Russell Martin

[Doctoroncall]

12 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Could be a big manager turnover this summer anyway, especially in the Premier League, it's become even more of a circus.  Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Brighton for sure.  You could probably add Chelsea and West Ham to that list and many others lower down.  So prepare for David Moyes or Eddie Howe being linked to Saints when Martin goes to Brighton 😂

One can dream.  Another season or two and we can welcome back Sellés. 

[Tommy Mulgrew]

3 hours ago, david in sweden said:

what " success " have those who we rejected had ?

I don’t know who we rejected in favour of RM but, of our recent managers and coaches, Ralph, Ruben,  Nathan and Danny (Rohl) are all doing great jobs at their respective relegation-threatened clubs.  As is Nigel, btw, at Tranmere and Kelvin at Eastleigh.  Not to say they would be any good at getting promoted, Nigel excepted; we’ll see how RM will fare at that in a few weeks time.

[gio1saints]

2 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Could be a big manager turnover this summer anyway, especially in the Premier League, it's become even more of a circus.  Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Brighton for sure.  You could probably add Chelsea and West Ham to that list and many others lower down.  So prepare for David Moyes or Eddie Howe being linked to Saints when Martin goes to Brighton 😂

Yup there will be turnover a plenty. 

Wether it’s a good idea or not to keep changing manager each season is the question though. I think it’s bad. 
 

Sacking RM if we do not go up ( or even if we do) and the circus that follows I have no appetite for. It might satisfy a few on here but no new manager comes with a guarantee. 

Continuity is valuable in itself for any organisation wanting to have long term, sustainable, success.  If we do not go up this season then our best chance to go up next year, imo, is to use the intelligence, maturity and experiences of this season with Russell& his team - not start from scratch with a new lot. 

The debacle at end of last season surely must have taught us something?

[Saint86]

17 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

I think there have been some very reasoned posts in this thread. I had my doubts when he was appointed, he didn't feel the right fit, but you had to get behind him which 99% of us did at that point. The start we had didn't help the nerves, but the recovery and the unbeaten run steadied the ship and brought a lot of us some hope, but the failings at the start of the season were still nagging in the back of most of our minds.

Sadly all of those nagging doubts have come rushing back since February, we went 26 games without losing and have now lost 7 in the last 15 which is absolutley bloody horrific and has killed our season. The concerns the fans have are valid in my opinion, a genuine promotion candidate cannot concede in excess of 60 goals - it just doesn't compute. Those goals have come across the entire season, we started it with a 5-0 thrashing and have ended it with another - so in my opinion the fans have got genuine reason to ask wtf is going on.

As a team with THB, KWP, Bednarek, Downes etc in the defensive third....we should not be conceding over 60 goals. I know the counter argument some like to play is that these players are shit, they conceded goals whenever they are etc - but this is a level down, they are internationals of varying levels and they are good enough to not be letting in the amount of goals they are. The fundamental issue is our approach in my opinion, no matter how much Martin denies it.

1) - We are wide open, we attack and we push high and leave our CB's playing as midfielders, full backs as attackers etc. When a team press us well and they transition well we are exploited, the gaps are there for all to see. It's been a clear target that oppositions have hit us with - press us, transition with pace and we're done for. It's like groundhog day.

2) - We're too interested with just keeping the ball for keeping the ball sake and passively trying to win the ball back ourselves to transition. This has lead to us standing off so much in the hope we can nick it without fouling, but teams are quick to that and the top sides like Leicester, Ipswich, Hull etc have players who can do a quick 1 - 2 and dance around our passive approach. We fanny around with it in areas of danger and we are pressured to within an inch our life now, it's not about being brave it's being bloody stupid.

There's nothing wrong with possession football as an approach, but you cannot build an entire philosophy just on that. The basis of football is keeping the ball, but a philosophy needs to evolve beyond that - and that just hasn't happened here.

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

 Basically If you discount all the games we lost, all of the goals we let in, we are the best side in the league?

Edited April 26 by AlexLaw76

[Hayling Saint]

5 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

Well said.

[david in sweden]

59 minutes ago, Tommy Mulgrew said:

I don’t know who we rejected in favour of RM but, of our recent managers and coaches, Ralph, Ruben,  Nathan and Danny (Rohl) are all doing great jobs at their respective relegation-threatened clubs.  As is Nigel, btw, at Tranmere and Kelvin at Eastleigh.  Not to say they would be any good at getting promoted, Nigel excepted; we’ll see how RM will fare at that in a few weeks time.

Yes a lot of names but few of them could have been seriously considered... .or ?     YES - We were forced to sack Ralph, despite his brave attempt 

and Danny Rohl  may have been better than RH in many aspects and went to a better level - so why would he come back to a relegated club? 

After Nathan Jones got the push,  Selles got the task - by default, but wasn't convincing enough to land the job. ...unless perhaps we had survived.

