batterseasaint

Yep, correct. Les Reed was against appointing Hughes and made a request to the board that he should go into the market and at least see who else around Europe might be available. He was roundly told to **** off by the board and they promptly gave Hughes a 3yr contract.

I fear for any youngsters stepping in to this team. It rarely comes off, putting youngsters into a failing first team. Obafemi looks sharp but his misses will be eating away at his confidence, especially as the general mental state of the team is so fragile. If we continue with him, he needs a goal soon to settle him down. Equally I hope that Valery is able to put some genuine pressure on Cedric, who needs the competition for his place. Alfie Jones has looked good in the past so I hope he comes back from his loan spell a bit more hardened. Very difficult, and therefore rare, for a young centre back to make it without taking a step down first. Clubs like us just can’t take the gamble. Vokins looks mature for his age, though still a bit young and might be hampered by having Bertrand and Targett in front of him. Slattery has clearly been earmarked as the ‘gem’ of his age group, but I wonder if he has struggled to find his proper position. I haven’t seen much of the 23s this season but in the past he has looked like someone who was struggling to understand what was expected of him. I hope he has settled into playing in one position so he can learn that trade. He may finally be the one to solve the no10 conundrum which we have tried to solve since we signed Gaston Ramirez. But I think he still has a way to go before he is there. But again, the future of these players all depends on us finding a successful formula in the first team. They need to be knocking on the door of a successful team, and we need the right manager who understands when to give them their chance and when to take them out of the firing line. We are a way off from that right now.

My guess is that they are struggling to attract someone mid-season. I can't imagine that many DoFs are keen to move mid-season with January coming up, so our pool of choices will be severely limited. The two names- Webber from Norwich and Mitchell from Leipzig- are likely on our shortlist but it will be extremely challenging to attract them with the threat of relegation looming. My view is that we were too hasty in sacking Reed- Kruger threw him under the bus to save himself- when it was obvious to anyone watching that we would have some key football decisions coming up. A failing manager, and clear gaps in the team which would need addressing in January. Reed may not have been trusted to make a good appointment to replace Hughes, but better that he makes some recommendations for everyone else to agree to, rather than Kruger or Gao making the decision in a vacuum of little football knowledge. So what will happen now? I reckon they'll shuffle the chess pieces now, with Wilson and possibly Kelvin taking on more responsibilities. Then, in the summer, they'll appoint an overlord. Who that is depends on what division we are in.

Puel was a safe pair of hands. If he'd stayed, we would probably be in exactly the same position now as we were then, and we'd be bored senseless by the football. As it is, he went to Leicester and has turned them into what we used to be under him. Highlights the pointlessness of being a second-tier Premier League club. First priority is to avoid the looming financial disaster of relegation, second is to become 'best of the rest'. Easiest way to achieve that is to be hard to beat and grind out results, as Burnley did last year, and Leicester have done under Puel. But to what end? Thousands of fans are left losing the will to live in the stands. Every now and then, as we did with Pochettino and Koeman, you find a manager that can achieve the same thing with a bit of swagger. With Puel, the club were left with the dilemma of whether to stick or twist. Seeing the boredom and unrest amongst the fans, they twisted, believing they could find the next Pochettino. But the gamble didn't pay off, because they failed to appoint a manager who's teams were committed to the style of play we wanted. Instead, we appointed a defensive-minded manager who the club thought they could mould into what they wanted. This is where the club failed; they tried to replicate the Pochettino appointment but forgot that he was appointed on the back of Cortese and Mitchell watching an Espanyol game in which they were completely sold by Pochettino's style of play. Pellegrino's team were renowned for grinding out draws, and so it proved that he wasn't able to adapt to different requirements. From the word go under Pellegrino, we played every game as if we were underdogs. They inadvertently appointed someone who's best hope was to replicate what Puel had done, not what Pochettino had done. So it was always going to fail. So they reverted to Hughes; yet another safe pair of hands. Or so we thought. When the safe pair of hands takes us headlong towards relegation, and the 'gamble' hasn't paid off, where on earth do you look next? For me, they need to go back to basics. First, identify what style of football we want to play, then identify every team across the top leagues in Europe who play a similar style. And there's the starting point for the new manager search.

