Saints 2-1 Wrexham - Match Thread

[Gloucester Saint]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Cam Archer plays off the last man. In a situation like yesterday when we were camped in their half, he's literally there for knock-downs and rebounds. That's why he didn't touch the ball much.

Downs just wasn't found with any crosses.

Our crossing, until Manning came on, was worse than Richard Dawkins.

[CheshireSaint]

What a finish that was. I have not seen much criticism of Still, despite starting with a midget up front and two wingers. There was many a time where we could have crossed, but opted to turn back as no target man. Armstrong is woeful. He hates defenders that much, he shoots at them constantly. 60 minutes in, Still has a line up looking something like that, that should have started. Hopefully the penny has dropped. Great to beat the goats in such a fashion though. You'd have thought the pub I was in was full of Saints, such was the roar as our goals went in. Great stuff. Onwards and upwards.

[SWLondon Saint]

46 minutes ago, Crab Lungs said:

Also - and I do understand the game dynamics and that we were chasing the game but he clearly recognised the starting fullbacks were not up to it defensively and hooked them.
 

Oh… and Sugawara’s defending for the Windass shot on the bar. Minging.

 

You've got to be joking right? Wrexham were offering very little going forward when Sugawara and Welington went off and they were pulled for fresh attacking players.

And for the Windass shot, when Windass picks the ball up, Quarshie is nearest him but retreats to get to his LCB position and probably either he should have stayed close to him or Stephens has to step up since Edwards sticks to Moore who peels more into a central position. The fullback makes a completely untracked run on the outside which Sugawara gets pulled towards as well, so in the end Suga dives towards the shot from too far away because no-one else is near him.

He's not great but this is totally one-eyed criticism where you're determined to scapegoat the player you can't stand. 

[Stud mark of doom]

What a brilliant end to the first game. 
 

Two fantastic goals to celebrate - and without the dampener of potential VAR “correction”. 

[Saint Gifford]

Trouble for Wrexham is they are still playing Conference Football, with a Manager still trying to replicate what he / they have done the last few seasons. 

Being physical and making stupid challenges that you get away with in the lower leagues with officials that aren’t at the level of Prem Champ, you will get found out very quickly. 

First game for us and yes we were 1 down until Injury time. ( Penalty, not open play)  But give it another couple of months when the pitches aren’t rock hard and teams like us are getting into top gear.  Wrexham will be fucked on the basis of that performance from them. 

 

[lambtiss]

8 minutes ago, Saint Gifford said:

Trouble for Wrexham is they are still playing Conference Football, with a Manager still trying to replicate what he / they have done the last few seasons. 

Being physical and making stupid challenges that you get away with in the lower leagues with officials that aren’t at the level of Prem Champ, you will get found out very quickly. 

First game for us and yes we were 1 down until Injury time. ( Penalty, not open play)  But give it another couple of months when the pitches aren’t rock hard and teams like us are getting into top gear.  Wrexham will be fucked on the basis of that performance from them. 

 

Based solely on that showing, I think Wrexham will be fine in the Championship if they can keep Moore fit as a target man. I'm sure they will strengthen before the window closes. 

[Gloucester Saint]

On Parkinson’s complaints about why Edwards wasn’t sent off, having watched the highlights back, it reinforces what I thought in real time that Stephens was getting to it anyway and that’s what the referee thought. Far be it from me to defend the referee after missing two stonewall ones for us but it is true.

Even more stupid for Edwards to panic but hopefully he improves with more minutes. 100% needs to start at Northampton to get some sharpness. 

Edited Sunday at 08:45 by Gloucester Saint
Edwards, not Edward’s. Flipping autocorrect

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Gloucester Saint said:

On Parkinson’s complaints about why Edward’s wasn’t sent off, having watched the highlights back, it reinforces what I thought in real time that Stephens was getting to it anyway and that’s what the referee thought. Far be it from me to defend the referee after missing two stonewall ones for us but it is true.

Even more stupid for Edwards to panic but hopefully he improves with more minutes. 100% needs to start at Northampton to get some sharpness. 

When discussing the 'laws of the game' on Sky, they believe he should have been sent off given the ref gave that penalty, regardless of who else was near Moore

[Gloucester Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

When discussing the 'laws of the game' on Sky, they believe he should have been sent off given the ref gave that penalty, regardless of who else was near Moore

Makes better/more controversial talking point.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Makes better/more controversial talking point.

according to the laws of the game, if he the penalty is given for that offence, he should have been sent off.