Was Nigel really considered  I wonder?    Our fans would have loved him I'm sure, but it's the team that must deliver the goods / or not. 

I'm pleased that Nigel found a new job, but Kelvin would never  have been in the reckoning, but he has won some brownies points in saving

Eastleigh from relegation in the National League (!)   Surely we sought someone with a better pedigree, and RM almost made it last season with Swansea

 

We don't know who else was considered, but the much-vaunted Plymouth fellow didn't last long after his move.

Once again it was down to making a choice from those who didn't make the cut and others who may not have wanted to move / or just didn't 

fancy the task of taking on a relegated side who were about to sell all their best players and build a team with kids and loan players.

Promotion or not,  all things considered  I think Russell Martin has made a valiant effort - and deserves another season if we don't win the third spot,

the real problem may be  - if we do get promoted ...then he will be hunted by some " bigger fish in the Prem. pond " ...and then we start all over again.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, gio1saints said:

Continuity is valuable in itself for any organisation wanting to have long term, sustainable, success.

What are you fucking banging on about?

Continuity with a mid table average manager leads to what? 

 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 minutes ago, david in sweden said:

or just didn't fancy the task of taking on a relegated side who were about to sell all their best players and build a team with kids and loan players.

Which club are you on about, because it’s clearly not Saints.

[S-Clarke]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

So, we just airbrush those games because they add to the tally?

There's no way we should be losing 5-0 twice in a season, mixed in with a 4-1 and 4-4 as well. It's not like we've isolated our crappy goals against to a few games, we gave up 3 at Bristol, 3 against Huddersfield at home, 1 to frigging Rotherham. No matter how you dress it up we should not be conceding over 61 goals.

I hear a lot about the morale and 'scar tissue', but why didn't Leeds and Leicester face the same turmoil? What was so different with them? They were also relegated with us after having horrendous seasons, they both had equal turmoil in the summer with players leaving left right and centre. They both changed their managers and backroom staff. If we cannot seemingly cope with 'scar tissue', then why can they?

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

Flynn Downes has played in 31 games this season when we have conceded 34 goals (excludes Huddersfield where we won 5-3 all goals scored after Downes injured), that is an average of 1.1 goals conceded per game (and bear in mind that includes Sunderland and Ipswich at the start of the season just after he joined). We have played 11 games without Downes (after he joined) (including Huddersfield) and conceded 21 goals in those games average 1.9 per game (we also conceded 6 in the first 3 games of the season before Downes signed). Almost double average. There is a reason why we have conceded goals and lost games, and it is not (much) to do with the defence or for that matter the keeper.

[OldNick]

Can we recall Tall Paul for the playoffs? give us an outlet and probably be able to put the ball in the net lol

[S-Clarke]

1 minute ago, VectisSaint said:

Flynn Downes has played in 31 games this season when we have conceded 34 goals (excludes Huddersfield where we won 5-3 all goals scored after Downes injured), that is an average of 1.1 goals conceded per game (and bear in mind that includes Sunderland and Ipswich at the start of the season just after he joined). We have played 11 games without Downes (after he joined) (including Huddersfield) and conceded 21 goals in those games average 1.9 per game (we also conceded 6 in the first 3 games of the season before Downes signed). Almost double average. There is a reason why we have conceded goals and lost games, and it is not (much) to do with the defence or for that matter the keeper.

Exactly, it's not down to individuals per say, it's the style. We don't have a viable alternative way of playing if Downes is unavailable and there should be some squad flexibility to allow us to cope with that.

But we never do, we just blindly do the same thing but with players who aren't suited. Granted, I think we have left our midfield massively short this year which hasn't helped - but it's the 'play this way no matter approach' that's harmed us.

[notnowcato]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

It's a fair way of looking at things.  Even for allowing for the data outliers it's still more goals conceded than Lester and Lids have over their 44 games.  Yes, it maybe not as bad as it seems but it's still not good enough.  I don't think we can question that.  Without doubt we should have conceded less and scored more than we have this season. 

[david in sweden]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

All points are well made Saints 86.   In the final analysis our presumptive failure to get any promotion may well be put down to the disasters in September,

after which we had sunk to 15th spot with just 10 points (of 24) - all of which were earned thanks to goals in the last five minutes and /or added time.

We lost Ward-Prowse, Tella, Lavia, Livramento, Salisu and Djenepo and bought in just two players (Manning and Charles) whilst loaning  five  more at short notice;

Manning, Downes, Fraser, Holgate and Harwood-Bellis (who incidentally didn't play until game 6 ...(which was Leicester (h).

 

By the time we recovered form and beat Leeds (h) .....we had already used 21 players, and had lost Alcarez, Stephens, Edozie, Smallbone and Downes

to shorter periods of injury, whilst Stephens was out for 3 months. 

