Coutinho's not going to the World Cup is he?
Southampton: Post Match
- Thread starter redhorizon2
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
No, his only chance was if he'd kept his original haircut. Brazil have adopted a very physical approach which has no place for people with his kind of douchey hair.
I think he may have a better chance of getting there than you credit him with. Agree with the rest though.
It's not just one game though. He's put in more bad performances than good this season.
But when he's good he's very very good!!
When he's bad he's ok.
When he's bad he's ok.
Well, after reading the match thread and this one I think there are some gold fish memories on this site.
They didn't control the whole half - just the last 20 minutes. We were a far more dangerous team in the first 20 to 25 minutes but all anyone could seem to remember was the last 20 minutes which meant that, apparently, they controlled the whole half.
Skrtel and Agger both had some poor moments but they also looked to grow through the game. Couple of hairy moments which could have seen us in a dog fight. The one on the post I genuinely thought was in. That said, Sturridge should have had one at least by then and Suarez could have had two.
I actually thought the turning point was Ming's save. They looked like they lost some confidence when he stopped that - almost like they believed it wasn't to be their day.
Sterling on for Coutinho looked obvious to me for about 30 minutes. Allen was horrendous for the first half hour but then just focused on harrying rather than being elaborate. Henderson was average as well though he had a great battle with Shaw who was taking Flanno to the cleaners (I did love Flanno's arial challenge though). Rodgers was never going to take off a genuine mid fielder at that point for an attacker so Coutinho was the obvious choice. I still think it was a good move to start Phillipe as it gave Sterling the opportunity to come on against a tiring defence and he ran them ragged.
Gerrard was getting caught by Allen constantly losing possession and Henderson being three steps behind the play. That said, his passing was really poor for the first half and he looked a step behind himself. He should get an assist for the second goal though - that pass for Suarez was a gem leading to Sterling's goal.
All this said, has anyone ever seen so many attackers getting between the lines against us? It was like they were living there and we couldn't seem to cut off the supply for the last 20 minutes of the first half.
Suarez looked tired but still ran his guts out, scored a great poachers goal, linked up well for Sterlings and won a penalty. He plays more of a team game than Sturridge so starting him in the middle is a better option IMO. He scores goals and sets them up there while Sturridge comes into the centre from out wide more naturally. I think Suarez can sometimes seem more glued to the wide role when he starts there which nullifies his threat more so than it does Sturridge.
Finally, Johnson. He was enormously improved after last week. People flaying him on last weeks performance was a joke of the worst order. He's been out for an age and, shock horror, struggled to find his touch in the first game back. Was given some horrible passes but stayed composed each time with only one, maybe two, occasions being out of position. Very glad to have him back.
They didn't control the whole half - just the last 20 minutes. We were a far more dangerous team in the first 20 to 25 minutes but all anyone could seem to remember was the last 20 minutes which meant that, apparently, they controlled the whole half.
Skrtel and Agger both had some poor moments but they also looked to grow through the game. Couple of hairy moments which could have seen us in a dog fight. The one on the post I genuinely thought was in. That said, Sturridge should have had one at least by then and Suarez could have had two.
I actually thought the turning point was Ming's save. They looked like they lost some confidence when he stopped that - almost like they believed it wasn't to be their day.
Sterling on for Coutinho looked obvious to me for about 30 minutes. Allen was horrendous for the first half hour but then just focused on harrying rather than being elaborate. Henderson was average as well though he had a great battle with Shaw who was taking Flanno to the cleaners (I did love Flanno's arial challenge though). Rodgers was never going to take off a genuine mid fielder at that point for an attacker so Coutinho was the obvious choice. I still think it was a good move to start Phillipe as it gave Sterling the opportunity to come on against a tiring defence and he ran them ragged.
Gerrard was getting caught by Allen constantly losing possession and Henderson being three steps behind the play. That said, his passing was really poor for the first half and he looked a step behind himself. He should get an assist for the second goal though - that pass for Suarez was a gem leading to Sterling's goal.
All this said, has anyone ever seen so many attackers getting between the lines against us? It was like they were living there and we couldn't seem to cut off the supply for the last 20 minutes of the first half.
Suarez looked tired but still ran his guts out, scored a great poachers goal, linked up well for Sterlings and won a penalty. He plays more of a team game than Sturridge so starting him in the middle is a better option IMO. He scores goals and sets them up there while Sturridge comes into the centre from out wide more naturally. I think Suarez can sometimes seem more glued to the wide role when he starts there which nullifies his threat more so than it does Sturridge.
Finally, Johnson. He was enormously improved after last week. People flaying him on last weeks performance was a joke of the worst order. He's been out for an age and, shock horror, struggled to find his touch in the first game back. Was given some horrible passes but stayed composed each time with only one, maybe two, occasions being out of position. Very glad to have him back.
I said that the S'oton game will be a barometer for us. They are a hoodoo team of sorts, play a good passing and pressing game. Skrtel and Agger once again showed that they are our best CB duo. Our midfield struggled more than usual and we lost a lot of possession. Thats something to work on.