The ref was fucking appalling, so no wonder he got it wrong

[beatlesaint]

31 minutes ago, CheshireSaint said:

What a finish that was. I have not seen much criticism of Still, despite starting with a midget up front and two wingers. There was many a time where we could have crossed, but opted to turn back as no target man. Armstrong is woeful. He hates defenders that much, he shoots at them constantly. 60 minutes in, Still has a line up looking something like that, that should have started. Hopefully the penny has dropped. Great to beat the goats in such a fashion though. You'd have thought the pub I was in was full of Saints, such was the roar as our goals went in. Great stuff. Onwards and upwards.

To be fair Russell Martin knew Armstrong had to be played out wide, even he worked out he wasn't any good in the middle. WBA found that out too during that loan spell last season. I was amazed WS played him through the middle but if he wants wingers then that wide role isnt available to Armstrong I suppose. He's not a target man for how Still wants to play and that, for manager and player, is the problem.

[spyinthesky]

Just a thought, when we were last in the Championship we scored a last minute equaliser in the first home game v Norwich (albeit with a dodgy pen) in a 4-4 draw with Norwich

[Raging Bull]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Also interesting to hear that he is aware of the criticism that he has got in the past. From a purely human level, it really must take some fortitude to overcome that.

I think his celebration pointed directly at the criticism he’s received. Fair play to the bloke.  
 

There’s only 1 Cornish Maldini

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

according to the laws of the game, if he the penalty is given for that offence, he should have been sent off.

Thats my understanding. The “ covering player” stuff is for outside the box, determining whether it’s a yellow or red. I thought the rules were changed and inside the box it was a question of whether an attempt was made to play the ball. Wasn’t Fraser sent off last year pulling someone back. 

Edited Sunday at 08:58 by Lord Duckhunter

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Thats my understanding. The “ covering player” stuff is for outside the box, determining whether it’s a yellow or red. I thought the rules were changed and inside the box it was a question of whether an attempt was made to play the ball. 

that is what they read out on Sky. It was not a controversial talking point, it was literally reading the laws of the game. Parkinson was right to be miffed on not seeing a red (or even a yellow) for that penalty.

 

[Farmer Saint]

13 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

On Parkinson’s complaints about why Edwards wasn’t sent off, having watched the highlights back, it reinforces what I thought in real time that Stephens was getting to it anyway and that’s what the referee thought. Far be it from me to defend the referee after missing two stonewall ones for us but it is true.

Even more stupid for Edwards to panic but hopefully he improves with more minutes. 100% needs to start at Northampton to get some sharpness. 

That's irrelevant - Edwards not trying to make an effort to get the ball is a red card. It doesn't matter where Stephens was.

[Whitey Grandad]

6 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

On Parkinson’s complaints about why Edwards wasn’t sent off, having watched the highlights back, it reinforces what I thought in real time that Stephens was getting to it anyway and that’s what the referee thought. Far be it from me to defend the referee after missing two stonewall ones for us but it is true.

Even more stupid for Edwards to panic but hopefully he improves with more minutes. 100% needs to start at Northampton to get some sharpness. 

Not running "directly towards goal", Stephens close by and blocking the goal so not an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Edwards lucky not to get a yellow card though since there was no attempt at a genuine tackle. What on earth was he thinking?

Our two penalty calls were some way off being 'stonewall'. Charles's shot hit a defender's arm that was dangling by his side and not in an unnatural position and that shirt pull on Downs was not 'significant'. Stephens's last-ditch tackle on there forward was just the right side of legal, but only just. Fine margins. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Stephens close by and blocking the goal

Stephens was behind him. 

Edited Sunday at 09:06 by Lord Duckhunter

[Whitey Grandad]

16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

When discussing the 'laws of the game' on Sky, they believe he should have been sent off given the ref gave that penalty, regardless of who else was near Moore

Sky know nothing about the Laws of the Game. They should all be sent on refereeing courses. It was a foul but not a DOGSO.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

Sky know nothing about the Laws of the Game. They should all be sent on refereeing courses. It was a foul but not a DOGSO.

They literally read it out. 

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Stephens was behind him. 

I've just had another look. Stephens was alongside and matching stride for stride. Enough to have probably blocked any attempted shot by Moore.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

They literally read it out. 

Which part? This part?

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.

[Whitey Grandad]

18 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Thats my understanding. The “ covering player” stuff is for outside the box, determining whether it’s a yellow or red. I thought the rules were changed and inside the box it was a question of whether an attempt was made to play the ball. Wasn’t Fraser sent off last year pulling someone back. 

