CanadaSaint

There's nothing to "buy", Micky, other than the perspective of how we're all doing against the 40-point target after allowing for who we've actually played. And Yes, Turkish, we're bottom of the key league as well, but one good result makes it look much better - as it did for Norwich. Needless to say, our only real "killer" result so far was the Wigan game. And, as I said, losing to Spurs wouldn't be a disaster in the context of this 'table'. Oh well, it helped me anyway.

Amidst all the gloom following the result at West Ham, I thought I'd try to add at least a little balance - if only to make myself feel better. This involves taking a similar approach to that taken by the Reading fan on this thread: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?40456-Saints-and-avoiding-relegation-according-to-Reading-fans I've broken the PL into 4 groups - The Elite 4 (Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City and Man United), The Pretenders (Everton, Liverpool, Newcastle and Tottenham), The Fairly Solid Six (Villa, Fulham, Stoke, Sunderland, West Brom and West Ham), and the Likely Strugglers (Us, Norwich, QPR, Reading, Swansea and Wigan). In order to hit the notional 40-point safety target, each of the Strugglers needs to average as follows: Against the Elite teams - 0.00 points from Home games, 0.00 points from Away games Against the Pretender teams - 1.00 points from Home games, 0.00 points from Away games Against the Fairly Solid Six teams - 2.25 points from Home games, 0.50 points from Away games Against our fellow Strugglers - 2.75 points from Home games, 0.50 points from Away games At this stage of the season, the Strugglers are performing against these targets as follows: Saints - Down 2.75 points QPR: - Down 2.00 points Reading - Down 0.25 points Norwich - Up 0.50 points Wigan - Up 1.00 points Swansea - Up 1.50 points For me, this is the key league table. I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about losses at teams like West Ham because we didn't really lose 3 points - we lost 0.50 points against our target. Similarly, if we lose at home to Spurs, we won't have lost 3 points but 1 point. I'm not going to spiral into depression if it happens. We keep hearing that we've had a tougher start than most of our rivals, but this analysis helped me to put things into clearer perspective and made me feel just a little better. I can update it weekly if people are interested. Of course, this won't help much if our defence continues to play like a bunch of half-wits.

I'm with Ottery and a few others on this thread. It's really quite naive for all the focus to be on Nigel because there's a "brains trust" at the heart of the playing side of the club and he's only one member of it - and possibly/probably not even the most influential member of it. He's certainly not a manager in the traditional sense. I don't think the formation or the starting line up or the substitutions are completely down to Nigel by any means. Or, for sure, the transfers. But I don't think we've been losing because our formation and starting line up have been wrong, or even because of dubious substitutions - although they haven't helped. The same goes for the zonal marking. We've been losing because of repetitive, bone-headed mistakes - lousy positioning, ball-watching and crap decision making on an individual level. THAT is what needs to be addressed but the "tough love" that some players need is not Nigel's forté; that, for me, is one of his biggest weaknesses. The longer we go on dropping points, the more the "brains trust" as a whole should come under pressure, not just Adkins. If we fire Nigel, I think we'll just be painting over rust.

I was more surprised that he left out Gazzaniga than that he left out Rickie. That, to me, brought unnecessary change at the back when I thought it was just starting to work better as a unit. It seemed like a "We've signed him, now we've got to play him" concept - rather like the Rodriguez situation. At least with Rodriguez I could understand it being related to the goal of greater mobility, but this one for me was a headshaker.

Fair comment, but Matty's campaign is mainly about how Cortese has treated people from the past - him, Lawrie Mac, Benali. That has very little to do with today in the eyes of all but the fans who remain loyal to those people. But when he starts up yet again with a widely-quoted "not a nice person" generalization - true or not - he certainly isn't going to help the image of the club when it comes to attracting prospective managers. Sure, I'd want a new guy to come in "eyes wide open" about the way the club runs, but not about stuff like this - even if MLT is justified in being offended at the treatment.

I suspect that most of the names mentioned on here are completely unrealistic because of the fundamental philosophy behind the operation of the club. Under that philosophy the manager is not really a manager so much as an implementer of policy set farther up. I don't see any place for a Redknapp or Benitez or Curbishley - from our perspective or theirs. It will be someone relatively young and probably someone from the continent. If Nigel is to leave (what a sad day that would be) I'd love to see Martinez come here, but he really values his close and warm relationship with Whelan, which he certainly wouldn't have with Cortese because he's just not that kind of guy. With this on the horizon I wish even more that MLT would just stop with the anti-Cortese stuff because it sure as hell won't help us attract good people if a change is to be made.