JWP's detractors point to his relative lack of appearances under a succession of managers in an attempt to prove that he hasn't been rated by any of them, but that isn't the way I see it. He does lack certain abilities; he cannot go past a man because of his pace, and he isn't strong enough to play in central midfield. But that just means he has been used by a succession of managers in a role that does suit his abilities. You could argue that every manager from Pochettino onwards has actually used him quite cleverly. He has mostly been used away from home, against the bigger sides, and when we are trying to hold on to a lead. The reason for this is that his main attributes are his positional discipline, meaning that he helps to hold the team's shape when the opposition are coming at us, his ability to lead the press, meaning that he often wins the ball back in dangerous areas, and also his range of passing, which means that he can set up a quick counter-attack. He is less good, however, when we have lots of possession against a defensive side; in that situation, we have typically used players like Lallana, Tadic, Mane, Redmond and even Boufal. So yes, we should sell him if we don't intend to be under the cosh away from home, or play against Top 6 teams that will come at us for 90 minutes, or try to hit teams on the break. If we do intend to carry on doing those things, we should keep him. It is a squad game and James Ward-Prowse is an integral part of our squad.

Wonder if it is a tactic by Hughes to get the club spending money. He wants a new attacking player, the club tell him to use Sims instead, so he stops using him to make it clear that he doesn't think he is good enough. Meanwhile, he lets it be known to the fans that we are unlikely to make new signings, so the fans start to whinge and put pressure on the club to spend a bit of cash... Will the club blink first?

It was only 6 months ago that we sold Virgil Van Dijk for a record fee for a defender. And according to many Saints fans, we were going to get significant fees for Bertrand, Lemina or Cedric this summer. Let’s not be revisionist here; we have a very similar track record to Leicester in the transfer market; in recent times we’ve both had failures such as Musa, Boufal, Slimani, and Carrillo, and there have been successes for both such as Kante, Wanyama, Drinkwater, Mane, Mahrez, Van Dijk and Maguire. And let’s not even delve into West Ham’s track record. They’ve spent an awful lot on unsuccessful incomings and haven’t sold much at a profit. And the same applies for most of the remaining bottom 14. I find it interesting that people are criticising the club for its poor record in the transfer market by making a comparison to Leicester. Ask any independent observer which Bottom 14 clubs have made the best use of the transfer market over the last 5 years and I reckon most would say Saints and Leicester.

But you’re almost entirely talking about stuff that happens off the pitch, stuff that we can’t affect, stuff that doesn’t matter one iota for 90 minutes every week. Why would you worry about how much or how little money the club have in the bank? It doesn’t change your life. Why does it concern you that Les Reed still has a job at the club? Without him, Saints aren’t going to suddenly start spunking silly money on established stars. Our chance to push on wasn’t missed, it was just a moment in the sun while big clubs got their houses in order. Have Leicester pushed on from winning the Premier League? No; they’ve just settled back in to their place in the world. Like us, they missed nothing, because the Big Six is now unbreakable. Have you seen the figures City have spent to secure their place at the top table? Newsflash: we aren’t going to get there, never were. We just need to play the cyclical game of trying to finish as high as possible, along with 14 other clubs. There will be bad times, regardless of who is in charge. Risks will be taken, some will work and some not. Poor decisions will be made. But ultimately football, and Saints, is far more enjoyable if you look past all that stuff off the field, and just enjoy the day.

Ever feel like you’re supporting the wrong club? You’ve just described 130 years of Saints history, give or take the early 1900s, 1976, Le Tiss and Channon, and Pochettino and Koeman. I’m always excited for a new season... it is always a clean slate and nowadays, a new team with every new season. I’m long enough in the tooth to know that lots of new signings does not necessarily equal a good side. Instead good coaching and management can make the difference. My favourite team over the last decade was forged by Poche from previous unspectacular players under Adkins. I’m totally sure that Hughes is not the right man in the long term but I’m equally sure that he is right for us this season. A squad cannot be re-built in one summer, but this has been a start; I’m excited to see how Gunn, Verstergaard, Elyounoussi and Armstrong perform, and with Sims and Gallagher currently around the squad, there is the opportunity for one of our own to make the grade. I’ve watched Sims with interest since I saw him really stand out in one game as a 16 year old, so the prospect of him playing first team football is exciting for me. We’re unlikely to pull up any trees this season- it rightly needs to be the first step in re-building the squad and getting back to old values- but there’s definitely plenty to get excited about for now.

