VectisSaint

I was expressing my own thoughts on the matter.

Stephens before Salisu with Bednarek switching to left side, as was the case for most of the post lockdown period last season. Would be surprised if he throws Salisu straight in.

Had to wait to post a reaction (3 posts). Thought in many ways that was the best we had played, in terms of exciting, quick build up and excellent, slick, accurate passing. Given who we were playing we were very very good. City have not conceded a PL goal in 4 games (5 now), its a bit unusual that City are defensively now very good, and yet we embarrassed them many times, and the luck went their way. Admittedly later on we were not so impressive, Redders having an absolute nightmare (had to laugh at the Amazon 'tator saying Redmond was a big hero of the St Mary's fans). In particular Vestegaard had another really good game, where has this come from? He was an absolute donkey last season, I was one who really hoped he would go to Leicester, is he actually his twin brother or something, now looks like one of the best CBs in the PL. KWP was also excellent again. But best of all was Theo, his energy and fighting spirit were awesome yesterday, lost count of the number of tackles he put in, invariably winning the ball back from his opponent, something I've never really seen him do in his whole career. We were a bit let down by the left side, Bertie is looking a bit ponderous and his switch off nearly cost us dear, not convinced yet by Djenepo either, though his trickery with the ball is top class at times. We missed Armstong (the on form Armstrong), but its a bit of a problem with both Armstrong and Walcott being better on the right, our two best AMs (when on form) are both right-sided, and our left side being inferior leaves us somewhat unbalanced. All in all a thoroughly enjoyable game with Saints clearly on top for the majority of the 90 minutes. A draw would have been a fair result. Hopefully Ings' injury is not so bad, if he just felt his hammy as Ralph has suggested it might not be too bad.

It was deffo Townsend, that's why they kept referring to the last time Saints beat Arse at Highbury, he was in the team that day, name checks to Jimmy Case. To be fair he has been better today, still loathe him, though probably not as much as I do 'Arry. 😁

Amazon really know how to ruin a game for Southampton, don't they. Not content with Andy f****** Townsend again, we 'ave to 'ave 'Arry f****** Redknapp in the studio. Townsend on Wednesday appeared to have become an ex Arsenal player, referring to them as "we" several times (seriously, I checked on Wiki during the game to make sure I hadn't forgotten that he once played for the Arse). Embarrassed every time his commentator buddy mentioned that he used to play for Saints. I really detest him, doesn't matter that he used to play for us. Oh well, c'mon Saints.

No one thought he wouldn't make the grade. He left because it was obvious he would and already had.

Draw. Always better to only have 2 points awarded for a match to rivals than 3.

Scottish newspapers (online). Seems like every day, ad nauseum (comes through on Google news feeds, I don't actually buy or read the Scottish rags, any more than I do the English ones).

You didn't see my reply above. Can't keep up with this Govt's u-turns.

Whoops, wrong again, this Govt never ceases to baffle me, they don't seem to be able to stick to any timetable. So no Gooners in the Emirates on Wednesday, will that make it louder than the usual Library?

Had major heart problems years ago (while he was still at Liverpool I think), has been head of global football for Red Bull for the last 8 years, still closely involved with football but on a broader scale, had just taken on the role of technical director for Olympic Lyon women's team as well. Probably had dealings with Ralph when he was at RB Leipzig. Always came across as a nice bloke, not Liverpool manager mould at all.

Won't be before Wednesday. I'm not sure Arsenal will lose 5 home league games on the trot.

So then you wouldn't play him against Arsenal so that he is available for Man City. We've got 8 games to go before the number of yellows increases to 10, just let him get suspended when he does, trying to play tactics like this always backfires. You never know he might not actually get booked (unlikely I know). Its only 1 game.

