RobM

I think a lack of mobility is a team-wide problem. Watching Bertrand get the ball in acres of space and slowly make his way upfield, wondering what to do with it, is depressing. It's part on-the-ball mobility, part off-the-ball positioning as we're terrible at making ourselves available consistently. It's also why, IMO, we end up dicking around passing between CM and CB too much and also why our throw-in's are a waste of time. Fix that, and the two at CM wouldn't have to be quite so mobile, as they'd use their passing ability to get the ball forward quickly, so pace is less a concern.

Agreed. I think he and Romeo would go on to form a superb CM partnership. In the pre-season games the range and accuracy of passing on display by these two was something else entirely, a joy to watch. It just hasn't yet deliverd on that early promise, probably because it needs a run. IMO, we should start playing next seasons team now, given we've f-all else to worry about.

Everything and anything is doable until it's no longer doable. What it shows is, with time on the training ground and a good goalscorer, Puel is starting to shape something that can compete and the level we want.

And got inferior teams with inferior resources well into the Champions League in that time.

Given there is only really one village B&B / Pub a minute from Staplewood, he's been a bit daft in exposing his 'home away from home', IMO.

There are two types of Utd fan. There is the type you see in their away support, which is consistently excellent. I don't dislike these at all. Then the is the type who could barely pinpoint Manchester on a map and became a fan because of the name/brand. I dislike these a lot. As for the club itself, I've no reason to dislike them. Always take great pleasure in beating them, though.

I like what they've done with the allocations and priorities this year. It means next year, cup games against the less glamorous teams may attract a better attendance as people will be afraid of missing out should we make it to the final. Looking at the entire Kingsland stand being empty against Norwich was a sad reflection of our support. The only thing I think should change, is the first priority should be based on away games.

It's only fair to judge this sort of thing competition-by-competition IMO. Fans who decided the EFL Cup was worth their money are right to have first dibs. How ****ed would you be if you missed out on a Europa League final because somebody who went to EFL Cup games but never to Europa League games got priority? The only thing I think should be different, is those fans who went to Away EFL Cup games should get first dibs, followed by those who went to Home EFL Cup games, and so on.

The absolute dumbest thing about this interview - and the thing that has annoyed me most - is Ralph thinking the way to 'make our policy clear to fans' of an English club, is to do so in a German football magazine interview. You've got a corporate website, an active social media presence and numerous other channels. If you feel you really need to make it clear to us, be a man, grow a pair, use the website or a fans forum, spell it out, tell it straight.

Hasn't burst in the Prem yet. Sky and their money have been ruining football here for years, they say...

How do we know Puel isn't or hasn't demanded new players? Are we guessing, or taking media quotes as fact?

Good. He has been successful in a very different system and style of play, at a different level. Throwing him into a different system, with different players around him, in a much harder league, in a team struggling for form and confidence and expecting him to learn, adapt and be successful could ruin all the excellent progress and development he's benefitting from where he is.

IF we have recalled Gallagher, it shows the board know we need a striker and acknowledge the problem needs attention. It also shows they're unwilling to spend money to ensure we qualify for Europe again, making a mockery of appointing Puel for his European experience.

This time last year we were in a similar position - similar league position, similar points and in the middle of a similar meltdown and performance dip. The differences this year are we've played a lot more games, we've lost two established goal scorers and our manager has only been here for half a season (vs 1.5 seasons) so hasn't fully made his mark yet. We also know the manager himself isn't solely responsible for transfers, so it's unfair to lay the blame fully with him as we can all see a lack of goals is really hurting us. It's not all Puel's fault that we don't have more attacking options and it's not Puel's fault that we signed Redmond before appointing a manager who's system and tactics don't really work with a player like him, so he's having to adapt him. Where we can blame Puel, as others have already said, is we seem mentally weak (the first goal conceded kills us) and our players who need consistent runs in the team to perform at their best aren't getting them due to his tinkering (Long, in particular). Also, although we don't really know what's going on behind closed doors, I suspect there is a problem brewing with Fonte that's disturbing things. I don't buy the argument that he's to old to play multiple games in a week when similar aged or older players are doing it in the Prem right now... Zlatan being the obvious example. I think Puel could do better here... publicly saying he's being 'particular' with his contract isn't great man-management, for instance. As for the entertainment value... the football is only called boring when we lose. When we win it's OK and when we win convincingly it's great. Even when we draw after a great performance (Liverpool at Home) it's not called boring.

Rotation wasn't a problem when we were using the entire squad in the same way and regularly winning in three competitions (Prem, Europe and EFL Cup). It wasn't a problem when we gave academy players game time and they impressed, while leaving some of our 'best 11' on the bench. It's only a problem now our players are failing to perform and we're losing. The team we put out today were good enough to win, but individual errors and poor concentration failed us (again).

