Matthew Le God

Hmm... Ramirez perhaps? Jordan Sibley ‏@jordansibley Spent my evening in the office at St Mary's rather than at Stevenage. Transfer news coming up on http://saintsfc.co.uk shortly... #SaintsFC

The 1st round highlights were on TV, as are tonights games... http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/ryjyv/the-league-cup-show--second-round

There would have more disruption to the preparations for the 1st team training for the Man Utd game. Adkins and 1st team coaching staff wouldn't be back in Southampton until early Friday morning and wouldn't be able to do proper 1st team training on Thursday. Plus about five of the team tonight have a good chance of being in matchday 18 for the Man Utd game. With it being played tonight it allows those involved to recover tomorrow and the coaching staff can hold proper training on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

Use Saints Player.

So you want a new centre back and then pick Seaborne over Fonte for a place on the bench?

Say what? That he has been on the decline for years and signed on loan for Brighton in the Championship this summer?

He isn't going to be on £70k p/w, not sure why you still believe that. In any case Ramirez is better than John Utaka.

Are you sure about that? Their owner Carson Yeung is still in trouble for money laundering and they had numerous problems with their accounts relatively recently. He goes on trial in November and his assets were (and possibly still are) frozen... http://www.birminghammail.net/birmingham-sport/birmingham-city-fc/birmingham-city-fc-news/2012/08/22/birmingham-city-carson-yeung-again-denied-in-attempt-to-travel-to-china-for-father-s-funeral-97319-31674698/ Plus I doubt many players would turn down a chance to move to the Premier League, I don't think Birmingham will be going up this season.

So Gaston Ramirez and Matt Phillips (and a few others) aren't "known" or "quality"?

Even though Man City dominated possession when we had the ball that then skews the positions of the players whilst not in possession. A player with a more defensive role without the ball may be given more license to break forward when Saints are attacking and vice versus, again skewing the graphic and what you can take from it. Lallana for example wasn't anywhere near Guly Do Prado when we didn't have the ball, yet the graphic shows he was very close to him. Often Guly Do Prado was isolated for long periods as Lallana was doing a defensive role as part of a central midfield three, each taking it in turns to press although largely with Schneiderlin behind Lallana and Ward-Prowse when not in possession. The way some of you are reading the graphic is giving a very distorted view of the game.

I give up. Good night.

Yes I did! I said whilst attacking it is hard to label a team with a formation and then explained why that is the case and compared it to labelling a defensive formation. That is an answer to your question!

Bored of you now. Have fun.

Post #53 says... "a formation whilst attacking is less rigid and less defined" A formation whilst defending is generally more rigid and defined as you are getting men behind the ball and working to a system. When you attack you can do so in a number of different ways and is harder to label it with a specific formation, especially in the case of Nigel Adkins who like fluidity of movement whilst attacking. He even said recently "when attacking everyone is an attacker, when defending everyone is a defender". It is easier to see formations laid out for a defending team, rather than one breaking forward with runs from numerous players. Data like those graphs can be manipulated to show numerous things, doesn't mean they show a true reflection of what you are claiming they show.

I don't think I can dilute down any simpler.

If you read it you clearly haven't understood it if you think your question still stands.

Teams tend to have far more rigid formations whilst without the ball, when they have the ball they can break forward and positions are less defined if given some freedom of movement.

Same applies to Mr Turkish. Have you actually read post #53?

Read post #53 in its entirety.

I wasn't wrong, you twisted what I was saying to fit your view and even cut a bit out of the last quote. Now that is hilarious...

No it doesn't, as that shows us with and without the ball combined. I was talking about the formation whilst Man City were in possession. Once Saints were in possession they could break forward and a formation whilst attacking is less rigid and less defined.

We came 12th in 2003/04 with a squad like this...

That would make it a 4231 system, which can't really be described as a 433. Adkins consistently refers to it as a 433, it is clear when out of possession that Schneiderlin plays deeper than any other midfielder with two central midfielders ahead of him.

Well the 433 has been the formation used throughout pre-season. It was also the formation used for the majority of the opening two league games.

I meant changing it from being the main formation, the 433 is the main formation with 442 and 442 diamond as the backups during games.