Saints 0-3 Chelsea - Match + Reaction

The Bertram free kick was right in front of me and the ref got it horribly wrong. It should of been taken from where he marked the pitch for the wall. Ryan kicks off and gets booked, but I agree the ref was poor throughout.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Refs have been awful for us.

5 decent referee performances in the last 39 league matches

This. We got a footballing lesson from a very good team, no disgrace in that. All over the pitch, their players are better than ours, simple as - they can afford that quality we cant. I didn't see any lack of effort from any of our players, we just weren't as good as them - simple. Bizarrely, if we had taken our chances (Ings, Bertie, Ings) the score would've gone 1 - 0, 1 - 1, 2 - 1, 2 - 2, 3 - 2, 3 - 3, but as I said - they had quality that we just didn't.

 

For the warriors on here, from where I was sat - I didn't see one single fan having a go at anybody on the board - not one. I was going to severely berate the 30 odd thousand inside SMS but thought better of it. On the positive side though, I am happy to report though that there was some mild booing at the end of the match though.

 

As Kingsbridge says - the next two are vital - anything less than 4 points (or 6 if we get 3 at Bournemouth) is not good enough in my opinion.

 

Onward and upwards - support the Saints.

Sensible post. Chelsea are a little bit better than most pundits believe, very close to the the deified Manchester City and Liverpool. Better teams than Southampton will score against them (Saints' missed two sitters, others would not be so charitable) but it is clear that, under Sarri, the players are enjoying their football again. Hazard and Willian are two of the best players to grace a pitch, in any league. From 1 to 11, Chelsea have the measure of most other European teams, let alone lowly Southampton.

Regarding the Hoedt-Giroud penalty, sitting in the Chapel, it looked a lucky decision for the defender. Having said that, a lot of yellow cards subsequently dished out to Saints players seemed harsh.

Few Southampton players disappointed me. Lemina is a bit lazy, but when he lost possession, he always looked to win it back, usually successfully. He has quality, I suspect his ego sees him at a bigger club. I thought that Gabbiadini had an excellent game - lots of movement and no little skill, he looked the international player that we signed, as good as he was when he arrived. The one disappointment was Ings; clearly a very talented player, notwithstanding his missing of a sitter, but he seemed a little off the pace - will he ever reach the heights his natural ability suggests, or have his injuries done for him?

It was great to see Yoshi back in the starting eleven, though he had his customary brain-fade moments, reminiscent of when he was an irregular starter a few seasons ago, moments which were eradicated when he was a regular starter. Hoedt's problem is that Wesley is not as good as Wesley thinks Wesley is; spraying Hollywood passes is all very well when your first name is Virgil, but he was criminally wasteful yesterday. Oddly, though, he seemed very good in the air.

The fact that Vestergaard was dropped yesterday would suggest that Saints may, yet again, have spunked money at the wrong wall.

In summary, Chelsea have £50m players in most positions, Southampton have £15m players (at best); 0-3 was no disgrace.

Thank you Mush, petty sensible yourself too.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

It was right in front of me and sorry you are wrong

The ref didn’t give the foul against Giroud he gave it for the coming together immediately before that incident he tried to play advantage but there wasn’t any.

It was right in front of me and sorry you are wrong

 

The ref didn’t give the foul against Giroud he gave it for the coming together immediately before that incident he tried to play advantage but there wasn’t any.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

We have some decent players, believe it or not, but again they are not being used in the right way. We cannot defend set pieces with 2 centre backs. We just can't do it. Hughes started with 3 at the back. We had none of the ball for 20 minutes but we defended pretty well I thought. Especially considering who we were playing! On about 20 minutes we started to keep the ball going forward and started to cause them problems. The players seemed to find some confidence culminating in Ings' chance. Straight after that, Hughes switched Bednarek to right back and went to a back 4. Clear instructions from the bench. Bertrand didn't look too impressed, especially as he had just skinned their right back. Within 2 minutes of that change we conceded. Coincidence? No, the stats even tell us we are more successful with a back 3. Terrible, terrible tactical management. That was it for us. Hughes needs to learn from his mistakes but clearly isn't. Due to his tactics we lost the Liverpool game before we even started. His substitutions lost us the game at Wolves and against Brighton. I agreed with most that Hughes deserved a crack at the job after keeping us up but if Rogers is available, go and get him. I think we have a mid-table squad. Nothing more, but at least that. Our last three managerial appointments have either been ill advised or made out of desperation. They need to get it right, quickly, and make Rogers an offer he can't refuse.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

The Bertram free kick was right in front of me and the ref got it horribly wrong. It should of been taken from where he marked the pitch for the wall. Ryan kicks off and gets booked, but I agree the ref was poor throughout.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Thought the ref got it right. The first challenge was a foul and it was roughly where the free kick was taken.