Those 20 plus unbeaten games got us results, but we dropped serious points at home;

in defeats v. Hull and Millwall (were unforgiveable),  and the draw v. Rotherham (we had 80% possession and 22 shots to 4 ) tell their own story.

The 37 goal partnership (Adams and Adam Armstrong) may sound impressive, but we badly needed a third striker capable of getting

 into double figures, and the many missed chances by other players were to numerous to be reckoned.

Promotion and relegation issues are always down to missed chances and shots hitting the woodwork.   What's left will become history. 

 

Edited April 26 by david in sweden

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 Basically If you discount all the games we lost, all of the goals we let in, we are the best side in the league?

If that's how you read those numbers fair enough 😊.

I'm merely saying that we've had a couple of freak results - 3 of our first 6 right at the start of the season with obvious mitigations, and 1 last time out vs Leicester (again) with obvious mitigations... And if you take out those 4 games, we've basically averaged 1 goal against over the other 40games.

Whether people want to consider those 4 games as valid results or as outliers is nothing to do with me, i just looked into the breakdown a bit more and presented it 🤷‍♂️ - although my take is that they are more fairly treated as outliers.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What are you fucking banging on about?

Continuity with a mid table average manager leads to what? 

 

 

More of the same.

[Saint86]

57 minutes ago, notnowcato said:

It's a fair way of looking at things.  Even for allowing for the data outliers it's still more goals conceded than Lester and Lids have over their 44 games.  Yes, it maybe not as bad as it seems but it's still not good enough.  I don't think we can question that.  Without doubt we should have conceded less and scored more than we have this season. 

Yeah i don't disagree, those two sides are clearly better than us on the defensive front - but equally they were both stronger sides that us last year (lets be honest), and have both been very good this year without as much change around and without entirely changing style.

Just for comparison's sake, goals conceded per game for other top of the table sides (over the full 44 because i really CBA to take out any possible outliers 😄),

WBA are currently averaging exactly 1 goal against per game.

Leicester are 0.89

Leeds are 0.84 

Ipswich are 1.2 

Norwich are 1.38

Hull are 1.27

Coventry are 1.25

Mention for Bristol city on 1.07, albeit they've only scored 51 goals.

On the goals scored per game front we're basically joint top with Leicester and Ipswich on 1.93 per game (over the full 44 - so ignoring any outliers where we got pumped 5-0 twice or 4-1).
 

So in summary, i don't think all the negativity is perhaps justified. Whether we get promoted or not, next year will be tough. There will be a lot of change in the side regardless. Either to strengthen, or to replace some of our more experienced/talented (che adams? 👀) players (probably KWP 😰) that are out of contract or will attract moves to the prem. But then equally, it might allow Martin to have a summer where he can focus more on building a team than on trying to balance the ffp books and relying on loans etc. Although our director of football f'off prior to a big summer doesn't exactly help.

Edited April 26 by Saint86

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, VectisSaint said:

Flynn Downes has played in 31 games this season when we have conceded 34 goals (excludes Huddersfield where we won 5-3 all goals scored after Downes injured), that is an average of 1.1 goals conceded per game (and bear in mind that includes Sunderland and Ipswich at the start of the season just after he joined). We have played 11 games without Downes (after he joined) (including Huddersfield) and conceded 21 goals in those games average 1.9 per game (we also conceded 6 in the first 3 games of the season before Downes signed). Almost double average. There is a reason why we have conceded goals and lost games, and it is not (much) to do with the defence or for that matter the keeper.

61 goals in 44games. I make that nearer 1.44 per game. What have I missed?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I thought we were doing okay after those first four games. A bit disjointed, but nothing I wasn't expecting considering the massive squad being trimmed down while keeping everyone focused, and implementing a new system.

As we got through those, and past the transfer window closing, I was expecting things to continue to improve. September was a bit of a shock. 🙂

It turned out that it was the ability of JWP that prevented the system falling apart (see also Downes), and the direct attacking of Tella that gave us some drive in the final third.

So, some discussion to be had that it's the players getting us over the line, despite the system. Against the system giving us an overall advantage, if we can get players of a certain standard to work in it.

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, VectisSaint said:

Flynn Downes has played in 31 games this season when we have conceded 34 goals (excludes Huddersfield where we won 5-3 all goals scored after Downes injured), that is an average of 1.1 goals conceded per game (and bear in mind that includes Sunderland and Ipswich at the start of the season just after he joined). We have played 11 games without Downes (after he joined) (including Huddersfield) and conceded 21 goals in those games average 1.9 per game (we also conceded 6 in the first 3 games of the season before Downes signed). Almost double average. There is a reason why we have conceded goals and lost games, and it is not (much) to do with the defence or for that matter the keeper.

Its interesting that you dig down into Downes, and generally i agree and initially started with him when i was doing the breakdown above (https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/flynn-downes/leistungsdaten/spieler/506189).