We signed Austin as Pelle's replacement, before Pelle left, because we knew he was going to leave. There's no reason we can't or won't do the same again, as it seems inevitable Fonte, VVD or both of them are going to leave. Even if by some Christmas miracle both stay another season, Fonte needs proactively replacing before he becomes a risk in a position we can't afford to take risks in. Gardos may well be the answer, but as we've seen with JRod, injuries can either take a very, very long time to come back from, or can change you forever.

Replace 'Nice' with 'Saints' and 'top of their league' with any of our record breaking finishing positions and you're onto something.

I think we're sort of agreeing... we didn't test the keeper enough. We had a lot of shots - as somebody else pointed out, only a handful of teams have had more shots than us - they just don't hit the target often enough and certainly don't go in enough. How many times per-game do we make it to the oppositions penalty area? Plenty, IMO. We get there frequently and often quite easily, we just make bad decisions when we get there (Redmond in particular is superb right up until his final decision making), or don't have the quality, confidence or ability to score enough.

If our famed recruitment team had bought a couple of goalscorer's, or hadn't sold the ones we had, but everything else remained the same, I don't think this debate would exist. We defend well, control games, get forward frequently, create chances, promote youth, use the entire squad (with no real negative consequence or obvious dips in form), have played more games so far than most other teams, are 9th in the PL, progressing in the EFL... but we can't score goals, even if the ball is fired at a striker stood in front of the goal.

We need a new CB, regardless of what happens with Fonte. If he stays, he's got no more than one more season ahead of him at his current level, so we need to be thinking ahead. CB has always been one of our most important positions, we shouldn't wait until we have a problem to do something about it. If he leaves, we have to do it anyway. Similar to Austin 'replacing' Pelle before Pelle actually left. We need a new striker. Not an Austin equivalent who'll put away chances created for him, but somebody who can make things happen. Spend big here, IMO. Not 'up and coming' players who have had a good season (e.g. Wilson) but proven, tried and tested, been there, done that, safe bets... who you'll pay a pretty penny for, but with a greater chance of an instant return. Otherwise, I don't think we need anything else in Jan. McQueen and Sims have proven they're ready; Reed is a steady option for cover and rotation; Pied will come back from injury for next season; Yoshida is looking better all the time, McCarthy looks capable as a 2nd choice. and if we did get another striker, having Long and Austin competing with them is a healthy amount of competition (assuming JRod is sold or loaned out).

It's Lambert all over again. Love him, love what he's done for us, would be glad to see him see out his career and move behind the scenes (ala Kelvin), but at the same time recognise his best days are just behind him and he will need to be replaced soon, so if he does move on he will go with our best wishes. No hard feelings whatever happens, but we are already at the stage where we need to think about his replacement whether he stays or not. A solid CB pairing has been a Saints speciality for a long time, we shouldn't risk that.

The players have commented that his man management and relationship with the players is an improvement, so whatever people think of his personality in front of camera, the players don't agree. I'd also wager that if the very same formation, tactics, style and results were obtained by somebody like Emery, who the majority of fans were excited about, there wouldn't be as much fuss and hysteria after only three games. We'd be hearing 'give it time' and picking out the positives (there are positives, btw) instead of focusing on only the negatives.

Agree with all of this, but on the first point I would add the reverse is true too - there were a number of occasions where a through ball couldn't be made as our forwards were already offside and were slow coming back. JRod did this twice; an attack broke down, ball ended up back with us in midfield, JRod was slowly walking back into an offside position which wasted a chance for a quick attack, so we had to keep passing it amongst ourselves and wait. It suggests that we are indeed adjusting to a new way of playing and thinking, which is hard for the likes of JRod if you're sat on the bench.

Why would he come on loan if he's no more likely to play than he is at Arsenal? If he goes on loan it'll be for game time and experience, not to warm somebody else's bench waiting for his chance.

If JRod was fit he wouldn't be going on loan if we thought we needed the current number of strikers we have (hence replacing him). If we didn't think he was good enough, he would sold rather than loaned out. Put the two together and it seems quite obvious - we have a player who is returning from a long-term serious injury, who suffered complications and delays, who hasn't played enough football to be ready for EPL-standard games. We have other players who are ready who are less of a risk, so we'll play those instead, which lessens JRods ability to get back to fitness and sharpness. He goes out on loan, gets game time, gets fit, gets his sharpness back (physical and mental) and then comes back to us to play. Or, How goes out on loan, gets game time, gets fit, proves he isn't able to reach his previous standards and is sold as he isn't at the required standard. Emotion about him as a bloke aside and forgetting our wishes that he was fully fit and ready to go, it seems a sound move to me.