Saints vs Celta - Match Thread

Difficult to see how Elyounoussi is going to fit in with the system we play as he is a wide player and it looks like all our width will come from the 2 wingbacks.

If we persist with what is basically 2 up top and a narrow 3 in midfield he is going to struggle I think.

Armstrong will play central in front of the holding 2 and did look good yesterday but we do look a bit immobile at the back.

I sort of agree but not with the wide player bit he seemed to play down the middle not wide last night - can't see how we will fit him and Armstrong in starting 11 if we play 2 up front which would be Gabbi/Austin. PEH/Lemina/Armstrong with Cedric and Bertrand giving the width is how I see us going.

One thing really evident is that Davis should not be near the first team now good servant but doesn't have the pace now shame - JWP looked miles above him and with Romeu to fit in as well with Moi we have loads of options to fit in.

Still would like a RB and Striker.

This isn't based on a pre-season friendly though, this is based on Hughes managerial career and how many goals we conceded at the end of last season.

 

I believe he wasn't saying 2 of the defence were poor, he was saying Davis and Long were at blame for the goals and that the defence were not to blame at all.

 

I get you want to butt in, but in future you need to read the posts in context rather than just wading in and misinterpreting.

I too have concerns about our defence, and Hughes ability to organise one - particularly when I heard that "Stoke never did defensive drills", but I wondered whether it's true that 'over his managerial career' he has overseen leaky defences. Here are the stats:

2004/5 Blackburn - Finished 15th. GA 43, 7th best defence in division.

2005/6 Blackburn - 6th. GA 42. (7th best).

2006/7 Blackburn - 10th. GA 54 (13th)

2007/8 Blackburn - 7th. GA 48 (7th)

2008/9 Man City - 10th. GA 50 (11th)

2010/11 Fulham - 8th. GA 43 (4th).

2011/12 QPR - 17th. GA 31 in 18 games, works out to 65 over full season (16th).

2012/13 QPR - conceded GA 23 in 12 games = 73 full season (joint worst).

2013/14 Stoke - 9th. GA 52 (11th).

2014/15 Stoke - 9th. GA 45 (6th).

2015/16 Stoke - 9th. GA 55 (14th).

2016/17 Stoke - 13th. GA 56 (12th).

2017/18 Stoke - sacked with Stoke 16th. Conceded 47 in 22 games = 81 full season (worst by a long way)

Clearly one or two dodgy seasons in there, but also a few good ones. Certainly not sure there's enough evidence in this to suggest that his defences are always awful.

Didn't see the game, but from the comments (which sound like a consensus, not just one or two wetting the bed), what on earth has happened to Romeu?

He's never been blessed with pace but I had hoped that last season was just the Pellegrino effect making him so slovenly - he looked unfit - and hoped with a good preseason he might have sharpened up a bit. Not only was his defensive play sloppy last year but we rarely saw him bringing the ball forward like he did under Puel.

I often think he plays better as a single DM rather than alongside, say, Hojbjerg or Lemina, but it seems to be more than to do with positioning. Any thoughts?

Difficult to see how Elyounoussi is going to fit in with the system we play as he is a wide player and it looks like all our width will come from the 2 wingbacks.

If we persist with what is basically 2 up top and a narrow 3 in midfield he is going to struggle I think.

Armstrong will play central in front of the holding 2 and did look good yesterday but we do look a bit immobile at the back.

Totally agrees unless Elyounoussi can also defend and challenge Cedric.

These days we seem to defend three at the back, two in front (in the old days it was two at the back three in front) but still five defenders. Consequently our so-called wing-backs are in reality modern wingers and part of the attack (as in the old five man forward line) so in effect we need two inside players playing as No 8 & 10 in old money. Probably Armstrong is the perfect No 10 and Gabbiadini the No 8.

Austin, Long & Gallagher will have to fight it out for the No 9 role.

Who sits alongside Romeu as the other holding defender remains to be seen. At the moment my money is on Hojberg even 'though his current form is very patchy.

I didn't think the defence played too badly. New Danish guy looks ok, even Hoedt wasn't too bad last night. We should keep Targett. All in all looking good we seem to have a few good options. Low point was celta's 2nd, couldn't do much about the first though.

