The9

Some time in the 80s, Google Epson Cup and St Mirren.

That was Redmond's worst game for Saints by some distance, he was still one of our better players and scored our only goal. Still doesn't resolve the issue with the squad and formation that we set up to counterattack and then went a goal down, so there was little chance of a counter, and it was far too easy for Watford to defend against us, because there was never any aerial threat so they only had to defend balls on the floor through the back line and it was too easy for them. We were highly unlikely to score from open play and need someone to threaten an outlet in the way Pellè did.

Still in shock at that (I was at St Mary's though). Highlight of my day was finding out last year's black away kit is getting another year of relevance, though why they couldn't play in the new white away shirt remains to be seen (I'm guessing it hasn't arrived yet).

I hear we're signing Carsten Jancker also.

Still waiting... plenty of people didn't think that Simpson handball was necessarily deliberate. Also, if the league table was in The Sun, it doesn't count.

Fairly sure they're only tied with the mighty Wigan too.

Which a few people I've seen have taken as a sign that he's leaving.

Got any evidence? I'll take anecdotal - but we won lots of games where refs were rubbish to us anyway.

Interesting, I've just looked at the actual results, and in our games following EL group and knockout stage fixtures last season we actually didn't do particularly well - but you can only imagine we'd have done worse with less preparation, and more travel-weariness and fatigue. Teams in italics weren't affected by CL/EL fixtures in the previous week. On the bright side, if you take out the games against non-European opposition, we've barely got 10 points to lose... though as noted we played Man City when they were preoccupied by a European tie too, the week before the Spurs game. Man U (H) [lost 3-2] Chelsea (A) [won 3-1] Liverpool (A) [drew 1-1] Sunderland (A) [won 1-0] Man City (A) [lost 3-1] Crystal Palace (A) [lost 1-0] ---------------------------- Chelsea (H) [lost 2-1] ----------------------------- Stoke (A) [won 2-1] Liverpool (H) [won 3-2] ------------------------------ Newcastle (H) [won 3-1] Everton (A) [drew 1-1] ------------------------------- Aston Villa (A) [won 4-2] Spurs (A) [won 2-1] ------------------------------- Crystal Palace (H) [won 4-1]

A pile of ITKs with plenty of previous said Tadic was off (along with the others who've actually gone), circumstances change. Having spoken to Lungs about his Fonte source, all I can say is that his source is sound, but the messenger's factual reporting is bloody awful (as we found when his Cortese source buggered off and he misinterpreted the happenings 6 months later). Last time I saw Essruu he was parked outside Cedric's abode, so his ITKness is not in doubt. As for me, starting to think Virgin Media digging up the roads and putting lots more bandwidth into St Mary's a few weeks back might not actually lead to the rumoured stadium wifi after all - they're leaving it bloody late if they're going to announce it before the season starts, anyway.

"with Graziano Pelle (China), Victor Wanyama (Tottenham) and Sadio Mane (Liverpool) all now plying their trade elsewhere and even the most upbeat of Saints fans would find it tough to argue that there is a now considerable void to fill." Actually I'm fairly sure only the most miserable of Saints fans have been arguing this. The former was already second choice by the end of the season and the club had clearly planned for replacing him over 6 months ago - it also happened to coincide with our best run of the season. Wanyama wasn't a patch on his previous form and Romeu came on leaps and bounds - Clasie, Ward-Prowse and especially so far Hojbjerg look like they could offer us plenty in replacement. Mane's gone, but Redmond has also, so far, been very impressive. My concern isn't so much about the squad itself, it's about the schedule. Last season due to our EL qualification and the timing of the fixtures we faced many the sides in Europe when they'd just played a European game - and because we went out early, we didn't have the same distraction. That absolutely helped us with results against the top teams. This season we're going to be playing in EL group games ourselves, it's probably going to cost us at least 10 points compared to last season's fixtures from a combination of playing fresher sides when we're tired, and not playing less fresh sides when we are.

In terms of sponsors of the first team in competitive matches: Muvi (obviously a Veho brand) Saints Foundation Breast Cancer Now Epson - though that was only a pre-season tournament in Singapore as they sponsored the tournament. I'm fairly sure there were a couple of other "charity" sponsorships too.

I suspect I may be trollied on Saturday, that is certainly the intention. Saints offering a free pint before 2:30pm has probably quadrupled my chances of a hangover, as it will enforce mixing after a number of JDs.

They'll all be on BT Sport, though whether we're on at the same time as Man U (or West Ham or Man City if they end up in the Europa League group stages as well) might affect our profile a bit. Fortunately as there are two kick off times and two channels Virgin Media won't have to worry that we get shunted to a red button they don't have, or something equally awkward.