Bertrand made himself look like a complete tool and picked up an idiotic yellow card. Smart captain.

It was right in front of me and sorry you are wrong

 

The ref didn’t give the foul against Giroud he gave it for the coming together immediately before that incident he tried to play advantage but there wasn’t any.

Correct.

Thought the ref got it right. The first challenge was a foul and it was roughly where the free kick was taken.

 

Bertrand made himself look like a complete tool and picked up an idiotic yellow card. Smart captain.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

And whist I'm at it, that was the most appalling refereeing performance I've seen in a very long time. Bertrand was booked out of frustration that the ref got the place of the free lick so ridiculously wrong.

Bertrand was precise when he placed the ball where the free kick should have been taken, just outside the area. The referee got it badly wrong and of course issued the card for dissent towards his decision. If he reviews his performance, then he will see what a prize **** he has been. It brings to mind another match against Chelski when Willian was awarded a free kick against us, took it a good 10 yards forward and scored from it. Had it been taken in the correct place, the shot was probably not on.

Thought the ref got it right. The first challenge was a foul and it was roughly where the free kick was taken.

 

Bertrand made himself look like a complete tool and picked up an idiotic yellow card. Smart captain.

If as you say there was a foul preceding the second one, then as Bertrand subsequently rode it and progressed towards the box, surely he should have played the advantage. So then he's a **** for not doing that.

If as you say there was a foul preceding the second one, then as Bertrand subsequently rode it and progressed towards the box, surely he should have played the advantage. So then he's a **** for not doing that.

He did play advantage. Then Bertrand fell over so he gave the original foul. So he did exactly what you're saying he should have done. There wasn't a "second one".

The ref booked too many of our players - in particular, the Lemina booking was soft as anything - and not enough of theirs but he didn't give any big decisions against us. If anything, he helped us by not giving them either of their two decent penalty shouts and not sending Ings off.

On their second goal, there was some blocking by Luiz but it was fairly minor in the context of the typical shenanigans that go on in the box and the ref can't see everything. People complaining about offside just don't understand how that rule is applied nowadays.

He'd ridden the first challenge and got beyond the man and was then fouled again. Had every right to be ****ed of with the ref, who got the free kick wrong but the booking right.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Sorry I think he got both right. The Giroud challenge wasn’t a foul whereas the earlier one was . Irrespective once you behave that petulantly then a booking is always likely

He did play advantage. Then Bertrand fell over so he gave the original foul. So he did exactly what you're saying he should have done. There wasn't a "second one".

 

The ref booked too many of our players - in particular, the Lemina booking was soft as anything - and not enough of theirs but he didn't give any big decisions against us. If anything, he helped us by not giving them either of their two d

ecent penalty shouts and not sending Ings off.

 

On their second goal, there was some blocking by Luiz but it was fairly minor in the context of the typical shenanigans that go on in the box and the ref can't see everything. People complaining about offside just don't understand how that rule is applied nowadays.

Most of that I would agree with but in terms of bookings most of them came about because the fouls were committed to stop what I think is termed promising positions. I can’t remeber who it was said by but a couple of weeks ago it was said that the current view is if you commit a foul from even remotely behind the player then it will be a booking and likewise the current take is even if you get the ball the chances are a foul will be given

I don't think it was a terrible performance, they are clearly a very good team, with a player who arguably has claims to be one of the best in the world right now.

We also created several good chances, both Ings and Bertrand should have scored, Ings was at 0-0 IIRC and was at time where after a start were we were hanging in, we had actually come back into the game, you never know what that goal could have done for our confidence for the rest of the game. We also hit the bar twice IIRC, forcing their keep into a couple of very good saves, which again another day one of those could have gone in.