I think we've got something like a 60% loss rate when he doesn't play, and only a 20% win rate (could be wrong - i was looking at that pre Leicester). I've been banging the drum all season that we're shocking when we don't have the right balance in central midfield - i.e. need a serious anchor, and need a creative player to properly dictate play (stu is the best, aribo is effective in his own way) - when we have a mixture of attacking mids, wingers, and forwards playing 5 of the 6 midfield/attacking spots (especially without a proper anchor) we just lose all cohesion to our play, we stop dominating possession, and teams are able to break us down and counter with ease. Its tended to happen a lot when we make changes circa 60-70min, and has been an issue repeatedly without downes.

I think this does tie in with needing another serious window to tailor the squad. Its notable even now that once we lose Stu Armstrong or Aribo we lose our ability to control the game, hold the ball, make incisive passing etc. (and not to repeat myself, the loan swap of alcaraz and rothwell is still mind boggling to me as alcaraz is the kind of player we need (I assume it centered on the large loan fee we banked up front). But when you pair that lack of control in an attacking sense with a loss of a serious CDM anchor we become both unable to defend or keep possession. And its a recurring theme post 25game unbeaten run and falling apart defensively post subs.

Edited April 26 by Saint86

[Challenger]

2 hours ago, gio1saints said:

Yup there will be turnover a plenty. 

Wether it’s a good idea or not to keep changing manager each season is the question though. I think it’s bad. 
 

Sacking RM if we do not go up ( or even if we do) and the circus that follows I have no appetite for. It might satisfy a few on here but no new manager comes with a guarantee. 

Continuity is valuable in itself for any organisation wanting to have long term, sustainable, success.  If we do not go up this season then our best chance to go up next year, imo, is to use the intelligence, maturity and experiences of this season with Russell& his team - not start from scratch with a new lot. 

The debacle at end of last season surely must have taught us something?

Taught us something ? Indeed buy cheap buy twice springs to mind, but SR don't seem to learn.

[Convict Colony]

Ladies and Gents

The last thing any football club needs is to lose a manager whose performed in my view well, he's overhauled the playing style and gave the team some belief but also learnt and shown flaws at this level, this is to be expected and as a fan base as a whole we are disappointed as we expected/hoped for promotion.

To be honest i would be surprised if he is still here with us next season, i see him like Katie Price before Dwight Yorke, good to look at and aesthetically pleasing but hard to get a result with.

However we've had 4 mangers in 2 yrs, 4 fucking managers is a joke for us or any club that wants to create a culture, a pathway for younger players and execute a strategic plan.

Russell's main issue was allowing us to go into the season with a injured centre forward who i suspect ex-sunderland Mowbray most likely vouched for, which then just leads us into season  3 or 4 of not having a proper striker since ings.

Changing manager would feel like we are not addressing the issue, the current issue is having clinical forwards to execute this game plan, we had 80% of it right this season but that missing 20% has cost us this season.

We needed to win games, kill them off early and then sit back to counter or rotate the ball which will help defensively.

Something positive recently at least is that martin has been massively fucked off when we all have been fucked off so he's not completely deluded.

All i know is it always shit being a fan, our team gives us hope and more often than not its a long version of torture before abject failure.

[Doctoroncall]

2 hours ago, Saint86 said:

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

So, if RM is still in charge of Saints next season, we will not concede more than 3 in a league match?

[Billy the Kidd]

46 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Yeah i don't disagree, those two sides are clearly better than us on the defensive front - but equally they were both stronger sides that us last year (lets be honest), and have both been very good this year without as much change around and without entirely changing style.

Just for comparison's sake, goals conceded per game for other top of the table sides (over the full 44 because i really CBA to take out any possible outliers 😄),

WBA are currently averaging exactly 1 goal against per game.

Leicester are 0.89

Leeds are 0.84 

Ipswich are 1.2 

Norwich are 1.38

Hull are 1.27

Coventry are 1.25

Mention for Bristol city on 1.07, albeit they've only scored 51 goals.

On the goals scored per game front we're basically joint top with Leicester and Ipswich on 1.93 per game (over the full 44 - so ignoring any outliers where we got pumped 5-0 twice or 4-1).
 

So in summary, i don't think all the negativity is perhaps justified. Whether we get promoted or not, next year will be tough. There will be a lot of change in the side regardless. Either to strengthen, or to replace some of our more experienced/talented (che adams? 👀) players (probably KWP 😰) that are out of contract or will attract moves to the prem. But then equally, it might allow Martin to have a summer where he can focus more on building a team than on trying to balance the ffp books and relying on loans etc. Although our director of football f'off prior to a big summer doesn't exactly help.

So, which games are you removing from the competition then? As didnt you remove all our games where we let in lots of goals?

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

61 goals in 44games. I make that nearer 1.44 per game. What have I missed?

