mrfahaji

Nordic Saint has addressed this question in some part above, but I was also just giving an example of how we could have spent the remaining money rather than not spending it all. My example was also in keeping with the business model, which is why I chose it. But yes you could think of other "types" of player that we could buy instead.

Yes it would obviously have to be a UEFA-wide or even worldwide policy. And I realise that that is impractical, but from a purely theoretical/hypothetical point of view, it would improve the game immensely in my opinion. Also, while it is nice to see good players, I support Southampton and I want us to be better than everyone else. I don't really mind if that's through us improving or everyone else getting worse.

You're on the fence about it then?

The Championship under Adkins or under Poortvliet? When we were relegated I remember looking on the bright side - "at least we'll win a few more games now!" I chortled, safe in the knowledge that we would never again be facing a relegation battle, until of course we were inevitably promoted again. Losing every week in the Championship is no more fun, and probably worse, than in the Premier League. Of course that is the paradox that we football fans are forever locked in. We spurn the top division, because it is the breeding ground of all that is wrong with the modern game. But ultimately, winning makes fans happy, and fans throughout the country aspire for promotion (the causality of the two could be argued...), and yet when they reach the promised land they realise it isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Yeah exactly, and there would be plenty of legal problems with it too. But I can dream!

"Southampton player with name frequently abbreviated to three initials set for big club move"

So is anyone going to stick their neck out and say that Forster is not going to end up as good as Buffon?

By all means defend JWP, but to criticise Tadic as 'flattering to deceive' while doing so is utterly bizarre.

I know there's plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work in practise, but a team salary cap would be fantastic. Sure, Manchester United could still have a bigger budget than Hull, but there would a semblance of scale to it. That way the big clubs couldn't afford to buy up all the best players unless those players agreed to significantly lower wages. It would certainly flush out which players were about the money or success. Plus clubs would have a genuine reason not to just hand players whatever wages they want, and it would become a more competitive environment.

Didn't realise this was a thread dug up from 9 years ago. I read every point in the OP trying to decide whether it was a genuine or sarcastic take on the current state of play... Before I realised my mistake, I came to the conclusion it was a sarcastic one!

Ok yes I can see your point here, and Hojbjerg is a good example of a player that now seems to be treading water after initial early promise. The reason for me phrasing it like this though is that it's clearly a big ask, and probably unrealistic to sell your best player and sign someone for half the money who steps into the team and is immediately an upgrade. Mane took a while (half a season?) before he regularly showed excellence, and Boufal has shown flashes of brilliance but is not yet close to being 'as good' as the player we lost in Mane. Those are more the transfers I'm thinking about rather than perservering for 3 or 4 seasons with a player just in case they suddenly have a break out season - which is probably more the case with someone like Clasie. I also agree that it is a fine line, but at the same time for clubs of our size I'm not sure what viable alternatives there are to sustained success? Especially when we can (if you take this claim at face value) attract good players because they know they will have an opportunity to progress and then leave. People may not agree with this strategy, which is fine, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

Also agree that it was an excellent post from Fabrice29. I think you're being a bit harsh on Jackie@home though, isn't their point exactly that? Tadic is playing with a completely different set of players and is playing really well, so it's not like he's just turned into a rubbish player, it's that the team set up, tactics or quality of team mates is not suiting him. (Of course, you could argue that his form was decent up until he got injured for Serbia, and therefore he hasn't had chance to be cr@p for them yet...!)

Yes, you can. Did you read my entire post? Of course it's not easy but if you identify the right targets then replacing one player with two that eventually become as good (or almost as good) improves the team. My post was actually being critical of the club, because even though the apparent business model makes sense, I do not believe they have gone about implementing it effectively; one-for-one is much riskier, takes longer to come to frutition, has dips along the way, and prevents you from mounting a serious challenge to the top teams because you are in a perpetual cycle.

