Southampton

[mattbianco1]

Quite a few times I see posts around (not here) saying 'they're just like Sheffield United', but this time last season both us and Burnley were on 13 points. Not that I'm saying we were good, we were awful, just that everyone sees United as the benchmark of how bad the worst PL teams are rather than the fact it's all the promoted teams in the last 2 years.

The most concerning thing is most people think it's the promoted teams fault that they have all been so far off the last 2 seasons, rather than looking at the bigger issue that's been developing for years and now coming to a head.

A direct comparison over 27 games is below:



Worth noting that by this game, we had received these spankings:
Arsenal 0-6
Brighton 0-5
Villa 0-5
Burnley 0-5
Arsenal 0-5
Newcastle 0-8

Those 6 games are responsible for almost half (34 of 72) of our goals conceded.

Agreed, it's not good viewing for any of us

 

[Balham]

In 27 games so far, Southampton have conceded 65 goals. That's 2.4 goals per game.
Maintain 2.4 goals a game until end of season (11 more games) would have them on 91 conceded.

However, their goals conceded in last 10 is 2.9 per game and over the last 5 games is 3.0.

Last time they conceded less than 2 in a DEFEAT was on Boxing day - a 1-0 loss to West Ham. They only conceded 1 against Ipswich too, in a 2-1 win.

Since boxing day, their results are: 1-3, 2-3, 1-3, 2-1, 1-3, 0-4, 0-4

Their remaining games are:

• Liverpool (a)
• Wolves (h)
• Palace (h)
• Spurs (a)
• Villa (h)
• West Ham (a)
• Fulham (h)
• Leicester (a)
• Man City (h)
• Everton (a)
• Arsenal (h)

They need 3 points from that lot to let Derby keep the record points low

Our results in the run between 21st and 27th games last season was worse in terms of goals conceded and goal difference despite us managing to pick up 4 points: 2-2, 2-3, 0-5, 3-1, 0-5, 0-1, 0-6.

Here's my prediction for Southampton: the only game left which they won't lose is Leicester away as the Foxes are nearly as bad as them. They won't get close to our 104 goals conceded but our -69 goal difference will be beaten.

 

[mattbianco1]

They won't get close to our 104 goals conceded but our -69 goal difference will be beaten.

They seem to be getting dicked by conceding 3 on a regular basis, and could quite easily concede 6+ on Saturday at Anfield

 

[DifferentClass]

Quite a few times I see posts around (not here) saying 'they're just like Sheffield United', but this time last season both us and Burnley were on 13 points. Not that I'm saying we were good, we were awful, just that everyone sees United as the benchmark of how bad the worst PL teams are rather than the fact it's all the promoted teams in the last 2 years.

The most concerning thing is most people think it's the promoted teams fault that they have all been so far off the last 2 seasons, rather than looking at the bigger issue that's been developing for years and now coming to a head.

If Soton were northern monkeys THEY'D be the benchmark.

 

[Balham]

They seem to be getting dicked by conceding 3 on a regular basis, and could quite easily concede 6+ on Saturday at Anfield

We conceded more than 3 in a game 11 times last season, 8 times in the first 27 games. It was awful: 4 twice (Man U, Burnley), 5 on 5 occasions (Arsenal, Burnley, Villa, Brighton, Newcastle), 6 on one (Arsenal) and 8 on one (Newcastle). One of the 5s (Newcastle) and both 4s came in the final 11 games. It really didn't help that Ivo Grbic conceded nearly a goal a game more than his psxGA (-0.97xG/90 mins!).

Southampton have conceded 4 twice (Brighton, Chelsea) and 5 three times (Chelsea, Brentford, Spurs). That's it. To get to 105 conceded they need to concede 36 in their last 11 and I just don't see it.

I agree that Liverpool could batter them on Saturday.

*interesting (to me at least) that far more of our batterings came under Wilder (conceded 4+ 8 out of 24 matches) not Heckingbottom (3/14).

 

[mattbianco1]

*interesting (to me at least) that far more of our batterings came under Wilder (conceded 4+ 8 out of 24 matches) not Heckingbottom (3/14).

From memory... i've tried to remove it though... under Hecky, we were fairly tight but struggled to score - the 3 hammerings being Newcastle, Arsenal and Burnley.

When Wilder came in, we seemed to figure out that we could actually score, but it also made us leakier in defence.

