saintbletch

Completely agree. And the irony of ironies is that despite FIFA seeding the draw to favour the 'better' teams and with all the odds stacked against them, it would be very easy to suggest that the officials gave FIFA the result they wanted. But the ref was incredibly fair to the Irish on the night. It appeared to have been a genuine mistake on the officials' part. Technology would have helped. That or Thierry Henry should have chased the ref like Given did before he was able to award the goal.

I think somewhere in the middle is the truth. As Bally (and I hope I don't offend Derry's sensibilities by comparing Lallana with MLT) found out when you have a creative player who perhaps doesn't enjoy the team discipline of defending, you build the team and formation around him. That principle seemed to work well. But I wouldnt''t suggest that Lallana is worthy of that just yet. But when we line up 4-1-4-1 it allows him to be an individual and use his undoubted skills and the formation forgives his lack of discipline. For me it's a rigid and disciplined 4-4-2 with Connolly but without Lallana and Schneiderlin or it's 4-5-1 (4-1-4-1) with AL and MS but without Connolly. ...or as many on here have suggested, line up with 1 up front and change formation and bring on Antonio and Connolly for impact later on. I can understand Pardew's dilemma because in Connolly we have an exceptional talent for League 1 but accommodating him will mean sacrificing other 'talents'.

Are you Osvaldo Adiles? I agree we'd score at hatful but wouldn't the opposition drive a coach and horses through our midfield?

Good call on the chaos theory and I echo your good wishes to Paul Allen and smile at the unintentional and indirect role he had in bringing ML to the club. BTW how do you know Butterfly in Bangkok? She/he said she was mine and mine alone.

Agree with most of this. I think Schneiderlin and Lallana are problems when we play 4-4-2. When we play 4-1-4-1 both add a lot to the team. There was too much space in the game yesterday for Brighton. Don't think that came about by being tired but rather coming up against an invigorated Brighton who wanted it more and exploited the frailties we have playing 4-4-2.

A little over-dramatic from the OP in my opinion. I think we have to assume that Pardew is not an idiot which means that it wasn't a mistake or an oversight playing Gobern at left back. Instead there must have been some other purpose in it. Others have said that Gobern has played in similar positions in the reserves so it appears to spin the situation a different way, Pardew saw something in Gobern that made him believe he could be a good left of right back. At 3-0 and apparently going on to win in a 'cup game, Pardew thought he'd try out his theory and give Gobern a run out for the first team. I suspect he may well have learned a lot from putting Gobern at left back and we didn't lose. So Pardew got what he wanted. He learned about Gobern and we went on to win. So was that a mistake on Pardew's part? A risk definitely, but a mistake? I'm not sure. In fact you could say it was perfectly judged. I'd rather we had gone out to Bristol in the 'cup than for Pardew to think that Gobern could cover Harding, because I think we've learned that he can't.

2 nil.

We don't seem to be able to control the midfield. Too much space. Early days and we do look like more of a threat but can't help thinking we're better starting with 1 up front and using Connolly/Antonio for the impact in the second half.

+ 1.

Tony Adams was on Sky earlier in the week as a studio guest covering one of their European games. He recounted a story about a recent conversation he had had with Arsene Wenger. He said that he was talking to Wenger about how well Arsenal were playing at the moment. He said to AW "I really like your 4-3-3 Arsene". But before he could continue he said that AW interrupted him and said "We don't play 4-3-3 Tony. We play 4-1-4-1. We play 4-1-4-1". Now I know that Wotton isn't Song but they serve the same role and I'm obviously not comparing our current green shoots of recovery with Arsenal's fantastic brand of attacking football. But it does show that you can play one up front and entertain.

You're not a French MP are you?

I don't know but that's hardly a formation versus formation issue is it? That's a tactic that any formation might adopt. I think if your original question had any merit (not your question but the things that you say you read), then they would have found a formation that allowed them to score freely against us or stifled us completely. But again from what I read we created lots of chances (they didn't stifle us) and one of their goals was scored off the thigh of our centre back under no real pressure (individual error).

From what I read, 'Orient were fortunate to be 2 up so I'm not sure that we lost 2 points as the result of being out-thought. Would be interested to see where you read that - twice. I think a team only needs to worry about adopting systems to match the opposition if it can't control the game playing its "normal" way. Hence a team may adapt formation more away from home and against the stronger teams in the division. But I would say given the quality of our squad we will go into the majority of games attempting to make the opposition change to adapt to us. I'm sure we will adopt specific defending drills from set pieces and that specific players will get special treatment. Perhaps a pacey winger might force us to be more conservative going forward. But generally I think we will find our system and stick to it. To answer your question specifically, from the games I've seen we haven't changed formation noticeably - other than the change to 4-4-2 that you mentioned.

As you say, it isn't easy to make the circle formation work due to the off side problem. But it is possible. You form the circle around the ball and, whilst in your own half, two of the most forward members of the circle formation grab and hold two opposition players as hostages. Then as the circle advances into the opposition half all players stay on side due to the two "hostages" being in advance of the 10 "attackers". I believe it's popular in Germany where it is known as the "umlaut O formation" or Ö for short. Another method is to form the circle with one player in the middle from a throw-in. The ball is then thrown into the centre of the circle where it is controlled by the player in the middle. As we know you can't be offside from a throw-in but it is then down to the Ref's interpretation of when the other 8 or 9 players become active and what constitutes the first and second phases of the move.