Apart from your maths not being very good I don't know what you have missed (61/44 is 1.38) other than the point. But then you always say stats are not your thing 😉 If you check my post you will see it adds up to 61 goals against in 44 games. Where you might be struggling is that I did not include games before Downes joined at start of season (though I did mention it). Downes joined on 21 August, by which time we had already played Sheffield Wed, Norwich and Argyle, it seems unfair to me to include games that Downes wasn't available for in calculations, although if I had it would have made the case stronger as we conceded 2 per game on average during those games.

[Lord Duckhunter]

59 minutes ago, Doctoroncall said:

So, if RM is still in charge of Saints next season, we will not concede more than 3 in a league match?

If we discount the games we do, we won’t. 

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

Apart from your maths not being very good I don't know what you have missed (61/44 is 1.38) other than the point. But then you always say stats are not your thing 😉 If you check my post you will see it adds up to 61 goals against in 44 games. Where you might be struggling is that I did not include games before Downes joined at start of season (though I did mention it). Downes joined on 21 August, by which time we had already played Sheffield Wed, Norwich and Argyle, it seems unfair to me to include games that Downes wasn't available for in calculations, although if I had it would have made the case stronger as we conceded 2 per game on average during those games.

I normally do such sums in my head but for this I used an online calculator which I misread. Not far away though and I wasn’t clear exactly what you were including regarding Downes which is why I asked for clarification.

Whatever. It’s a lot of goals to let in.

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

If that's how you read those numbers fair enough 😊.

I'm merely saying that we've had a couple of freak results - 3 of our first 6 right at the start of the season with obvious mitigations, and 1 last time out vs Leicester (again) with obvious mitigations... And if you take out those 4 games, we've basically averaged 1 goal against over the other 40games.

Whether people want to consider those 4 games as valid results or as outliers is nothing to do with me, i just looked into the breakdown a bit more and presented it 🤷‍♂️ - although my take is that they are more fairly treated as outliers.

It’s one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that there have been 15 games this season where we have conceded 2 or more goals. Thats just slightly more than 1 in every 3 games that we need to score no fewer than three goals to have a chance of winning the game. That seems like an awful lot to me, and gets beyond talk of outliers due to the obvious regularity.

[Wade Garrett]

I don’t think Rasmus has the balls to sack Martin.  
Reckon next season will be more of the same.  More youngsters signed, good olayers being coached into poor ones and a style of football that send me to sleep.

Dragan doesn’t appear interested and will let the hipsters get on with it.

 

[Osvaldorama]

If my grandmother  had wheels, she would have been a bike.

I’m sorry. You can’t just ignore the results you don’t like. That’s fucking mental.
 

And we can’t be losing 5-0 to our nearest rivals for promotion in the manner we did. It’s unacceptable. At 2-0 down you have to be pragmatic and stop the goals. 
 

Any doubts about martins ability have been proven 100% correct just in that one game alone. It’s not good enough. We can’t capitulate like that. Promotion sides just don’t behave like that. It was completely embarrassing. 
Whether it’s down to “PB football” or not is kind of irrelevant now and find someone who can instil a proper winners mindset. 

He has to go ASAP. 

[CB Fry]

41 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

It’s one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that there have been 15 games this season where we have conceded 2 or more goals. Thats just slightly more than 1 in every 3 games that we need to score no fewer than three goals to have a chance of winning the game. That seems like an awful lot to me, and gets beyond talk of outliers due to the obvious regularity.

Another way

22/23 Swansea - 64 goals conceded - 1.39 goals per game

23/24 Southampton - 61 in 44 - 1.386 per game.

No "outliers" - he cannot coach a defence, even when that defense has proven experience and class at this level and higher.

 

[Osvaldorama]

7 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Another way

22/23 Swansea - 64 goals conceded - 1.39 goals per game

23/24 Southampton - 61 in 44 - 1.386 per game.

No "outliers" - he cannot coach a defence, even when that defense has proven experience and class at this level and higher.

 

I am not happy to say it because I really like him. I also actually agree that we need some consistency, so I’m not saying my last post lightly. 
 

But Martin has shown zero, absolutely zero, signs of learning any lessons all season or in his career. He just makes the same mistakes over and over again. 
 

Next season, without Flynn Downes to bail his poor midfield setup out we will be much worse. 

[West end Saints]

I can assure you sold out stadium and two points a game after being a relegated mess does not get you sacked, or even considered.

Most promoted teams are not the relegated teams bouncing back up (less than one team season on average).

The aim was (and is) promotion, but he is not seen as a failure by the board.

Edited April 26 by West end Saints

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, West end Saints said:

I can assure you sold out stadium and two points a game after being a relegated mess does not get you sacked, or even considered.

Most promoted teams are not the relegated teams bouncing back up (less than one team season on average).

The aim was (and is) promotion, but he is not seen as a failure by the board.

