It's a myth!

[Big Ron fan]

A number of posters on here go on about how our young lads can't cope with long ball football, big rough centre-forwards, being kicked off the pitch, etc., etc.

 

Based on what I've seen this season (7 or 8 games), this is nonsense. To quote 3 examples, Bristol City, Blackpool and Forest have done none of the above. They have simply been well-organised sides that know how to defend capably and to exploit weaknesses (e.g. poor marking at set pieces, lack of pace in crucial areas, tendency to overplay in midfield) in our limited and poorly-organised team. They may make less passes than Saints, but those that they make are certainly more effective.

 

I'm just fed up with reading posters state or imply that, along with one or two teams like Reading, we are trying to promote good football, whereas everyone else plays long ball, rough house football resembling Wimbledon of the 1980's. It's utter tosh - just like most of our football this season!

 

Rant over!

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Does that then mean that we can't even really cope with teams which play football?

 

Apart from the odd one or two wins.

[Big Ron fan]

Does that then mean that we can't even really cope with teams which play football?

 

Apart from the odd one or two wins.

 

The evidence would support that, yes.

[Saint Billy]

Saints at present remind of an old John Smiths advert where there are a group of lads participating in a bit of fancy ball skills and Peter Kay comes along and belts the ball as hard as he can whilst saying "ave it".

 

You can see other sides just sit back and let us get on with it because eventually they know that we are going to give it back to them without any real pressure. The simple fact is that most other sides seem to be well organised and we just seem to run about like nervous chicken tippy tapping it about almost as if they are too scared to hold onto the ball for long.

 

I am not blaming the players, they are simply doing what they are instructed to do. I use to feel sorry for JP but now I am feeling really sorry for the players who surley have lost any belief thay had in the management and the system they are being asked to play.

 

Most of us knew this when the two words "Total Football" was first ever mentioned regarding saints before the start of this season. The whole idea was ill conceived and badly implemented. It might have work for the dutch side 30 years ago but they had the quality players to carry it off, it certainly has not worked for us or was ever going to.

 

A well drilled and organised ,side no matter what style it plays, will 9 out of 10 times turn us over despite all the pretty passing. It might be admired by onlookers in as much as we are trying to play attractive football, but as this is a results driven business it is lunacy and in no why a style to play when you are simply trying to survive.

 

Everyone seems to complain about the long ball game, but I would have much rather had the likes of Billy Davies put a side together with a restricted budget, but a side that was difficult to beat and a side that would grind out results on a regular basis. That surley would have been more preferential than the state we are in at the moment. A few more wins and a more healthier league position would be enough entertainment for me at this moment.

[badgerx16]

Most the opposition I've seen has been utter toss too. We just fail to exploit their poor defence, as against Forest, then fall to bits when they get a goal. We're often ****e, but that doesn't mean we're far behind half the league in quality terms.

But that is surely where the quality of the coach comes into play ?

[yorkiesaint]

I only saw the bristol city game but as I remember they scored 2 goals out of nothing from what were essentially long balls that weren't dealt with by the centre backs...

[Big Ron fan]

I only saw the bristol city game but as I remember they scored 2 goals out of nothing from what were essentially long balls that weren't dealt with by the centre backs...

 

Exactly...exploiting our weaknesses. Doesn't make them a long ball or poor footballing side.

[RinNY]

Truth to tell, our defense has not been the main problem this season: we have conceded too many goals, sure, but several teams, including teams above us currently, have conceded more, and we are not far off teams significantly higher in the table in this regard: Derby, Sheffield Wednesday, even Burnley. Surely everyone can see that the problem lies at the other end of the pitch: we don't score anywhere near enough goals! Conceding one or two goals a game, as we do, would not be disastrous if we only scored one or two, but we don't. More so than new or more experienced defenders, we need a goalscorer. Looking at the stats for our games, it is depressing to see in game after game that we have lots of shots, but few of them are on target and scarcely any actually go in and score. Why is that? McGoldrick, for example, used to score for fun in the youth and rerserve teams, at around a goal a game clip, so he obviously knows where the goal is; and it's not as if he doesn't get any shots, any scoring opportunities. So why does he keep missing? Must be a confidence thing. What one wouldn't give to see Marlon Harewood here, as a very implausible rumour on this board suggested, or even to see Rasiak back: a limited player, certainly, but at least he scored goals! I guess we can only hope that Saga gets some playing time and discovers his scoring touch. Because with just a bit more in the scoring department, there is no reason why we can't move up into mid-table, despite what the gloom and doomers on this board think.

[Saint Billy]

Truth to tell, our defense has not been the main problem this season: we have conceded too many goals, sure, but several teams, including teams above us currently, have conceded more, and we are not far off teams significantly higher in the table in this regard: Derby, Sheffield Wednesday, even Burnley. Surely everyone can see that the problem lies at the other end of the pitch: we don't score anywhere near enough goals! Conceding one or two goals a game, as we do, would not be disastrous if we only scored one or two, but we don't. More so than new or more experienced defenders, we need a goalscorer. Looking at the stats for our games, it is depressing to see in game after game that we have lots of shots, but few of them are on target and scarcely any actually go in and score. Why is that? McGoldrick, for example, used to score for fun in the youth and rerserve teams, at around a goal a game clip, so he obviously knows where the goal is; and it's not as if he doesn't get any shots, any scoring opportunities. So why does he keep missing? Must be a confidence thing. What one wouldn't give to see Marlon Harewood here, as a very implausible rumour on this board suggested, or even to see Rasiak back: a limited player, certainly, but at least he scored goals! I guess we can only hope that Saga gets some playing time and discovers his scoring touch. Because with just a bit more in the scoring department, there is no reason why we can't move up into mid-table, despite what the gloom and doomers on this board think.