We were the better team both halves, didn't deserve to be behind at half-time, definitely not 2-0. So played ok against a decent side, although maybe they are behind us in their preparations, think la liga starts later than premier league?

I didn't think the defence played too badly. New Danish guy looks ok, even Hoedt wasn't too bad last night. We should keep Targett. All in all looking good we seem to have a few good options. Low point was celta's 2nd, couldn't do much about the first though.

We were the better team both halves, didn't deserve to be behind at half-time, definitely not 2-0. So played ok against a decent side, although maybe they are behind us in their preparations, think la liga starts later than premier league?

Hoedt was poor a lot of the mistakes at the back involve Hoedt he switches off a lot and has a tendency to overdo things in dangerous areas. I'm all for ball playing CBs but sometimes you just need to KISS and bang the ****ing ball into row Z or up field.

We conceded nine in MH's first three games - awful against W Ham, but narrow losses against Chelsea and Arsenal. After that, only conceded three in the last four PL games, including against MC, who scored for fun all season.

 

Seems to me that is pretty good evidence of a manager sorting out a defence.

 

But I wouldn't like facts to get in the way of your prejudices.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Ah sorry, so we're using an arbitrary date of game 4 that MH had the credit of 'sorting out the defence', even though he had 17 days to work with the team prior to the first of those 4 games. Love it when people try to prove points based on their own made up timelines. We conceded less goals per game under Puel and Pellegrino than we did under Hughes, and I REPEAT FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS DECIDED THAT I HAVE MADE THIS JUDGEMENT AFTER HE TOOK CHARGE...His managerial record is very poor when it comes to having a good, well-drilled defence. It is one of the main 3 criticisms that previous teams fans have had of him, along with poor transfer business and not getting on with players.

This isn't based on a pre-season friendly though, this is based on Hughes managerial career and how many goals we conceded at the end of last season.

 

I believe he wasn't saying 2 of the defence were poor, he was saying Davis and Long were at blame for the goals and that the defence were not to blame at all.

 

I get you want to butt in, but in future you need to read the posts in context rather than just wading in and misinterpreting.

Having had a response from Give it to Ron, it appears that it is in fact you who has confused the context and misinterpreted it. I reiterate, what he said does not constitute an opinion that he thought that the defence was good.

I accept though that regardless of the defensive players that Hughes will have available to him, you believe that based on his previous management record, he will turn even good defenders into poor ones, or fail to improve those that we already have. Citing the goals conceded at the end of last season has absolutely nothing at all to do with him inheriting a squad of demoralised players from Pellegrino, does it? It couldn't be that the steady improvement towards the end of that season where our defence conceded very little, even against the Champions had nothing at all to do with him, could it?

I wasn't a fan of Hughes' signing, but I'm open minded enough to give him a chance before making my mind up before the new season has even started.

Hoedt was poor a lot of the mistakes at the back involve Hoedt he switches off a lot and has a tendency to overdo things in dangerous areas. I'm all for ball playing CBs but sometimes you just need to KISS and bang the ****ing ball into row Z or up field.

Couldn't agree more. He has moments where he gets over confident, but is also slow and doesn't know what he is going to do with the ball. He ends up losing it in bad areas and while he is out of position. He's ok with the basics - but once he's done that he needs to give it and let others sort it out.

I too have concerns about our defence, and Hughes ability to organise one - particularly when I heard that "Stoke never did defensive drills", but I wondered whether it's true that 'over his managerial career' he has overseen leaky defences. Here are the stats:

 

2004/5 Blackburn - Finished 15th. GA 43, 7th best defence in division.

2005/6 Blackburn - 6th. GA 42. (7th best).

2006/7 Blackburn - 10th. GA 54 (13th)

2007/8 Blackburn - 7th. GA 48 (7th)

2008/9 Man City - 10th. GA 50 (11th)

2010/11 Fulham - 8th. GA 43 (4th).

2011/12 QPR - 17th. GA 31 in 18 games, works out to 65 over full season (16th).

2012/13 QPR - conceded GA 23 in 12 games = 73 full season (joint worst).

