Saints 0 Sunderland 1 - Post Match Reactions

Missed this game and it seems it was a good one not to witness.

 

What puzzles me is why NA chose this game to experiment with Mayuka (or was he giving him enough rope to hang himself?) and then use De Ridder and Guly ahead of Rodrigues, who I was confident would have been starting. Perhaps the strategy was to give them a chance to do something or prove they're not up to it? And it sounded as if SDR did bake some difference.

 

The second half against Reading Jay played well with Ricky in the hole. Why did we try to change it?

 

And in a heavy pitch, wouldn't JR have been more effective? Or is he carrying an injury? From the highlights of the last couple of minutes we made chances with a direct approach. He would have thrived on them.

Have to assume JR is carrying a minor knock and NA needs him to play at Fulham & Stoke.

I can see that he imagined their 2 CB's would win everything in the air against us (and did) and that the fast small striker could work (it could well have done IF Mayuka & the rest of the team had been on the same wavelength)

But when it clearly wasn't working really could not agree with the substitutions

We are pedestrian in the final third. While Cork and Morgan seem good together, we have no playmaker in the central mid position - someone to take the ball through the channels. Lambert is being outclassed by central defenders too much - he needs to be much more mobile to make an impact as a central striker (like Fletcher was today). We have stopped scoring goals - that needs addressing.

Pretty good summary, we are struggling to score because Lambert has been sussed and defenders like Cuellar and O'Shea with hundreds of PL games to their credit find him pretty easy to deal with. Watched Ramirez pretty closely yesterday,now it would seem to me that he expects to waltz through defences as he may have done in Italy but PL defenders are made of sterner stuff.

We didn't seem to be getting down the wings as well as usual yesterday either.

Think JRod may be injured a bit and it wouldn't surprise me at all if we don't have at least 1 player unsettled by transfer projects.

Mayuka was utter rubbish, couldn't trap a bag of cement. Hope I never see him a Saints shirt ever again. Total waste of money.

Wasnt this his first start? Do you think it might be worth giving him a little more time?

What puzzles me is why NA chose this game to experiment with Mayuka (or was he giving him enough rope to hang himself?)

I have no idea what the stuff n brackets is about. Are you suggesting that Adkins put mayuka on knowing he'd be sh it? For what purpose?

I must have been watching an entirely different game to everyone else. I thought that we dominated the first half and won most of the 50/50 balls. Our passing and movement was mostly quite good and we played with width. What was missing was the final ball in the box and the willingness to shoot at goal.

Of course Sunderland changed their tactics having gone a goal up and came out in charge for the first 15 minutes or so of the second half, where they were first to the ball. But we came back to dominate most of the match after that and kept most of the play in their half. Several praised De Ridder and thought he did well, but I thought that he was pretty rubbish and was surprised to see him play for us again in the first team frankly. I would have preferred to see Rodrigues up front myself.

Apart from allowing Fletcher too much space to score their goal, I thought that the defence was good yesterday and showing signs of really becoming a tight unit. Shaw had an outstanding game, as did Fonte. Cork was also solid in midfield, but Schneiderlin had an off day and Davis was an improvement when he came on.

We laid siege to their goal in the last ten minutes and could have got the equaliser at least, which would have been a fairer result. In particular, Sunderland made a clearance off the line which kept them in it and there were several goalmouth scrambles where anything could have happened. Credit to them for dogged defence when under the cosh.

Sunderland are arguably the worst attacking outfit in the Premier League, but we still managed to lose to them at home.Spectacular underachievement. Every ****ing Christmas, same ****ing story.

Yep. Our Xmas and our post-break form is a f**king disgrace, and leaves question marks over the coaching.

I must have been watching an entirely different game to everyone else. I thought that we dominated the first half and won most of the 50/50 balls. Our passing and movement was mostly quite good and we played with width. What was missing was the final ball in the box and the willingness to shoot at goal.

 

Of course Sunderland changed their tactics having gone a goal up and came out in charge for the first 15 minutes or so of the second half, where they were first to the ball. But we came back to dominate most of the match after that and kept most of the play in their half. Several praised De Ridder and thought he did well, but I thought that he was pretty rubbish and was surprised to see him play for us again in the first team frankly. I would have preferred to see Rodrigues up front myself.

