rexe78202 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 8:59 am

I asked yesterday but nobody knew/answered - how many changes did Southampton make from their first choice side that they would put out in the Prem?

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:40 am

I was thinking about this yesterday, following the return of Redmond & Benson, as well as new additions Shelvey & Edwards, there’s going to be some hard decisions to make just for making the bench soon, let alone starting XI. Now, of course, injuries do happen (JB and Luca right now, but still). Good problem to have as our bench has lack dynamism and game changers all season really.

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 9:03 am

Would it be premature to include Bauress in the conversation for a place on the bench too? As you say, a good problem to have. But Parker needs to make sure that the attacking players make the squad as these are the game-changers.

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 9:03 am

Would it be premature to include Bauress in the conversation for a place on the bench too? As you say, a good problem to have. But Parker needs to make sure that the attacking players make the squad as these are the game-changers.

houseboy wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 9:14 am

Now then Boss, do I detect a note of sarcasm? How are you anyway bud, not spoke in ages.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 9:01 am

The only thing stopping Burnley winning the league will be playing to cautious and settling for draws.

mdd2 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 9:40 am

We have a very young squad of players most of whom will get better with game time I am sure. Been looking at the ages of the squad and they are very few over the hill
Redmond Shelvey Barnes maybe Laurent
Apart from Roberts our back five of Esteve CJR Pires Humphries and Trafford have an average age of 22

billyhamilton82 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:04 am

Our strength in depth is astonishing at this level.

To make 8-9 changes against a Premier League side that more or less had a full strength line up apart from their keeper.

Its absolutely frightening, when you look at who WASN'T playing today.

1. Trafford
2. Roberts
3. Cullen
4. Brownhill
5. Anthony
6. Foster
7. Flemming
8. Laurent

Add to that Esteve only played 30 minutes, we virtually played a new team.

To go to Southampton on the back of their best result of the season with a much changed side is nothing short of remarkable.

This squad is as good as anything we've had previously in this division and we will win the league again.

UTC

Ric_C wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 10:19 am

Sheff Utd at home is going to be massive.

rexe78202 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 8:59 am

I asked yesterday but nobody knew/answered - how many changes did Southampton make from their first choice side that they would put out in the Prem?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:34 pm

We made seven but they made four with two of them forced on them.

JR1882 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 5:40 pm

It’s hard to see anyone toppling Leeds they are much more dominant this season and scoring bags of goals for fun.

Our fixture list however is very favourable with all our “hard” games out of the way.

Sheff have Boro & Leeds this month and still have to go to Hillsborough & to Us but do have that 3 point advantage as it stands. Going to be a tight call!

billyhamilton82 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:57 pm

8 changes from the starting 11 against Oxford

v Oxford

1,J. Trafford

12,B. Humphreys

5,M. Estève

6,C. Egan-Riley

14,C. Roberts

29,J. Laurent

24,J. Cullen (c), Captain

17,L. Foster

28, H. Mejbri

11, J. Anthony

19, Z. Flemming


v Southampton

32, V. Hladký

12, B. Humphreys

4, J. Worrall

6, C. Egan-Riley (c), Captain

23, Lucas Pires

2, O. Sonne

7,J. Sarmiento

28, H. Mejbri

26, J. Shelvey

10, Manuel Benson

35, A. Barnes

Hipper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:36 am

Just seen the match on Clarets +. I think people are getting carried away. We've played the worst Premier League team who will at best be promotion challengers in The Championship next season.

The big positive with our team is team structure. All the players that came in fitted into the structure and even if they didn't perform as well as those they replaced it all still worked.

Shelvey and Bauress, Benson and Edwards, was all about getting minutes on the clock. All three offered little outside our structure. On these performances there's a lot more required from them to replace Cullen or Anthony respectively.

Shelvey gave us one through ball which didn't find his man. Otherwise he mostly strolled around doing little. Bauress slotted in nicely but was just tidy, no more. Cullen however offers energy, constant movement, and that annoying tigerish quality that opponents with the ball don't like.

Benson had a good chance early which was almost there but other then that very little. Edwards did little apart from score with his chance. Defensively Anthony is far superior to both as he is in attack with crosses, headers and general play.

For me the main take is that Barnes has more to him then Flemming. More movement, know how, physicality. Goal threat we'll see! Clearly Parker doesn't agree as I thought the same after the Reading game and he's hardly had an opportunity.

Sarmiento was energetic but shot straight at the goalkeeper after Barnes set him up. He did the same against Oxford after he won the ball off a defender. He must do better in these cases.

There are options on the bench but it doesn't look particularly strong compared to Leeds who can replace two top quality wingers with two more.

Hipper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:36 am

Just seen the match on Clarets +. I think people are getting carried away. We've played the worst Premier League team who will at best be promotion challengers in The Championship next season.

The big positive with our team is team structure. All the players that came in fitted into the structure and even if they didn't perform as well as those they replaced it all still worked.