There's not much difference between the "4-3-3" (arguably 4-1-2-2-1) of last season and the "4-4-2" (4-1-2-1-2) of this, at least defensively. Even when Schneiderlin was here he did more forward work than Wanyama as the 2 in the 4-2-3-1, we've always had at least one fixed DM and varying degrees of shuttling defensive-minded players alongside, though Schneiderlin's workrate and positioning meant he was always there to be the second DM as well. The 3-5-2/5-3-2 we tried last season regularly left Cedric facing two players for exactly the same reason as your concern about the Athletic Bilbao game. All these formations stack the midfield narrow and the space is in front of the wide defenders. Bournemouth's left back (Daniels?) absolutely murdered us there all match long despite making formation changes, because he was bringing the ball from halfway to the edge of the box mostly unchallenged and then Gradel (for one) was able to get the ball in a threatening area and create something - albeit mostly just set pieces on that occasion. FWIW I have absolutely no idea what Watford are going to do, which is probably one of the most important factors when considering possible weaknesses.

Do you mean Austin? The article implied that the front two split with one going to the ball and the other making (more or less) a far post/blind side run, which would - half of the time, unless they decide Long goes for everything - leave Austin in the box for the finish. Of course he has to be on the pitch for that and Redmond/Long seems to currently be the preferred option. It does look like he's being judged on his current contribution not his past, and I can't really complain about that - pretty much any striker should look better over a longer term as they get to know where the ball is going and the release signs, and the midfield gets to appreciate the triggers for when they should play the ball - so it's not just him that would benefit from a run, and I'm not sure if what he gives us is necessarily better than what we've got. It was the same argument for Long over Pelle though, the problem being we can never know what would happen in the opposite situation.

I read the analysis, thought it was rather too prescriptive about what happens, as opposed to what might happen, and the weird L twice used in the middle of the DM positional label confused me for ages and (as I'd assumed it was "left") confused the hell out of me until I chose to interpret it as just "DM". In terms of what it said, lots of words to not say that much about positional hypotheticals, which unfortunately is why you don't get much tactical discussion. The article did underpin the number 10 role and make me wonder who we plan on playing there, it seems key to creativity particularly in this formation, and for the past couple of years when we've had an approximation of the role (though usually behind Pelle as a lone central striker) we've either seen Davis there (not the most nuanced forward passer), Mane (direct running, tended to open space by forcing a defensive reaction, but obviously has left - though Redmond seems similarly effective if less direct) or Tadic (seems best out wide playing crosses in). So in theory at least, it seems to be a system geared around a type of player we don't actually have (and you can also tell why Ben Arfa would work there, in that formation the strikers do much of his tracking back for him).

Why would we be worried about signing unknowns when there were precisely these players with that kind of pedigree available for relatively little and with proven stats to show their likelihood of fitting in and being successful? You're using the wrong metric. He's not about finding a dirt cheap high risk gem (and Leicester weren't even watching Mahrez when they found him, so I'm not sure what kind of amazing skill that takes), he's more about identifying players with some kind of pedigree who'll suit a system and are more likely than not to improve a team.

Duplo.

I'm sure he is, but he's a scout that knows how to use a computer properly, which gives the club a bunch of analytical data the "eye test" dinosaurs don't have and don't much like to complete, and a leg up on most of the old school network with all the inbuilt flaws of human nature and judgement. It's as Moneyball as you can get - the data over a long period usually doesn't lie, whilst people are often mistaken and themes, tropes and narratives can influence judgement. But you need to be able to make the data mean something in the context of improving the team. As for the ones that didn't work out, a couple were clearly not black box jobs (Mayuka looked like a typical "signed off the back of a good international tournament" flawed signing, but at least he was relatively cheap) and a couple (Osvaldo and Taider Only Forren and very arguably Ramirez were recruits which looked like they fitted the "usual profile" but didn't work out from that list. The fact Forren was signed the same day as Pochettino was put in charge shows that there's also a role for the manager/head coach's input in filtering out the chaff, but that's as much because they make the decision on picking the team and might have previous experience of working with players in repetitive training sessions which gives them a unique insight to the individuals, as their "eye test" abilities alone. It's also why managers like to sign players they know, which seemed to go ok for Koeman. As for "Spurs recruited perfectly well without him", how did that "spending the Bale money" go for them? Rhetorical question, it was the poor results for the money they spent that made them turn to Mitchell in the first place.

Noted plastic Man U fan Rachel Riley is presenting FNF, which means I'll be watching the recording even if Saints get thrashed... http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/rachel-riley-scores-new-friday-night-football-presenting-job-sky-sports-1574883 Dodged a bullet there given that James Corden was rumoured to be an option at one point.

Like Long or Austin? Austin's as fast over the first 3 yards as anyone...

I was thinking that's what happens with players and managers, and it's not like there's not loads of money floating around football or anything. Would be a smart investment for Saints, multiple reasons to bite the bullet on this one, Mitchell may be another with "buyers remorse" from going to big clubs and finding the grass isn't greener.

This is as much evidence as I need to confirm that the club DOES all want to play a certain way - but that certain way changes as tactics evolve.

There's always the FA Cup, assuming they win two matches just for the right to get as far as us.