 

RhinNY, are you losing the faith?

[um pahars]

Truth to tell, our defense has not been the main problem this season: we have conceded too many goals, sure, but several teams, including teams above us currently, have conceded more, and we are not far off teams significantly higher in the table in this regard: Derby, Sheffield Wednesday, even Burnley.

 

Three - Norwich, Charlton & Watford.

 

 

We are 21st with regards goals against.

 

We are 23rd with regards goals for.

 

We are 23rd with regards current league position.

 

We are 23rd with regards current form (8 games).

 

We are 24th with regards current form (6 games).

 

We are 20th with regards our record against the top half.

 

We are 23rd with regards our record against the bottom half.

 

We are 22nd with regards keeping a clean sheet.

 

We are 22nd with regards our ability to score first.

 

 

It's all relative I suppose.

[RinNY]

Three - Norwich, Charlton & Watford.

 

 

We are 21st with regards goals against.

 

We are 23rd with regards goals for.

 

We are 23rd with regards current league position.

 

We are 23rd with regards current form (8 games).

 

We are 24th with regards current form (6 games).

 

We are 20th with regards our record against the top half.

 

We are 23rd with regards our record against the bottom half.

 

We are 22nd with regards keeping a clean sheet.

 

We are 22nd with regards our ability to score first.

 

 

It's all relative I suppose.

 

 

 

Right, so we are indeed worse in goals scored than in goals allowed. Now consider Burnley: 17th in goals allowed at 35, only five fewer than us; 3rd in goals scored at 40; and they sit in 5th position well in the promotion hunt. Doesn't that tell you that scoring more goals than we have would do more for us than allowing fewer? Only one team in the CCC, the woeful Doncaster Rovers, have scored fewer than us; and we are not just low in goals scored, we are way behind most other teams. If we had managed on average one more goal every other game (i.e. 0.5 goals per game more) we'd have 13 more goals, giving us 35 goals scored, putting us solidly in the middle pack in goals scored and very likely around mid-table in points too, by turning some draws into wins and some losses into draws. You might say that's an unrealistic target, but I don't think it is when you look at the number of chances created, in terms of shots pergame. It just requires better finishing. I don't pretend to know why, other than inexperience and lack of confidence, our strikers and midfielders don't convert a higher percentage of their chances into goals. But I do say that goalscoring is the real problem, rather than defence.

 

I'll also say that those who slag off McGoldrick and praise Lallana need to look at their respective scoring records a moment: nothing against Lallana, an excellent and very promising player; but until he learns where exactly the goal is and how to direct his shots towards the goal rather than the stands, talk about a Prem team buying him for real money is absurd. In other words, it isn't just one player, it's all of our strikers and midfielders, including one or two highly touted loanee strikers like Pekhart, who seem to have forgotten the classic art of putting ball in goal.Until someone on the team figures out how to score reasonably regularly, we will continue to draw games we could win, and lose games we could draw or win, and struggle in or around the relegation zone.

 

And btw, don't think the team's abysmal goalscoring record doesn't negatively affect the defence too: it's damned stressful going out every game knowing you have to keep a clean sheet to stand a chance of a point!

[um pahars]

Right, so we are indeed worse in goals scored than in goals allowed. Now consider Burnley: 17th in goals allowed at 35, only five fewer than us; 3rd in goals scored at 40; and they sit in 5th position well in the promotion hunt. Doesn't that tell you that scoring more goals than we have would do more for us than allowing fewer? Only one team in the CCC, the woeful Doncaster Rovers, have scored fewer than us; and we are not just low in goals scored, we are way behind most other teams. If we had managed on average one more goal every other game (i.e. 0.5 goals per game more) we'd have 13 more goals, giving us 35 goals scored, putting us solidly in the middle pack in goals scored and very likely around mid-table in points too, by turning some draws into wins and some losses into draws. You might say that's an unrealistic target, but I don't think it is when you look at the number of chances created, in terms of shots pergame. It just requires better finishing. I don't pretend to know why, other than inexperience and lack of confidence, our strikers and midfielders don't convert a higher percentage of their chances into goals. But I do say that goalscoring is the real problem, rather than defence.

 

I'll also say that those who slag off McGoldrick and praise Lallana need to look at their respective scoring records a moment: nothing against Lallana, an excellent and very promising player; but until he learns where exactly the goal is and how to direct his shots towards the goal rather than the stands, talk about a Prem team buying him for real money is absurd. In other words, it isn't just one player, it's all of our strikers and midfielders, including one or two highly touted loanee strikers like Pekhart, who seem to have forgotten the classic art of putting ball in goal.Until someone on the team figures out how to score reasonably regularly, we will continue to draw games we could win, and lose games we could draw or win, and struggle in or around the relegation zone.

 

And btw, don't think the team's abysmal goalscoring record doesn't negatively affect the defence too: it's damned stressful going out every game knowing you have to keep a clean sheet to stand a chance of a point!

 

If, if, if.

 

If we had scored 5 more goals we would go up to something like 18th in the goals scored table, and if we had conceded 5 less we would move up to 17th in the goal against table.

 

What all those stats say is that it's not just the fact we need to score, they show that from almost every angle we are in the relegation zone.

 

Our main problem this season is that we're just not very good.

[Big Ron fan]

As the starter of this thread, I should add that, having had Watford mentioned, I do think they played football from the dark ages, both this season and last. They probably don't now that Boothroyd has gone, though.