Shelvey and Bauress, Benson and Edwards, was all about getting minutes on the clock. All three offered little outside our structure. On these performances there's a lot more required from them to replace Cullen or Anthony respectively.

Shelvey gave us one through ball which didn't find his man. Otherwise he mostly strolled around doing little. Bauress slotted in nicely but was just tidy, no more. Cullen however offers energy, constant movement, and that annoying tigerish quality that opponents with the ball don't like.

Benson had a good chance early which was almost there but other then that very little. Edwards did little apart from score with his chance. Defensively Anthony is far superior to both as he is in attack with crosses, headers and general play.

For me the main take is that Barnes has more to him then Flemming. More movement, know how, physicality. Goal threat we'll see! Clearly Parker doesn't agree as I thought the same after the Reading game and he's hardly had an opportunity.

Sarmiento was energetic but shot straight at the goalkeeper after Barnes set him up. He did the same against Oxford after he won the ball off a defender. He must do better in these cases.

There are options on the bench but it doesn't look particularly strong compared to Leeds who can replace two top quality wingers with two more.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:46 am

Disagree with almost much every single sentence there.

Hipper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:36 am

Just seen the match on Clarets +. I think people are getting carried away. We've played the worst Premier League team who will at best be promotion challengers in The Championship next season.

The big positive with our team is team structure. All the players that came in fitted into the structure and even if they didn't perform as well as those they replaced it all still worked.

Shelvey and Bauress, Benson and Edwards, was all about getting minutes on the clock. All three offered little outside our structure. On these performances there's a lot more required from them to replace Cullen or Anthony respectively.

Shelvey gave us one through ball which didn't find his man. Otherwise he mostly strolled around doing little. Bauress slotted in nicely but was just tidy, no more. Cullen however offers energy, constant movement, and that annoying tigerish quality that opponents with the ball don't like.

Benson had a good chance early which was almost there but other then that very little. Edwards did little apart from score with his chance. Defensively Anthony is far superior to both as he is in attack with crosses, headers and general play.

For me the main take is that Barnes has more to him then Flemming. More movement, know how, physicality. Goal threat we'll see! Clearly Parker doesn't agree as I thought the same after the Reading game and he's hardly had an opportunity.

Sarmiento was energetic but shot straight at the goalkeeper after Barnes set him up. He did the same against Oxford after he won the ball off a defender. He must do better in these cases.

There are options on the bench but it doesn't look particularly strong compared to Leeds who can replace two top quality wingers with two more.

Hipper wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:36 am

Just seen the match on Clarets +. I think people are getting carried away. We've played the worst Premier League team who will at best be promotion challengers in The Championship next season.

The big positive with our team is team structure. All the players that came in fitted into the structure and even if they didn't perform as well as those they replaced it all still worked.

Shelvey and Bauress, Benson and Edwards, was all about getting minutes on the clock. All three offered little outside our structure. On these performances there's a lot more required from them to replace Cullen or Anthony respectively.

Shelvey gave us one through ball which didn't find his man. Otherwise he mostly strolled around doing little. Bauress slotted in nicely but was just tidy, no more. Cullen however offers energy, constant movement, and that annoying tigerish quality that opponents with the ball don't like.

Benson had a good chance early which was almost there but other then that very little. Edwards did little apart from score with his chance. Defensively Anthony is far superior to both as he is in attack with crosses, headers and general play.

For me the main take is that Barnes has more to him then Flemming. More movement, know how, physicality. Goal threat we'll see! Clearly Parker doesn't agree as I thought the same after the Reading game and he's hardly had an opportunity.

Sarmiento was energetic but shot straight at the goalkeeper after Barnes set him up. He did the same against Oxford after he won the ball off a defender. He must do better in these cases.

There are options on the bench but it doesn't look particularly strong compared to Leeds who can replace two top quality wingers with two more.

billyhamilton82 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2025 12:04 am

Our strength in depth is astonishing at this level.

To make 8-9 changes against a Premier League side that more or less had a full strength line up apart from their keeper.

Its absolutely frightening, when you look at who WASN'T playing today.

1. Trafford
2. Roberts
3. Cullen
4. Brownhill
5. Anthony
6. Foster
7. Flemming
8. Laurent

Add to that Esteve only played 30 minutes, we virtually played a new team.

To go to Southampton on the back of their best result of the season with a much changed side is nothing short of remarkable.

This squad is as good as anything we've had previously in this division and we will win the league again.

UTC
dont forget magic mike ]

AfloatinClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2025 1:17 pm

I was confident we'd go up as Champions a month ago... We're better than Sheffield and whilst Leeds are close, they will only get a couple of points during April; it's tradition, or maybe something to do with the water around there, Leeds will drop into the play-offs and miss out in the final to Sunderland.

dibraidio wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2025 1:12 pm

If we were playing twice every week I reckon this would be a huge advantage but we've only got 3 midweek games left plus the Easter Weekend.