Man City 0-0 Saints - Match Thread

[Streaky]

1 hour ago, stevy777_x said:

I ll say it again. He doesn’t have the height or strength to make it in this league.

Neither did Michael Owen but didn't stop him winning the balon d or. He's not a target man so why is that important. He would have scored if walker didn't take him out for a pen.

[skintsaint]

3 minutes ago, Streaky said:

Neither did Michael Owen but didn't stop him winning the balon d or. He's not a target man so why is that important. He would have scored if walker didn't take him out for a pen.

and likely against Newcastle...again taken down.

[redder freak]

20 minutes ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Keith Hackett - VAR was wrong and should have been a penalty

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/19591346.keith-hackett-says-var-completely-wrong-amid-walker-red-card/

Just shows it's all about a subjective opinion, there's no 100% right or wrong.

Sadly Keith Hackett wasn’t in charge of the game. We like to think that the most important thing is the fair and correct decision. But football isn’t like that. It’s only entertainment, for a start. Even controversial decisions are entertaining, especially if your team does well out of it.

[Toussaint]

On 19/09/2021 at 01:07, GarrettIvo said:

Back to back clean sheets for the first time since December-January.

 

Glad the issue has cleared up, I hope those little accidents are well and truly behind you. 

[LiberalCommunist]

Is there any news on Stephens injury as yet. 

Looked quite innocuous, which is always a worry. 

[Greenridge]

1 hour ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Keith Hackett - VAR was wrong and should have been a penalty

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/19591346.keith-hackett-says-var-completely-wrong-amid-walker-red-card/

Just shows it's all about a subjective opinion, there's no 100% right or wrong.

And Dermot Gallagher says it was the correct decision

Ref Watch: Dermot Gallagher on Kyle Walker, Cristiano Ronaldo and Brighton vs Leicester incidents | Football News | Sky Sports

 

[igsey]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

These idiot referee analysts just back up whatever decision the ref has made. Peter Walton is a joke, i've never heard him say the ref got it wrong. 

I remember when KWP got sent off vs Palace last season - it was on BT so they got Walton on, saying "I can see why the ref's given that, correct decision" as Moss waddled over to the monitor, then when it got overturned he's saying "correct decision to overturn, excellent refereeing and use of VAR".

[Sheaf Saint]

30 minutes ago, Greenridge said:

And Dermot Gallagher says it was the correct decision

Ref Watch: Dermot Gallagher on Kyle Walker, Cristiano Ronaldo and Brighton vs Leicester incidents | Football News | Sky Sports

 

I don't get his reasoning here. He's saying Walker got in front of Armstrong but didn't play the ball.

So how is that not a foul then?

[LiberalCommunist]

They just make it up as they go along. And if that's not bad enough, changing you mind because you have let the players surround you for two minutes if just weak. 

[Trader]

9 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I don't get his reasoning here. He's saying Walker got in front of Armstrong but didn't play the ball.

So how is that not a foul then?

Obstruction is not a foul in football - your’e allowed to shield the ball and not play it.

Happens all the time.

[Badger]

6 minutes ago, Trader said:

Obstruction is not a foul in football - your’e allowed to shield the ball and not play it.

Happens all the time.

When does "obstruction" become a 'body check' as it used to be called, which was a foul ?

Shielding the ball is permitted, but that probably changes where there is contact.

Edited 20 September, 2021 by Badger

[Badger]

3 hours ago, stevy777_x said:

I ll say it again. He doesn’t have the height or strength to make it in this league.

I'm normally with you on this, and am not a fan of having just shortarse strikers. But I do think AA has something about him and will turn out a useful purchase. 

As someone else has said though he's not a target man and shouldn't be judged against say Pelle.

[Warriorsaint]

On 18/09/2021 at 21:42, Hatch said:

That’s a proper match report right there 

You flirt…..Fancy a drink?  🥃 

[rallyboy]

This Moss defence seems to be that if a defender trips a forward, the forward is to blame as he has shinned the defender's foot...or in this case, Armstrong hipped Walker's thigh while obstructing the city defender from getting anywhere near the ball, a ball he was attempting to shield from behind Armstrong.....

So Moss is no clown, he's just introduced the concept of distanced-shielding when not in possession, and he's reinventing the concept of foul play.

The guy is a trailblazer, one of the great thinkers of the modern game. 

Definitely not a clown.

 

 

[Fan The Flames]

4 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

And I don't see why he should be allowed to stay on the pitch and enter into a debate with the referee. In that situation, he should be made to leave the field and only then return if and when the original decision is overturned.

Theres no doubt that his remonstrating with Moss influenced him to change his mind. He then went to try and psych out JWP while Moss was checking the monitor. 

He shouldn't be allowed to do either of those things in that scenario.

That might be your opinion but it's not the rules, the players must stay on the field until the review is complete. They are not naughty boys but sportsmen.

Players try to influence refs all.the time, Moss shouldn't be influenced. If he stepped over the line with JWP, then our players should have stepped up to tell him to do one.