Poor 20 minute performance in 1st half but we made our own luck and made it count. We initially struggled but Sterling was a game changer. His sheer speed and strength has defenders shitting bricks. We are so scary on the counter. Lallana is some player for the Saints.
Poor 20 minute performance in 1st half but we made our own luck and made it count. We initially struggled but Sterling was a game changer. His sheer speed and strength has defenders shitting bricks. We are so scary on the counter. Lallana is some player for the Saints.
Indeed it was another gem of a pass. He has his weaknesses but playing him at DM is a brilliant way to integrate his skills into the team. He will get better and better in the role. That said his passing was atrocious for most of the match .. his final completion rate being a truly pathetic 43% !!
I mentioned this too. Southampton's pressing game was superb, the best I've seen against us.
At last. The voice of reason rather than the agenda ridden rhetoric of many.
Froggie let me say this. I have NO agenda against Johnson. If you check back through my posts you will see that I regularly defended him when he was being criticised in the past.
It is my opinion, (which I presume I am entitled to have and to voice), that he was very poor against Swansea ( a match I was at), and poor again on Saturday.
I'm actually not in the camp that think he is better played at LB. I see him as an attacking RB ( who admittedly has questions over his defensive abilities), and I believe we would be better playing him there, with Flanno at LB. I don't think Shaw wouldn't have had the freedom he had on Saturday had Glen been playing RB.
It is my opinion, (which I presume I am entitled to have and to voice), that he was very poor against Swansea ( a match I was at), and poor again on Saturday.
I'm actually not in the camp that think he is better played at LB. I see him as an attacking RB ( who admittedly has questions over his defensive abilities), and I believe we would be better playing him there, with Flanno at LB. I don't think Shaw wouldn't have had the freedom he had on Saturday had Glen been playing RB.
The issue wasn't Flanno per se (though he had a crap match IMO) but the way we set up left gaping holes on the wing which Shaw exploited. Johnson wouldn't have made any difference, Henderson / Coutinho shifting their arses over to help cover would have.
You mean in the first half or just the passing rate in the opponent's half? Because the offal's Opta stats page for the whole game gives Gerrard's figure at 77.8%.
Coutinho was our worst passer at 65.5% but Suarez was surprisingly poor as well at 68.4%.
Henderson came in at 76.7%, Sturridge 79.2%, Allen's 81.3%, Sterling 84.6% (small sample size though).
I thought Allen was pretty poor, and that's the argument with him, you get an industrious half from him last week, and then a game where he's fairly anonymous and poor in possession this week. That's been the general trend. Despite what his fans say, when trying to explain to us dimwits what he does without the ball and the things that only "people who understand football" would notice.
I can't really see what he offers (consistently) that we don't get from Lucas (and I'm hardly his biggest fan either) or Henderson, or Gerrard. If it counts for something, just being an extra body to harass teams that like to press, or on away days, or when we're getting overran in the middle, then it's hardly going overboard to suggest that we could be looking for something better and more productive if we're going to afford ourselves a Lucas AND an Allen in the squad. The onus should be on one of them to provide a cutting edge and the occasional goal or assist, or to dominate. But then we've said this a million times. It's fine having a player in there to keep the ball ticking over, to keep it simple and just be the extra man, for £15m though? When we already have Lucas who does the water carrier job, it seems a bit of a luxurious role and signing.
I can't really see what he offers (consistently) that we don't get from Lucas (and I'm hardly his biggest fan either) or Henderson, or Gerrard. If it counts for something, just being an extra body to harass teams that like to press, or on away days, or when we're getting overran in the middle, then it's hardly going overboard to suggest that we could be looking for something better and more productive if we're going to afford ourselves a Lucas AND an Allen in the squad. The onus should be on one of them to provide a cutting edge and the occasional goal or assist, or to dominate. But then we've said this a million times. It's fine having a player in there to keep the ball ticking over, to keep it simple and just be the extra man, for £15m though? When we already have Lucas who does the water carrier job, it seems a bit of a luxurious role and signing.
He admittedly hasn't been all I hoped for after watching him play so well numerous times for Swansea. However, I really can't agree that he was poor against So'ton. Rodgers' all-action style makes it vital that the ball be kept moving quickly (or recycled early after we win it back) and Allen is much better at that than Lucas, whose passing is generally slower and less incisive (and whose tackling is more risky in terms of giving fouls away).
So for £15m that's what we get? It doesn't prove anything beyond what I said, he's a ground coverer, a water carrier. Like I said, he's been great in some games, but his form is indisputably patchy. He's maybe worth persevering with because of age and because when he has played well, he's looked the part, but right now it's looking a fairly luxurious, questionable piece of business.
I think Lucas' passing can be more incisive though, he picks out a fair few 20-30 forward passes per game, he doesn't do it enough but the point was there seems little to choose between them, what you gain with one, you lose with the other and neither amount to being a rounded footballer, it's all a bit one dimensional. I'm not coming from the school of through that every player has to be scoring and assisting week in week out, I appreciate the role of players like those two, who do the dogged, unappreciated stuff. But from that style of player, it's not unfair to say that we should be open to be looking to improve, neither have really cemented their place over the longterm, but it is clear we DO need someone in that role.