I don’t think anyone would call him a failure.
 

He has clearly succeeded in many respects. He is a good man manager and a good person. The sort of bloke I like having in charge as I respect him. 
 

But is he good enough to ever get us back to the premier league? Will he learn from his mistakes? 
 

Can you honestly say you think he will change and be pragmatic enough to get a worse squad promoted next season?

 

[CB Fry]

6 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

I don’t think anyone would call him a failure.
 

He has clearly succeeded in many respects. He is a good man manager and a good person. The sort of bloke I like having in charge as I respect him. 
 

But is he good enough to ever get us back to the premier league? Will he learn from his mistakes? 
 

Can you honestly say you think he will change and be pragmatic enough to get a worse squad promoted next season?

 

Exactly this.

He won't be sacked. Quite frankly he doesn't deserve to be sacked.

With Wilcox gone and the chaos of three managers last season, they will want the continuity.

That doesn't mean I think he will get us promoted next season. He won't.

We'll leak 1.4 goals a game (60+) and score less therefore lose more. Will probably be sacked by Bonfire Night.

But, he is genuine hard working guy who comes across well.

Edited April 26 by CB Fry

[gio1saints]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

More of the same.

Not if we learned from this season and rectified the issues. Is that so unreasonable an idea ? 

Sacking RM and his team for not finishing top two is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not every match this season was terrible. Not every match this season was rubbish. Not every player was bad, not every performance embarrassing. Not every substitution or tram line up a joke. Some, many, performances were excellent.
 

Maybe finishing fourth was about right. But some seem to be blind to that. What’s wrong with building on this season but ironing out the mistakes instead of chucking the whole concept in the bin and starting from scratch? Maybe I’m old fashioned but all this hiring and firing I don’t see as the best overall solution. Didn’t we have enough of that last season? What good did it do?
 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, gio1saints said:

Not if we learned from this season and rectified the issues. Is that so unreasonable an idea ? 

Sacking RM and his team for not finishing top two is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not every match this season was terrible. Not every match this season was rubbish. Not every player was bad, not every performance embarrassing. Not every substitution or tram line up a joke. Some, many, performances were excellent.
 

Maybe finishing fourth was about right. But some seem to be blind to that. What’s wrong with building on this season but ironing out the mistakes instead of chucking the whole concept in the bin and starting from scratch? Maybe I’m old fashioned but all this hiring and firing I don’t see as the best overall solution. Didn’t we have enough of that last season? What good did it do?
 

If it wasn’t done during this season why would you expect any different next?

 

[Wade Garrett]

33 minutes ago, West end Saints said:

I can assure you sold out stadium and two points a game after being a relegated mess does not get you sacked, or even considered.

Most promoted teams are not the relegated teams bouncing back up (less than one team season on average).

The aim was (and is) promotion, but he is not seen as a failure by the board.

That’s a surprise.  The board are total fuckwits.

[Wade Garrett]

6 minutes ago, gio1saints said:

Not if we learned from this season and rectified the issues. Is that so unreasonable an idea ? 

Sacking RM and his team for not finishing top two is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not every match this season was terrible. Not every match this season was rubbish. Not every player was bad, not every performance embarrassing. Not every substitution or tram line up a joke. Some, many, performances were excellent.
 

Maybe finishing fourth was about right. But some seem to be blind to that. What’s wrong with building on this season but ironing out the mistakes instead of chucking the whole concept in the bin and starting from scratch? Maybe I’m old fashioned but all this hiring and firing I don’t see as the best overall solution. Didn’t we have enough of that last season? What good did it do?
 

The concept has pretty much failed through Martin’s career.  This season is pretty typical of a Martin season.

He won’t succeed here.

[Lighthouse]

30 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Exactly this.

He won't be sacked. Quite frankly he doesn't deserve to be sacked.

With Wilcox gone and the chaos of three managers last season, they will want the continuity.

That doesn't mean I think he will get us promoted next season. He won't.

We'll leak 1.4 goals a game (60+) and score less therefore lose more. Will probably be sacked by Bonfire Night.

But, he is genuine hard working guy who comes across well.

I would broadly speaking agree with this. For me it’s all about whether he knows the flaws in his teams and more importantly how to address them. Perhaps saying we were good for the first hour of the Leicester match was just media speak. Perhaps he is just trying to carry a positive attitude into the playoffs, knowing that it’s still all to play for and really there’s some serious work to do in training and over the summer.

For everyone comparing us to Ipswich and McKenna, his first season there ended like this, sometimes patience is needed.

 

[The Curse of St Mary's]

RM has many flaws and we would be ripped too pieces by most teams in the PL with his tactics but had Flynn Downes not missed ten games and Ross Stewart stayed fit after his original injury we'd be automatically promoted most likely imo. 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

RM has undoubtedly created a good atmosphere in the dressing room and the players play for him so well done for that, credit where credit is due. What is frustrating is the inflexibility of the system he plays. The Leicester debacle highlighted all of our frailties but what was of concern was that we got thumped earlier in the season and learnt nothing at all from that battering. Like a WWI General It was business as usual for the second contest. 