 

Apart from allowing Fletcher too much space to score their goal, I thought that the defence was good yesterday and showing signs of really becoming a tight unit. Shaw had an outstanding game, as did Fonte. Cork was also solid in midfield, but Schneiderlin had an off day and Davis was an improvement when he came on.

 

We laid siege to their goal in the last ten minutes and could have got the equaliser at least, which would have been a fairer result. In particular, Sunderland made a clearance off the line which kept them in it and there were several goalmouth scrambles where anything could have happened. Credit to them for dogged defence when under the cosh.

I totally agree with the above.

JRod should have started and at least come on for Mayuka.

Morgan looked totally out of sorts..Labouring...injury or just poor day.

One of those days all said and done.

Let us go and beat Fulham and a point against Stoke and all will be forgiven.

Shaw , Fonte and Cork were my Saints stars...

weve lost to sunderland,who really are poor.

to think we can get points from stoke is going to take a miracle,we will be lucky to come away without a heavy defeat

fulham at the cottage are a different team altogether to the away one,they are good at home

we are in a hard run of games now and really should have taken 3 points from sunderland

we had two shots on target yesterday,that is poor for a home team,especially saints.

we had a chance yesterday to get a little gap between us and the bottom three,as usual we blew it.every time we have a long break we dont turn up in the next game.why is it when a team havent won in months get to play saints and they beat us,it happens every f'ing time.

yes i am p***ed off,first time this season its got to me.

anyway,happy christmas fellow fans see ya at fulham and stoke.

coys

Remember the song well mate. Shame there wont be any presents under the tree for me - they're all for the kids.

 

Back to the footie - standby what I said, Mayuka is cr@p and so were most of the team (and the manager) yesterday.

 

Have a good Xmas Norm.

Billy, thanks for your good wishes! Sadly, after a really enjoyable afternoon in the ML Suite yesterday (A treat from a good pal from LA), things have gone down hill fast! My boiler has broken down and no heat or hot water! Still, I have the microwave to heat a tin of soup.

I must have been watching an entirely different game to everyone else. I thought that we dominated the first half and won most of the 50/50 balls. Our passing and movement was mostly quite good and we played with width. What was missing was the final ball in the box and the willingness to shoot at goal.

 

Of course Sunderland changed their tactics having gone a goal up and came out in charge for the first 15 minutes or so of the second half, where they were first to the ball. But we came back to dominate most of the match after that and kept most of the play in their half. Several praised De Ridder and thought he did well, but I thought that he was pretty rubbish and was surprised to see him play for us again in the first team frankly. I would have preferred to see Rodrigues up front myself.

 

Apart from allowing Fletcher too much space to score their goal, I thought that the defence was good yesterday and showing signs of really becoming a tight unit. Shaw had an outstanding game, as did Fonte. Cork was also solid in midfield, but Schneiderlin had an off day and Davis was an improvement when he came on.

 

We laid siege to their goal in the last ten minutes and could have got the equaliser at least, which would have been a fairer result. In particular, Sunderland made a clearance off the line which kept them in it and there were several goalmouth scrambles where anything could have happened. Credit to them for dogged defence when under the cosh.

Same game I watched - apart from the first ten minutes of the second half where we looked clueless.

Wet pitches demand shooting at goal more - our final ball into the box was pants all game apart from one De Ridder corner which we should have scored from.

Pretty good summary, we are struggling to score because Lambert has been sussed and defenders like Cuellar and O'Shea with hundreds of PL games to their credit find him pretty easy to deal with. Watched Ramirez pretty closely yesterday,now it would seem to me that he expects to waltz through defences as he may have done in Italy but PL defenders are made of sterner stuff ...

I said something similiar to this after the Reading game and got bashed for it - but only by those who don't pay attention during games.

It's as plain as the nose on your face that other PL teams have worked out that if you mark Rickie Lambert out of the game (this often takes two defenders on him) then our attacking threat is significantly reduced. This is not Rocket Science and lower league teams have been trying to do just that for years of course, but he's up against much better defenders now and he's starting to look dispirited and more than a bit lost frankly. We have to find a way of easing the burden on him.

