Saints 8 (Eight) Sunderland 0 - Match and Reactions

[Saint_Tony]

Yes we won 8-0, but as Fonte said on Instagram, it is still just 3 points. We have another 30 games to go! Lets not get carried away!

Of which we'd need to win 19/20 to make the top 4. A long way to go, we know we have a team capable of beating the majority of the rest of the league. I think december will be the real test, by the end of the year we'll have a better idea of where we can finish

[eelpie]

Of which we'd need to win 19/20 to make the top 4. A long way to go, we know we have a team capable of beating the majority of the rest of the league. I think december will be the real test, by the end of the year we'll have a better idea of where we can finish

 

Let's also not forget that we have a smaller squad than the so-called big boys. So much depends on keeping injuries to a minimum. Some players - ie Forster - are indispensable.

 

Our skill is indisputable, and we are capable of beating anyone in the Prem now -with our best players on the pitch. What a team we have!

[Saint Without a Halo]

When was the last time our goal difference was more than that of Arsenal Liverpool and Man U combined

[Saint_Tony]

Let's also not forget that we have a smaller squad than the so-called big boys. So much depends on keeping injuries to a minimum. Some players - ie Forster - are indispensable.

 

Our skill is indisputable, and we are capable of beating anyone in the Prem now -with our best players on the pitch. What a team we have!

That's the key point, things started to go a bit wrong around december last year. The squad depth is ok, but nowhere near the level of other sides. An injury to Forster or Pelle for example, would be a massive problem

[Gorgiesaint]

Lovren appears to have bit of Saganowski about him. Saga played superbly whilst on loan and as soon as he got a permanent deal then he let his standards slip. Lovren played well for us, but now he's got his move to join his head in Liverpool his Lyon form seems to have returned.

[Wes Tender]

That's the key point, things started to go a bit wrong around december last year. The squad depth is ok, but nowhere near the level of other sides. An injury to Forster or Pelle for example, would be a massive problem

 

By all means compare our squad size to the top 4 teams, but also take into consideration that they effectively have two squads, because they are playing in Europe. When they overlap players with an extra game during the week, the result can be that those players are tired. Equally, running two campaigns simultaneously means a greater chance of injuries and suspensions.And when we talk about injuries to Forster and Pelle potentially being a massive problem, at least in the case of Forster, we could recall Boruc. And Rodriguez should be back in December, which if he's as good as he was, will equate to a new signing. All very well speculating on how we'd fare without Pelle, but aren't Di Maria. Costa, Fabregas, Aguera, Silva, etc prone to injuries?

 

Last year, we didn't have good enough cover for Boruc, Lovren and Wanyama and suffered as a result. This year we have more depth to the squad in virtually every position, so the impact should be far less unless we are very unlucky.

[Lighthouse]

Bloody typical. Own goal scores twice for Southampton and before you know it he is playing for Liverpool

[St_Tel49]

[Beckenham Saint]

Bloody typical. Own goal scores twice for Southampton and before you know it he is playing for Liverpool

 

:lol:

[Shroppie]

Bloody typical. Own goal scores twice for Southampton and before you know it he is playing for Liverpool

Hope Roy's been watching him. Would significantly improve England's goal threat.

[Sheaf Saint]

Just looking at the Sky match report...

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/live/match/313464/ratings

 

According to these ratings, Mannone only scored one rating lower than Forster at the other end. That's right - a keeper who conceded 8 goals, was directly responsible for one of them and really should have saved at least 3 others, gets only one rating lower than his opposite number who kept a clean sheet.

 

How does that work then?

[Delboy Dave]

True Geordie review!

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/KoXJrqB_p3U

[Lighthouse]

Our song made 2good 2bad

[Jonnyboy]

Our song made 2good 2bad

 

 

 

Just missed that, how did it go?

[tedmaul]

I may live to regret this but if JRod refuses to sign his new contract then we should let him go.

[Alwightmush]

Just missed that, how did it go?

 

"Still be last on Match of the Day"

[Sour Mash]

Our song made 2good 2bad

 

 

As a "good" or "bad"?

[Patrick Bateman]

Our song made 2good 2bad

 

What does that mean?

[Plastic]

What does that mean?