2013/14 Stoke - 9th. GA 52 (11th).

2014/15 Stoke - 9th. GA 45 (6th).

2015/16 Stoke - 9th. GA 55 (14th).

2016/17 Stoke - 13th. GA 56 (12th).

2017/18 Stoke - sacked with Stoke 16th. Conceded 47 in 22 games = 81 full season (worst by a long way)

 

Clearly one or two dodgy seasons in there, but also a few good ones. Certainly not sure there's enough evidence in this to suggest that his defences are always awful.

7 out of 13 were a worse goal difference position than they finished up. Difficult to say 100% that this is true, but you would guess that in that situation he had strikers/attacking players that allowed him to have that worse goal difference and not suffer.

This is why I am saying we need new strikers, and not new defenders, as we NEED to score more goals to counter the worse than average defence.

Perhaps its you thats needs to read what I wrote....the goals were the blame of whom I said...we could have closed down - Bednarek was still at the WC you will see loads of this from players that were there at start of season.

As for Hughes - B'mouth 1 goal, Everton robbed 1 goal, Leicester 0 goals, Man City only scored when we had taken eye off game in injury time, Swansea no goals...yep your right Hughes cant get defence right.

FWIW I or many others didn't want him until it was too late and we had no choice - he deserves the chance to give it a go by keeping us up. Is it right long term...probably not but after the last year....maybe you should at least give him a chance?

The defence isn't right we are missing Cedric and Yosh still...I still would like a tall quality right back and another quality defender as Hoedt well has lost it...a bit like his control.

 

Out of interest who would you like as manager?

A couple of things:

- So you're saying our defence wasn't good - so why were you debating with me about it?

- I've never said he shouldn't be given the chance - he's deserves the chance. You'll find I have said that consistently. Doesn't mean I have to rate him, or think we won't be in a relegation battle this season.

Having had a response from Give it to Ron, it appears that it is in fact you who has confused the context and misinterpreted it. I reiterate, what he said does not constitute an opinion that he thought that the defence was good.

 

I accept though that regardless of the defensive players that Hughes will have available to him, you believe that based on his previous management record, he will turn even good defenders into poor ones, or fail to improve those that we already have. Citing the goals conceded at the end of last season has absolutely nothing at all to do with him inheriting a squad of demoralised players from Pellegrino, does it? It couldn't be that the steady improvement towards the end of that season where our defence conceded very little, even against the Champions had nothing at all to do with him, could it?

 

I wasn't a fan of Hughes' signing, but I'm open minded enough to give him a chance before making my mind up before the new season has even started.

I was talking about misinterpreting my posts, which you seemed to - but in relation to him thinking the defence was good, in previous posts he had criticised the fact that I said the defence looked poor. If he agreed with me, I have no idea why the conversation started.

We conceded less goals per game under Puel and Pellegrino than we did under Hughes,

This is a ridiculous assertion to make. Not only is it a nonsense to compare his record over 9 matches + a Cup match with a manager from two seasons ago with some different personnel, but it isn't feasible to make that comparison anyway without any evidence that the other two would have produced better results in the same fixtures under similar circumstances when both of them had considerably more time to assess their options.

You sound as if you would have preferred the Clown to Hughes.

This is a ridiculous assertion to make. Not only is it a nonsense to compare his record over 9 matches + a Cup match with a manager from two seasons ago with some different personnel, but it isn't feasible to make that comparison anyway without any evidence that the other two would have produced better results in the same fixtures under similar circumstances when both of them had considerably more time to assess their options.

 

You sound as if you would have preferred the Clown to Hughes.

In that case, you can never make comparisons between managers, irregardless of the timescale. Is that what you're saying?

The sample size is low for Hughes admittedly, and again I have said that in previous posts, but all we have to work with is that, Stoke's record under him last season, or pre-season this year. He doesn't just get a gimme because the sample size doesn't fit in with your requirements.

Totally agrees unless Elyounoussi can also defend and challenge Cedric.

 

These days we seem to defend three at the back, two in front (in the old days it was two at the back three in front) but still five defenders. Consequently our so-called wing-backs are in reality modern wingers and part of the attack (as in the old five man forward line) so in effect we need two inside players playing as No 8 & 10 in old money. Probably Armstrong is the perfect No 10 and Gabbiadini the No 8.

