Southampton away match thread

[BCFC Rich]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

My expectations this season is on the board. Not LM, although that does kinda put an expectations on LM by default. However due to what the board have stated, they should and will be judged on their ability to bring in a head coach to meet the expectations they publicly set. 

If in May we are celebrating promotion to the Championship then I'll be praising Jon to high heaven for his decisions. 

However equally if we are not, I'll be criticising him.

I hope we never have to celebrate promotion the championship again! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, italian dave said:

But at the same time we all know that football doesn't really work like that: it's always the manager, very rarely the players or the board who get held to account for league position and performances.

I do concur with this point most of the time, but I'm just not so sure it holds so well when a manager who played a key role in digging us out of a hole on and off field is sacked for a bit of a sticky patch with an injury hit yet quite thin squad, and the board are so clear that he is underachieving (in their eyes) or supposedly anyway.

Ususy when a manager is sacked the fans have had enough, the performances and results are dire, the dressing room may have been lost etc hence the usual pattern. This was a sharp break from that and if we go on a bad run..it could be interesting.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 hours ago, italian dave said:

a) because of course you want it as quickly as possible, just not necessarily this season,

b) because you think making a change now will give you a better chance of success.

Hasten to add that I’m not trying to make that case, just highlighting why it’s a bland statement that doesn’t really say anything, and certainly not what is being attributed to it.

And, of course, there’s 

c) because the truth is that there were other reasons apart from results/league position. And those other reasons aren’t inconsistent with that statement about making a change to give a better chance of success. 

A lot of this is fair as far as an analysis goes.

Albeit the hierarchy have piled some pressure on following their statements. Had they articulated some of these points better perhaps people would have been a bit less stunned and disgruntled.

Maybe point c) couldn't he discussed so much by the hierarchy  but a) and b), especially had there been an orderly transition in the summer..albeit I think NP and his team merited fresh deals, we need a proper CEO in the Gould style and NP needed some more backing in both the market and support and understanding given the horrible recurring injury situation.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[italian dave]

10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I do concur with this point most of the time, but I'm just not so sure it holds so well when a manager who played a key role in digging us out of a hole on and off field is sacked for a bit of a sticky patch with an injury hit yet quite thin squad, and the board are so clear that he is underachieving (in their eyes) or supposedly anyway.

Ususy when a manager is sacked the fans have had enough, the performances and results are dire, the dressing room may have been lost etc hence the usual pattern. This was a sharp break from that and if we go on a bad run..it could be interesting.

Which brings us round full circle in this discussion: yes, IF the reason NP was sacked was the result of a bit of a sticky patch with an injury hit squad………….. Don’t we all believe that there was more to it than that? And if so, why do we keep framing things as being all about a sticky patch and under-achievement? 
Which brings us to…….

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A lot of this is fair as far as an analysis goes.

Albeit the hierarchy have piled some pressure on following their statements. Had they articulated some of these points better perhaps people would have been a bit less stunned and disgruntled.

Maybe point c) couldn't he discussed so much by the hierarchy  but a) and b), especially had there been an orderly transition in the summer..albeit I think NP and his team merited fresh deals, we need a proper CEO in the Gould style and NP needed some more backing in both the market and support and understanding given the horrible recurring injury situation.

As I said, I’m not trying to make the case for that, just proposing what might have been the reasons behind it. On the face of it, I’m as puzzled as anyone as to why e couldn’t have issued a statement along the lines that @ExiledAjax was suggesting yesterday. Something a bit more honest about the real, or at least the other, reasons. Always intended to honour his contract and then replace him but circumstances conspired: breakdown of relationship between manager and board: whatever.

But - joking or anger aside - the Lansdowns, Marshall, aren’t stupid. And they pay good money for senior managers and advisers who aren’t stupid. They must have known that what they were doing would - as you say - pile pressure on. That they’d struggle to maintain that line under scrutiny. We can work that out, so I’m sure they could.
It would surely have been easier to just explain the other reasons. So I’m just trying to figure out why and how they decided not to make a more straightforward statement of the type EA suggested. 

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, italian dave said:

So I’m just trying to figure out why and how they decided not to make a more straightforward statement of the type EA suggested.

Aren’t we all!!!

[REDOXO]

No one wins by a clear statement! Mr Pearson gets his contract paid and a non disclosure agreement (which is almost certainly part of the initial contract).
 

And the Lansdowns/Board/BT (If ITKers are to be believed) get to act with impunity and imply (but not clearly state) a number of reasons that only they and Mr Pearson know about. 
 

Being the subject of more than one non-disclosure/gag clause it’s pretty ordinary stuff! 

[petehinton]

On 30/11/2023 at 21:57, Davefevs said:

It really wasn’t a game they could’ve / should’ve got 2 or 3 more.  He is talking out his arse.  They didn’t create much at all, they dominated possession.  He hasn’t worked out yet that that possession alone doesn’t score goals.  Even though we didn’t play well last night, they never really opened us up, did they.

We actually won the xG on Wyscout, not that it’s relevant.  Shows how little they created is my point.

And boy would it have been sweet if we’d nicked one in the break or got a penalty for handball.

He goes on about his keeper only making one save, but he conveniently forgets the “save” off of Conway’s 1v1 that doesn’t make the stats.  Nor does he count set-pieces.

******* weirdo.  Up his own arse.  I’d hate him here - not that it will happen.

@Kid in the Riot CC: he’s done it again….. me me me me me me