[cloggy saint]

To me it just looked as if Walker and JWP were having a chat, nothing to suggest he was trying to psych him out.

[VectisSaint]

6 minutes ago, cloggy saint said:

To me it just looked as if Walker and JWP were having a chat, nothing to suggest he was trying to psych him out.

Quite, looked a very good natured chat between England team mates to me. Walker was probably just doing a bit of tapping up on behalf of Pep. 

[rallyboy]

That chat did look good-natured, but the referee engaging in debate with Walker and allowing the player to join in during the decision-making process was out of order.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

When does "obstruction" become a 'body check' as it used to be called, which was a foul ?

Shielding the ball is permitted, but that probably changes where there is contact.

 

3 hours ago, Trader said:

Obstruction is not a foul in football - your’e allowed to shield the ball and not play it.

Happens all the time.

You can shield the ball provided it is within playing distance but in this case Armstrong sticks his leg across to protect the ball and Walker then tries to hook his leg around to win it. I don’t think Walker ever touched the ball which was under Armstrong’s control so in my view it was a foul and therefore a penalty. Not a red card though.

[Streaky]

4 hours ago, Trader said:

Obstruction is not a foul in football - your’e allowed to shield the ball and not play it.

Happens all the time.

Obstruction is a foul in football. Walker never had the ball to shield in the first place.

[John Boy Saint]

9 minutes ago, Streaky said:

Obstruction is a foul in football. Walker never had the ball to shield in the first place.

Obstruction is no longer a foul in football was replaced with impeding, and impeding is only called when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

[Shroppie]

6 hours ago, Greenridge said:

And Dermot Gallagher says it was the correct decision

Ref Watch: Dermot Gallagher on Kyle Walker, Cristiano Ronaldo and Brighton vs Leicester incidents | Football News | Sky Sports

 

I think that is utter bollocks. Completely ignores the initial push on Armstrong which knocked him over and was the only reason Walker got in front of him. Just one angle made it look doubtful. All the others showed how clear cut it was. Why did they only choose to show that view over and over? Obvious. They were looking for a predetermined outcome.

[Saint Martini]

https://zuishek.medium.com/southamptons-press-and-the-hypnosis-of-pep-guardiola-2dcf986923e5
 

Tactocal analysis of our pressing against City. 

[Verbal Kint]

16 hours ago, Streaky said:

He would have scored if walker didn't take him out for a pen.

 

16 hours ago, skintsaint said:

and likely against Newcastle...again taken down.

Based on what? He missed two absolute sitters against Man Utd so I don't know where that confidence is coming from.

It's too early to judge him but all he has shown so far is that he is good at pressing. Hopefully over the next few weeks in slightly easier looking games he shows us he has a lot more than that to offer.

On the game overall, I thought tactically we were excellent and defensively we were really strong. It's unfortunate that our attacking play is poor as otherwise we would have won I think. The number of times we got Redmond, Elyounoussi, Armstrong and Adams into great positions and failed to do anything with it was infuriating. 

Can't fault the effort of the players or Ralph's tactical set up, we just have very poor attacking players (specifically redmond, djenepo and elyounoussi) and no longer have Ings to bail us out

[skintsaint]

3 minutes ago, Verbal Kint said:

Based on what? He missed two absolute sitters against Man Utd so I don't know where that confidence is coming from.

I said likely and going on his finish a few games back. Hard to tell if he keeps getting chugged down when through on goal.

Edited 21 September, 2021 by skintsaint

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Verbal Kint said:

 

Based on what? He missed two absolute sitters against Man Utd so I don't know where that confidence is coming from.

It's too early to judge him but all he has shown so far is that he is good at pressing. Hopefully over the next few weeks in slightly easier looking games he shows us he has a lot more than that to offer.

On the game overall, I thought tactically we were excellent and defensively we were really strong. It's unfortunate that our attacking play is poor as otherwise we would have won I think. The number of times we got Redmond, Elyounoussi, Armstrong and Adams into great positions and failed to do anything with it was infuriating. 

Can't fault the effort of the players or Ralph's tactical set up, we just have very poor attacking players (specifically redmond, djenepo and elyounoussi) and no longer have Ings to bail us out

Whether or not you think that he is likely to score is irrelevant. He is entitled to have the opportunity without being taken out.

[kenneth_kenobi]

20 hours ago, Trader said:

Obstruction is not a foul in football - your’e allowed to shield the ball and not play it.

Happens all the time.

But after all that, why did Man City get a free kick??

[Totton Saint]

Regardless of the Moss debacle, both teams contributed to a most entertaining game. If Moss gave a red card for the severity of the KW's foul how can he then  do a complete volte face and say no foul? Did he give a yellow to AA for a perceived dive?

[david in sweden]

The reverse angle  shows Walker pushing his arm into Armstrongs back - even before he put his leg over 

and - was he nowhere near the ball in the entire scenario.

Just another example of a referee who thinks he has a right to help determine who will become 

League champions and giving the doubt to the home side. 

i.e. ....Saints don't need the point(s) as much as City who are more likely to win the title again.

and the 6 minutes of added time was extended to  8  ...... before he blew the final whistle, but

fortunately it didn't make the difference. 

