So did our formation (that I've been suggesting all year!) work? YES!!

[Trent Canary 0]

Further to my thread this morning, http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/594457/ShowPost.aspx  How did everyone think the formation went?

My opinion is a resounding YES, although with a rather large BUT. In the first twenty minutes we long balled it every time, and quite frankly we were awful! However once we passed it around we played the type of football that won us the league, and to be quite honest, without Niemi the saints would have been hammered.

In the thread I described safri''s role as "safri in a makelele role, (Disrupting attacks, receiving and passing the ball about as mulryne used to do)" And thats exactly what he did. He was absolutely outstanding. Ill do my ratings in a bit, and im tempted to give MOTM to safri over deano. Deano scored the goals, but it was safris work in midfield that allowed us too dominate the game. He really looked a complete player. He won the ball back so many times that me and the guy next to me started counting, and from the 52nd minute we counted eight times he won the ball! Dickson and Robinson also played their roles well, without excelling.

However its the three up front that ive been campainging for the most. With WLY and hucks behind deano. And once we got the ball on the deck, we ripped them apart! The interplay was so good at times, there were some quality flicks from hucks and Mcveigh. The build up play for some of the chances was top class. Deano looked quality up front holding the ball up, and we just had confidence going forward for a change.

The only gripe I have is that we started off with the formation, yet we used long ball, and it was awful. So lets keep the ball on the deck, and play like this every week!

Also its frustrating that Ive wanted these tactics all season, and now we have used them we play our best game of the season. Why has it taken so long? Should also point out that one game doesnt make a winning tactic, this may not be the right formation for next week at Sheff Utd, but its beginning to look more promising.

[3pmkickoff 0]

I think we looked a lot better once Hughes went off, we had Robinson doing the ''Holt'' role, Safri keeping ball and Ethu supporting the attack

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Thanks Trent. Your suggestion earlier made sense in a team of wingless wonders. I thought Fleming had a great game and made a point of watching him too. He made all his headers, usually just by judgement and standing his ground, and played the ball forwards well. He was instrumental in Ashton''s second goal when he helped create the space. I know he is getting on but he is still the best ''professional'' at the club and I wish others had his attitude. I see Doc kept his favourite side and had a good game too. Huckerby made proper use of Drury and others instead of running down blind alleys. I could go on to praise everyone, except Hughes who looked very ordinary.

[Trent Canary 0]

Rudolph - Agree about Fleming, before the game I thought Charlie was the better bet. But Ill admit I was wrong, Fleming was quality. (Im just writing my player ratings thread now... So ill give more reasoned judgements than that!)

[lucky green trainers 0]

agree 100% trent - didn''t mcveigh partner deano against hull, when

worthy drooled city''s performance was best in 5 years?  If wly can

play like that every match, mckenzie will be bench warming.

[Syteanric 1]

im still not impressed by robinson and again failed to see his contribution.. its still like having 10 men at times... i think we will see if he''s up to it on boxing day

jas:)

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]agree 100% trent - didn''t mcveigh partner deano against hull, when worthy drooled city''s performance was best in 5 years?  [/quote]

Could well be, think that was the first game after Id gone back to uni. Its been reminiscent of the 2002/2003 season when I was calling for a Mcveigh/Nielsen partnership, and the only time they started together was away at Preston where we won 2-1 with both players scoring! Or last season when people wanted a Francis/Mulryne or Safri partnership as opposed to anything with Holt, I cant remember the stats, but we won far more without Holt in the team. Thats a fact, and no amount of "Energy, workrate and commitment" can alter that.

[DONT REMEMBER YOUR TENURE AS ENGLAND MANAGER 0]

Guys, I think a bit harsh on Robinson, thought he played well, and his play had a big influence on Safri''s peformance who I agree was fantastic. Big up to Flem to, though he was class.

[Northern Canary 0]

i too suggested this formation

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="DIZNAZZA HIZLOMEZ"]Guys, I think a bit harsh on Robinson, thought he played well, and his play had a big influence on Safri''s peformance who I agree was fantastic. Big up to Flem to, though he was class.[/quote]

As ive said on my ratings thread, I dont believe he played well, but I dont think he played badly. One of those players that I wouldnt start, but could "do a job" as I believe its known.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Robinson looked a little out of it to me but he did enough to earn more time to judge, nothing more.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Rudolph Hucker"]Robinson looked a little out of it to me but he did enough to earn more time to judge, nothing more.[/quote]

Does anyone know how long we have him on loan for? ALthough he would be a good player to have to help with strength in depth, It would be unfortuanate for someone like Rossi Jarvis..

[ZLF 271]

Sorry to rain on the parade but I think the answer is  - who knows?

The first half I think we were poor and we struggled to get the formation to work with the players on the pitch.  Not sure whether this was done to the now traditional slow city start on lack of clarity about the formation.  I agree with ncfc4pem that we only improved once Hughes went off and then only in the second half.

We looked a better side in the second 45 mins when we adopted a formation that was not really 4-3-3 but more a 4-3-1-2 with  Hux firmly fixed to the left flank with Ashton/McVeigh very much as the front two.