Even when Rickie does get free from his markers, far too often his good work is undone by teammates (Puncheon comes to mind) who can't bloody shoot properly!

I said something similiar to this after the Reading game and got bashed for it - but only by those who don't pay attention during games.

 

It's as plain as the nose on your face that other PL teams have worked out that if you mark Rickie Lambert out of the game (this often takes two defenders on him) then our attacking threat is significantly reduced. This is not Rocket Science and lower league teams have been trying to do just that for years of course, but he's up against much better defenders now and he's starting to look dispirited and more than a bit lost frankly. We have to find a way of easing the burden on him.

Even when Rickie does get free from his markers, far too often his good work is undone by teammates (Puncheon comes to mind) who can't bloody shoot properly!

Spot on! Yet we mere mortals see that but 'others' seem not to. That was the quietest I have seen RL for a long time, because he was up against two central defenders that knew how to play him.

I don't think Mayuka was as bad as some are posting on here. Three things for me (I am no expert tactician) first I don't think our players adjusted well to the conditions and too many times the ball was lost and/or not controlled. Second, shifting Ramirez seemed to disrupt the balance to the team too much. Third, Ricky drops back to win the ball but doesn't then have the pace to catch up when the ball moved up the pitch, but he remains our best goal scorer too many times he was nowhere near being in a position to score. Shaw and Fonte had good games, Cork a good first half.

Oddest thing for me - and this must be down to Adkins - was our dead ball taking around their box. Twice we had decent positions down the right in the first half, and each time Puncheon took the kick - each time knocking it way too deep.

Why the f*ck did we not give each kick to the bloke with the £11m left foot ?

Waste.

Spot on! Yet we mere mortals see that but 'others' seem not to. That was the quietest I have seen RL for a long time, because he was up against two central defenders that knew how to play him.

It was also quite possibly the most consistently poor deliveries into Lambert that I've seen to date. Just chipping the ball up to him, not giving him the opportunity of even having a running jump at the ball most of the time. Either that or failing to beat the first man from set pieces.

Us using Lambert as an aerial threat is no new news. Teams worked out those were our tactics years ago. The problem for those teams was that its all very well knowing what we're going to do, stopping it is an altogether different thing. When Lambert uses his movement to drop off onto the full back, and when the ball is is played with a bit of pace and lets Lambert move on to it and attack it, then he's exceptionally difficult to defend against. Even when he's got 2 defenders on him.

yesterday, the floaty wishy washy balls up to him were pretty average. What was also massively frustrating to see was the lack of players gambling in and around Lambert for those times when he did win a knock-down; there was no-one there to feed off him in any case.

Quite how we kept on repeating the same old tactics time and time again was just beyond me. Especially when we switched to just Lambert up front, made no sense to me. Far too obvious, no variety in our play, and the actual delivery of our main tactic was consistently awry.

Lambert was fouled many times during the game and Webb turned a blind eye.

He has only been sussed in that they place two players on him wherever possible.

Midfield player backs into him making no effort to play the ball...(squeezing and pushing Lambert off balance and not allowing him to get off the ground) the centre back who then comes over the top of Lambert.. clearing the ball.

Even with all this he still wins quite a few of these challenges.

Lambert came deeper and deeper to win the ball and build up play which is a big part of our play re Lallana , Ramirez and Lambert. WE MISS LALLANA BIG TIME....

Morgan not at the races and should have been subbed much earlier....injured or just shiiiite.

Puncheon should have pulled the trigger earlier a few times..

As above...JROD should have started this game....

COYS

Billy, thanks for your good wishes! Sadly, after a really enjoyable afternoon in the ML Suite yesterday (A treat from a good pal from LA), things have gone down hill fast! My boiler has broken down and no heat or hot water! Still, I have the microwave to heat a tin of soup.

Sorry to hear that mate. Hope you get it fixed soon.

I must have been watching an entirely different game to everyone else. I thought that we dominated the first half and won most of the 50/50 balls. Our passing and movement was mostly quite good and we played with width. What was missing was the final ball in the box and the willingness to shoot at goal.

 

Of course Sunderland changed their tactics having gone a goal up and came out in charge for the first 15 minutes or so of the second half, where they were first to the ball. But we came back to dominate most of the match after that and kept most of the play in their half. Several praised De Ridder and thought he did well, but I thought that he was pretty rubbish and was surprised to see him play for us again in the first team frankly. I would have preferred to see Rodrigues up front myself.