All this passing, while clearly very clever simply gives the opposition time to regain their shape and organise to deal with our threat.  We then get caught on the break and are particularly vulnerable to teams with pace. I think we have a very talented squad which is not realising its potential because of the system RM deploys. 

I am not advocating his dismissal, i just hope he can recognise the short comings pf his system. 

      

Edited April 26 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Colinjb]

Compare Daniel Farke's contrition tonight to Russell Martin's delusion.

[verlaine1979]

There's a difference between playing out from the back and playing at the back. A possession game that involves your CBs having the ball more than your midfield is a very different proposition to the City/Barca model. But as our attack and midfield are not technically accomplished enough to maintain possession in the opposition half for long periods, we end up having to go backwards because we are pathologically opposed to giving the ball away. But then we find out that - gasp - our CBs also aren't really good enough to play keep-ball indefinitely.

It feels literally idiotic to watch at times.

[Long Shot]

15 hours ago, Saint86 said:

If you actually break this down - We've conceded 14 of our 61 goals in 3 matches. (Leicester x2 and Sunderland). Two of those were right at the start of the season at the time of peak squad/club uncertainty.

We should probably also include the Norwich 4-4 in this breakdown (same period?)

At which point its more like 18 of the 61 goals (29.5%) we have conceded have come in just 4 games out of the 44 we've played (8.7%).

In the other 40matches we've averaged 43 games against, or 1.075 goals against per game.

(as an aside also, we scored 5 goals in those games - which means in the remaining 40 games, we scored 80 goals, or 2 per game on average) - so 2 goals per game and 1 against.

With the amount of squad turmoil and state of team morale post relegation, i personally wouldn't consider the Norwich, Sunderland, and Leicester games (3 of our first 6) as particularly reflective of our defensive record - They are more more like fluke results. Its certainly fair to say that the team's morale, chemistry, and style/fluidity of play has changed a lot since then. So i'd therefore consider them as clear outliers - albeit disappointing.

The 5-0 the other night was on the cards all day long frankly - i'm surprised so many are surprised. It was a nothing game for us and a performance just like that was surely not that unexpected? - we'd been playing back to back matches because of the two postponed games and the players were tiring, we had just had our automatic promotion hopes ended (with the associated mental comedown), and 3 big players were out - 2 of them with severe injuries (in Stu and Baz) to just cap off the squad comedown. And then to add to all of that, the Leicester had finally broken their recent duck in the previous game and knew they just needed a home win vs a demoralised saints to be within reach of promotion (whilst we had nothing to play for).

We were the worst side in the prem last season by far, morale was through the floor, we've totally changed our style of play, seen massive backroom and first team staff change this summer... Playoffs really isn't a bad achievement. The team clearly needs support going through this period and into the playoffs though - because clearly, the Cardiff loss and recent run has taken a toll and the team needs lifting going into the playoffs.

 

A valiant attempt at polishing a turd. 
We are not going anywhere with Martin in charge - wake up and smell the coffee. 

[egg]

10 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

I don’t think anyone would call him a failure.
 

He has clearly succeeded in many respects. He is a good man manager and a good person. The sort of bloke I like having in charge as I respect him. 
 

But is he good enough to ever get us back to the premier league? Will he learn from his mistakes? 
 

Can you honestly say you think he will change and be pragmatic enough to get a worse squad promoted next season?

 

I get that he's a good man, but what's the basis saying he's a good man manager? Good managers, man and generally, make tough decisions, correct ones, and at the right times. RM seems not to do that. His team selections, and game management, often feel like he's trying to keep everyone happy, and can be baffling.

Also, I think that the players could give him more and some of his recent comments have alluded to that. Having your players give less than they should, and having to call that out publicly, alongside his selections etc, suggests to me that his actual management is not great. 

[Weston Super Saint]

His 'situational' management is woeful.  He doesn't react to obvious failings in games.  Rinse and repeat subs on 60 and 70 minutes.

His dogged reliance on the 'system' to work, even when it clearly isn't working (in certain games at certain times) shows his 'management' of the team, tactics and his 'men' is clearly very poor.

He may have astounding conversations and bonding sessions with the players about hair products and fashion styles, but that desn't make a good football manager!

[Chewy]

9 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

RM has undoubtedly created a good atmosphere in the dressing room and the players play for him so well done for that, credit where credit is due. What is frustrating is the inflexibility of the system he plays. The Leicester debacle highlighted all of our frailties but what was of concern was that we got thumped earlier in the season and learnt nothing at all from that battering. Like a WWI General It was business as usual for the second contest. 

