CanadaSaint

Hull competed very well in midfield and I was glad to see Ben Arfa fade out of the game, as he usually does. I think they'll finish in the top half. It struck me that the 8-0 win over Sunderland has made teams very cautious when they play us. They seem focused on spoiling us rather than beating us, and that's made it more difficult for us to ping the ball around the way we like to do. We also made some strange passes to Hull players this afternoon, and I'm wondering if, in that decision-making instant, our guys experienced the same problem as me - needing a second glance to make sure that a striped shirt was one of ours. Still, that's an excellent result.

Keeping them was crucial - that engine room was at the heart of much of what we achieved last year, but I think they're starting to explore some new levels this year with Koeman's tactical approach.

We don't over-elaborate in the attacking third as much as we tended to do under Pochettino, and we're much keener to take a crack on goal. Tadic is more focused on creating something than Lallana, who could be a little too self-indulgent at times. With Rickie becoming more a part of the build-up than a striker, we lacked a natural finisher up-front and became more build-up focused than finish-focused. Koeman has the advance midfielders pushing on 10-20 yards farther when we attack, either together or alternating, and they're encouraged to strike when the opportunity presents itself. Under Koeman it's less about the "press" and more about the "strike", and that has made all of our midfielders look even better. On top of that, I thought there was a powerful "togetherness" about our squad last year but for me it has moved up a few notches this year - and it's not as focused around two or three individuals. This week's stay at St George's Park was a great idea and it can only enhance that togetherness.

I'm not sure coaching is going to help much because it's more a physical issue than one of technique. I've seen no reason to ditch the concerns I had back in August. I suspect that his weakness has been spotted, but I'm not seeing enough of his "plus side" - dominance on crosses. Granted, the route is usually blocked - especially against a team like Stoke, but I think we're going to need more from Forster than we've seen so far. Sure, we have a superb GA record but IMO that's largely down to the back four and the two playing in front of them.

That's his vulnerability - the low shot.

You're misrepresenting what I said, which concerned "our first level of depth - the guys who come in as soon as we have our first or second injury". I never said "we're miles better off in terms of squad depth than last season". But we are far better off on that first level - not just because they're better players but also because none of them is called Hooiveld or Gazzaniga (or the fruitcake Osvaldo or the "flatter to deceive" Ramirez). We're doing nicely without Rodriguez and Ward-Prowse, which adds to the point I was trying to make. Sure, we'd take a hit if any of our starters were to encounter injury problems, but not to the same degree as last year IMO. The first level of depth hurt us a lot last season - not so much our overall squad depth. Beyond that first level of depth I agree that we're no better off, which is certainly a concern.

We were undone last year by our first level of depth - the guys who come in as soon as we have our first or second injury. Losing Boruc or Lovren or Schneiderlin or Wanyama (never mind two or three of them at the same time) created a huge drop-off. We're far better off this year - not just with better players but with players who can dovetail-in much better to a team that can play several ways. We're still light years behind Man City and Chelsea when it comes to the second level of depth, but so are everyone else. So, Top 2 is unattainable for me, but we are much more competitive in the 3-8 group than we were last year. I'm confident we can finish above Spurs - Pochettino's an excellent coach but he needs a certain kind of player and he doesn't have enough of them, or (probably) a big enough budget to buy them. Liverpool need consistent goals from someone other than Sturridge. Arsenal need a Schneiderlin but hopefully won't get one. United need to drastically strengthen their central D. But I think Everton will get better as the season progresses.

The only time I've been remotely frustrated with our tactics this season was against Spurs, when Mané spent so much time inside instead of using his pace to attack Dier down our left. Ameobi showed today what could have happened if he'd done that. And a win instead of a loss at WHL would have made that gap a stunning 14 points after just nine games. If Sadio had converted his easy chance near the end (far, far easier than the goal he scored yesterday) the gap would be 11 points. The loss up there still ticks me off.

Indeed. Moreover, Wanyama and Mané are tremendous players to have "up our sleeve", whether we're looking to solidify a midfield in which everyone runs their nuts off, or to throw electric pace at a tiring defence. And even Mayuka didn't look out of place during his brief appearance. There were many exciting dimensions to yesterday's game, but one was certainly the quality we now have on the bench.

Yeah, but right now that's looking like a step down. On second thoughts I'm withdrawing the wink.

The quality of the pass-and-move and interchange play was amazing. There's no space too tight for that midfield to work in, and (no disrespect aimed at the leavers) this proves that keeping our engine room intact was the most crucial thing in the Summer. The clamour for Clyne to start for England will build and Hodgson's decision will be made for him. For me, Bertrand is an upgrade on Shaw, Tadic is an upgrade on Lallana, and Pelle is an upgrade on dear Rickie. Who'd have thunk it? But the thing that perhaps struck me most as I look back on the game is the upgrade on the subs bench. We didn't miss a beat, far from it, and even threw a very different shape (and even more pace) on. More depth, more options, more ways of winning, less ways of losing. God knows how this could end up.