 

Austin, Long & Gallagher will have to fight it out for the No 9 role.

 

Who sits alongside Romeu as the other holding defender remains to be seen. At the moment my money is on Hojberg even 'though his current form is very patchy.

Are you implying that Romeu is so good that he is an automatic in the team?

Is he really that good?

Totally agrees unless Elyounoussi can also defend and challenge Cedric.

 

These days we seem to defend three at the back, two in front (in the old days it was two at the back three in front) but still five defenders. Consequently our so-called wing-backs are in reality modern wingers and part of the attack (as in the old five man forward line) so in effect we need two inside players playing as No 8 & 10 in old money. Probably Armstrong is the perfect No 10 and Gabbiadini the No 8.

 

Austin, Long & Gallagher will have to fight it out for the No 9 role.

 

Who sits alongside Romeu as the other holding defender remains to be seen. At the moment my money is on Hojberg even 'though his current form is very patchy.

Isn't Elyounoussi also supposed to be able to play striker? If so that could be why we haven't signed a 4th striker (behind Austin, Gabbi, Long/Gallagher), and it could make Elyounoussi a "jack of all trades" player for us, filling in at 3 or 4 positions.

In that case, you can never make comparisons between managers, irregardless of the timescale. Is that what you're saying?

 

The sample size is low for Hughes admittedly, and again I have said that in previous posts, but all we have to work with is that, Stoke's record under him last season, or pre-season this year. He doesn't just get a gimme because the sample size doesn't fit in with your requirements.

Ah sorry, so we're using an arbitrary date of game 4 that MH had the credit of 'sorting out the defence', even though he had 17 days to work with the team prior to the first of those 4 games. Love it when people try to prove points based on their own made up timelines. We conceded less goals per game under Puel and Pellegrino than we did under Hughes, and I REPEAT FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS DECIDED THAT I HAVE MADE THIS JUDGEMENT AFTER HE TOOK CHARGE...His managerial record is very poor when it comes to having a good, well-drilled defence. It is one of the main 3 criticisms that previous teams fans have had of him, along with poor transfer business and not getting on with players.

And please don't shout. It doesn't make your argument any more valid.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

7 out of 13 were a worse goal difference position than they finished up. Difficult to say 100% that this is true, but you would guess that in that situation he had strikers/attacking players that allowed him to have that worse goal difference and not suffer.

 

This is why I am saying we need new strikers, and not new defenders, as we NEED to score more goals to counter the worse than average defence.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure those stats support your theory to be honest (equally, they don't categorically disprove it). It's actually 6/13 because QPR were bottom when he was sacked. There are only 3 seasons with a noticeably worse defence rank than position rank (i.e. at least 3 positions worse), Blackburn 07, Stoke 16 & Stoke 18, while there are three seasons where the defence was significantly better (Blackburn 05, Fulham 11 & Stoke 15).

The reason I fetched this data wasn't solely to oppose your view either - I actually posted a similar view here https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?60017-Had-we%92d-gone-down-last-season&p=2647400#post2647400 , where it was met with a counter argument that Hughes's sides are good defensively. I guess we will see for ourselves as the season plays out, but I don't think the statistics demonstrate it one way or the other. Maybe he just had good defenders some years and not others!

Hmmmm, I'm not sure those stats support your theory to be honest (equally, they don't categorically disprove it). It's actually 6/13 because QPR were bottom when he was sacked. There are only 3 seasons with a noticeably worse defence rank than position rank (i.e. at least 3 positions worse), Blackburn 07, Stoke 16 & Stoke 18, while there are three seasons where the defence was significantly better (Blackburn 05, Fulham 11 & Stoke 15).

 

The reason I fetched this data wasn't solely to oppose your view either - I actually posted a similar view here https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?60017-Had-we%92d-gone-down-last-season&p=2647400#post2647400 , where it was met with a counter argument that Hughes's sides are good defensively. I guess we will see for ourselves as the season plays out, but I don't think the statistics demonstrate it one way or the other. Maybe he just had good defenders some years and not others!

