mrfahaji

Watford know how to, and how not to set up against us now. I'd say it's the same for both teams but I doubt Pellegrino learnt anything from the league match.

Just for his consistency, has to be Redmond. I feel like PEH has done well over the last month or two, but didn't play much early on. Yoshida has had a lot of excellent games, but then also cost us a few goals/points. Cedric was doing ok until his injury, I'd say he has probably had more 7/10 games than anyone else. We really are scraping the barrel with this aren't we? Shows how bad we've been that not a single player has stood out.

I just can't believe the coincidence that the black box has come up with a player that once played under Pellegrino. What are the chances?!

In the same way that as long as we beat Huddersfield at home, held on to at least a point vs Palace and didn't throw away a 2-goal lead against Watford we'd be ok?

I'm not sure in what world someone would feel the need to point out that "you're black" in a polite, helpful manner. Obviously one can't know for sure, but from the replays it did also look like Rodriguez was asking the ref what he was meant to have said in a way that suggested, to me at least, that he was in disbelief about being misheard or misinterpreted.

Yet they have still ended up with someone better than us. I guess the main question is whether Lambert is better than Hughes?

While Paul Lambert is not exactly an inspiring appointment, he might well surprise people, or at the very least do enough to steer Stoke to safety. Although he had more success in the earlier part of his managerial career at Wycombe, Colchester and most notably Norwich, I'm not sure he has been an abject failure anywhere either. He kept Villa up twice with extremely young sides (and most would say not very good sides). It certainly felt like Villa were in a gradual decline, and their eventual relegation (a year after Lambert left) could show that their woes weren't because of him (though some of course could argue he set them off on that road) He took over at Blackburn with them in 16th and finished 15th. He took over at Wolves with them in 19th and finished 15th. Not exactly resounding success but also not disasters, and at the very least he achieved what I imagine were the main objectives at that time - avoiding relegation.

And he did win the Premier League (& the League Cup) the season before.

Haha, good point.

If you really think that then I'm not sure you've watched enough football... Saints fans aren't any better than others, but they're not any worse either. Sometimes if a manager has done well for a period but is currently struggling there may be more support than normal, but then again I'm not sure Pardew at Newcastle or Hughes at Stoke would agree.

I think a realistic approach could be for fans to gather in the concouse and not take their seats for the first half (or first 20 minutes, or however long is appropriate). A fan boycott is just not going to happen because 1 person boycotting won't make a difference, so each individual person doesn't want to risk being the only person to miss out. Waiting outside the stadium could work, but if you've made the effort to go to the stadium, are you really not going to watch ANY of the game? Whereas if everyone is together, and can see other people making a stand, they're more likely to go with it. Obviously organising it is another thing!

Have wanted someone to beat City all season, typical that when a team finally does it, it's one of the few teams I dislike even more. That seems to happen a lot. I hate football.

Fine to give props for the first half, but surely that means you have to acknowledge the capitulation in the second, rather than putting it down to bad luck?

Can't help but think that comes back to the manager though. These aren't, for the most part, players who have consistently been poor in the past. In the same way that Gary Player (I think) coined the phrase, "the more I practise, the luckier I get", the better a team is drilled, the fewer mistakes they make. I think back to the European Championships and how impressive Italy were. Their players weren't that great, but Conte had instilled such a clear plan that they all knew exactly what to do. The will to win is debatable - I certainly think there's a case that it's true - but I'd say that a team winning games often looks like the players have more fight than a team losing. It's normally because they don't know what to do to improve things, than because they can't be bothered.

Is it though? The way we capitulated in the second half must surely make the board question Pellegrino in a way that they perhaps wouldn't have done if we had scraped the win. I'd obviously have preferred the 3 points, but given the way the game happened, maybe there is still hope of the manager going. And if he does, better to have a point than none!

Shame our players didn't do that a bit more when Doucoure scored.

Pellegrino is poor manager. If we had won, he still would be. We certainly looked a different team in the second half AGAIN, but then so did Watford. None of that changes the fact that Doucoure punched the ball into the goal. Our players should have gone apesh1t but I only saw some half hearted appeals. A draw and a sacking would still be a good outcome, but in truth I don't think we're in a position to throw away 2 goal leads if we have ambitions to stay up.

One of Davis' strengths used to be his effectiveness on the counter attack, I always felt he carried the ball forward well. But this season he has been turning back on himself all the time. Turning attack into defence, and I think this might be the second goal we've conceded from it. So frustrating.

Tadic playing on the left might have more to do with it. Shame it's taken half a season for him to work it out.

A few more iffy results and he will lose the dressing room, imagine how bad we'll be THEN!

Sounds reliable. Lol.

Josh Onomah is a midfielder (and on loan from Tottenham), so that leaves three.

Interesting. There's of course always a chance that things can turn round. But as supporters all we have to go on is what we see from him and from the players. Maybe Johnson was playing youngsters, was popular with the players, had the team playing well but missing chances, or not getting the rub of the green etc. Maybe his players just weren't very good. With Pellegrino, it could be the case that there are some huge positives behind closed doors, information the board have that means they are well placed to go against the wishes of many fans. But based on what we see on match day, there is next to no evidence. Simply waiting and hoping to turn it around based on the fact that other managers in other jobs have done so is misguided. (I'm not aiming my comments at you btw, just making a general comment in relation to the article)

Think I remember that. If he attacked the ball and won the header, chances are it probably would have just gone out for a throw or a goal kick. I reckon he was trying to outmuscle the Fulham player on the ground to keep control of the ball and the attack going. The problem was he then didn't win the battle on the ground either and had to make a tackle which put it out for a throw anyway...

Exactly! The only reason I can think of that would need money up front was if you needed cash to pay creditors to stop the business being wound up... UH OH