All this passing, while clearly very clever simply gives the opposition time to regain their shape and organise to deal with our threat.  We then get caught on the break and are particularly vulnerable to teams with pace. I think we have a very talented squad which is not realising its potential because of the system RM deploys. 

I am not advocating his dismissal, i just hope he can recognise the short comings pf his system. 

      

Really good post IMHO. The debate needs some balance because it’s not all bad and RM deserves credit for a number of things.
The players look “coached” - hasn’t happened since the early days of Ralph. And most of that was about not having the ball. This coaching and intention to have the ball is positive.

The players play for him - that clearly hasn’t happened since the early days of Ralph too.

Hes changed a losing mentality. Not easily done and some here seem to forget quite what a bunch of losers our team had become.

 

Then there’s also some things that are out of his control or area of responsibility, most obviously recruitment. We don’t have a striker (3.5 years and counting). We have a sub-standard goalkeeper (god knows how many years and counting). We have 88 wingers.  We have no cover for Downes. We buy unproven kids. We don’t buy characters, so we only have one leader in the squad. Unfortunately he’s our 3rd best centre back so either doesn’t play or plays by messing up the team.

To sit here and label RM as being all bad and not take into account the good things he’s done and the circumstances beyond his control is unfair and undermines the argument a person is making.

And yet … he has failed in priority number one which is to get promoted. And the failure is something he has contributed to himself, more than any other single individual in the club this season.

You could argue if we’d had any sort of striker we’d have got promoted in spite of his failings and it might be a point. But we’ve scored plenty of goals as it is, and have simply let in too many. Many of which have come in games we were leading where he failed to adapt to the situation on the pitch. His intransigence comes from his devotion to the system. It’s insane; it’s like a religious cult.

Lost count of the games we ended up drawing or losing from a position of total control. His failure to close down games we’d already won has cost us points that would have been enough to get us promoted.  This is on him. These are games where our team is man for man far better than the opposition, we’re in control, and we f up.

Just ask Middlesbrough.

It also means we’re easy to read. Not all teams can execute well and if they don’t we’ll probably punish you, but any opposition can plan to swamp our number 6 area and know they’ll pick up loose balls. Pressure the ball and we’ll go back, meaning all our midfield and full backs receive the ball facing our own goal and having to turn. Stop us turning and we can’t do anything with the ball except go backwards or lose it. It becomes a horrible cycle we don’t escape from.

Just ask Hull.

It is hard for lower standard teams to play against, as it’s difficult to execute and we have better players. But it’s easy to plan. And if we’re promoted we’ll be playing teams who are good enough to execute and we’re not the team with the better players. It’ll be a bloodbath.

Just ask Leicester.

RM is not all bad. He’s transformed a bunch of miserable losers concentrating only on what to do without the ball into a set of happy footballers, mostly winning and trying to be positive with the ball. This deserves credit.

Unfortunately his intransigence and tactical limitations mean we’re stuck with the ball, going backwards, heading into cul-de-sacs that won’t get us promoted. 
Yes we might have sneaked it with a striker wielding a banjo near a barn door but it would be hiding some glaring failures in the tactics which would get us annihilated every week next season.

If he doesn’t learn to curb his fixation on his philosophy, especially when a game needs managing to a closure, he’ll fail. Irrespective of who he coaches, it’s lessons he needs to learn in order to be a success. And it’s bloody frustrating watching him make these mistakes with the club we all love and are passionate about. We’re emotional because we care.

So the other thing he needs to learn quickly is that in a scenario with frustrated, passionate and emotional fans, talking positively, defending stubborn actions and tactics just seems inane and extremely arrogant. It is not going to make you well-liked by the fanbase. And rightly or wrongly, I’m afraid that matters.

There is no genuine warmth towards RM. Ralph had it almost instantly (still does with some).

RM is a good coach, with a positive attitude and he gets his players to play for him. But he seriously needs to learn a few things very quickly if he wants to succeed. I fear it’s too late for him here - guess we shall find out pretty soon.

[gio1saints]

10 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

If it wasn’t done during this season why would you expect any different next?

 

I don’t expect anything in life anymore - but I’d strongly hope. Any professional businessman would do a proper post-mortem on this full season performance - succeed or fail. 

Some of the footballing deficiencies were evident well before now. That they were not rectified or sufficiently rectified is obvious. Why, less obvious. More nuanced than many on here think.
 

The Saints Foundation recently published an Impact statement showing in granular detail what they have been up to in the last year. The good the bad and the ugly of their charitable activity. There was no bad and no ugly thankfully - unlike if a similar exercise were undertaken with Southampton Football Club. 
 

Identifying the bad and the ugly at SFC post season is essential to improving performance next season. I’d hope that this happens in fulsome and comprehensive professional manner and available to us supporters - like the Foundation Impact statement - not just in a few paragraphs at the AGM, shared to the Echo or accompanying the accounts.