eelpie

You're sad

The result is a great tribute to all the players who grafted out a deserved win when at times we were actually looking quite insecure. That is the reality. It was by no means as easy a win as the BBC report suggests, but this is no time for sourgrapes because we surely deserved an away win on merit at last and we were by far the better footballing side. First, weaknesses. Saints players looked nervous and timid for much of the match. QPR outjumped us and tackled, intercepted and blocked better. (This must be the only reason that BBC stats gave QPR 53% possession). Their passing was less erratic than Saints in midfield, and they frequently so easily cut though our candyfloss defence via the wings time and time again. In attack only Puncheon and Lallana were positive upfront. Only Puncheon's shooting looked dangerous. Too much negative interpassing when there were good opportunities to shoot. Lambo did not look fit, he was so slow. And at the back once again there was too much backtracking, relinquishing ground when there were opportunities to tackle. We were not always on top and a better side would have capitalised on our mistakes. We will not benefit from such leniency v Newcastle. From my viewpoint on the stands I did not expect us to hold on to our lead because we were giving the ball away too frequently in dangerous positions. That we did owes everything to Puncheon's determination and Cork's steel in midfield. But fair play to the team as we really are learning to fight to win back the ball. After the third goal, and for the last ten minutes, everyone relaxed and showed the world what a good footballing side we can be. Well done guys! But pleeeeese get those frailties sorted by tomorrow week!

Most of the players are well past it now.

Plus - he scoffed and vilified the worth of sports science when he was here before (so our expensive sports science set up at the training ground might go a little underused), and I bet he and our 'director of football' would have an interesting professional relationship. 'arry's face would be a picture. How long would it take before rumours started of someone else picking his team and dictating the style of play? Is he the type to get on with NC? I can't see it.

If it's in the back end of 2013 there is hardly any point as we would be in the Championship (and under NA likely to be doing well (imo)). And his credentials are well proven as a Championship manager. And in my opinion we would be more likley to have hung on to more players after relegation if NA were still in charge. I guess that was a typo error.

I don't understand this thread with it's ambiguous title. What is it supposed to be about? Is it because: (a) NA substituted Shaw for Fox? (b) Fox should not be on the pitch because he is current scapegoat number 1? © we conceded a winning position? (d) NA made a substitution and therefore it must be a wrong one? Match Facts (courtesy of BBC) 72.13 minutes Dyer scores 73.20 minutes Fox on for Shaw So Fox was in no way responsible for Swansea leveling the score. And didn't he prevent a Swansea winner towards the end?

So many of us have been pleading for a defence coach, but do we have one here already in Jason Dodd? Before I am shouted down, I know his short spell in joint charge of the team after Burley left was not exactly successful (when he was a relatively inexperienced coach) but he is doing an excellent job with the youth squad, and he was an excellent battling defender for Saints in his time. He must surely have a lot of views about the mistakes being made by our current back four (and midfielders). He has proved himself as a strong motivator with the under 18's and has learned a lot about coaching. Could he make the difference and teach and install better battling and positional defending skills with the first team if he were appointed first team defence coach working with Adkins? Views?

Quite agree. Nigel needs support, not hounding out. No-one has come up with a better alternative replacement. Everyone needs to remember that he is not manager - he is chief coach and he can only work with the material that Les Reed (who I don't rate and few have criticised) has given him. Your diagnosis is spot on. I hope Reed will support Nigel by giving him the above because a new head coach would have to work with the same core weaknesses that we now have.

Clyne made some brilliantly times tackles and for me was our best defender. The main trouble with our defence is that as a group (and this includes our midfielders in defensive positions) they were far too slow to react. Hansen has disparagingly remarked of them "I didn't know football was a non-contact game!". And he is correct on this one. Too slow to react. Too timid to block and tackle. Always back-tracking and allowing attackers though. And this was not uncommon for much of last season. But they are not always like this. Against ManC in the first game for much of the time they were well up to the job. So why are they so inconsistent? Why do we not have a specialist top defensive coach to instil basic defending into the team?

Except that Palace are just as likely to be going up

Turkish-I'm astonished. I couldn't agree more with you that Reed holds too much power over Adkins's decisions! (But I don't agree that it is the so called 'Southampton Way" that is at fault -it is more the inflexibility of approach to tactics that is denied to the coach, that is a problem) I dread to think what replacement to Adkins Reed might choose (since Cortese seems to trust his advice).

Would it not be more appropriate to call for the sacking of the Director of Football, of whom it is said by some (who claim to be reliably informed) decides which players to sign and dictates the playing formation?

That's silly. We now have one of the largest squads with plenty of talented up and coming footballers who will want to prove themselves. And it should be an exciting game. We have nothing to lose if they gain good experience. A win would be a bonus. But we should rest our key players for the Prem games if that is what you mean.

I'm not at all surprised anymore. It happens at away games too. There were some beefcakes around us at Arsenal who bored at not being able to get at the home supporters had to be stopped by stewards from fisticuffing each other (and they were also intimidating three OAP's who had the misfortune to be sitting next to them) We don't need these so called fans. The club does need to identify and ban them because they are doing untold harm to Saints reputation, not to mention spoiling the game for others.

And when do you reach school leaving age??

This!

Did Kenwyne Jones ever complete his strike when he was last here, or will it continue if he comes?

The article was about player purchasing policies. As someone else here pointed out, it ignored the fact that West Ham did not need to spend as much as Saints since they had kept most of their squad when they went down. Fat Sam did however spend more than us last year. Saints of course arrived and finished in the Championship with mainly a League 1 team. So the spending comparison is a narrow view of events, as is yours. It is quite pertinent to point out that Saints have had to field players throughout this season that they would not have had to do if all our best playing staff had been available. Lee has unfortunately had little playing time and last season at that, but probably only you have failed to see that he is top International and Premiership class that is sorely missed. At least you admit that Cork (who also has barely played) is missed in midfield. As for Ramirez, you clearly are blind to his top class skills. It is not about the hours that these players have been on the pitch. It is about the improvement to our play that they can add to the team's performances. Yes, our team has been missing key players from our playing staff for many matches.

We were and have been playing with injuries to 3 key players, Ramires, Lee, Cork, not an excuse, just a fact. And these players would almost certainly have made a difference to our current points total. But I agree that we should have spent more wisely on better Premiership experienced defenders.

But it is unlikely that goal poacher Billy Sharp would have missed so many chances in front of goal. HTH

It's not an opportunity to tell the club what we really think because it is all tick boxes. Typical.

2-2 Both our goals scored by midfield or defenders. Curious isn't it how despite our vaunted attacking skills it is other parts of the team that is hitting the net more often than not.

Where?

Only ten minutes on the pitch as a late sub against Man City does not prove that he is not Premiership class. Sharp was the striker in form during pre-season and also he was the striker in form that took us to the Premiership at the end of last season, when Rickie was having a poor patch. Have you forgotten? Those stats alone should have given him the opportunity to prove himself in the Premiership. He was shipped out on loan because Mayuka was brought in. Yet for some reason Mayuka hasn't been given match time. Which makes it the more curiouser that Sharp was loaned out. Sharp may not have the speed of JayRod or Mayuka, but he is pretty accurate n front of goal and I would have wagered that he would have scored more than Rodrigues if he had had the same time on pitch. Does anyone know if we have a recall clause on Sharp's loan?

This exactly Mayuka is an unused talent.. Better that he subbed JayRod who was missing opportunities to score. I thought Chaplow's energy and aggresssion was ok and he contributed well to the last minute fight back.