Potentially. It's nice to have someone debate the point by providing statistical analysis rather than just say "No, you hate Southampton Football Club and everything about it".

I think however, the goals against will be far more than we're used to, certainly since Adkins, so maybe that is where my main issue is. Either way, with our poor goalscoring along with the potential for more goals conceded, we need to increase our striking options.

In that case, you can never make comparisons between managers, irregardless of the timescale. Is that what you're saying?

 

The sample size is low for Hughes admittedly, and again I have said that in previous posts, but all we have to work with is that, Stoke's record under him last season, or pre-season this year. He doesn't just get a gimme because the sample size doesn't fit in with your requirements.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that if you want to make comparisons between his record and Puel's and Pellegrino's, or indeed with any other manager, then the more equivalence there is between the three samples being considered, the more credibility there is. As you have admitted that Hughes sample size is low at Saints compared to the other two, you must accept that your conclusions are therefore flawed. Additionally, as I pointed out, Hughes had to turn around the demoralised squad that Pellegrino left him.

Where exactly do you draw the line in small sample comparisons? For example, if he had only been here for five games and we had won them all, would you therefore be comparing his stats with Lawrie's or Koeman's?

We conceded less goals per game under Puel and Pellegrino than we did under Hughes,

Eh, but you don't seem to appreciate or acknowledge one of the major reasons for that? Even some of the players have admitted that Pellegrino didn't wan't them to join in attacks, our lack of ambition and lack of defending from the front showed in our scoring record. There really is little point about harping on about only one aspect of the game in isolation.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that if you want to make comparisons between his record and Puel's and Pellegrino's, or indeed with any other manager, then the more equivalence there is between the three samples being considered, the more credibility there is. As you have admitted that Hughes sample size is low at Saints compared to the other two, you must accept that your conclusions are therefore flawed. Additionally, as I pointed out, Hughes had to turn around the demoralised squad that Pellegrino left him.

 

Where exactly do you draw the line in small sample comparisons? For example, if he had only been here for five games and we had won them all, would you therefore be comparing his stats with Lawrie's or Koeman's?

I would be using his previous record under Stoke as well I would have thought.

What I don't get is:

"...but it isn't feasible to make that comparison anyway without any evidence that the other two would have produced better results in the same fixtures under similar circumstances when both of them had considerably more time to assess their options."

This isn't evidence that exists - as you will always have different circumstances between them. IE: we can't compare Pellegrino away at Man City to Hughes at home, because they're different games, different players, different times of year. Hence, you can never actually compare two Manager.

Are you implying that Romeu is so good that he is an automatic in the team?

Is he really that good?

For me 'yes' Chris, of course he is not perfect but is a damn sight better than any of our other DMF options.

Nobody needs statistical analysis to see the lift Hughes gave the side last season.

Hoedt's poor ball control put us in bother on more than one occasion last night. McQueen on the right played like he had 2 left feet, and Romeu wasn't very good. Shane Long had a poor night. Davis improved after a poor start.

Gabbiadini was excellent, Armstrong played well, Hojberg did well. JWP was like a rottweiler in the middle of the park, I reckon the coaching staff have been working hard with him. Targett was excellent, Gunn looked assured. Charlie scored a decent header.

As far as friendlies go, I reckon this one gave Hughes a good idea of where certain players are.

Hoedt's poor ball control put us in bother on more than one occasion last night. McQueen on the right played like he had 2 left feet, and Romeu wasn't very good. Shane Long had a poor night. Davis improved after a poor start.

 

Gabbiadini was excellent, Armstrong played well, Hojberg did well. JWP was like a rottweiler in the middle of the park, I reckon the coaching staff have been working hard with him. Targett was excellent, Gunn looked assured. Charlie scored a decent header.

 

As far as friendlies go, I reckon this one gave Hughes a good idea of where certain players are.

If Lemina stays I can see Romeu being just a bit part player, he’s very limited.

anyone got highlights of the goals??

anyone got highlights of the goals??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w-9L_mIfDY

anyone got highlights of the goals??

They are on the O/S

For me 'yes' Chris, of course he is not perfect but is a damn sight better than any of our other DMF options.

