Jump to content

Saints 1-2 Stoke - Match Thread

Lighthouse

By Lighthouse
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Saint Fan CaM

Saint Fan CaM

Posted
Posted (edited)

The stats would suggest that Stoke are marginally the home team. JayRob hitting the post twice might suggest otherwise. Whether it’s 5 at the back or something else, it’s clear our midfield to attack transitions are basically poor. The one thing that’s keeping us in the game is the shiteness of Stoke up front, which is not really where we should be if we want to be a promotion chasing team.

Edited by Saint Fan CaM
  • Like 2
RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted
Just now, Baz Fl said:

Top 3rd of the pitch is AA with two big centerhalf’s either side of him and no Saints players within 15 yards. No attacking presence with very little chance of scoring. SR need to stop buying strikers that can’t contribute! We have that in abundance already 

Playing like we’re defending a lead late on. 
 

Boring shite. 

Saint_clark

Saint_clark

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, qwertyell said:

Don't know how anyone can look at our XI, subs, squad at large and expect us to be anything other than mediocre. 

This is not a promotion-challenging team. 

 

Nonsense. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
Just now, Willo of Whiteley said:

I reckon Damion Downs will come on, he’s not on the pitch at HT with the others.

Would prefer Stewart.

  • Like 2
santolijador

santolijador

Posted
Posted

A lot of people calling for a change of shape (which I would probably back) - but -  in several interviews, Still has expressed a desire to be sound defensively and not concede - something we have really struggled with in the last 3-4 years. Stoke are pumping in the crosses, Mubama is a handful and the wide players

Is the thinking here to defend our box with 3 larger lads and get forward on the transition (hence playing Armstrong) - granted the latter hasn't worked, but we haven't looked like conceding from crosses, and I thought our defending of the box was solid in fairness.

Just offering an alternate opinion, if I was in charge I'd be playing the 4 back, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to start by keeping clean sheets and build from there. 

  • Like 5
saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
Just now, Saint_clark said:

Waste of time playing this way with Armstrong up front through the middle. 

You'd think at least one smart person at the club would have worked this out by now yet they all watch the same old shit seemingly expecting it to suddenly click. It won't!

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Gloucester Saint

Gloucester Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, John B said:

Stoke is in The north Midlands

Correct, although it feels more northern as a place/s than most of the Midlands and the accent is more northern sounding than Brummie, Black Country or East Midlands accents. 

Edited by Gloucester Saint
saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, santolijador said:

A lot of people calling for a change of shape (which I would probably back) - but -  in several interviews, Still has expressed a desire to be sound defensively and not concede - something we have really struggled with in the last 3-4 years. Stoke are pumping in the crosses, Mubama is a handful and the wide players

Is the thinking here to defend our box with 3 larger lads and get forward on the transition (hence playing Armstrong) - granted the latter hasn't worked, but we haven't looked like conceding from crosses, and I thought our defending of the box was solid in fairness.

Just offering an alternate opinion, if I was in charge I'd be playing the 4 back, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to start by keeping clean sheets and build from there. 

So we have ambitions to go up but are playing a blanket defence at home to fucking Stoke to the detriment of our own attacking prowess. Rather lose having a go than lose playing defensive.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, santolijador said:

A lot of people calling for a change of shape (which I would probably back) - but -  in several interviews, Still has expressed a desire to be sound defensively and not concede - something we have really struggled with in the last 3-4 years. Stoke are pumping in the crosses, Mubama is a handful and the wide players

Is the thinking here to defend our box with 3 larger lads and get forward on the transition (hence playing Armstrong) - granted the latter hasn't worked, but we haven't looked like conceding from crosses, and I thought our defending of the box was solid in fairness.

Just offering an alternate opinion, if I was in charge I'd be playing the 4 back, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to start by keeping clean sheets and build from there. 

Agree - Stoke are a good team and to be fair we have contained them well. There is just a lack of options up top and Armstrong has made it easy to defend against.

  • Like 1
santolijador

santolijador

Posted
Posted
Just now, saintant said:

So we have ambitions to go up but are playing a blanket defence at home to fucking Stoke to the detriment of our own attacking prowess. Rather lose having a go than lose playing defensive.

Burnley managed it

Disco Stu

Disco Stu

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Makes you wonder why he started AA.... ridiculous 

It seems like every time we get a new manager, Armstrong is in their ear asking to play down the middle. A bit like the way Walcott always wanted play the striker role for Arsenal despite being much more effective out wide. Eventually Will Still will learn and he'll be back out wide or on the bench.

Edited by Disco Stu
  • Like 1
tdmickey3

tdmickey3

Posted
Posted
Just now, Disco Stu said:

It seems like everytime we get a new manager, Armstrong is in their ear asking to play down the middle. A bit like the way Walcott always wanted play the striker role for Arsenal despite being much more effective out wide. Eventually Will Still will learn. like all the rest did.

Let's hope so

Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted
Just now, Disco Stu said:

It seems like everytime we get a new manager, Armstrong is in their ear asking to play down the middle. A bit like the way Walcott always wanted play the striker role for Arsenal despite being much more effective out wide. Eventually Will Still will learn. like all the rest did.

Hes much better on the left cutting in but cant play as the main striker. Doubt he will displace Robinson though.

  • Like 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
Just now, saintant said:

Presume it's still 5 at the back which, for most of us, isn't working.

Devils advocate...we haven't conceded, so it's working from a defence perspective. 

  • Haha 1
OttawaSaint

OttawaSaint

Posted
Posted
Just now, egg said:

Devils advocate...we haven't conceded, so it's working from a defence perspective. 

They look dangerous with their corners, us, not so much.

Micky

Micky

Posted
Posted (edited)

Pretty mediocre given we are at home, Stoke quite a bit better than us all over the park.  The sooner that the players learn that just because it's a foul in the premiere league, it ain't necessarily so in the championship, where the standard of refereeing is shockingly bad.  3 atb stifles us in midfield and we struggle to get up the park so when the chances come - we have to take them.  Ohhh and Fernandes is far too good for this league, far too good.

Edited by Micky
  • Like 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, OttawaSaint said:

They look dangerous with their corners, us, not so much.

Indeed, hence an extra CB ain't necessarily a bad thing.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...