OTBC

[Trent Canary 0]

Zipper, Sorry I disagree. I thought the difference was that midway through the first half we started playing it on the deck, rather than long balling it to Ashton every time. And from then on it seemed as though we were dominant. I dont think we changed the formation at all, may be wrong though.

[ZLF 271]

Quite happy for you to disagree trent coz either way the result was a sparkling second half and a well deserved and comfortable 3 points.   [:)]

I think we were fortunate that saints decided to sit back on their 1 goal lead and allow us the time to get a game going - it was not really us taking the game to thenm.   However despite our possession in that first half we created little of note until that quick free kick and the first decent cross from Hux in a while for Deano to bury.  Until then Greeno was the busier keeper.

Once Dickson came on I thought that Robbos and Safris roles became more defined as Dickson kept himself rightish. 

OTBC

 

 

[Saint Canary 0]

I remember suggesting a similar formation before the season started due to the lack of wide players.  I don''t know if it was the tactics, it may have been more to do with having what was possibly the strongest eleven we had had available on the pitch.  It''s also worth noting that every player (after 20 mins) seemed to know exactly what they were doing and what their role was.

I think some people are being a bit harsh on Robinson, Ok has was not fantastic but what he did do made it possible for Safri to take control of the midfield.  By Safri controlling midfield we stopped hoofing the ball long and we dominated the game.

It''s interesting reading the local paper (Southampton Echo) that Bassett felt that we played Saints o"ff the pitch" and that no side had "dominated" them that much all season.  Kenton said that we "Battered them", Prutton said we "Would have beat any side in the league" playing as we did and generally all the Saints fans in my office feel we are the best side they have seen all year.

Now if Worthy can address the problems you mentioned Trent and he can get the players to produce that kind of football more often then no-one would have cause for complaint.

 

[Tumbleweed 106]

When WLY went off we looked poorer although Leon ran we didn''t create as much as before.

I agree with Trent, when we started passing and moving we looked very good. Too often last two seasons we''ve just looked up and given it a big welly. Hux got some decent ball as a result and looked dangerous again.

BUT, and its  a big but, Southampton were WOEFUL. Looked the worst side I have seen us play. They loooked lethargic, disorganised and unimaginative. So while it was great to see, I had difficulty working out whether it was us having a blinder (in the second half at least) or them being generally rubbish.

Either way, it was a great feeling walking away on Sat and I may make some more of those  400 mile round trips to justify my season ticket.

[ZLF 271]

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

I remember suggesting a similar formation before the season started due to the lack of wide players.  I don''t know if it was the tactics, it may have been more to do with having what was possibly the strongest eleven we had had available on the pitch.  It''s also worth noting that every player (after 20 mins) seemed to know exactly what they were doing and what their role was.

I think some people are being a bit harsh on Robinson, Ok has was not fantastic but what he did do made it possible for Safri to take control of the midfield.  By Safri controlling midfield we stopped hoofing the ball long and we dominated the game.

It''s interesting reading the local paper (Southampton Echo) that Bassett felt that we played Saints o"ff the pitch" and that no side had "dominated" them that much all season.  Kenton said that we "Battered them", Prutton said we "Would have beat any side in the league" playing as we did and generally all the Saints fans in my office feel we are the best side they have seen all year.

Now if Worthy can address the problems you mentioned Trent and he can get the players to produce that kind of football more often then no-one would have cause for complaint.[/quote]

I agree with you saint about Robinson - he kept the ball well and worked hard.  Not as eye catching as Safri or WLY maybe but he looked useful as a partner for Saffers.

We did look awesome once we got going. 

[Trent Canary 0]

ZLF - The thing that really did it for me, was Safri. As I said in advance I want Safri playing the same role Makelele plays for Chelsea. And I thought he did that superbly. The main reason IMO that Southampton weren''t attacking much was because ''Sef was winning the ball back so often, and generally disrupting their play. And as mentioned, I thought that as soon as we played the ball on the deck we looked a better team. But as you quite rightly say, we didnt really carve out many chances in the first half, bar Doc''s header, the free kick and Deano''s goal. But we started getting on top of them mid-way through the first half IMO, and I can only assume that in the changing room at half time someone noticed that the long ball wasnt working, and playing football on the deck was. (Through the first half I was wondering if we had broke the record for rallies of heading the ball...) 

You also say Greeno was the busier keeper, just a quick question, but everywhere I read has said So''ton had six shots on target, can you remember any of them?! I can only remember the goal!

SC - Agree with it all, and I remember you have been suggesting this formation too. Your right about Robinson, although he didnt stand out, he did his job. Its a shame we dont have Damien anymore, as I think a midfield of Saf, Etuhu and Damien would be quality.

Tumbleweek - A bit of both IMO. Although Southampton looked poor, I dont think we allowed them to play at all. Mainly due to our Moroccan all over the pitch...

[Trent Canary 0]

If only we had used this formation all season... If only...

Great win though lads! Lets make it four in a row against Burnley.