Bit surprised at you Whitey, as you always claim to be a former ref. Blowing the whistle is nothing to do with it, blowing the whistle is simply a means to stop (or start) play (ignoring the fact that you cannot tell when a whistle is blown wat hing on TV, speed of light, speed of sound etc., and also allowing for a long reaction time for a ref to actually do such a thing). It's what the referee indicates after he has blown the whistle that is important. He made no attempt to signal that he was playing advantage (though to be fair there was not time to do so) and clearly indicated the foul that he was penalising was a direct free kick outside the area (which it clearly was, I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise). There is no legitimate reason for VAR to have overturned the referee's decision and awarded a pen. None. And as for Carragher's remarks, well they were just borne out of pure ignorance, not for the first time of course. I'm mighty glad they did overrule it though, cos I don't think we would have won it any other way. Makes up for all the times decisions go against us.

So your quote was not a quote and is fundamentally different to what is in the Laws of the Game, which I had read and which you have now pasted. The part about holding is fundamental, there was no 'holding' in the play on Monday that lead to the pen., so this section is not applicable. Simple really.

and two left sided (left footed) CBs.

Advantage wasn't played, the referee blew for the initial foul that was clearly outside the penalty area, that's why his initial decision was a direct free kick outside the area. VAR overruled this, wrongly in my view, either by applying advantage (how can they do that) or more likely for the foul continuing in the area (which is not correct unless it is for holding, which it clearly wasn't) according to Law 12.

Where does that quote come from? I'm not sure that it is accurate, it certainly does not appear in the FA Laws of the Game. The FA Laws of the Game (https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct) actually state "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick." No other type of foul (other than holding) has this type of clarification. I don't think anyone could say the foul was awarded for holding was it? The initial foul was a shove, and the action in the box was a trip. According to the FA Law 12 I don't think a penalty should have been awarded, the fould was not for March holding Walker-Peters. Still it was given, and I'm happy that we got one for a change. Carragher's assessment was garbage though, he clearly has no idea of the Law, was arguing against it for completely false reasons.

So you want to change our formation. You can't replace Armstrong with Diallo without fundamentally changing the way we play. Anyway, why drop Armstrong, he's had a couple of poor games but he will come good again. Diallo will get his chance eventually, meanwhile he seems a useful sub when we are trying to manage a game.

Hoedt is a very good player. His problems were that he lacked concentration and he was an arrogant tosser, a legend in his own mind. He would be our best central defender if he was able to do something about these two problems, especially the concentration. He will never play for us again, but will probably do very well at Lazio and probably go on to better things in the future. The sooner he is gone the better.

So you would drop Romeo or JWP, two of our best performers this season. Interesting idea. 🤔

Why? He was only 14 when he was playing for them and when we signed him. Probably a good thing, some experience playing with seniors in a competitive environment rather than playing age group football at the Academy, probably "toughened him up".

I disagree. This paragraph is the first time I have read anything that suggests the turnaround wasn't all down to Ralph. "In the immediate aftermath of the Leicester game - both that night and the following morning - Hasenhuttl and Semmens spoke at length. Their discussions were not about the manager's future but were centred around bringing in more support amid a feeling the Austrian was carrying too much responsibility on his own. His thinking had become clouded." Whether this meant new people were brought in (or existing people were given different responsibilities) or even referred to others that had recently joined (Richard Kitzbichler) it is good that someone has finally acknowledged that changes were introduced to help Ralph, and that everything wasn't just changed by Ralph as other commentators like to portray. I'm convinced a lot of credit for the turnaround should go to Kitzbichler, but his influence seems to have gone largely unrecognised.

Personally I have no idea, but this comes up from 2014 when you google: https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/11664945.danny-ings-i-used-to-dream-of-playing-for-saints/ Certainly sounds like he was up to the age of 10, maybe after he was rejected he changed his allegiance. Nevertheless regardless of whether he was a Saints supporter, he has an allegiance to the area if not the team. If he were to leave, and I doubt it very much, I think it would only be to a London team, I thought Spurs were sniffing around a while back.

Wouldn't make a jot of difference. If the bindippers wanted him (and he was willing to go) they would get him, only the price would change.