Change in Philosophy

[sydneysaint17]

Absolutely no idea how long ago this was, but I remember watching a club published video of Les Reed explaining why our managerial appointments have been so successful in recent years. He suggested that the club had an engrained way of playing football, "The Southampton Way", and that we selected managers who played a very similar style and were prepared to adopt our philosophy. He went on to say that the formation played by the first team (I believe 4-3-3/4-2-3-1) at that time was mirrored by all academy teams and the idea was that we ensured continuous progression by not having to completely remodel our style of play every time we got a new manager. It made complete sense at the time and made me think of how many teams struggled to adapt to a new system implemented a manager who would likely only be there for a 1/2 seasons at most (e.g. Van Gaal's failed attempt at 5 at the back when he moved to United).

 

If Big Les was so confident in this strategy - can someone please explain why we appointed Puel?

 

It is clear that, although our formation occasionally looks like a 4-3-3, Puel has introduced a new style of play and our football is radically different from the way we set up under Poch/Koeman (who also had significant tactical differences). Long confirmed this on BT Sport last night saying that the players are still "getting used to" the new philosophy. Obviously new managers will have their own ideas, but given Les' comments it seems strange that we have changed tack completely. What's even more confusing is that arguably our best XI are naturally more suited to the way we always used to set up;

 

----------------Forster----------------

Cedric------Fonte------VVD-------Bertrand

-------------Romeu-----PEH--------------

Boufal-------------Tadic-----------Redmond

----------------- -Austin-----------------------

 

To be clear, this is not a "bedwetting" post. I'm not commenting on how many chances we've created or how badly were playing, rather how we seemed to have deviated from "The Southampton Way" of playing football. To pre-empt one likely argument - I agree that Puel has been great at giving younger players opportunities and this does align to the clubs overall philosophy. For me though, by appointing Puel, Les has contradicted his idea of not fundamentally changing the system which undermines "The Southampton Way" and limits our ability to sustainably progress. Thoughts?

[Suhari]

This was discussed back after CP's appointment.

 

The upshot I believe is that Les is a progressive thinker, and views a move to different tactics as necessary to help us stay ahead of the masses......hence a club wide move to diamond.

[derry]

I go along with this except Boufal until he adapts and lifts his game after a long period injured is not worth anything other than cameo appearances, whilst Redmond has been an undeserved ever present with little output or end product. I personally would go for more home grown strength and play Rodriguez, Austin and Tadic on the left with Long up front, dispensing with the three small midfielders and Play Hojbjerg with Romeu as you say. Rodriguez needs to play himself back in, If Austin is allowed to play his natural game in the box and Long takes the physical stick up front, Tadic can operate in his best position. We would also be physically stronger.

 

I don't rate Puel because he ignores the natural strengths of some players, indulges the weaknesses of favourites and makes players fit into his system even if they don't suit it. Good managers employ systems that get the natural best out of their players not the other way round. The result is rather than making a team better than the sum of the parts Puel has made the team worse.

[derry]

This was discussed back after CP's appointment.

 

The upshot I believe is that Les is a progressive thinker, and views a move to different tactics as necessary to help us stay ahead of the masses......hence a club wide move to diamond.

 

We bring in players and educate the academy to play one way then adopt a system that hardly anybody plays for good reason, it doesn't suit the players who are failing to adapt. The diamond is a mess unless the players are suited to it. Ours are not.

[sydneysaint17]

This was discussed back after CP's appointment.

 

The upshot I believe is that Les is a progressive thinker, and views a move to different tactics as necessary to help us stay ahead of the masses......hence a club wide move to diamond.

 

The changes in tactics seem far more reactive to managers leaving, than proactively trying to gain an advantage over other teams. If this was the case, why haven't we bought players that suit the new system? Also, when Puel inevitably leaves after a couple of seasons either due to success, failure or mediocrity, will we be asking a new manager to adopt "The Southampton Way 2.0"? My guess would be that we would go along with whatever diamond, circle or triangle formation the new manager suggested.