 

17 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

that is what they read out on Sky. It was not a controversial talking point, it was literally reading the laws of the game. Parkinson was right to be miffed on not seeing a red (or even a yellow) for that penalty.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's irrelevant - Edwards not trying to make an effort to get the ball is a red card. It doesn't matter where Stephens was.

Please see my reply above.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Which part? This part?

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off.

There we go

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

There we go

 

The crucial wording here is "in all other circumstances"

[mitch01]

What a save by Bazunu

[saintant]

24 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

To be fair Russell Martin knew Armstrong had to be played out wide, even he worked out he wasn't any good in the middle. WBA found that out too during that loan spell last season. I was amazed WS played him through the middle but if he wants wingers then that wide role isnt available to Armstrong I suppose. He's not a target man for how Still wants to play and that, for manager and player, is the problem.

There are enough at the club and particularly Adam Lallana who could have had a word in Will Still's ear the minute he declared he intended playing AA through the middle. Adam is a coach now and should have made his feelings known - maybe he did and was ignored but hopefully lessons have been learned because this mistake has been replicated too many times. It hasn't worked, didn't work yesterday, has never worked and never will work.

[Oldandtired]

None of this matters re the red card because

1 We won

2 The referee was abysmal in his refereeing for both sides, we won some, we lost some.

3 These things will undoubtedly even themselves out over the course of the season.

Edited Sunday at 09:21 by Oldandtired

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, Oldandtired said:

The referee was abysmal in his refereeing for both sides, we won some, we lost some. These things will undoubtedly even themselves out over the course of the season.

Why?

Edited Sunday at 09:27 by Matthew Le God

[saintant]

20 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Not running "directly towards goal", Stephens close by and blocking the goal so not an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Edwards lucky not to get a yellow card though since there was no attempt at a genuine tackle. What on earth was he thinking?

Our two penalty calls were some way off being 'stonewall'. Charles's shot hit a defender's arm that was dangling by his side and not in an unnatural position and that shirt pull on Downs was not 'significant'. Stephens's last-ditch tackle on there forward was just the right side of legal, but only just. Fine margins. 

His arm was clearly away from his body in an attempt to make himself bigger. These days players generally tuck their arms in to show they are not seeking to gain an advantage. Their defender held his arms away from his body so stonewall penalty for me particularly as it was a shot on goal from Charles.

[Midfield_General]

16 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I'm just going through the recording now. Comfortably onside by a couple of yards.

There was nothing wrong with the refereeing. His job wasn't helped by the players throwing themselves to the ground whenever possible. 

Oh come on, the ref was absolutely appalling. He missed two blatant penalties for a start. 

And what about when he stopped the game for a head injury and the replay showed that in actual fact the ball had hit the bloke in the nuts? 

[Matthew Le God]

14 minutes ago, saintant said:

His arm was clearly away from his body in an attempt to make himself bigger. These days players generally tuck their arms in to show they are not seeking to gain an advantage. Their defender held his arms away from his body so stonewall penalty for me particularly as it was a shot on goal from Charles.

Arms are used for balance. Having your arms tucked in is more unnatural than having them out for balance. Do you walk, jog and run with your arms by your side?

Edited Sunday at 09:39 by Matthew Le God

[Saints4Prem]

Our good Friend Mark Clattenburg had his view on the penalty decisions as below. In another quote he pointed out that Jack Stevens was in a covering position so no red card but it should have been a yellow.

As quoted by The Wrexham Insider, Clattenburg sympathised with Wrexham not getting an extra man advantage: "A push in the back is not a genuine attempt to play the ball so therefore the only other thing that can save Edwards from a red card is a covering defender."

Honestly, the penalty whistle was correct and the 22-year-old Saint deserved some extra consequences, but what about the visitor's antics inside the box? There were handballs and player-pulls not evaluated appropriately, and if defenders should be made to overpay as above, then it's fair to acknowledge that Southampton were denied twice.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, saintant said:

His arm was clearly away from his body in an attempt to make himself bigger. These days players generally tuck their arms in to show they are not seeking to gain an advantage. Their defender held his arms away from his body so stonewall penalty for me particularly as it was a shot on goal from Charles.

The holding arms behind your back business went out a couple of seasons ago when the interpretation was 'clarified'. The shot on goal bit is not relevant. 

[saintant]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Arms are used for balance. Having your arms tucked in is more unnatural than having them out for balance.

Give me strength 🙂 I'm pretty sure the rule about handball is that players must not use them to make themselves bigger and more likely to block a shot. I get it's not natural to have your arms tucked in but explain to me why most players do it on a regular basis - they do it because they know they run a big risk of conceding a penalty if their arms are not tucked in. I'm pretty sure if that had been in the Premier League VAR would have supported our penalty claims.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Oh come on, the ref was absolutely appalling. He missed two blatant penalties for a start. 

