CanadaSaint

I think you’re right but I’d be okay with it if it happened. We’ll see, but I get the impression that there’s a broader plan at work - not the lose a key player/panic buy approach of recent years. I’m sure the Ings replacement is incoming (probably Armstrong). And if JWP goes, his will be too - as well as some more depth.

I’m okay with this. It’s not just that Ings only had a year left on his contract. It’s that his durability isn’t good enough for the heavy demands that Ralph’s style places on his strikers. I think we’ll end up actually looking better up front, all things considered, and I have more confidence that we’ll use the money wisely this time. If JWP goes as well we lose a reliable workhorse who scores deadball goals but doesn’t contribute much creatively. He’s certainly replaceable, too. This could be a quick and effective rebuild.

That's my concern. Granted, there are some top strikers in-play this window, and there's some waiting going on, but the fact that we've (supposedly) had no enquiries for Ings makes me wonder if we're over-valuing him (for a club of our size) with the contract offer. And a year or two hence this forum will be talking about him in the same terms as others we've over-committed to contract-wise. But in his case it's less about talent level or the risk of lost form, and more about durability. We can't afford any more contract clangers that haunt us for seasons. I really think our best bet may be to get Armstrong, give him half a season to settle without the pressure of being our "#1 Striker", and let Danny go in January after he's spent that half-season scoring goals, proving his value to the big clubs, and helping us to get points in the bank. Sure it's risky, but we're up to our ying-yangs in risk right now.

Not sure about that verlaine. The January window is known to be really bad for value - AKA a seller's market. In the Summer window pretty much everyone is fit, but in the January window, clubs (especially big clubs with lots of fixtures) are trying to cover for injured players. Huge money is at stake for them. It's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that Ings could go for more in January than he would now if a really big club is desperate. But my main point is that there may be a way of hedging our bets, so that it's not an "all or nothing" situation. We could get half a season from Ings (and hopefully a lot of safety points) and also have time to get his replacement acclimatized in the club and up to speed with our style.

Saints can only play the cards they’re dealt, and we don’t have many good ones because he clearly wants to go and we are skint. Playing ANY cards in our situation involves risk, especially when the deck is skewed in the player’s favour. In the absence of a crazy offer, of which we’d lose 20% to Liverpool, I’d be inclined to let Ings know that he can go in January, and then go hammer and tongs for Armstrong or someone similar. That way we get a highly motivated Ings for the first half of the season, and an "heir apparent" who has some time to settle in (like Adams needed). The future income from the Ings sale funds the Armstrong signing. Any additional budget goes to other areas of need, of which there are several. Not sure what else we can do and still retain some semblance of control.

Here comes the hooker. If we can just get it out of the scrum a bit quicker we could get one back.

Totally agree with that. And, at risk of repetition, we are a COMPLETELY different team without Romeu. So many of the goals we have been conceding have come from the Romeu void, and JWP often looks like the boy trying to plug the hole in the dike. We also lose quite a lot of Armstrong's forward effectiveness because he's forced to hedge his positional bets. The problem is not that we're crap, or prone to goalkeeping blunders. Sure, we do have some weaker players, and goalkeeping is certainly not a strength, no matter who's in there. The problem is that without Romeu we become weaker all over the park. With him, we're a pretty decent side.

The reality is that we were much the better side in the first half and we paid a heavy price for not scoring when we were on top. Ralph’s substitutions looked more like experiments than tactical adjustments, and all our rhythm went with them.

Game lost in the first half

Tella’s a nightmare to defend against. He takes a lot of defensive composure away with his speed and aggression.

Stephens looks great when he goes marauding forward, but 90% of the time it ends up with a turnover.

Important to come out of this pressure with something

Slowly losing the will to live as I naively check this thread for possible takeover news. Every time MLG wades in with yet another correction or semantic nitpick I’m reminded of Robin Williams’ superb line in Good Morning Vietnam: ”You’re in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history”

Don’t underestimate Ralph. We could be going with two props and a hooker next year.

Feeling very lightheaded and disorientated.

Fricking DAZN is way behind. I’m half expecting Hughes to bring on Gabbiadini.

Replay most of the goals we’ve conceded in the past couple of months - and that penalty - and they came from breakdowns in the space formerly filled by Romeu. And he helps us transition out of defence before the back four triangles get started. In our system he’s close to irreplaceable.

Amazing isn’t it? Long diagonal from Turnbacknarek, quick ball in from Redmond, and Ings finishes before the defence gets set. Makes a mockery of the ludicrous, robotic preoccupation with back four triangles.

We’d be four down if Cedric was playing. #progress

Something we don’t see any more is the “split wall” - two off each post rather than four off one post. It allows the keeper to both stay in the middle and have a better sight of the ball. That’s better than cheating to one side and trying to see the strike through a forest of legs. And it’s much more “football” than a frigging draft excluder.

Sad to say it, but Ralph sounded like someone trying to win the players back, and a number of them (especially Redmond and Bertrand) performed like players who aren’t buying in. Without Romeu, whose example pulls more out of others, we’re screwed. Ralph is managing - and the players are playing - as though they’re carrying a lot of scar tissue, which of course they are. Today was more like a damage minimization starting line up and tactical package, not a balls out attempt to go to the final. But we can’t keep starting over. We’ve been doing that since Pocchettino.

I wish these under-committed ****ers were riding back on Marchwood Motorways (in Forster's case, a horse box) rather than their normal cosseted luxury. It makes me want to vomit when I see that level of commitment and think about what they're paid for it.

If the remit was to minimize the chances of injury by avoiding physical contact and sudden bursts of acceleration, I'd say they achieved the goal today. Perhaps even overachieved.

Anyone else think that Ralph's preparation talk might have focused on running at defenders more, playing earlier passes, and being less shot-shy?

Che sera sera Life's a bowl of cherries