That's my memory without rechecking

 

[Nedski]

Quite a few times I see posts around (not here) saying 'they're just like Sheffield United', but this time last season both us and Burnley were on 13 points. Not that I'm saying we were good, we were awful, just that everyone sees United as the benchmark of how bad the worst PL teams are rather than the fact it's all the promoted teams in the last 2 years.

The most concerning thing is most people think it's the promoted teams fault that they have all been so far off the last 2 seasons, rather than looking at the bigger issue that's been developing for years and now coming to a head.

I firmly believe the additional substitutions has been a game changer for the big teams.

Liverpool brought on 5 players worth a combined 130m, with another 136m left on the bench!
Man City brought on 4 players worth 115m with 237m left on the bench.

How can any promoted teams compete when the big teams can replace half their outfield players with fresh 30m players? It's impossible.

 

[Balham]

From memory... i've tried to remove it though... under Hecky, we were fairly tight but struggled to score - the 3 hammerings being Newcastle, Arsenal and Burnley.

When Wilder came in, we seemed to figure out that we could actually score, but it also made us leakier in defence.

That's my memory without rechecking

I've said my piece on the Newcastle game elsewhere but we should never, ever have played that. I suspect we were strongarmed into it by Sky and the Premier League. Arsenal was a tactical aberration exacerbated by Norwood having an absolute shocker and Burnley deservedly got Hecky fired.

Anyway, in Hecky's 14 games we scored 11 (0.78 per game), conceded 39 (2.78 per game) and got 5 points (0.35 per game). In Wilder's 24 games we scored 24 (1.00 per game), conceded 65 (2.70 per game) and got 11 points (0.46 per game).

 

[BladeByChoice]

I've said my piece on the Newcastle game elsewhere but we should never, ever have played that. I suspect we were strongarmed into it by Sky and the Premier League. Arsenal was a tactical aberration exacerbated by Norwood having an absolute shocker and Burnley deservedly got Hecky fired.

Anyway, in Hecky's 14 games we scored 11 (0.78 per game), conceded 39 (2.78 per game) and got 5 points (0.35 per game). In Wilder's 24 games we scored 24 (1.00 per game), conceded 65 (2.70 per game) and got 11 points (0.46 per game).

I didn't keep tabs on PH but for my own amusment I do on CW, i think my numbers tally with yours



thats starting with Liverpool 6/12/23 and ending with Spurs 9/5/24

 

[mattbianco1]

I firmly believe the additional substitutions has been a game changer for the big teams.

Liverpool brought on 5 players worth a combined 130m, with another 136m left on the bench!
Man City brought on 4 players worth 115m with 237m left on the bench.

How can any promoted teams compete when the big teams can replace half their outfield players with fresh 30m players? It's impossible.

I agree too. Not a chance we can compete with their riches.

That also filters into the Championship too IMO. Leeds did it to us the other night with their subs. Burnley's bench blinds ours too... but, our bench blinds the rest of the division.
May this directly feeds into why we've had 2 seasons in a row now in the Championship where 4 clubs are too good for the rest - obviously Ipswich and Southampton are outliers.

When did 5 subs come in?
I think it was 2020/21 (after Covid) in the Premier League, but EFL didn't follow suit until later.

 

[Chezzy Blades]

I firmly believe the additional substitutions has been a game changer for the big teams.

Liverpool brought on 5 players worth a combined 130m, with another 136m left on the bench!
Man City brought on 4 players worth 115m with 237m left on the bench.

How can any promoted teams compete when the big teams can replace half their outfield players with fresh 30m players? It's impossible.

I think that filters down to why Leeds, SU and Burnley are so strong this season too. We can effectively bring 5 first team starters off the bench mid-match when we're at full strength which teams lower down the Championship can't do.

edit - Note to self - Read above post first next time...

 

[robbiez666]

I firmly believe the additional substitutions has been a game changer for the big teams.

Liverpool brought on 5 players worth a combined 130m, with another 136m left on the bench!
Man City brought on 4 players worth 115m with 237m left on the bench.

How can any promoted teams compete when the big teams can replace half their outfield players with fresh 30m players? It's impossible.

Additional time as well. Favours the team with better subs, bigger squads and better athletes. Gives us an advantage over most teams in this league but very much a disadvantage in the EPL.

 

[blades_95]

I firmly believe the additional substitutions has been a game changer for the big teams.