Charities sensibly align themselves with things that we feel passionate about. It makes complete sense to me to try to use SFC past and present as one of many fund raising topics. Me, I'm off to post on the Sally Taylor forum. Apparently, and you won't believe this, but Chris Packham is popping round to Sally's for tea and he's bringing Fred Dinage! You couldn't make it up. Gotta run, www.sallytaylorisreallyinteresting.com is in meltdown with excitement. Well done to all involved in raising money.

An interesting and brave question to ask, given the fact that I would imagine that a large number of fans don't actually feel there is much wrong on the pitch at the moment. So if I''ve got you right, the premise of your argument Professor seems to be that when we play "4-5-1" we are defensive and negative and that when we play 4-4-2, we are not. I don't agree with the premise, as we don't play the classic "4-5-1". The defensive element of the formation is Wotton who, to my eye, sits in front of the back 4 and doesn't move. This "4-1..." allows for a very attacking and dynamic formation ahead of him and for fullbacks to join in the attack from behind him. It is also a formation that allows us to build up momentum in a game that then allows us to move to 4-4-2. That 4-4-2 works for us, is because we have kept the opposition honest by playing "4-5-1", as you call it, before that. I'd agree that we can play 5 in midfield at times when we need to and I'd also admit that this can stifle the opposition. I thought we did this brilliantly against MK Dons. There was no space for them to play but when we got the ball we got forward well on both flanks and at no point did I sit there feeling that it was defensive or negative. In fact when we moved to 4-4-2 it was like a bottle from a cork. The midfield had so much space and with the fresh legs of Connolly and Antonio, MK Dons didn't know what hit them. And this was against a team that had an excellent record until they played us. I left the stadium thinking Pardew got it exactly right and royally entertained in both phases of the game. Reading the match reports from yesterday it appears that we dominated and created many, many chances playing "4-5-1". That is not usually the result of a defensive formation. I can also say that it's been a long time since I've been as entertained as much by a Saints team. And if that is a defensive formation then I say bring it on. All of this is not to say that we couldn't make 4-4-2 work. I suspect we could. It's just that I think that what we've found in the current formation, and the subsequent change later in games to 4-4-2, is working incredibly well for us. Both from an entertainment as well as a results perspective. Anyway, an interesting debate and I guess we won't convince each other of our different views. But a question for you. When you sit in the Kingsland, are you honestly telling me that in the last several matches you've been frustrated by the defensive displays you've witnessed?

I'm intrigued that you decided to share that story - assuming it's true. A few questions. Do you feel that you come out of the story well? Do you care? Was your brother born 'spastic'? Is your brother taller than you?

You should be OK Trousers - unless we play Chris de Burgh in the cup.

Or would those of us that had developed more than the fight or flight response of Neanderthal man just walk away disliking those individuals that we had had a problem with? Or better still realise that it might be a little confrontational and not get into the situation in the first place? It's lazy but oh so convenient to group people by some random quirk of DNA or geography, but let's be honest Thedelldays it's just not that clever. For my sins, I hate everyone that has the 7" single of Joe Dolce's "Shaddap you face". Absolute scum of the earth. And don't tell me that's some sort of arbitrary grouping. To me it's personal and if I could, I'd kill everyone one of them. You know who you are!

Thanks. Looks like me an Mick McCarthy are on the same page then. I'd have him back in a flash in League One and I'd like to think that he could be a better alternative/backup to Schneiderlin as long as Wotton was playing behind him.

I'd be interested to see what Mick McCarthy thinks he has bought. A left-sided midfielder without much pace or a slightly lightweight central midfielder. Don't mean that to sound as derogatory as it perhaps sounds but I've always thought Drew fell between two stools. Do you know where MM has played Drew in the past?

Something for the nerd in us all... http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/teams/Southampton.html I particularly like the October rank!

Well I've defended him on here previously. I've even suggested that in his early games, it was the player not playing the ball quickly enough that led to him being off-side. All true as I saw it. But on Saturday he looked like he didn't understand the off-side rule. Very odd. As ever somewhere in the middle is the truth.

I guess you weren't on here throughout the closed season. That's fair enough, we can't all keep up-to-date with all things Saints all of the time. It's OK though I can fill you in. Well to cut a long story short we nearly went out of business, the club was sold from adminstration, we sacked our coach, sold a number of last season's regular starters, didn't have a pre-season and a large percentage of our first team including our manager - Alan Pardew - joined us with only weeks of pre-season left. We didn't have a proper back room staff and so this has been assembled as we've played matches. In fact in the last couple of weeks we've still been signing players on loans and frees. These players also featured in the match on Saturday suggesting we're still not quite the finished article. Of the team that finished the match on Saturday only Davis, James, Lallana and Schneiderlin were here last year. We're a work in progress having suffered massive disruption to our planning when other teams in our League were tuning their squad with minor additions here and there. Hope that brings you up-to-date. I'd give you Lambert at Norwich though as he certainly has hit the ground running with a squad that looked dreadful under Brian Gunn. But they have had nowhere near the level of disruption we faced. Boothroyd walked into Colchester with them 5th in the league - not sure there was too much to be turned around there.

Ince returned to a club a under a year (I think) after he left it. Roberto DiMatteo had MK Dons playing well before handing the reigns back to Ince. They finished 3rd last year. I understand the point you're making but comparing Ince's walking back into a club he knew well and who were on the up, with Pardew assuming control of a team in meltdown, on -10 and with drastic surgery needed to the playing side; is way off the mark.