Pretty much everything on here is opinion, isn't it Nick? I'm one of the more positive posters (not in your league, I grant you ), and I had much more confidence in the Board during the summer than most. My point is not intended to be "based on the recent evidence " but on the chances of repeating that success as part of a new, sustainable business model. I didn't say that we were "destined to fail next time" but that it's a matter of time before it does fail - before we sign another Ramirez to replace a Tadic or another Forren to replace an Alderweireld or another Osvaldo to replace a Pelle. Don't get me wrong - I think the Board and Koeman have done brilliantly but I'm far from convinced that it's repeatable. Especially while there's a window - because you have little chance of correcting mistakes before a poor first half has turned the season into an ongoing fight. No, there is no evidence to suggest that they're actively looking to copy this summer's machinations - I'm sure they're not. However, this year's experience may provide them with some false comfort that might cause them to not fear key figure departures as much as they should. But then, as I said at the end of my post, Krueger knows all about issues such as these from his NHL experience in Edmonton.

The problem with last summer is exactly what Martin Samuel warned about in his much-criticized article. If the Board now thinks that losing starters for really big fees could be part of a sustainable business model for a club of our size and stature (as it has been with academy products), it's only a matter of time before it goes pear-shaped. While I think they learned a lot from the summer 2014 experience, there are still too many "ifs". If they buy before they sell so that we don't get fleeced and don't lose-out on targets who don't want to join a club in transition, if they continue to scout well and find high-quality, value-for-money players, if the new players bed-in really quickly, if Koeman is willing to stay and start over again with a changed core group (or, because he probably wouldn't, if Koeman is replaced by a manager with similar qualities), if the fans are reasonably accepting of the business model, and so on and so on. Sure, I've got faith that they have some high-quality, value-for money targets lined up for next summer, but less faith that this year's Houdini act could be repeated if things reached that point again - even less faith that it's a sustainable business model. On the other hand, though, I do think the Board is smart enough to know this. Krueger's hockey experience here in Edmonton tells him that you can't win with kids alone (no matter how talented), and that you must have a core group of established pro's who stay from year to year.

Like most people, I think we overpaid for him but he's still a valuable asset and will prove his worth over the next six months. If Mané is going to keep drifting inside and negating (what seem to be) his own strengths I'd rather have Long in there. Long can read the play inside and can therefore play off Pelle, neither of which seem to be strengths for Mané. But then Long doesn't have the burning pace and trickery that Mané has out wide, and he wouldn't link up as well with Bertrand. Tadic, for me, has looked better on the left. I think we're witnessing Koeman trying to find his best line-up, and I'm sure he drew some strong pointers from today. For a team containing so many new faces, it might be a few weeks before they find their roles and really settle in.

I can't for the life of me understand why Mané pushed (or was allowed to push) inside when the much slower Dier came on for Naughton. He and Bertrand could have taken Dier to the cleaners down that flank, but instead he drifted inside where he lacks the vision and composure to make much of an impact. His miss was hideous. We didn't seem to have an "end concept" for our attacks and Pelle didn't seem to know what role he needed to play. Sure, he didn't play well but we never once gave him the kind of service he needs. Spurs played out from the back very effectively, and our midfield wasn't able to stop it. Very, very disappointing.

I don't understand why Mané has pushed inside when Naughton's replacement, Dyer, is so much slower. Our way back into his game can be with our pace down that flank but not if Mané stays inside. Spurs have played well but they've had to work really hard to do it. I think they could be there for the taking in the last 20 minutes.

One of the most encouraging elements for me is the very realistic acknowledgement inside the club of something that we all fear - that (for the foreseeable future) we will continue to experience summer 2014-style raids from clubs who buy rather than develop and scout well. While those raids are highly unwelcome from a Saints' fan's perspective, they are indeed a tribute to an extremely well run club. My first thought was "true, but next time we'll hopefully be better prepared for it" - until it dawned on me that, despite all the panic and insults around them, they were actually extremely well prepared this time. "Koeman and Reed already know the players they want to sign next summer" suggests that the backroom and scouting staff are every bit as good as Reed and Krueger told us they are, and that we'll be ready for whatever comes along. While part of me would love to see us with a 3-0 lead on Sunday and our fans singing "Who the **** is Pochettino?", another part of me thinks that there are so many great things happening with our club that I'd like to see us "take the high ground" - whether it concerns a former manager, former players, or posters with whom we've had past disagreements. The people at the club took the high ground all summer, despite all the mayhem around them. Now might be a really good time for us to start showing the class that the management team have shown.