 

Apart from allowing Fletcher too much space to score their goal, I thought that the defence was good yesterday and showing signs of really becoming a tight unit. Shaw had an outstanding game, as did Fonte. Cork was also solid in midfield, but Schneiderlin had an off day and Davis was an improvement when he came on.

 

We laid siege to their goal in the last ten minutes and could have got the equaliser at least, which would have been a fairer result. In particular, Sunderland made a clearance off the line which kept them in it and there were several goalmouth scrambles where anything could have happened. Credit to them for dogged defence when under the cosh.

Sums it up very well, good post Wes

If we sacked Adkins now, do you think we could have a replacement appointed by the start of the transfer window?

If we sacked Adkins now, do you think we could have a replacement appointed by the start of the transfer window?

Why would we want to do that though? Suicide. and no, we wouldn't.

We'd have 2/3 weeks of limbo land, thus rendering the window useless and relegating us in the process.

There's always going to be the odd game where we don't turn up/have an off day. Other results went our way and we're not in the relegation zone.

It was also quite possibly the most consistently poor deliveries into Lambert that I've seen to date. Just chipping the ball up to him, not giving him the opportunity of even having a running jump at the ball most of the time. Either that or failing to beat the first man from set pieces.

 

Us using Lambert as an aerial threat is no new news. Teams worked out those were our tactics years ago. The problem for those teams was that its all very well knowing what we're going to do, stopping it is an altogether different thing. When Lambert uses his movement to drop off onto the full back, and when the ball is is played with a bit of pace and lets Lambert move on to it and attack it, then he's exceptionally difficult to defend against. Even when he's got 2 defenders on him.

 

yesterday, the floaty wishy washy balls up to him were pretty average. What was also massively frustrating to see was the lack of players gambling in and around Lambert for those times when he did win a knock-down; there was no-one there to feed off him in any case.

 

Quite how we kept on repeating the same old tactics time and time again was just beyond me. Especially when we switched to just Lambert up front, made no sense to me. Far too obvious, no variety in our play, and the actual delivery of our main tactic was consistently awry.

Think at times we do miss the quality of Richardson and Fox's deliveries into the box that we had throughout last season.

Think at times we do miss the quality of Richardson and Fox's deliveries into the box that we had throughout last season.

That was such a major part of our game last season, and the crosses from full back must have contributed to what, 30 odd goals? We were so good at that over lapping role, and Lambert at the back post.

Obviously this league was never going to be a place to produce the same sort of gun-ho full back approach, but I do agree that we do miss their consistent deliveries - they delivered 90% of the time. Lallana's and Puncheons deliveries have always been erratic.

Normal over-reaction to a defeat. I see on the uglyinside it's all Adkins' fault again.

Didn't do much wrong in the first half - apart from concede obviously from their only real effort. Did run out of steam and ideas in the 2nd half admittedly.

I though De Ridder did well and looked like he could make a real difference if we can get him involved again, was pleased to see us try to integrate Mayuka and we need to do this when he's available, although it didn't come off yesterday.

That was such a major part of our game last season, and the crosses from full back must have contributed to what, 30 odd goals? We were so good at that over lapping role, and Lambert at the back post.

 

Obviously this league was never going to be a place to produce the same sort of gun-ho full back approach, but I do agree that we do miss their consistent deliveries - they delivered 90% of the time. Lallana's and Puncheons deliveries have always been erratic.

Don't totally agree. Clyne and increasingly Shaw get forward but they are better at feeding little through balls or skidding crosses in -balls which are more suited to a fox in the box type forward.

Fox (though most of his threat came from dead ball situations), Richardson (though hit and miss) and Butterfield were very capable of delivering early, accurate and well-flighted crosses from deep -balls which are better suited to Lambert's game and take CBs by greater surprise.

Wasnt this his first start? Do you think it might be worth giving him a little more time?

 

 

 

I have no idea what the stuff n brackets is about. Are you suggesting that Adkins put mayuka on knowing he'd be sh it? For what purpose?