 

Section on motd2

[Beckenham Saint]

What does that mean?

 

On Match of the Day 2, they have a feature called "2Good 2Bad" which one of our songs from Saturday featured on...

[angelman]

"It could have been very different if we got that penalty in the first half" :lol::lol:

 

 

Has the ref, or anyone else, come out and explained why it wasn't given? Having seen it a few times, I initially thought, like others have said, that it was the trailing foot being left dangling to catch Forster on purpose. While a lot of Sunderland players were appealing, Fletcher didn't, which always says a lot. But then having watched it back (http://hoofoot.com/?match=Southampton_8_-_0_Sunderland_AFC_2014_10_18) it seems that the Forster has his foot high in the air as he slides in, which catches Fletcher and flips him.

 

I think that maybe it's a result of too much simulation and trying to con the ref (eg leaving a foot dangling) that has counted against Fletcher, as well as a complete lack of him appealing. Fair does to Fletcher for not rolling around like he had been shot, but in this case, I think it rather counted against him.

[Nolan]

Has the ref, or anyone else, come out and explained why it wasn't given? Having seen it a few times, I initially thought, like others have said, that it was the trailing foot being left dangling to catch Forster on purpose. While a lot of Sunderland players were appealing, Fletcher didn't, which always says a lot. But then having watched it back (http://hoofoot.com/?match=Southampton_8_-_0_Sunderland_AFC_2014_10_18) it seems that the Forster has his foot high in the air as he slides in, which catches Fletcher and flips him.

 

I think that maybe it's a result of too much simulation and trying to con the ref (eg leaving a foot dangling) that has counted against Fletcher, as well as a complete lack of him appealing. Fair does to Fletcher for not rolling around like he had been shot, but in this case, I think it rather counted against him.

The ball had been played before he went down, in was no longer a goal scoring opportunity.

[S-Clarke]

Has the ref, or anyone else, come out and explained why it wasn't given? Having seen it a few times, I initially thought, like others have said, that it was the trailing foot being left dangling to catch Forster on purpose. While a lot of Sunderland players were appealing, Fletcher didn't, which always says a lot. But then having watched it back (http://hoofoot.com/?match=Southampton_8_-_0_Sunderland_AFC_2014_10_18) it seems that the Forster has his foot high in the air as he slides in, which catches Fletcher and flips him.

 

I think that maybe it's a result of too much simulation and trying to con the ref (eg leaving a foot dangling) that has counted against Fletcher, as well as a complete lack of him appealing. Fair does to Fletcher for not rolling around like he had been shot, but in this case, I think it rather counted against him.

 

It was a penalty, but not a read card. Not sure why he didn't make a big deal of it. It may have made the game a little tighter for a while, but as they still had Vergini playing for them, then it was only a matter of time before we scored a few more. (I've never seen a worse player in the PL, seen him 2 or 3 times now)

[Whitey Grandad]

It could have gone either way and shows how difficult it is for a referee to reach a decision. Watching it at the time from the central Kingsland it appeared to me that Fletcher had overhit the ball and Forster came out to block the shot but crucially had stopped short of ploughing through him. Fletcher got a toe to the ball first and then tried to avoid the challenge.

[monosaint]

I remember in 1968 while visiting a mate at UNI in London we wanted to go to a London game. So off we went to Upton Park to watch WHU play Sunderland. Of course Moore, Peters and Hurst were all playing. Would you believe that WHU beat Sunderland 8-0 that day and Hurst scored 5.

[Tony F]

The ball had been played before he went down, in was no longer a goal scoring opportunity.

 

So... logically.... it must have been a late tackle?

 

Which would normally be a free kick and a yellow - or in the box it would/should have been a pen?

[VectisSaint]

Has the ref, or anyone else, come out and explained why it wasn't given? Having seen it a few times, I initially thought, like others have said, that it was the trailing foot being left dangling to catch Forster on purpose. While a lot of Sunderland players were appealing, Fletcher didn't, which always says a lot. But then having watched it back (http://hoofoot.com/?match=Southampton_8_-_0_Sunderland_AFC_2014_10_18) it seems that the Forster has his foot high in the air as he slides in, which catches Fletcher and flips him.