Totally agree. A year on loan in the Championship is of little benefit for someone who is ready (and good enough) for the Premier League. Hesketh, though... has looked a cracking player whenever I’ve seen him, but with his omission from the squad to France, Hughes is the third manager in a row who seems to think he isn’t ready. At his age he needs to be playing some meaningful football to see if he can make it. He definitely has talent so I think the club should be actively looking to find the right environment for him to go out on loan.

I'd be very surprised if we let him go out now, given that we only have Redmond, Elyounoussi and Sims who can play wide in a front 3. Davis and Armstrong would also be able to 'do a job' there but it certainly isn't their natural position. Unless we're going to sign someone new, I would say Sims will get plenty of game time this season for us.

We’ve had numbers in the attacking midfield slots for the last few seasons but very little quality, largely because Boufal and Redmond haven’t fulfilled their potential. We now have Redmond, Elyounoussi and Sims for the wide positions (and JWP as a more defensive option) and Armstrong and Davis as the two options for the central role if we play with one. Feels like we are a wide player light; lose one of them to injury or poor form and we don’t have any attacking options from the bench.

He looked like he wasn’t ready. I think Rickie got injured at the back end of one season, which gave Gallagher a clear run of about 8 games to make his mark, but he obviously didn’t grab his chance. Looked ok at times but if I recall he dropped to the bench after 2 or 3 games and wasn’t seen again. He was very young though, and I think it was in the immediate aftermath of his dad passing away.

I would say that is a little harsh. He has pace, strength, skill and finishing ability... but none of us know to what degree until we see him play with good players in the Premier League. It could be that he proves to be not good enough, but certainly I don’t think it is an accurate way to judge him based on stats from playing in two poor teams in the Championship. Better players should in theory get more out of him. I’d like to see him given a year training with our first team, playing every day with Premier League players. If he can’t make an impact on the first team in that time, then yes... he should be allowed to get on with his career elsewhere. He certainly has the raw materials that make up a good Premier League striker so I hope Mark Hughes has seen enough to think he can improve him.

His performance away at Palace was one of the most eye-catchingly brilliant individual performances I've ever seen by a Saints player. If Hughes thinks he can harness that for even half of his appearances, we should not consider selling at (almost) any price. I do, however, have concerns about his mental aptitude. Went completely missing in just about every key game in the run-in. I hope this is just due to lack of experience though.

Maybe a more pertinent example would be Bournemouth. They might be interested in 'bringing him home' but aren't prepared to stump up the cash Liverpool want. So Liverpool conveniently place a story in the media about us being interested in also 'bringing him home' and suddenly Bournemouth will start doubting their competitive advantage, knowing that Ings can also 'come home' to another club other than them.

Bertrand. He was one of Hughes’ lieutenants last season; I think Hughes asked him to step up to the plate, be a leader, be more vocal, take responsibility. I sense that previously he was happy to have his say behind the scenes but rarely stepped up on the pitch. Something with Hughes changed all the because suddenly Ryan’s attitude changed on the pitch. He’s a very professional guy, took on board what he needed to do and owned the threat of relegation. Definitely should be the leader of this fresh squad.

If we were looking to sign Ings as our frontline striker and were prepared to pay Liverpool’s 20m asking price then it would be folly. But it is very obvious that is not the case. Hughes has been carefully constructing a squad which gives him different types of players in key positions, so he can play different games and different opposition as he sees best. Adding Ings to our strike force would simply give us another option. He is quick over ten yards, has some skill to beat a defender and, crucially, can finish. The others- Gabbiadini, Austin, Long and Gallagher- don’t have the same attributes. Things may have changed with his injuries, but this is the gamble, and will be reflected in the price. If we can get him for 10m then maybe it’s worth that gamble. Saints could be good for Ings, and Ings could be good for Saints.