Also despite all their quality, the first goal came from an error, a good tackle from Hoedt on Hazard, he then stepped forward with ball, Hojberg asked for the ball in a poor position, Hoedt played the ball into him, he turned into trouble. He was then robbed by Barkley who slid it to Hazard, who = was just sitting in the gap vacated Hoedt (which is a natural consequence of two players going in for a tackle like that, they'll end up either side of each other) and if you give a player like that some space on the edge of box, in the form he is in, he'll punish you.

And the free kick again was some switching off, allowing Giroud that much space to get in behind.

The last goal was just quality but end game it didn't really matter then.

Individual errors and not taking chances, sadly the story of the last two years IMO. I don't think we were terrible and 3-0 probably flattered them a little.

Good analysis, especially the first goal which was slightly unlucky. And if Ings had put that chance away, would have lifted everyone.

Think Giroud's space for the second was achieved with some holding and a "non-interfering" player running offside in front if McCarthy didn't help.

It just seems at the moment that I'm waiting every game for us to just get a couple of breaks to boost confidence, but it's not happening. The ref didn't help, but increasingly against the top clubs, that's always going to happen.

But I'm not totally despondent. Yes, we were backs to the wall for a fair bit of the game but we did create chances - at least 5 decent ones - and overall were not as bad as some are suggesting.

I don't think it was a terrible performance, they are clearly a very good team, with a player who arguably has claims to be one of the best in the world right now.

 

We also created several good chances, both Ings and Bertrand should have scored, Ings was at 0-0 IIRC and was at time where after a start were we were hanging in, we had actually come back into the game, you never know what that goal could have done for our confidence for the rest of the game. We also hit the bar twice IIRC, forcing their keep into a couple of very good saves, which again another day one of those could have gone in.

 

Also despite all their quality, the first goal came from an error, a good tackle from Hoedt on Hazard, he then stepped forward with ball, Hojberg asked for the ball in a poor position, Hoedt played the ball into him, he turned into trouble. He was then robbed by Barkley who slid it to Hazard, who = was just sitting in the gap vacated Hoedt (which is a natural consequence of two players going in for a tackle like that, they'll end up either side of each other) and if you give a player like that some space on the edge of box, in the form he is in, he'll punish you.

 

And the free kick again was some switching off, allowing Giroud that much space to get in behind.

 

The last goal was just quality but end game it didn't really matter then.

 

Individual errors and not taking chances, sadly the story of the last two years IMO. I don't think we were terrible and 3-0 probably flattered them a little.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Most of that I would agree with but in terms of bookings most of them came about because the fouls were committed to stop what I think is termed promising positions. I can’t remeber who it was said by but a couple of weeks ago it was said that the current view is if you commit a foul from even remotely behind the player then it will be a booking and likewise the current take is even if you get the ball the chances are a foul will be given

Yes, but they did some of those too and didn't get booked!

Good analysis, especially the first goal which was slightly unlucky. And if Ings had put that chance away, would have lifted everyone.

 

Think Giroud's space for the second was achieved with some holding and a "non-interfering" player running offside in front if McCarthy didn't help.

 

It just seems at the moment that I'm waiting every game for us to just get a couple of breaks to boost confidence, but it's not happening. The ref didn't help, but increasingly against the top clubs, that's always going to happen.

 

But I'm not totally despondent. Yes, we were backs to the wall for a fair bit of the game but we did create chances - at least 5 decent ones - and overall were not as bad as some are suggesting.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Confidence does seem to be an issue, its playing with their minds I reckon, we seem to be playing all right in spells, there are clearly some decent players there, but as a collective unit once something goes against us, be it a mistake or missing a chance, they seem to go into their shell.

I feel a good 2-0 win would do wonders for the team, clean sheet, put some chances away, hold to a lead, banish some mental demons, just can't see where it's coming from right now.

Confidence does seem to be an issue, its playing with their minds I reckon, we seem to be playing all right in spells, there are clearly some decent players there, but as a collective unit once something goes against us, be it a mistake or missing a chance, they seem to go into their shell.

 

I feel a good 2-0 win would do wonders for the team, clean sheet, put some chances away, hold to a lead, banish some mental demons, just can't see where it's coming from right now.

I hoped the Palace game would be a catalyst in us gaining some confidence. The Brighton game seems to have well and truly knocked the stuffing out of all of us - showed exactly what we are, a bad team.