 

I think that maybe it's a result of too much simulation and trying to con the ref (eg leaving a foot dangling) that has counted against Fletcher, as well as a complete lack of him appealing. Fair does to Fletcher for not rolling around like he had been shot, but in this case, I think it rather counted against him.

It wasn't a penalty because fletcher had already played the ball (and flicked it wide) before he was caught. The commentator (Jonathan ?)on MOTD actually got this right, and he was about the only one who did, fair play. Mind you just about everything else he said was crap, including the reference to the Man U game when he claimed the 6-3 win was the grey shirts one.

[Lighthouse]

So... logically.... it must have been a late tackle?

 

Which would normally be a free kick and a yellow - or in the box it would/should have been a pen?

 

By the letter of the law it should have been a penalty and a yellow. He didn't prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity as the ball was already well out of control and heading out of play.

[angelman]

It wasn't a penalty because fletcher had already played the ball (and flicked it wide) before he was caught. The commentator (Jonathan ?)on MOTD actually got this right, and he was about the only one who did, fair play. Mind you just about everything else he said was crap, including the reference to the Man U game when he claimed the 6-3 win was the grey shirts one.

 

Not according to Graham Poll: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2798933/jon-moss-gave-two-incorrect-penalties-manchester-city-s-win-craig-pawson-infuriated-neil-warnock-chelsea-beat-crystal-palace-afternoon-controversy.html

 

The worst culprit this weekend was Jonathan Pearce, whose description of the Sunderland penalty appeal was embarrassingly inept.

 

Steven Fletcher had played the ball past Fraser Forster in the Southampton goal when the keeper clattered into the attacker.

 

 

Pearce thought the penalty wasn’t given as the ball had been played away – WRONG – and that had the penalty been given then Forster had to be dismissed – WRONG AGAIN.

 

The ball was in play, so the foul should have been given and Sunderland a lifeline at 0-2. However, as the ball was going wide an obvious goal scoring opportunity was not denied and Forster had to stay on the pitch.

[the_emu]

It wasn't a penalty because fletcher had already played the ball (and flicked it wide) before he was caught. The commentator (Jonathan ?)on MOTD actually got this right, and he was about the only one who did, fair play. Mind you just about everything else he said was crap, including the reference to the Man U game when he claimed the 6-3 win was the grey shirts one.

For the love of god and my sanity can people please understand the laws of the game before making stupid comments.

[EBS1980]

We are looking for someone who was at the game to write a little blog for our website (93rdminute.co.uk) just summing up the day, the performance, the result etc.. If anyone is interested please can they let us know http://www.the93rdminute.co.uk/contact-us.html

Full credit is given to the author.

[Whitey Grandad]

For the love of god and my sanity can people please understand the laws of the game before making stupid comments.

 

These incidents are all 'in the opinion of the referee'. This time the decision went our way but it was probably as close as you can get.

 

In my opinion it could be argued that Forster had stopped and Fletcher had run into him.

[Wes Tender]

Not according to Graham Poll: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2798933/jon-moss-gave-two-incorrect-penalties-manchester-city-s-win-craig-pawson-infuriated-neil-warnock-chelsea-beat-crystal-palace-afternoon-controversy.html

 

It isn't as if Graham Poll was always correct in every decision he made and that he had an uncontroversial reputation. And it is easy for him to ruminate about the decision from the comfort of his armchair having watched slow-mo video replays. There doesn't appear to be much consideration given to what Marriner would have seen and the speed of the event in real time which determined his decision.

[Whitey Grandad]

It isn't as if Graham Poll was always correct in every decision he made and that he had an uncontroversial reputation. And it is easy for him to ruminate about the decision from the comfort of his armchair having watched slow-mo video replays. There doesn't appear to be much consideration given to what Marriner would have seen and the speed of the event in real time which determined his decision.

Slow motion is misleading in incidents like these. It does not show the momentum of the players. Forster had come to a stop before Fletcher ran over him. The essence is was Fletcher tripped by Forster or did he trip over him? I think it also depends on your point of view, literal and otherwise. Let's just say it could have gon either way but was not clear cut.

