Make A F***ING SUB

[canarydan23 4,060]

Should've been at half time, then at 1-0, then at 2-0. 

[Rhino1 292]

Too right!! 15 mins too late! 

[daly 499]

Just not good enough 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

And Drmic is still on the pitch, bonkers............

[Clint 221]

I didn’t understand anything about what Farke did tonight. Lack of in-game management and the decisions or lack of, we’re completely absurd.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

And Drmic is still on the pitch, bonkers............

I never want to see him on the pitch again. 

[KeiranShikari 1,403]

Yeah, any of the central midfielders for Drmic as soon as it was obvious Saints had the midfield would have given us a better chance.

 

[BroadstairsR 2,136]

Farke looked angry and somewhat lost last night.

 

Clearly he had carefully thought out and worked out over many hours a change of approach in order to achieve that little miracle.

Clearly it failed.

Two up front did not work. Drmic was quite poor for the most part and both Pukki's and Cantwell's games were diminished because of his presence.

We were our least effective in attack than we have been all season .... and there have been a few dismals.

We also lacked Tettey's midfield know how.

That their first goal resulted from a lucky ricochet for the scorer has been typical, but unavoidable.

That that goal was enough for us to fold  and lose heart, call it what you wish, was also typical, but avoidable.

 

In our current "must win" situation I, personally, was aghast that the same eleven came out for the second half given the way things were going (first fifteen apart.)

I was equally surprised that once we lost that first goal it still took time to make the obvious changes necessary. Attack is the only approach to catch up after all.

It seems that all supporters are always critical of their manager's delay in making substitutions. It seems that City supporters have more justification than most for taking this stance.

[Aggy 747]

Think it’s a bit generous to say the first was a result of a ricochet. It’s another one where there are three or four “mini-mistakes” that lead up to the ‘ricochet’ being allowed to happen.

We win the first header from the throw but don’t really compete for the second ball. The third ball we don’t compete, there are five City players around two Southampton players and the Southampton players manage to poke it to each other (both of whom have far too much space). Then there’s a final touch to the goalscorer who is pretty much unmarked.

So (1) challenge for the second ball, (2) challenge for the third ball, (3) get tighter to the player who does win the third ball so it’s harder for him to squeeze it through to the next player (4) get tighter to the ‘next player’ so he can’t flick it through to the goalscorer (5) be tighter to the eventual goalscorer.

Was any one of those five a massive individual error? No not really. But if we’d done one of those five things just slightly better, the goal doesn’t go in.