[david in sweden]

18 hours ago, cloggy saint said:

To me it just looked as if Walker and JWP were having a chat, nothing to suggest he was trying to psych him out.

it was hardly " a chat" ...as Prowsey was  "politely " ignoring him the whole time.

Walker is a past master of  this type of situation and his record of red cards shows this was not an isolated incident 

but part of his manner.   He knew JWP would take an eventual penalty and was doing his best to unsettle him.

[Billy the Kidd]

34 minutes ago, david in sweden said:

The reverse angle  shows Walker pushing his arm into Armstrongs back - even before he put his leg over 

and - was he nowhere near the ball in the entire scenario.

Just another example of a referee who thinks he has a right to help determine who will become 

League champions and giving the doubt to the home side. 

i.e. ....Saints don't need the point(s) as much as City who are more likely to win the title again.

and the 6 minutes of added time was extended to  8  ...... before he blew the final whistle, but

fortunately it didn't make the difference. 

Not sure about the time added on to be honest. I thought the pen debacle used up a couple of mins, therefore was added on top of the indicated injury time. I could be wrong, but was what i thought at the time.

[goodymatt]

12 minutes ago, Billy the Kidd said:

Not sure about the time added on to be honest. I thought the pen debacle used up a couple of mins, therefore was added on top of the indicated injury time. I could be wrong, but was what i thought at the time.

The offside review by VAR took over 2 mins so I’m guessing this is why 5 became 8. Made for nervous viewing!

[Badger]

51 minutes ago, david in sweden said:

The reverse angle  shows Walker pushing his arm into Armstrongs back - even before he put his leg over 

 

"leg over" in the penalty area - definitely a red card, in fact indecent assault like that in a public place used to carry a custodial sentence.

[Saint Troy]

6 minutes ago, goodymatt said:

The offside review by VAR took over 2 mins so I’m guessing this is why 5 became 8. Made for nervous viewing!

surely that wouldve been within the added time?! They surely dont hold the board up for added time (excluding VAR discussions)?!

 

[goodymatt]

8 minutes ago, Saint Troy said:

surely that wouldve been within the added time?! They surely dont hold the board up for added time (excluding VAR discussions)?!

 

Offside VAR review was after the 90th minute I think so excluded from the initial 5 mins on the board. It would have been horrendous if they had robbed the win in the dying moments. 

[Saint Troy]

13 minutes ago, goodymatt said:

Offside VAR review was after the 90th minute I think so excluded from the initial 5 mins on the board. It would have been horrendous if they had robbed the win in the dying moments. 

of course! was thinking about the penalty not their offside! cheers  

[cloggy saint]

1 hour ago, david in sweden said:

it was hardly " a chat" ...as Prowsey was  "politely " ignoring him the whole time.

Walker is a past master of  this type of situation and his record of red cards shows this was not an isolated incident 

but part of his manner.   He knew JWP would take an eventual penalty and was doing his best to unsettle him.

Strange, in the clip I saw they were definitely talking.

His record of red cards? He's only ever received 1 in the league.

[Sheaf Saint]

21 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

That might be your opinion but it's not the rules, the players must stay on the field until the review is complete. They are not naughty boys but sportsmen.

Players try to influence refs all.the time, Moss shouldn't be influenced. If he stepped over the line with JWP, then our players should have stepped up to tell him to do one.

Well then the rules need changing. Morally, there is no argument to be made in favour of allowing a player who has already been shown a red card to stay on the pitch to debate the referee and 'chat' with the player waiting to take the penalty while the review is underway. There's no other professional sport in the world that would allow that.

Edited 21 September, 2021 by Sheaf Saint

[Whitey Grandad]

20 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Well then the rules need changing. Morally, there is no argument to be made in favour of allowing a player who has already been shown a red card to stay on the pitch to debate the referee and 'chat' with the player waiting to take the penalty while the review is underway. There's no other professional sport in the world that would allow that.

Indeed. At the very least he should have been told to go and stand on the touch line.

[Fan The Flames]

I guess he's technically not off until the review is complete. Telling the player to stand on the touch line is childish and unnecessary.

The rules already exist to stop him chatting shit to the ref, it's for the ref to tell him to stop and then penalise him if he doesn't.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Well then the rules need changing. Morally, there is no argument to be made in favour of allowing a player who has already been shown a red card to stay on the pitch to debate the referee and 'chat' with the player waiting to take the penalty while the review is underway. There's no other professional sport in the world that would allow that.

FFS, does it really matter. You sound like a right nod. 

[Totton Saint]

has JWP revealed what KW was saying to him? Let's have a drink together after the game perhaps.

[david in sweden]

5 hours ago, cloggy saint said:

Strange, in the clip I saw they were definitely talking.

His record of red cards? He's only ever received 1 in the league.

didn't he get one when playing for England sometime ?

[cloggy saint]

Three career reds. One in the league, one in Europe and one for England.