No I'm not suggesting that. To me it seems clear that NA has reservations over Mayuka but can't just ignore him and not play him at all. So he was given his chance but doesn't seem to have covered himself in glory. I really wonder if he isn't a mistake and I'd personally rather see Billy Sharp back.

Originally Posted by Shroppie

What puzzles me is why NA chose this game to experiment with Mayuka (or was he giving him enough rope to hang himself?)

I have no idea what the stuff n brackets is about. Are you suggesting that Adkins put mayuka on knowing he'd be sh it? For what purpose?

No I'm not suggesting that. To me it seems clear that NA has reservations over Mayuka but can't just ignore him and not play him at all. So he was given his chance but doesn't seem to have covered himself in glory. I really wonder if he isn't a mistake and I'd personally rather see Billy Sharp back.

That doesn't really explain what you meant by "giving himself enough rope". Can you make it clearer what you meant by that please as I'm still confused and trying to understand your point.

“We started with Emmanuel Mayuka today as well and one of the big reasons for that was so that we could get in behind them,” Adkins explained.

Fair enough if it had worked well in training. However I would have thought that Mayuka would have been better on the wing with Ramirez behind Rickie. Even if Ramirez plays on the wing for his country he always seems more comfortable in the middle with us, where his his skills and playmaking are more effective, where he can do more damage to the opposition and Rickie would have more support.

Ok. On the evidence of recent games, Mayuka gas been given little or no time, suggesting NA is unimpressed.

But, just maybe, it's being said that Mayuka needs more game time to show what he can do. So I was merely putting forward a thought that, despite reservations, NA may have decided (or been pushed) to use this game to test that out - give him a start and a chance to show what he could do, or confirm that he won't bring anything to the team. Unfortunately, I think the latter was the result.

Ok. On the evidence of recent games, Mayuka gas been given little or no time, suggesting NA is unimpressed.

 

But, just maybe, it's being said that Mayuka needs more game time to show what he can do. So I was merely putting forward a thought that, despite reservations, NA may have decided (or been pushed) to use this game to test that out - give him a start and a chance to show what he could do, or confirm that he won't bring anything to the team. Unfortunately, I think the latter was the result.

Thanks for clearing that up. So you do think Adkins put him in to fail and hence the "give himself enough rope" comment. You are now even suggesting that he may have been forced into playing hm? So when we lose there are always some who start saying that Nigel doesn't pick the team.

“We started with Emmanuel Mayuka today as well and one of the big reasons for that was so that we could get in behind them,” Adkins explained.

May have worked if we'd tried to play him in behind more...

May have worked if we'd tried to play him in behind more...

thought we did, he just seemed to struggle with the pace and conditions, even when he got "brought down" the ball had gone.

disappointing result (0-0 would have bee fair) and slightly disappointing (flat is right) performance, although not nearly as bad as some are making out. We were by far the better side in the first half and to go 0-1 down was a travesty as Sunderland had done nothing. We dominated possession and looked OK, although there was very little threat.

Have to wonder where Clyne went for their goal. They seem to have free reign down that side.

Second half was a different story. Sunderland came out the blocks much quicker than us and we never got to grips with the game. There was a period in the second half when nothing went right. Every second ball dropped to them and when we did get there first a poor touch or pass gave it straight back. I can't fault our effort. We really tried hard to get back into the game, but there was just no fluency and we looked laboured. The crossing was terrible. I thought we were treat a few weeks ago with Lallana and Puncheon putting in dangerous corners, but today we were back to our old ****ness. Why start with Mayuka having ignored him to date? Rodriguez dropped after a good showing was strange too. We need wide men. Been saying it for a long time.

Davis 7 some very good kicking and gppd choices on distribution. Went long when 2 on 2 oen time which was spot on. Need to do that a bit more often as we might actaully catch teams on the hop now and then. Very little else to do. Thank god the slip didn't go in or we'd be looking for yet another keeper change

Clyne 7 defended well against the pace of Rose and kept the left midfielder quiet, although no where to be seen for their goal. Didn't link up with Puncheon as well as they have been in recent past going forward.

Yoshida 8 very good game for me (one woeful pass apart). One tremendous interception in the first half to deny Fletcher. Tough assignment, but did pretty well. He's started to get tighter and actually look to win a ball or two. Big improvement.