[Saint_clark]

I think I remember reading a quote from Les where he said they teach the 4-3-3 formation because it's the easiest to adapt into other styles, i.e you can very easily make it a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 diamond as we've seen the last two seasons.

[ashnats]

Absolutely no idea how long ago this was, but I remember watching a club published video of Les Reed explaining why our managerial appointments have been so successful in recent years. He suggested that the club had an engrained way of playing football, "The Southampton Way", and that we selected managers who played a very similar style and were prepared to adopt our philosophy. He went on to say that the formation played by the first team (I believe 4-3-3/4-2-3-1) at that time was mirrored by all academy teams and the idea was that we ensured continuous progression by not having to completely remodel our style of play every time we got a new manager. It made complete sense at the time and made me think of how many teams struggled to adapt to a new system implemented a manager who would likely only be there for a 1/2 seasons at most (e.g. Van Gaal's failed attempt at 5 at the back when he moved to United).

 

If Big Les was so confident in this strategy - can someone please explain why we appointed Puel?

 

It is clear that, although our formation occasionally looks like a 4-3-3, Puel has introduced a new style of play and our football is radically different from the way we set up under Poch/Koeman (who also had significant tactical differences). Long confirmed this on BT Sport last night saying that the players are still "getting used to" the new philosophy. Obviously new managers will have their own ideas, but given Les' comments it seems strange that we have changed tack completely. What's even more confusing is that arguably our best XI are naturally more suited to the way we always used to set up;

 

----------------Forster----------------

Cedric------Fonte------VVD-------Bertrand

-------------Romeu-----PEH--------------

Boufal-------------Tadic-----------Redmond

----------------- -Austin-----------------------

 

To be clear, this is not a "bedwetting" post. I'm not commenting on how many chances we've created or how badly were playing, rather how we seemed to have deviated from "The Southampton Way" of playing football. To pre-empt one likely argument - I agree that Puel has been great at giving younger players opportunities and this does align to the clubs overall philosophy. For me though, by appointing Puel, Les has contradicted his idea of not fundamentally changing the system which undermines "The Southampton Way" and limits our ability to sustainably progress. Thoughts?

 

I thought the idea of 4-3-3 through the ages up to the academy was that it is a good formation for teaching players how to play. It has full backs who have to defend and attack, it has ballers and brutes in the central 3, strikers to hold up and muscle, and wingers who can either be out and out, or chasing throughballs. you don't get the same all round skillset from any other formation (e.g 442 is restricted to outside wingers, 5-3-2 is reliant on full backs etc.etc.)

 

I don't think the idea was ever that the first team has to play 4-3-3. The idea is we can assess and judge players in the 4-3-3, and teach them how to play in the different positions, so that they can adapt to any formation the manager chooses, and the manager can choose a certain kind of player to play in whatever position he wants. Unfortunately for Long, he doesn't fit so well into the Puel system, a player more like Van Persie would be perfect for it. Austin is good for it. I do think we could use a ball playing striker up front with a nose for goal to play with Charlie.

[sydneysaint17]

I thought the idea of 4-3-3 through the ages up to the academy was that it is a good formation for teaching players how to play. It has full backs who have to defend and attack, it has ballers and brutes in the central 3, strikers to hold up and muscle, and wingers who can either be out and out, or chasing throughballs. you don't get the same all round skillset from any other formation (e.g 442 is restricted to outside wingers, 5-3-2 is reliant on full backs etc.etc.)

 

I don't think the idea was ever that the first team has to play 4-3-3. The idea is we can assess and judge players in the 4-3-3, and teach them how to play in the different positions, so that they can adapt to any formation the manager chooses, and the manager can choose a certain kind of player to play in whatever position he wants. Unfortunately for Long, he doesn't fit so well into the Puel system, a player more like Van Persie would be perfect for it. Austin is good for it. I do think we could use a ball playing striker up front with a nose for goal to play with Charlie.