Liverpool brought on 5 players worth a combined 130m, with another 136m left on the bench!
Man City brought on 4 players worth 115m with 237m left on the bench.

How can any promoted teams compete when the big teams can replace half their outfield players with fresh 30m players? It's impossible.

Totally agree, everything is stacked against newly promoted teams now.

Quality & depth of the other 17 teams, quality of managers to change games, fitness levels, 5 subs, ridiculous added time, VAR/refs etc.

Most games are nearly 100 minutes and it just feels too long for the weaker teams to hold on now. We had quite a few games last season where we okay for 55/60 mins but we tired and had nobody decent to bring off the bench and the opposition can bring on 5 attacking internationals to turn a game. Spurs away being the most obviously example of this for us last year which seemed to break us.

Even the teams you’re trying to compete with, Everton’s, Wolves, B’Mouth, Forest, Palace all have significantly stronger benches with established Prem athletes. Our first 11 last year could be competitive for 60 mins but beyond that we were screwed.

It’s a depressing reality and I think a big factor in why a lot of fans aren’t that excited about the prospect of getting promoted again.

 

[Balham]

I agree too. Not a chance we can compete with their riches.

That also filters into the Championship too IMO. Leeds did it to us the other night with their subs. Burnley's bench blinds ours too... but, our bench blinds the rest of the division.
May this directly feeds into why we've had 2 seasons in a row now in the Championship where 4 clubs are too good for the rest - obviously Ipswich and Southampton are outliers.

When did 5 subs come in?
I think it was 2020/21 (after Covid) in the Premier League, but EFL didn't follow suit until later.

Teams were allowed to make 5 subs in the restarted 2019/20 season. There was a proposal to introduce 5 subs permanently the following season led by Liverpool but we vetoed it causing the rift between Klopp and Wilder. Five from nine was then introduced permanently in 2022/23 at the third time of asking as the big clubs finally got their way.

I think this is correct for the Premier League era. European competitions were different.
1992/93 - 1996/97: 3 from 3
1997/98 - 2007/08: 3 from 5
2008/09 - 2019/20 (to 13/03/20): 3 from 7
2019/20 (post-restart to end): 5 from 9
2020/21 (to 18/12/20): 3 from 7
2020/21 (from 19/12/20) - 2021/22: 3 from 9
2022/23 - present: 5 from 9

 

[SwissBlade]

I firmly believe the additional substitutions has been a game changer for the big teams.

Liverpool brought on 5 players worth a combined 130m, with another 136m left on the bench!
Man City brought on 4 players worth 115m with 237m left on the bench.

How can any promoted teams compete when the big teams can replace half their outfield players with fresh 30m players? It's impossible.

Additional time as well. Favours the team with better subs, bigger squads and better athletes. Gives us an advantage over most teams in this league but very much a disadvantage in the EPL.

I said this during last season, these two aspects have given a big advantage to the big sides. It was clear in most games that teams were fresher and could freshen their sides during the game as we barely had a starting 11, same applies this season.

Having seen the types of injuries that we've picked up the last two seasons at least, certainly since C-19 lockdown, there has been a marked increase in the soft tissue injuries. Perhaps we also need to look at the intensity of training and also recovery because Leeds aren't picking up the same number of injuries that we do.

As for Southampton, their biggest problem earlier this season was the managers reluctance to adapt the way they play and continue playing out from the back. Like Kompany at Burnley last season, he continued his style to the detriment of getting results. In Kompany's case it got him one of the biggest jobs in Europe, in the Southampton managers, case he's disappeared into obscurity, but he was knocking off Lucy Pinder, so perhaps he's still a winner

 

[mattbianco1]

Teams were allowed to make 5 subs in the restarted 2019/20 season. There was a proposal to introduce 5 subs permanently the following season led by Liverpool but we vetoed it causing the rift between Klopp and Wilder. Five from nine was then introduced permanently in 2022/23 at the third time of asking as the big clubs finally got their way.

I think this is correct for the Premier League era. European competitions were different.
1992/93 - 1996/97: 3 from 3
1997/98 - 2007/08: 3 from 5
2008/09 - 2019/20 (to 13/03/20): 3 from 7
2019/20 (post-restart to end): 5 from 9
2020/21 (to 18/12/20): 3 from 7
2020/21 (from 19/12/20) - 2021/22: 3 from 9
2022/23 - present: 5 from 9

I checked when EFL introduced it and last season was the first season where 5 subs were allowed in the EFL.