Fonte 8 also very solid game. Won a lot and composed on the ball. Should have scored though.

Shaw 8 expanding his contribution with every showing. I'd like to see him get to the byline a few more times as that's when we looked at our most dangerous. Sadly that happened once.

Ramirez 5 very average game. Not much he tried came off and wasteful in decent positions. Needs to do much more in games, but playing him wide left is not the right move. He needs to play off the striker

Morgan 6 decent in the first half and I wasn't entirely sure why he was taken off, although we didn't dominate the middle in the second

Cork 7 outstanding in the first half, but game passed him by a little in the second

Puncheon 6 a tad unlucky a few times and noticeable to me how quick fans were to jump on his back when he played a poor pass. Not his best game having set a high standard recently. With him failing to take charge of the game we suffered from a lack of penetration.

Lambert 6 looked sluggish. A few great deft touches, but he won very few headers and offered little threat.

Mayuka 5 bright first half running the channels well, but looked a little lost. Touch let him down in the second half. Have to winder why he wasn't the impact sub with Rodriguez starting (having played very well in the last game)

De Ridder 6 bright and lively. but usual one half decent cross in every 20. Good to see Adkins change things at the right time, but we looked desperately short of a left sided player and have done for a long time.

Davis tidy, but little improvement on Morgan

Guly a threat, but when the half chance came, for the second game in a row he didn't take it. Shame as I'd love to see him get his goal and shut a few up.

Clyne just simply got skinned for their goal, think he'd been working forward (have to check the highlights for that) and when they came at us down his side he just got done for pace 30 yards out.

How Fonte missed that header is beyond me. Completely free, a rare decent delivery, and he spooned it wide.

The unexpected selections of mayuka and de ridder suggests maybe that Adkins thought we needed pace against sunderland but they sat so deep that there was rarely an opportunity to get in behind them.

How Fonte missed that header is beyond me. Completely free, a rare decent delivery, and he spooned it wide.

pity he didn't stick another diving header like that defensive one he made in the first half on to it. Netbuster it would have been

The unexpected selections of mayuka and de ridder suggests maybe that Adkins thought we needed pace against sunderland but they sat so deep that there was rarely an opportunity to get in behind them.

TBH Rose, Cuellar, O' Shea and Gardener is a fair old back 4

TBH Rose, Cuellar, O' Shea and Gardener is a fair old back 4

They defended well. I was impressed with Cuellar and Rose. Gardener was fairly comfortable as a stand in right back but we didn't test him.

The unexpected selections of mayuka and de ridder suggests maybe that Adkins thought we needed pace against sunderland but they sat so deep that there was rarely an opportunity to get in behind them.

Mayuka did get behind them first half - thought he sprung the offside trap brilliantly. Had to then check back a few times because of the lack of support and made the wrong decision. We were more likely to beat with pace than in the air as their defense -Rose apart- is pretty slow and immobile.

They defended well. I was impressed with Cuellar and Rose. Gardener was fairly comfortable as a stand in right back but we didn't test him.

obviously it's not Lambert who's going to test a player like Gardener and the midfield 2 seemed to be under instruction not to go too far forward. There were a couple of occasions when they really had to look for a pass, because of lack of movement , when going on themselves would have been more evident.

Thanks for clearing that up. So you do think Adkins put him in to fail and hence the "give himself enough rope" comment. You are now even suggesting that he may have been forced into playing hm? So when we lose there are always some who start saying that Nigel doesn't pick the team.

I think that Nigel does pick the team. But it must be uncomfortable when we have a player or players for whom we have paid substantial amounts not meeting expectations. Does Nigel feel the need to try to integrate those ? How does he develop them without playing them? Until recently I thought J Rod was in the same position but then he seemed to be making his way in the team, only to be dropped yesterday.

I understand that pace was the issue but don't get the impression from posts that Mayuka overall did well enough. But, as I admitted at the start, this was a game I couldn't get to. If i'd seen for myself, perhaps I'd have a different view.

Mayuka did get behind them first half - thought he sprung the offside trap brilliantly. Had to then check back a few times because of the lack of support and made the wrong decision. We were more likely to beat with pace than in the air as their defense -Rose apart- is pretty slow and immobile.