As you say, isn’t necessarily about playing a full back in the back three, but about having the typical qualities of a full back in one of the wide positions in the three- pace and mobility. We have no need to do that because we have Yoshida, possibly the quickest member of our squad, who also has the defensive instincts of a Centre back. Bertrand is also one of the best wing backs in the league, so it would be utterly self-defeating to lose his attacking strengths just to benefit from his pace and mobility, when we have a centre back who is already quicker than him. If you look at our Incomings and outgoings so far- a new CB, rejecting the offer from UAE for Yoshida- this indicates that Hughes has no intention whatsoever of playing Bertrand in a back three.

It was simply a mistake- a rare example of muddled thinking by Southgate- not to take Bertrand. I think he thought Rose would be fitter than he thought, and the intention was to start with Rose but then have Young and Delph who could deputise in multiple positions. As it turned out, by having to play Young our threat down the left was all but nullified for the whole tournament, and the balance of the team thrown out. In every game I remember there being plenty of space in front of Young for him to exploit, but at no point was he able to. I think we would have looked a very different team with Ryan in there- or a fit Rose for that matter. We would have scored more goals from open play with Ryan in the team, I am convinced of that. I think it was Southgate’s biggest mistake, and I wouldn’t mind getting that he is quietly ruing his decision. If he is indeed making comments about Ryan’s exclusion being about his mental situation, that indicates to me that Southgate is trying to justify a poor decision in his own mind.

I think we'll play a number of variations on 3 at the back, depending on the game situation, probably by inverting the pyramid at times. Goalkeeper: McCarthy will start as no1 but at some point he will get injured and never be able to recover the jersey from Gunn. I think the only certainty will be Vestergaard, with the others rotated depending on form and the opposition. My personal preference would be Bednarek, Vestergaard, Yoshida. Wing backs will be Cedric and Bertrand. Midfield will switch between a single pivot and double pivot, depending on the game situation and opposition. A single pivot will probably be Romeu, with Lemina as an option. My first choice for a double pivot would be Lemina and Hojbjerg. But I would never play Hojbjerg as a single pivot. With a double pivot in midfield, I'd play Redmond and Elyounoussi in the attacking positions. With a single pivot, I'd add Armstrong to the attack. Gabbs up front, with Gallagher as his backup. Austin on the bench to throw on. My ideal team: Gunn Bednarek Vestergaard Yoshida Cedric Lemina Hojbjerg Bertrand Elyounoussi Redmond Gabbiadini To shift this to a more attacking line-up, you could then put Armstrong on for Hojbjerg, Romeu on for Lemina to shore things up as you're shifting to the single pivot, and Gallagher on for Gabbiadini to stretch the opposition with greater pace and strength.

Sorry, meant to say ‘use Bertrand as a CB’ in the post above. Can’t edit for some reason.

Ryan Bertrand is one of the best wing backs in the country. The two wing back positions are absolutely key to the success of playing three at the back. Mark Hughes is not about to play him out of position and instead use a young left back with questionable pace and attacking instinct as a left wing back. If the plan was to use Bertrand as a full back, why would we be looking to increase the number of CBs in the squad to five, when they would be fighting it out for two spots?

You mean... the guy who masterminded the original policy of signing top players from the rung below? Don’t fool yourself with the fact that they’ve decided it’s best not to put Les in front of the cameras anymore. He’s as much behind this policy now as when he drove a similar policy a few years ago, and the shift of policy in between which didn’t quite work out.

I also think it is really important, in the keeper's position especially, to have genuine competition. For a few years Forster had none whatsoever and it showed in his performances. I think Gunn would be an excellent signing and if he is as good as people say, he'll be genuinely challenging McCarthy for the spot very soon. For me it is exciting. An exceptional goalkeeper makes a significant difference to a defence. Paul Jones was always a decent keeper but when Antti replaced him, he transformed a good defence into one of our best ever defensive units.