[Professor]

Graham Poll made a statement that Forster 'clattered into' the attacker, which is not a fact, it is an opinion. When a Keeper dives and a player collides with him, it cannot automatically be a foul by the keeper, because if so, penalties would be given in almost every game. Collisions, by definition, involve more than one person so to be a foul by one or the other is a matter of judgement. Forster dived with the clear intention of blocking the ball and succeeded in making the striker send the kick off target. The collision after the ball was played was just that, a collision, on which the referee had three options (1) free kick for Southampton; (2) Penalty for Sunderland; (3) no action. He chose the third option which was also the fair option because the ball was going out of play and the collision had not affected the outcome. If Poll would have chosen an option that would give an unfair advantage to one team and create a goal scoring opportunity where there had not been one, its just as well he's no longer a referee.

[VectisSaint]

For the love of god and my sanity can people please understand the laws of the game before making stupid comments.

Don't give a toss about your sanity, if you can't deal with people having a different opinion than yours then don't come on here. Don't agree with Graham Poll, but there he may be a more experienced ex-referee than me, but in my opinion he is incorrect. In my opinion and many others, it was not a penalty, and everyone seems to agree it shouldn't have been a red card. Fletcher had already played the ball (and it was going wide). Forster did not clatter into Fletcher, Poll is completely wrong on that. The fact that Fletcher did not appeal speaks volumes to me. He knew it wasn't a penalty.

Edited 20 October, 2014 by VectisSaint

[Bucks Saint]

Graham Poll made a statement that Forster 'clattered into' the attacker, which is not a fact, it is an opinion. When a Keeper dives and a player collides with him, it cannot automatically be a foul by the keeper, because if so, penalties would be given in almost every game. Collisions, by definition, involve more than one person so to be a foul by one or the other is a matter of judgement. Forster dived with the clear intention of blocking the ball and succeeded in making the striker send the kick off target. The collision after the ball was played was just that, a collision, on which the referee had three options (1) free kick for Southampton; (2) Penalty for Sunderland; (3) no action. He chose the third option which was also the fair option because the ball was going out of play and the collision had not affected the outcome. If Poll would have chosen an option that would give an unfair advantage to one team and create a goal scoring opportunity where there had not been one, its just as well he's no longer a referee.

 

Great summary

[shurlock]

Decision could have quite easily gone against us - the important thing IMO was that Forster was still coming forward when he hit Fletcher. Had he tried to stop his progress and stand his ground, then we wouldn't be having this debate, even if Fletcher ended up getting flattened.

[shurlock]

Don't give a toss about your sanity, if you can't deal with people having a different opinion than yours then don't come on here. Don't agree with Graham Poll, but there he may be a more experienced ex-referee than me, but in my opinion he is incorrect. In my opinion and many others, it was not a penalty, and everyone seems to agree it shouldn't have been a red card. Fletcher had already played the ball (and it was going wide). Forster did not clatter into Fletcher, Poll is completely wrong on that. The fact that Fletcher did not appeal speaks volumes to me. He knew it wasn't a penalty.

 

Pal, you're the only one who sounds like they can't deal with others having a different opinion.

[Whitey Grandad]

Decision could have quite easily gone against us - the important thing IMO was that Forster was still coming forward when he hit Fletcher. Had he tried to stop his progress and stand his ground, then we wouldn't be having this debate, even if Fletcher ended up getting flattened.

 

Sorry, not sure whether you are saying that Forster had, or had not stopped?

[shurlock]

Sorry, not sure whether you are saying that Forster had, or had not stopped?

 

IMO he hadn't stopped - not least because he slid feet first. Clearly when you're coming out, forward momentum makes it virtually impossible to stop on a six pence. But he could have done a better job of standing up. As such I wouldn't have been surprised if a pen had been given. That said, we should have had one minutes earlier from the hold on Fonte.

[the_emu]

Don't give a toss about your sanity, if you can't deal with people having a different opinion than yours then don't come on here. Don't agree with Graham Poll, but there he may be a more experienced ex-referee than me, but in my opinion he is incorrect. In my opinion and many others, it was not a penalty, and everyone seems to agree it shouldn't have been a red card. Fletcher had already played the ball (and it was going wide). Forster did not clatter into Fletcher, Poll is completely wrong on that. The fact that Fletcher did not appeal speaks volumes to me. He knew it wasn't a penalty.