In the summer we replaced Pelle, Mane, Wanyama & Juanmi with Boufal, Hojbjerg, Redmond & Pied. We also had Austin from the previous window and signed Alex McCarthy in goal. Of course our performances have gone backwards, because none of the replacements are currently as good as their predecessors. It could be a minor blip before the likes of Hojbjerg and Redmond go on to become world beaters, but equally we might have just failed to find players of the same quality. Pied and McCarthy are two 'extra' signings, but in truth they were brought in for competition/backup rather than because they were tipped for future stardom. Had we used the extra, say £20m, to invest in two other promising £10m players, we would have increased the chances of upgrading the team (if not right now, then maybe in a season or two), and at the very least would have a stronger squad and more tactical 'possibilities'. I know it's easier said than done to put this into operation, but the club tends to pride itself on its scouting ability and transfer policy, so it's hard to buy the argument that there simply weren't any options for us. My point is that our policy of selling our players is not a bad one in itself, but becomes so if we don't reinvest wisely and fully.

There's a huge difference between someone who randomly decides to follow Walsall, Ipswich or Southampton and someone who 'randomly' decides to follow Man Utd, Liverpool or Chelsea.

Lol, I'm far from Redmond's biggest fan but that's a stretch... "Nathan, we'd like you to join us here at Southampton, you'll play every week... for the reserves".

Nothing wrong with this argument, but on the flip side our business model could be "find a good player, refuse to sell them, make them get unhappy and refuse to play or run their contract down, lose them eventually for a lot less money, while at the same time find it harder to attract players in the first place because they don't see the career progress". The way that our business model can eventually achieve success is to replace every departing excellent player with at least two 'very good' ones, particularly younger players that all improve at a similar rate, so that in time we end up having an entire team of very good players, peppered with one or two excellent ones, who can then be persuaded to stay because we are challenging the top group of clubs. Unfortunately, we haven't reinvested all of our transfer fees into new players, never mind dipping into TV money etc. We have replaced players on a slightly higher ratio than 1-to-1, but not enough for insurance against one or two of those signings not coming off. Unless we somehow hit the jackpot by unearthing a player who is even better than the one he replaced, as with van Dijk, the model seems destined for failure, and we do indeed end up with the scenario you've described. The frustrating thing is that it didn't have to be this way, and most fans could see that in the summer.

Irony.

True, the value of the pound is falling pretty rapidly.

Just as a reference point (I was wondering so looked it up), Adkins left after 22 games, 22 points and goals for/against of 30-40.

After reading some of the comments above about the wall, I wondered if I had seen it wrong on the pixelated stream, because I didn't think it was a wicked deflection by any stretch and certainly didn't think the ball was going 'over' the wall. I've just found a replay now, and the ball doesn't even hit the wall, it hits the player standing to the right (as you look, think it's Romeu). Yes, the ball comes through a crowd of players, but it doesn't deviate that much from its original path. I initially thought Forster was gambling on the ball coming over the wall into the opposite corner, but I don't think he was. Nevertheless his inability to get down to the moderately deflected shot is still a damning indictment of his poor agility.

I'm not sure about that. Yeah, Tadic and van Dijk could have done better, but they weren't golden opportunities. Tadic was a pretty tight angle and van Dijk was stretching to get on it ahead of the defenders. At the end I thought Sims (or maybe it was JWP) did what they had to from that tight angle but Heaton made a fantastic recovery save. We lost the game because of our goalkeeper, but I'm not sure that our finishing was why we didn't win it. The play in the final third was poor, we are sorely lacking a striker with a bit of presence, and in general this season our finishing has been bad, but I didn't feel like we squandered loads of chances that were easier to score today.

Important to remember that Burnley are generally excellent at home, and it was never going to be an easy game. As much as being happy with a point against Burnley seems like a problem in itself, I'd have been tempted to take it before the game, given our respective form. The game was pretty dull, but the fact that we restricted them to few chances while creating a bit (let's be honest, not a lot) ourselves was an ok effort. 0-0 probably would have been a fair reflection and result, and if anyone deserved to get a winner it was us. It's clear that we just don't have enough good players, and some key players are out of form - but maybe that's because they're playing with other players who aren't very good. The goal we conceded was shambolic. Poor to give it away in the first place but absolutely horrific goalkeeping form Forster. If the ball ends up on the keeper's side of the goal, unless it has it has a wicked deflection or is a postage-stamp rocket, it should be saved. If Barton curls it over the wall into the top left corner, give him his due. Don't let him score by essentially passing it into an empty net.

Was it JWP or Sims? I thought it was Sims... Either way I'm not sure they could have done much more with the shot. Shame they had Heaton in goal instead of Forster.

But you can blame him for a terrible piece of goalkeeping to let in a soft free kick. They are two separate complaints.