyone not connected to our club who didn't have doubts for our future and our owner's intent isn't telling the truth IMO.
  8. Agreed, we were doing exceptional business, however, this was just evidence that we weren't engaged in a cut-price fire-sale - as of the first week of August getting good fees still supported both theories - reinvestment & growth vs owners removing capital. In both scenarios the board would have wanted to get the best prices when selling players. It should be noted that the quantity sold without many replacements will drive up the prices of those replacements - supporting the notion that the desire was to remove capital. Agreed again. This was the best evidence (as I pointed out). However, the debate early August was about how much Koeman was aware of the sales prior to joining. See above - this supported both scenarios In either scenario (reinvestment & growth vs owners removing capital) the clubs scouting processes would be recommending the best players they could have. In early August Pelle and Tadic would have still been considered risky - albeit I'm sure we would have been fairly confident in their abilities. (NB Alderweireld had not joined the club at this point). The fact is, the club were replacing known quantities with partially unknown quantities (and replacing them with less money). This makes for a risky strategy for any club wishing to improve upon their league position, but it makes perfect business sense for any organisation trying to remove capital. With hindsight it is clear to see these risks have paid off. At the time the evidence indicated that the ownership could have had intentions to remove capital from the club. I disagree. Looking at the summers events with the benefit of hindsight, it was so obvious we were going to be fine. Looking at the summers events as they unfolded from a completely rational point of view, you'd have to conclude that the strategy of the owners was at best unclear (not just to people on here, but to neutrals, 'experts' and the media).
  9. Disagree. In the middle of the summer this is exactly the way the club's transfer policy could easily have been logically interpreted. We'd sold many of our better players, looked to be selling even more, and were seemingly replacing them with unknown quality. By Aug 1st-8th we had sold: Lambert, Shaw, Lallana, Lovren and Chambers (oh and allowed Pochettino to go). Whereas we had only replaced them with Tadic and Pelle (both considered to be potentially good signings, but risky). The consensus, both amongst our fanbase and many football 'experts' was that we had made a net income of £59 million (after signings), were rumoured to be seeing the last of both Morgan and Jay, and appeared to have a significantly weaker overall squad. We were only a week from our first game, and while Krueger was telling us that we would be stronger, many were doubting the intentions of the clubs ownership. Katharina was essentially in a position to re-coop her family's entire stake in the club, and make a 50-100% profit on the invested cash from player sales alone. The media were beginning to using the term 'asset strip' - mostly in articles refuting this scenario, but still in the context that this was a more than plausible explanation for events. (e.g. http://metro.co.uk/2014/07/06/just-what-is-going-on-at-southampton-4788879/, http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/southampton-transfer-news-saints-chairman-ralph-krueger-says-morgan-schneiderlin-and-jay-rodriguez-wont-be-leaving-st-marys-9636016.html, http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/11379498.COMMENT___This_can_t_be_an_asset_stripping_summer_for_Saints/ etc.) Overall, the best evidence that we were not engaged in an asset strip was the appointment of Koeman, and that £19m had been re-invested. 'Those who thought we were being asset stripped didnt know what an asset strip was' - is not a balance comment. There was certainly enough evidence to suggest that the owners were indeed engaged in an exercise in extracting capital from the club. There was not enough evidence to suggest that they were engaged in a full fire-sale, but a perfectly rational interpretation of events was that by early August the club were getting a substantial, but it appeared that they were only reinvesting the minimum needed to try to keep the team in the top flight (where the club's market value is maintained) - it was unknown where the excess capital was going, but one logical interpretation was that the owners were trying to remove capital from the club. Conclusion: Those who thought that we were engaged in an asset stripping exercise were fully aware of what an asset stripping exercise is, and were not being 'stupid'. This was a perfectly logical interpretation of events in early August.
  10. FA cup and 3rd place please. 4th place isn't really what we should be aiming for
  11. I think this is the definitive answer: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?52185-For-those-who-think-can-will-finish-higher-than-8th-this-season&p=2072212#post2072212 I would suggest the answer is yes, we can (now) recall Boruc.
  12. Perfect weekend: Draws for Man City & Chelsea Wins for Saints, Hull, Sunderland, Burnley, Leicester, Newcastle & Shrewsbury.
  13. I thought highly of Boruc, still do despite his cot-rattle episode. However, Forster is the better keeper. They both excel at all of the core tasks of goalkeeping, but Boruc's consistency, decisions and distribution were questionable. Age was probably the critical factor. IMO we have upgraded in every way with Forster. A loan to Bournemouth is a superb deal for us. Boruc stays fit(ter), easy to monitor and easy to recall if needed, without allowing potential sulks or negativity impacting our dressing room. Management have played a blinder here, we are essentially covered by superb backup, without having a frustrated keeper potentially undermining moral.
  14. I'd be concerned by any fan who didn't have concerns following the sale of Chambers. The most positive anyone was at that point was saying things like 'I hope the board are true to their word', or 'I'm sure it won't be as bad as it looks like it will be, let's wait until the window closes'. Basically, the most positive opinions were based on hope, and most fans were beginning to suspect the worst case scenario might have been true.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})