So that coincided with two consecutive seasons where 4 teams have ran away with it.

But is it just a coincidence?

 

[mattbianco1]

I think this is correct for the Premier League era. European competitions were different.
1992/93 - 1996/97: 3 from 3
1997/98 - 2007/08: 3 from 5
2008/09 - 2019/20 (to 13/03/20): 3 from 7
2019/20 (post-restart to end): 5 from 9
2020/21 (to 18/12/20): 3 from 7
2020/21 (from 19/12/20) - 2021/22: 3 from 9
2022/23 - present: 5 from 9

OK, so i'll go back 6 seasons to see if subs seem to have affected the bottom clubs.

2018/19

• Huddersfield bottom: 16pts.
• 20pts from safety and 23pts from 16th.
• The bottom 5 clubs had a combined points tally of 151pts

2019/20

• Norwich bottom: 21pts.
• 14pts from safety and 18pts from 16th.
• The bottom 5 clubs had a combined points tally of 163pts

2020/21

• Sheff Utd bottom: 23pts
• 16pts from safety and 18pts from 16th.
• Bottom 5 combined: 157pts

2021/22 - bench increased to 9 players

• Norwich bottom: 22pts.
• 16pts from safety and 17pts from 16th
• Bottom 5 combined: 157pts

2022/23 - subs increased to 5

• Southampton bottom: 25pts
• 11pts from safety and 13pts from 16th
• Bottom 5 combined: 164pts

2023/24

• Sheff Utd bottom: 16pts
• 16pts from safety and 23pts from 16th
• Bottom 5 combined: 137pts (-23.25pts on the previous 4y average)

2024/25 - projected finish on PPG

• Southampton bottom: 12pts
• 19pts from safety and 32pts from 16th
• Bottom 5 combined: 137pts

Think we need to write to the FA!!

Even with Huddersfield's low 16pts back in 2019, the bottom 5 managed over 150pts between them. Looking like this will be the second consecutive season we'll have been sub-140pts

 

[Corkblade]

I checked when EFL introduced it and last season was the first season where 5 subs were allowed in the EFL.

View attachment 205093

So that coincided with two consecutive seasons where 4 teams have ran away with it.

But is it just a coincidence?

No ,the biggest impact on the gap between the premier league and the championship is the change to 5 subs from 9 on the bench,you can change half your outfield team if things are not going well, the gap in finance's between the 2 leagues has allowed this to come about ,100%.

 

[mattbianco1]

No ,the biggest impact on the gap between the premier league and the championship is the change to 5 subs from 9 on the bench,you can change half your outfield team if things are not going well, the gap in finance's between the 2 leagues has allowed this to come about ,100%.

I agree in part, but the 2 are directly linked. It's a combination of both IMO.

 

[vas borbokis]

It's supposed to be a game of 90 minutes, with 45 each half. Now lasts 100+.
Footy originally had no subs then 1 then the pantomime we have now with 5 subs.
Players of rich enough teams can spend all their energy over the first hour knowing they'll be replaced by an equally rapid player to finish off the team they've just run ragged for an hour. It's just completely unfair as a contest.
We were able to match and maybe even bettered Lees for around 70 minutes, then the sum of the players' energy in each team swung hugely in favour of Leeds resulting in a 3 goal "capitulation". That unfairness was baked in all last season for us in the prem..
I don't know what the answer is, but it's not a fair fight any more sadly.

 

[Not_a_Cheat]

Any chance they will end up with a worse record than ours last season.

After 9 games we were 2nd from bottom with 1 point and minus 17 GD

Southampton after 9 games are currently bottom with 1 point and minus 13 GD

They'll never beat the centurions

 

[true99blade]

Mental to think Ipswich, Leicester, Southampton are on course for less points combined than us, Luton, Burnley had. Considering how goal happy all three were in the championship in comparison to us. Our system is beyond broken.

 

[Rufus Smalls]

If Soton were northern monkeys THEY'D be the benchmark.

True.

With Shearer and Le Tissier being recent darlings of English football, the Saints have no chance of having the microscope placed on their shit season.

 

[Selly]

OK, so i'll go back 6 seasons to see if subs seem to have affected the bottom clubs.

2018/19

• Huddersfield bottom: 16pts.
• 20pts from safety and 23pts from 16th.
• The bottom 5 clubs had a combined points tally of 151pts

2019/20

• Norwich bottom: 21pts.
• 14pts from safety and 18pts from 16th.
• The bottom 5 clubs had a combined points tally of 163pts

2020/21

• Sheff Utd bottom: 23pts
• 16pts from safety and 18pts from 16th.
• Bottom 5 combined: 157pts

2021/22 - bench increased to 9 players

• Norwich bottom: 22pts.
• 16pts from safety and 17pts from 16th
• Bottom 5 combined: 157pts

2022/23 - subs increased to 5

• Southampton bottom: 25pts
• 11pts from safety and 13pts from 16th
• Bottom 5 combined: 164pts

2023/24

• Sheff Utd bottom: 16pts
• 16pts from safety and 23pts from 16th
• Bottom 5 combined: 137pts (-23.25pts on the previous 4y average)

2024/25 - projected finish on PPG

• Southampton bottom: 12pts
• 19pts from safety and 32pts from 16th
• Bottom 5 combined: 137pts

Think we need to write to the FA!!

Even with Huddersfield's low 16pts back in 2019, the bottom 5 managed over 150pts between them. Looking like this will be the second consecutive season we'll have been sub-140pts

I saw a video the other day that said that 22/23 (where non of the promoted clubs got relegated) followed by 23/24 (where they all got relegated) left the league in a position where every club other than the three that get promoted are now "established".

With the 3 promoted teams looking like they are coming straight back down, that's going to persist for another season. The shortest tenure in the PL (apart from the promoted teams) will be three years. That's three years of spending cash that Championship clubs cannot dream of competing with.

Unless a Wolves or a Bournemouth or a Brighton have a rotter of a season(or ManC get relegated), I don't see it changing.

It's an exceptionally sad position, and will end up changing "being relegated" from being the thing that might end a club to "not getting up at the first, or maybe second attempt" - there will end up being a rotating 6-8 clubs at the top of the Championship with very little scope for other to break in - unless a team does a Luton...

 

[MayorOJC]

Genuinely think Southampton will win the league next year with a decent manager.

 

[robbiez666]

Genuinely think Southampton will win the league next year with a decent manager.

Yup. Depends how demoralised their players are though. Reckon Ipswich will do a Luton.

 

[mattbianco1]

Yup. Depends how demoralised their players are though. Reckon Ipswich will do a Luton.

I'm not so sure.

Luton were quite industrial and a bit like United in 2019/20 grinding results out

Ipswich appear to be much better footballing team.

Obviously we don't know what squads will look like, but if they carry on this style and McKenna stays they'll be top 6 at ease for me

 

[robbiez666]

I'm not so sure.

Luton were quite industrial and a bit like United in 2019/20 grinding results out

Ipswich appear to be much better footballing team.

Obviously we don't know what squads will look like, but if they carry on this style and McKenna stays they'll be top 6 at ease for me

You might be right but I think McKenna will go and a team which was punching above its weight last time in the Championship might have a large bump.

 

[BladeByChoice]

It's supposed to be a game of 90 minutes, with 45 each half. Now lasts 100+.
Footy originally had no subs then 1 then the pantomime we have now with 5 subs.
Players of rich enough teams can spend all their energy over the first hour knowing they'll be replaced by an equally rapid player to finish off the team they've just run ragged for an hour. It's just completely unfair as a contest.
We were able to match and maybe even bettered Lees for around 70 minutes, then the sum of the players' energy in each team swung hugely in favour of Leeds resulting in a 3 goal "capitulation". That unfairness was baked in all last season for us in the prem..
I don't know what the answer is, but it's not a fair fight any more sadly.

Cannot agree with your first point, their should be a dedicated time keeper, throw ins, goal kicks, free kicks, corners ect should all have a time limit and time added on and the player booked, if the limit is exceeded.

If a game lasts 1 hour per half, tough titty, they’ll soon learn.

Football is expensive, fans pay to watch 90 minutes of football not 70 minutes and 20 minutes of time wasting, and I couldn’t give a shit if the poor little darling who’s on my annual wage every week is tired.

Everything else about the subs, spot on .

 

[lazyfecklessblade]

True.

With Shearer and Le Tissier being recent darlings of English football, the Saints have no chance of having the microscope placed on their shit season.

Are you suggesting that Matt le Tissier is part of a conspiracy?