 

I agree that Les Reed's comments weren't suggesting that the first teams tactics had to be exactly the same as the academy. However, the system we play now is so far away from both academy/previous first teams set ups, that players are struggling to adapt. JWP (academy graduate...)/Puel/Long have all implicitly confirmed that players have not found the transition smooth and have taken time to understand the new philosophy. My point was that Les Reed said we have set the club to play the Southampton Way and we appoint managers who promote a similar style, however it would seem that we have instead changed direction to the "Puel Way".

[Dusic]

We don't really play the diamond very often anymore.

 

Personnel and form/attributes of players going forward is the issue, not the system.

[Mr X]

puel plays the most boring brand of football i have seen it makes the old Wimbledon style look exciting

[Trader]

It's always amused me when the football hierarchy (Van Gaal) et al. Talk about 'philosophy'.

 

Maybe Saints should look to take on this bloke.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers

[Cartman]

4-2-3-1 = 4-4-2

Diamond = 4-3-3

A team that features Tadic, Redmond, Boufal and Austin cannot in any way be described as a 4-3-3. And it was under Koeman that we deviated from what Les calls the Southampton Way. What we play now is closer to what Les had in mind, regardless of what peoples feelings about this way of playing are.

[adrian lord]

Maybe we should sign managers and coaches in the mould of the much admired Germans, such as Nietzsche or Heidegger? Or the Dutch master, Kierkegaard?

 

I appreciate that many fans and indeed the board may not wish to repeat this disasterous French experiment, but I wouldn't discount the highly regarded Jean-Paul Sartre.

 

Or take a different direction and look to emulate the successes achieved in the Greek tradition They won the Euros once. I am thinking here of men such as Plato, Aristotle, or even take a punt on the promising Socrates?

Edited 26 November, 2016 by adrian lord

[Dusic]

4-2-3-1 = 4-4-2

Diamond = 4-3-3

A team that features Tadic, Redmond, Boufal and Austin cannot in any way be described as a 4-3-3. And it was under Koeman that we deviated from what Les calls the Southampton Way. What we play now is closer to what Les had in mind, regardless of what peoples feelings about this way of playing are.

Thats just, wrong.

[Hamilton Saint]

Maybe we should sign managers and coaches in the mould of the much admired Germans, such as Nietzsche or Heidegger? Or the Dutch master, Kierkegaard?

 

I appreciate that many fans and indeed the board may not wish to repeat this disasterous French experiment, but I wouldn't discount the highly regarded Jean-Paul Sartre.

 

Or take a different direction and look to emulate the successes achieved in the Greek tradition They won the Euros once. I am thinking here of men such as Plato, Aristotle, or even take a punt on the promising Socrates?

 

Nice, except Kierkegaard was Danish.

[9-3]

After watching Saints v Chelsea and Liverpool, we just have no pace or runners in the team, watched Charlie race after a 50/50 ball against Liverpool, he was way in front and got over taken.

No pace.

[kermitsaint]

We don't really play the diamond very often anymore.

 

Personnel and form/attributes of players going forward is the issue, not the system.

Interesting that those same players last season were generally much more effective yet they are to blame rather than the system .

 

I tend to disagree . Personally Puel and his system are to blame . He seems fine with the style and how effective we are .

 

Interesting that the club is shoving more player interviews down our throats right now as a rallying call . I bet the board is finding it hard to ignore the fans discontent

 

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

[adrian lord]

Nice, except Kierkegaard was Danish.

 

Keeping you on your toes.

[Andy Durman]

With the diamond you seem to dominate possession at the expense of cutting edge.

 

yesterday my team played a 3-5-2. Dominated the game, but only scored one goal. I changed to 4-diamond-2 to close the game out.

 

I can be more aggressive with 2 central upfront