I remember mayuka beating the offside trap once in the first half but can't think of any others. I agree about not in the air. Would have preferred trying to move their defence around a bit more to create openings and guly might have been a better option therefore than mayuka who didnt link up well with lambert. For all the possession we created very little yesterday.

If we sacked Adkins now, do you think we could have a replacement appointed by the start of the transfer window?

Yes.

The problem was with Lambert, Ramirez and Mayuka. Neither Ramirez or Mayuka could play with their back to goal and hold the ball up. Mayuka's touch was appalling and he offered no width. Ramirez also wants far too long on the ball and needs to adjust to the pace of the English game. Just like Liverpool away SRL was ineffectual and he was struggling with Cueller all the way through. Mind you the straight balls directly to him out of defence towards the end were a complete waste of time.

That said the defensive unit (back four + Cork/Morgan) it starting to look very solid and they didn't really get a sniff but for the goal. I would be tempted to bring in Guly for his workrate(yes..... really)on the left and play either Jay or Ramirez off SRL at Fulham. A draw would have been a fair result.

That said the defensive unit (back four + Cork/Morgan) it starting to look very solid and they didn't really get a sniff but for the goal. I would be tempted to bring in Guly for his workrate(yes..... really)on the left and play either Jay or Ramirez off SRL at Fulham. A draw would have been a fair result.

Agree with this. Tbh we should've started with Guly on the left yesterday in the first place. Looked so much better when he came on.

Surprise surprise. the moaners are out in force I see. Yes it was disappointing. Mayuka should have scored in the first half . well at least he should have had a shot instead of waiting for someone to pass to.

We played well in the first half and we should have attacked sunderland from the start of the second half , but they came at us. we didnt really get going until the last five minutes. We got the tactics wrong in the second half. But having said that , the rain didnt help.

As for the officials > Webb was crap > I thought we should of had a penalty when mayuka got bundled over. AS for that female lineswoman . someone should explain to her that when the ball goes over the line you put your flag up. Not wait for webb to indicate to you which team has the throw in and the you put the flag up.

yesterday was a first for me first time I have been in the northam Row EE block 43. I didnt realise you stood for the whole game

Couldn't really bother to read through the whole thread after that but just about everyone apart from Shaw and Cork had an off day. Their goal was a bit of a fluke really and apart from that it was a nil-nil from two pretty poor teams. Danny Rose was the best player on the pitch by a country mile and made Punch look like an amateur.

Would a draw really have been a fair result?

Well maybe I suppose, but I doubt this view is widely held among either Sunderland fans, or neutrals for that matter. We did more attacking than they did - as home sides tend to - but for all of that how many decent shots did we actually manage to get in? My recall of this match says Sunderland had more than one shot, and they certainly defended their goal like men - damn them.

Methinks if we play as well as they did yesterday at the Stadium of Light come next May, then we'll reckon we too would deserve what we get.

I must have been watching an entirely different game to everyone else. I thought that we dominated the first half and won most of the 50/50 balls. Our passing and movement was mostly quite good and we played with width. What was missing was the final ball in the box and the willingness to shoot at goal.

 

Of course Sunderland changed their tactics having gone a goal up and came out in charge for the first 15 minutes or so of the second half, where they were first to the ball. But we came back to dominate most of the match after that and kept most of the play in their half. Several praised De Ridder and thought he did well, but I thought that he was pretty rubbish and was surprised to see him play for us again in the first team frankly. I would have preferred to see Rodrigues up front myself.

 

Apart from allowing Fletcher too much space to score their goal, I thought that the defence was good yesterday and showing signs of really becoming a tight unit. Shaw had an outstanding game, as did Fonte. Cork was also solid in midfield, but Schneiderlin had an off day and Davis was an improvement when he came on.

 

We laid siege to their goal in the last ten minutes and could have got the equaliser at least, which would have been a fairer result. In particular, Sunderland made a clearance off the line which kept them in it and there were several goalmouth scrambles where anything could have happened. Credit to them for dogged defence when under the cosh.

...is pretty much how I saw it, although I am still disappointed with our lack of plan B during the second half.

Agree with this. Tbh we should've started with Guly on the left yesterday in the first place. Looked so much better when he came on.

Care in the Community has a lot to answer for ...