Personally would disagree by quite a distance.

Hoedt's poor ball control put us in bother on more than one occasion last night. McQueen on the right played like he had 2 left feet, and Romeu wasn't very good. Shane Long had a poor night. Davis improved after a poor start.

 

Gabbiadini was excellent, Armstrong played well, Hojberg did well. JWP was like a rottweiler in the middle of the park, I reckon the coaching staff have been working hard with him. Targett was excellent, Gunn looked assured. Charlie scored a decent header.

 

As far as friendlies go, I reckon this one gave Hughes a good idea of where certain players are.

Watched most of the game last night on the stream and OS and thoroughly agree Wade. Happy with JWP if he carries on like that, Targett a very pleasant surprise at RWB, Reed bright when he came on and Gallagher’s cameo showed the unusual mix of height and pace he has, would keep him. Gabbiadini and Armstrong impressive throughout, PEH added energy and bite when he came on. Charlie did what he does best if you supply him crosses. Bertrand also very good.

Davis got better, club legend but over the hill, Romeu terrible, hasn’t got out of last year’s funk. McQueen not right footed and looked rusty, Long was Long. Hoedt was Hoedt e.g. poor and unsteady, Vestergaard better. Bednarak looked a bit off the pace and might not be featuring once Yoshi back.

Gunn looked the better of the two keepers I thought.

Watched most of the game last night on the stream and OS and thoroughly agree Wade. Happy with JWP if he carries on like that, Targett a very pleasant surprise at RWB, Reed bright when he came on and Gallagher’s cameo showed the unusual mix of height and pace he has, would keep him. Gabbiadini and Armstrong impressive throughout, PEH added energy and bite when he came on. Charlie did what he does best if you supply him crosses. Bertrand also very good.

 

Davis got better, club legend but over the hill, Romeu terrible, hasn’t got out of last year’s funk. McQueen not right footed and looked rusty, Long was Long. Hoedt was Hoedt e.g. poor and unsteady, Vestergaard better. Bednarak looked a bit off the pace and might not be featuring once Yoshi back.

 

Gunn looked the better of the two keepers I thought.

Can I say this is bang on....

IE: we can't compare Pellegrino away at Man City to Hughes at home, because they're different games, different players, different times of year. Hence, you can never actually compare two Manager.

But then you're quite happy to compare Hughes at Stoke with Hughes at Saints, although they're different clubs, different players. This is the reason why managers are successful at one club and then failures at their next one and vice versa.

But then you're quite happy to compare Hughes at Stoke with Hughes at Saints, although they're different clubs, different players. This is the reason why managers are successful at one club and then failures at their next one and vice versa.

So, as I said above, you're saying we can no longer compare managers records. Ever.

So, as I said above, you're saying we can no longer compare managers records. Ever.

You can make your own comparisons if you wish; it's a free country. And anybody else is entitled to argue the toss on them. But naturally you must accept that caveats have to be attached to argue that the variables can be explained away to justify the logic behind the reasoning.

You didn't answer my question; how many matches as a minimum do you accept as a reasonable basis for comparing one manager's record with another who had a much longer tenure? Nine + a Cup Match, obviously. Any fewer than that? How many of those matches should that new manager be allowed before he starts to turn around the defeatist attitudes of players falling into the relegation zone after a sustained period of decline? Or do you believe that the impact should be immediate? Is any allowance to be made during that earlier part of his tenure that he has to face top 5 clubs when his club is a bottom 5 club?

You can make your own comparisons if you wish; it's a free country. And anybody else is entitled to argue the toss on them. But naturally you must accept that caveats have to be attached to argue that the variables can be explained away to justify the logic behind the reasoning.

 

You didn't answer my question; how many matches as a minimum do you accept as a reasonable basis for comparing one manager's record with another who had a much longer tenure? Nine + a Cup Match, obviously. Any fewer than that? How many of those matches should that new manager be allowed before he starts to turn around the defeatist attitudes of players falling into the relegation zone after a sustained period of decline? Or do you believe that the impact should be immediate? Is any allowance to be made during that earlier part of his tenure that he has to face top 5 clubs when his club is a bottom 5 club?

This