And what about when he stopped the game for a head injury and the replay showed that in actual fact the ball had hit the bloke in the nuts? 

Blatant to you, perhaps, but not to an impartial observer.

That player was holding his head and I don't think the referee saw the incident. The actual stoppage came some time later, didn't it?

[bpsaint]

34 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Not running "directly towards goal", Stephens close by and blocking the goal so not an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Edwards lucky not to get a yellow card though since there was no attempt at a genuine tackle. What on earth was he thinking?

Our two penalty calls were some way off being 'stonewall'. Charles's shot hit a defender's arm that was dangling by his side and not in an unnatural position and that shirt pull on Downs was not 'significant'. Stephens's last-ditch tackle on there forward was just the right side of legal, but only just. Fine margins. 

Can’t agree with the penalties not being stonewall, I reckon VAR would have given both of them with no arguments.

That being said VAR would have had an absolute field day yesterday, and I’m glad we don’t have to worry about it for a season at least.

Edited Sunday at 09:36 by bpsaint

[Smirking_Saint]

19 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The crucial wording here is "in all other circumstances"

It was one of the other circumstances, he pushed him with no attempt to play the ball

We got away with one

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, saintant said:

Give me strength 🙂 I'm pretty sure the rule about handball is that players must not use them to make themselves bigger and more likely to block a shot. I get it's not natural to have your arms tucked in but explain to me why most players do it on a regular basis - they do it because they know they run a big risk of conceding a penalty if their arms are not tucked in. I'm pretty sure if that had been in the Premier League VAR would have supported our penalty claims.

That has changed. And quite right too. The previous interpretation was a nonsense. Tucking the arms behind the back is no longer necessary. In my view that defenders arm was in a natural position. 

 

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, saintant said:

Give me strength 🙂 I'm pretty sure the rule about handball is that players must not use them to make themselves bigger and more likely to block a shot. I get it's not natural to have your arms tucked in but explain to me why most players do it on a regular basis - they do it because they know they run a big risk of conceding a penalty if their arms are not tucked in. I'm pretty sure if that had been in the Premier League VAR would have supported our penalty claims.

They 'do it' for balance and to stop themselves falling over. It isn’t even a conscious thing.

[saintant]

7 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The holding arms behind your back business went out a couple of seasons ago when the interpretation was 'clarified'. The shot on goal bit is not relevant. 

Don't know where you get your info from but below is a direct quote from Kevin Friend of the PGMOL

'We're basically looking for examples where it clearly hits the arm unjustifiably, hands above the head, away from the body, to deliberately block the ball from going into the box or into the goal.'

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

Can’t agree with the penalties not being stonewall, I reckon VAR would have given both of them with no arguments.

That being said VAR would have had an absolute field day yesterday, and I’m glad we don’t have to worry about it for a season at least.

Even with VAR they would have been referred to the referee but only if the VAR official felt that there was a strong case for it.  As you say, I think we're better off without it.

[miserableoldgit]

The only person moaning about it was the dour, miserable git Parkinson, and the Sky crew jumped on it.

[Smirking_Saint]

For me, of the major talking points;

- Edwards probably should of been sent off

- The Wrexham handball was pretty stonewall, if that was under a VAR challenge in the prem its given

- The Quarshie pull was probably a pen, I try to look at things in balance and if it was given against us Id of been annoyed at the guy pulling him

 

The ref was horrendous though, giving Wrexham benefit of the doubt, there was plenty of play acting from both sides but the ref only seemed interested in rewarding the visitors 

[Saints4Prem]

Can you imagine the 5 minute wait to celebrate the winner whilst VAR tried to find someone offside for the winner. I am with Clattenburg above on the two obvious penalties (sorry MLG and Whitey)  and why no red card see the quote from him above. 

[richardc]

21 minutes ago, mitch01 said:

What a save by Bazunu

is your stream lagging a bit

[Oldandtired]

19 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why?

Because they do. 
 

Go pick a fight somewhere else.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

It was one of the other circumstances, he pushed him with no attempt to play the ball

We got away with one

The 'other circumstance ' being that defined in the sentence above. It wasn't a DOGSO. This is z poor photo. Perhaps some kind soul could invert it for me?

[AlexLaw76]

Someone fouled, 8 yards from goal, is not a goal scoring opportunity territory.

Jesus

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, Oldandtired said:

Because they do. 
 

Go pick a fight somewhere else.

It wasn't a 'fight'. It was a question for clarification, which you avoided.