What? That Giroud was backing into Fonte and had his arm around Fonte's neck, throwing him off-balance. Howard Webb, part of the referee's union, said it was a poor decision.
Got a call from the Ticket Office regarding the Israel trip: the club is exploring whether there is demand for transport back to Tel Aviv straight after the game.
Or how Long is our most creative player; Steklenberg is better than Forster; Charlie Austin isn't an aerial threat etc.
The9's a one-man wrecking ball of absolute c**p.
Alot of shots have been speculative and from distance. That said, people were complaining that we didn't do that enough last season or in previous seasons.
You've already been shown up once pal; yet seem to have turned a blind eye to your disingenuous revisionism. As you persist, let me just remind you (again) what you said after last season's game at Watford:
http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?54958-Watford-0-0-Saints-Post-Match&highlight=watford+build#.V8q1qvkrJhE
There is more from you from that thread and others but I'm feeling merciful
Not quite. It's also fair to assume that every club signs players in this way i.e. free transfers are randomly distributed, so the effects largely wash out and thus can be ignored without too much loss of accuracy.
Osvaldo was a Poch signing; just as previous and subsequent managers have had a large say in player transfers.
The simple-minded on here really need to get over the southampton way, black box propaganda. We mix as much tradition as we do innovation in our recruitment methods. As should be the case for every transfer is different and no single approach is perfect.
You make it sound like Hojbjerg is gung-ho. The fact is he's primarily a defensive player with licence to get forward much in the same way Morgan did in your preferred system of 2 DMs - you're recall the various goals Morgan scored from making runs into the box. Likewise consider Davis: he plays further back under the diamond than he did as an AM under previous systems. Again this provides cover.
Too much is made of formations to the exclusion of personnel and quality- I guess it helps people rationalise things they don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.
He may have limitations but the idea that Charlie Austin isn't an aerial threat is more bizarro thinking. He's good in the air. Indeed Eddie Howe believes Austin's as good as anyone he's worked with aerially.