 

I am enjoying the debate over whether it was a pen or not, people are since making sane comments, and their opinions are subjective.

 

However, what you seem to not realise is where the ball is, or was heading has absolutely no bearing on whether is was a pen or not. This is a fact.

[Toadhall Saint]

It wasn't a penalty. Surely that would have made the papers or the refs report? Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks really.

[Whitey Grandad]

IMO he hadn't stopped - not least because he slid feet first. Clearly when you're coming out, forward momentum makes it virtually impossible to stop on a six pence. But he could have done a better job of standing up. As such I wouldn't have been surprised if a pen had been given. That said, we should have had one minutes earlier from the hold on Fonte.

 

Fair enough, but just out of interest was your view side on or looking down the pitch?

[Toon Saint]

I thought it was a penalty watching it live (from Kingsland/Northam corner) and thought it was definitely one watching it on MOTD. Probably not a red card as the goal-scoring chance was possibly gone, but Forster was reckless, and given the speed he was coming out at it wasn't surprising that Fletcher over-cooked it. Not really sure what Fletcher could have done in that scenario (apart from take the chance very early) so definitely have some sympathy for Sunderland there and we got lucky. Forster has looked a bit nervy in the past couple of games, and he's not really convinced me coming for any 1-on-1's yet, which is surprising given his size. Boruc seems better in that regard; Forster is too slow in terms of anticipating the danger.

[Saint Pete]

Graham Poll made a statement that Forster 'clattered into' the attacker, which is not a fact, it is an opinion. When a Keeper dives and a player collides with him, it cannot automatically be a foul by the keeper, because if so, penalties would be given in almost every game. Collisions, by definition, involve more than one person so to be a foul by one or the other is a matter of judgement. Forster dived with the clear intention of blocking the ball and succeeded in making the striker send the kick off target. The collision after the ball was played was just that, a collision, on which the referee had three options (1) free kick for Southampton; (2) Penalty for Sunderland; (3) no action. He chose the third option which was also the fair option because the ball was going out of play and the collision had not affected the outcome. If Poll would have chosen an option that would give an unfair advantage to one team and create a goal scoring opportunity where there had not been one, its just as well he's no longer a referee.

 

So, are you saying that whenever anyone makes a late tackle after the ball has gone, it should be ruled as a "collision" and no foul? Forster was trying to get the ball first, but he didn't, Fletcher did, and if that incident had occurred anywhere else on the pitch, the ref would have given a free kick to Sunderland. You rightly state that the ball was going out of play, but that does not dictate that it wasn't a foul, only that it was not a goalscoring opportunity (therefore no red card). You are right, it's a matter of judgement, but I think in this case, Poll's got it right in his analysis.

[Batman]

It was a foul by forster. We would all be seething had a ref not given that to us

[Batman]

It could have gone either way and shows how difficult it is for a referee to reach a decision. Watching it at the time from the central Kingsland it appeared to me that Fletcher had overhit the ball and Forster came out to block the shot but crucially had stopped short of ploughing through him. Fletcher got a toe to the ball first and then tried to avoid the challenge.

 

It shouldn't have gone either way

It was a penalty all day long

[Wes Tender]

The fact that there are such diverse opinions regarding whether Sunderland deserved a penalty or not, illustrates that it wasn't as clear cut as some would insist it was. Opinions have come from posters on here with refereeing experience, from those who have viewed it first hand from various vantage points and from an ex-Premiership referee who has the benefit of video technology. However, the decision rests with the referee on the pitch and his assistants and he didn't think it was a penalty. Now, he might not have had a perfect view, or he may have had a better view than everybody else. Maybe it wasn't given because Fletcher didn't make a fuss, or because it was the away player and their fans were too far away to make much noise at the other end. Maybe there was some doubt in his mind over whether Long might have had a claim a few minutes earlier and it levelled itself out in the referee's mind.

 

There are any number of reasons why it was debatable and therefore disputed. But ultimately Marriner didn't give it, so end of story. If we were lucky not be penalised by the ref, then that just goes to balance other times when we have had stonewall penalties denied us, or had them awarded against us because of players diving like Moses did against Swansea, or Fonte tugging a shirt, which was as weak a penalty as there has been for some time.

[miserableoldgit]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29643642

 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk