The big question being asked by Saints fans walking out of Craven Cottage was "How the hell did we lose that" the answer was simple a complete lack of leadership both on the pitch and on the bench.

For the first 33 minutes of this game there was going to be only one winner, we were a goal up and having perhaps our best display of the season up to that point, then suddenly Fulham caught us out not once but twice in similar circumstances, getting down our right crossing the ball across the six yard box to find one of their players completely unmarked and the game had completely turned on it's head.

For the first 18 minutes after the break we got another good goal from Armstrong and again there looked only one winner, but again we shot ourselves in the foot, three players being culpable, the first Hoedt was probably the least of the trio, he tried to keep possession rather than hoof it up the line and got caught out, but losing the ball out on the touchline is a long way from goal and you would expect any team to deal with that, the ball was quickly crossed, it found a Fulham head with his marker Yoshida a yard off him and unable to make a challenge, it was flicked on to Mitrovic who found himself with plenty of time to volley home Cedric also being a yard too far off his man.

At this point there was still plenty of time to far home, but the goal broke us, we had no leader on the pitch and were now a shambles, three goals had been shipped due to schoolboy defending and it had decimated the team.

If the players looked to the bench for help it was not forthcoming, Hughes answer was to bring Charlie Austin off, no one was really arguing with that but why did he bring Elyounoussi on ? this had repercussions in the final 10 minutes when he wanted to throw on Obafemi, truth was that he had to take off Armstrong a player who was playing well and leave on Elyounoussi in the feint hope that he might come good.

Saints did not play badly, indeed for the first 33 minutes in the first half and the first 18 in the second it was as good a display as we have seen in a year, however it was the same old story of poor defending at key moments, Fulham only had 5 attempts on target, yet 3 went in, all unmarked from in or around the six yard box, it happens every week.

Why does it happen ? as I said there is no leader on or off the pitch, no one who keeps the team calm and focused at key moments and keeps them going during the tough periods.

This is why small errors suddenly get compounded by more small errors and cost us dearly, the third goal was a good example of that.

Something has to change, in the squad itself I don't think there is too much wrong that a key signing would not put right, assuming of course that it is a good one.

But if we keep on going as we are we will go down, I cannot see how Mark Hughes can continue, his record is awful and there is no sign of that changing, the club have to find a successor first or at least that seems to be their way of thinking and think they are doing that, but truthfully they need to do it now, Les Reed was sacked for several things, one being his choice of managers, having sacked him for that, surely there can be no confidence in Hughes in the boardroom, they have to act decisively and act now.

Photo: Action Images

SaintBrock added 19:06 - Nov 26 The Verdict for me is the same as it was after three games, we will be 20th at Christmas.
3

mikesaint added 19:24 - Nov 26 Before the Fulham game Saints were 10 to 1 to be bottom at Xmas. could have been a good bet.
2

LordDZLucan added 19:53 - Nov 26 In real time at the game it looked like poor defending was the primary cause of the 2nd and 3rd Fulham goals. But looking at it again on Sky after the game it becomes clear that, whilst Cedric and Hoedt didn't cover themselves in glory for those two goals, actually midfielders were more culpable. Cedric backed off Sessegnon leading up to the 2nd goal because he thought that Gabbiadini was going to tackle him which he then inexplicably didn't. And leading up to the 3rd goal, if Redmond had got back more quickly, he could have covered for Hoedt's error (he might even have been there to take the pass); as it was Fulham had men over and Christie had all day to pick his man out in the box with his cross. Also, it is the responsibility of the midfield to create good (not just ok) chances for the strikers. I think if we signed a couple of good wide midfielders the defence and the attack would both start to function properly.

2

stmichael added 22:36 - Nov 26 Hoedt is a walking football accident. Good article Nick apart from your continued defence of a man who has cost us so many points with his ridiculous errors.
4

davidargyll added 07:55 - Nov 27 Saint Marco. Whilst not wishing to continue this endlessly but genuinely I don’t know more of the background to the takeover than perhaps you do. So can you give me evidence that Gao borrowed the money secured on the clubs assets to buy 80%. I have found nothing to support this. I’m not saying you are wrong but I think it’s much more logical that he bought his stake because of the development opportunities in the surrounding area.

0

Sanguin added 09:14 - Nov 27 When we had Fonte and van Dijk, Yoshida wasn’t good enough to get in the first 11. Now he’s our best central defender. After Lovren, Alderweireld and van Dijk, our central defensive signings haven’t been good enough. We’ve had trouble scoring under Puel, Pellegrino and now Hughes. I’m not convinced a change of manager will fix our scoring woes. But the team looked despondent on Saturday. Fulham wanted it more, communicated better and won more second balls. I also think we’ve been unlucky with some of our results, but we’ve been so consistently unlucky that you begin to think that it can’t all be down to luck. A change of manager could fix that.

4

SanMarco added 13:18 - Nov 27 davidargyll - you are 100% right, it is totally shrouded in mystery. In fact I have no idea why I think it is a Glazier-like reverse takeover. Perhaps I listened to the wrong person or was assuming the worst due to the fact that the guy is putting no real money in. I am sure I read it somewhere in a source I trusted but can't find it on a quick Google. Anyone with hard info on any of this will be welcome to supply it for us...

1

underweststand added 15:04 - Nov 27 There isn't much to add to the many comments that most of you have made.(above) 1) The really alarming thing is that after selling off our "Crown Jewels," the club tried to prevent further defections .(.be fair - what footballer says no to a £100K /week move) by giving those remaining pay rises / long contract extensions. On my calculations most of the playing staff will still be here in 2-3 years time before their contracts run out, by which time they can walk away on free transfers. 2) Aside from the huge TV money , we are still too close to the 70% salary limit (based on income) and as we have seen ..even £20 million doesn't buy much in today's market. It was calculated that the team Man City side that beat us 6-1 cost over £600 million to form - and that doesn't include their salaries ! In business terms we tried to expand too quickly and lost our best assets; key players and managers like Pochettino and Koeman. The rest looks like history ...in the making.

0

KriSaint added 23:15 - Nov 28 The only positive thing was Armstrong´s performance. (Why did Hughes substitute him?? And for a player who has not had a good game yet (Elyounouissi))
0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Wolverhampton Wanderers Polls