He's a great option to have but I agree, don't see anything special.
At least he's better than many other Cm's we've had these past few years.
Joe Allen v Southampton:
Joe Allen: Touches vs Southampton.
Joe Allen: Tackling performance vs Southampton.
Joe Allen: Distribution vs Southampton.
Follow @premleagueowl
Joe Allen: Touches vs Southampton.
Joe Allen: Tackling performance vs Southampton.
Joe Allen: Distribution vs Southampton.
Follow @premleagueowl
I think we're all guilty of being over critical of this 'water carrier' type player.
Every Utd side I can think of has had someone who could fit that bill, certainly the most recent ones have.
I think it's necessary to have someone doing that if you have a number of creative attacking players in the side.
Sure, if we had two Hendersons in the side instead of Allen & Henderson it'd look better, but we haven't, & Allen isn't anywhere near his best form & yet doesn't look like a liability. He does pass forward, not just backwards, but he isn't there for that anyway, we have Sterling, Coutinho, Henderson & Gerrard all doing that, & hell, even Johnson doing it by carrying it forward.
Those maps show he breaks up play time & again, in a similar manner to Lucas, who also gets this kind of shit, but he's more mobile than the Lucas we currently have.
There's a reason they call him a water carrier, he is there to do the shitty stuff whilst everyone else swishes about playing through balls, one twos & generally look world class. They couldn't do all that if they also had to all the shit he does (Gerrard in his prime did, but we all know he's the exception that proves the rule for us, Yaya Toure is the only current player who you can use as the exception, & even he is inconsistent).
Every Utd side I can think of has had someone who could fit that bill, certainly the most recent ones have.
I think it's necessary to have someone doing that if you have a number of creative attacking players in the side.
Sure, if we had two Hendersons in the side instead of Allen & Henderson it'd look better, but we haven't, & Allen isn't anywhere near his best form & yet doesn't look like a liability. He does pass forward, not just backwards, but he isn't there for that anyway, we have Sterling, Coutinho, Henderson & Gerrard all doing that, & hell, even Johnson doing it by carrying it forward.
Those maps show he breaks up play time & again, in a similar manner to Lucas, who also gets this kind of shit, but he's more mobile than the Lucas we currently have.
There's a reason they call him a water carrier, he is there to do the shitty stuff whilst everyone else swishes about playing through balls, one twos & generally look world class. They couldn't do all that if they also had to all the shit he does (Gerrard in his prime did, but we all know he's the exception that proves the rule for us, Yaya Toure is the only current player who you can use as the exception, & even he is inconsistent).
Ah. It was a figure I heard quoted (on the box) so I didn't realise it wasn't referring to the whole game.
What? Because he agrees with you?
Why have you suddenly gone all snotty? I have an opinion, I've not just said he was shite, I've backed up my opinion. You disagree.
Can we not just agree to disagree rather than keep posting these comments that people have an agenda against Johnson. I certainly don't. I judge on what I saw and I was not impressed.
Can I please not just repeat myself (#163 above). There are quite a few posters in a number of threads (inc. MoM and so on) holding your opinion on his performance - and yes many of them do have an agenda as you yourself should be able to espy. No need to be paranoiac as I wasn't targeting you specifically or generally !
Breaking up the play involves tackling too, his success rate in that game was that he won three and lost two tackles, in 90 minutes. It's peripheral stuff, like the passing stat. Like I said, I am FULLY appreciative of the need for a player to cover ground, as I am for the tactical necessity of having an extra body to do the spade work. He cost £15m, for that price I'd expect something a bit more rounded in a player, certainly something less one dimensional, when it's clear he's not excelling at any particular part of being a midfielder, other than covering ground and making it easier for other players to function in their roles. I get the need for that, but you can have that and more if you look hard enough and are ambitious enough, and certainly if you're prepared to pay an excessive fee for it. He cost more than Coutinho and cost more than Sturridge, for instance. Pound for pound, that's two players who excel at a particular aspect of the game. Allen doesn't, and no one at this stage is going to convince me he does.
Because the "watercarrier" role is typified as being a role that's carried out by a player prepared to roll their sleeves up, be a pest and lay the easy pass on, it's something that's non-specific when looking for a particular trait (like having a great passing range, or being a great tackler), other than falling into this trap of being stuck with the notion that because United got away with it, with the Darren Ferguson's or Anderson's, that it's ok for us to do the same. They had a particular style drummed into the club from grassroots, which allowed them to put in certain, less talented individuals and get away with it, from a position of strength - fine, that doesn't make them the benchmark.
We've shoehorned two players in the role, when they started as attacking players who just weren't that great at attacking, so they got moved back downfield. Most United fans will tell you that they've missed a dominating midfielder since Keane, there are games when it's been missed alot more heavily over the last few years, particularly in Europe where that extra lack of class gets found out. In the long run we'd be more than foolish to not aim higher and be on the look out for better. Good squad options yeah, but there's a reason why they are such divisive players and it's not because half the fans "don't get it" or part of some sort of agenda, as a few posters have surmised. It's discontent bred from inconsistent form and a feeling of being shortchanged and, as I've said, wanting to aim higher again.
- Status