Apologies if already posted: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/southampton/11140340/The-inside-story-of-Southamptons-brilliant-start-to-the-Premier-League-season-under-Ronald-Koeman.html

I think we're probably on the same page. Football (thankfully) lacks the thing that makes the problem (now that they're fully aware of it) easier to address in the NFL and NHL - unlimited substitutions; it's much easier to take a player out of the game for assessment in those leagues. Here's an article on the NHL's concussion protocol: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=556289 Even though Redslo's suggestion has some merit, I also tend to favour leaving things pretty much as they are in football, but with a rider. The rider reflects the fact that we shouldn't completely trust the clubs to always act appropriately in deciding whether to let a player with a head injury stay on - not so much because I doubt their motives but more because a quick, on-pitch analysis by the club's medical staff is no longer enough. That's where the independent doctor comes in, but then fans will need to get used to a couple of things; the doctor will always do what s/he should do - take the time to reach a proper diagnosis, and err on the side of caution. So the decision is taken out of the hands of the manager, who then has a choice - play with ten men until the doctor makes a decision or make the substitution right away (if he still has one). In the case of Loris last year, who IMO should never have stayed on the pitch, Spurs would have had to use their substitute keeper.

Yes, I saw them - that's why I started the thread. It's easy to say that we need to stop giving away those free kicks, but they're going to happen regardless. And we need to find a better way of defending against them - especially as teams are putting a left footer and a right footer on the ball so that the keeper is kept guessing where the shot might be going. Gerrard's goal against Everton wasn't top corner but good enough to beat Howard, and a post defender might well have kept Sanchez's shot out. You're making big assumptions in your response ("the wall will not make any difference at all") because the whole point of the split wall is that it gives the keeper a better view and a better chance of getting to the corners - and the players on the posts give some added protection. Of course some shots will still go in, but in the modern game the split wall might well be a better option than the four man wall.

We conceded one against Arsenal and very nearly another one against QPR at a vital time, from very similar positions. With the livelier ball and higher player skill levels, these free kicks have become lethal, and it might be time to address that. What are your thoughts on the split wall - two players on each side (leaving the keeper to cover the middle), rather than a four-man wall on one side (which leaves the keeper to cover the direct shot and hope to god that he can get to the other side if the shot goes there)? This could be supplemented with defenders on each post because the direct shot has IMO become a much greater danger than playing attackers onside.

Much of the focus of this discussion concerns the potential for cheating that would develop if any special sub rules were implemented to cover head injuries, and I completely understand that. It's a very valid concern. However, that's placing the interests of the club and the sport ahead of the interests of the players, which is exactly what the NFL and NHL are accused of doing over here in North America. The stuff coming out is frightening. Autopsies have revealed horrendous brain atrophies that have accumulated over the course of a career and that have eventually resulted in the early death (sometimes by suicide) of former players. Needless to say, with the US being such a litigious society, sports leagues and owners are facing the prospect of huge lawsuits. Even if the leagues and owners weren't that concerned about player wellbeing (part of the accusation package), the lawsuits certainly got their attention. I would suggest that this phenomenon will "jump the pond" and turn up in Europe at some point, and it's not just about injuries like Sandro's on Saturday. While football doesn't involve as many of the "head hits" seen in the NFL and NHL, it does involve frequent heading. The studies suggest that the physical consequences of even this kind of non-major head impact can build over time with similar results. The advent of the lighter ball will have helped to reduce the problem but not completely removed it. (As an aside, I can't help but wonder what would have been found in John McGrath's post mortem if this had been an issue in the UK at the time of his death, at the age of just sixty; he was a frequent header of the ball at a time when it weighed a ton on wet days, and damage was inevitable.) I suggest that we should all take the same attitude to this issue in football as we would to safety in the workplace, because it's exactly the same issue. It's a "not why we can't but how we can" issue.

That's pretty much how I see it. We have to sign him to a new contract or sell him in January while he still has decent transfer value, and signing him to a bumper new contract has a lot of risk attached for the club. As much as I like J-Rod, I don't think it would necessarily be a bad decision to to him go. We have already signed players who can replace what we'd be losing, he may not fit into Koeman's style quite as well, and there's money in the transfer budget. I'm trying to see it from the club's perspective.

Does anyone else think that the decision-makers in the club might have moved on from J-Rod? Based on our signings, I wouldn't be surprised if they have not only accepted the possibility that he will move on in January - they might actually want to see it happen.

Indeed. And sometimes the best perspective comes from people who aren't as close to the club as us: http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/36364/