I very much suspect that Nigel's task is to implement a plan formulated above him, and that plan includes a certain style and even a certain formation (as part of a club-wide commitment). He doesn't have the licence that most other PL managers have, although suggestions that Cortese picks the team are IMO ridiculous. Someone else might have a big influence, though. The problem with today is not that we lost or even that we lost 4-1 in a six-pointer, but that we were hammered by a team playing the very kind of football that our "powers that be" don't want us to play. And our manager was out-managed by a manager who is the very kind of manager that our "powers that be" don't want here. What's at stake is not just the fact that a very nice man is not succeeding, but the fact that our fundamental philosophy might not be succeeding. The egos are such that the blame will fall on the manager because those above Nigel may not be willing to consider the possibility that some elements of our philosophy may need to change or that Nigel hasn't been given the tools to do the job.

I hear what you're saying but IMO the players concerned, for the most part, have the technical ability to play at this level. What's killing us is a recurrent pattern of lost concentration, lousy positioning and poor decision-making, which are "between the ears" issues that a good manager and coaching staff will eradicate. Sometimes you can do it with love but mostly it's achieved with "tough love", and I don't think NA has that in his armoury. Cortese has tons of it and is quick (too quick!) to spot the need for it, which is why I don't think he'll allow this to continue.

The constant flow of individual mistakes suggests that some of our players need a much firmer hand than Nigel is willing or able to provide. Some of them might benefit from facing the hairdryer but I don't think Nigel knows where the switch is. The decision to leave out Gazzaniga, who IMO had helped to settle the defence - even though he's a bit raw, was inexplicable unless he was injured. Familiarity between the back four and the keeper is crucial at this level. We don't seem to have any real idea what our best side is. On those bases, even I am wondering whether Nigel's time is up and I can certainly see Cortese pulling the plug this week.

I think I can understand what Adkins was trying to do by leaving Rickie out. But I can't comprehend why he'd leave Gazzaniga out when he was looking quite assured and when the back four looked reasonably comfortable with him. Just when we should be looking to start fielding a settled side, NA goes for almost-wholesale change, so it's no wonder that we look less familiar with eachother than we did on Day One. It almost smacks of panic.

All credit to the supporters who are actually at the game - they've stuck with the team a lot better than some on here.

Adkins obviously wants more mobility up front with the goal of undoing West Ham with some pace, and I can see his logic even if I've got serious doubts about leaving Rickie out. However, I think there's a better defensive argument for keeping him in against this lot.

I've been thinking about this since yesterday, because Nigel did seem quite "down" - not just post-match but even during the match, and that's unlike him. People have speculated about whether he's under increasing pressure from NC, and that's very likely - but it's also part of the job and Nigel is philosophical enough to know that and deal with it. However, I can't help wondering if there's more to it than just the normal the pressure for results - if there's something else behind the scenes that's weighing heavily on him. After all, he didn't even get excited when we went ahead, which he normally does. If so, I can only think of two (related) things. Firstly, Ramirez could be out long term. That particular injury can be very nasty because it can take quite a time to resolve bleeding into the muscle mass; losing Gaston for 6-8 weeks, or god forbid even more, would be a big blow. Secondly, I could understand it if Cortese was hopping mad that such an expensive asset could be lost long-term as a result of an impact injury suffered during training. Just wondering, because all didn't seem well with him yesterday.

Wow, and we complain about NA's substitutions. That's a "change for the sake of change" manager if ever I saw one. Not for me I'm afraid, Wade and Bearsy.

All the more so for the fact that the financial gap between the Premier League and the rest will increase dramatically after this season. It's very noble for people to say that if we go back down Nigel can bring us straight back up again, but we can pretty much guarantee that Cortese doesn't see the situation like that. I reckon NA has until mid-November at the latest to achieve a fairly solid footing but I'm still hopeful he can do it.

No, I certainly don't want him gone but he has to show clear signs that he is adapting to the higher level, just like the players. That's not going to happen in seven games, but there has to be clear evidence of progress. Questionable substitutions, positional/tactical indiscipline and even relatively small things like players (from a shallow squad) getting booked unnecessarily are not really signs that he is making that progress yet. I'm very hopeful that he will, and that we will soon be in a more comfortable position, which is why I voted No, but ask again at the end of November. That's the time to make a change, god forbid it should be needed, because the new guy would need time to properly assess the squad before the window opens.

In his younger days he fell victim to the "fart in a thunderstorm" syndrome, being all over the place because he had always been good enough to do it. Now he's up with the big boys it's becoming a more glaring weakness on the days when it ends up being unproductive. I have a lot of faith that he'll learn but giving him the captaincy hardly suggests that the coaching team recognizes that he can be quite an immature player at times.

The Richardson injury both helped and hurt us. It helped us because I think we would have had big problems down our right side if he had stayed on, but it hurt us because it forced us to reunite the Fonte/Jos partnership which IMO doesn't work at this level. Fonte improved considerably when Yoshida became his partner. Fonte and Jos often go for the same ball, and on other occasions neither goes for it. Yoshida reads things better alongside Fonte, and they are different enough to complement eachother. Like most, I'm struggling to understand why NA would take Lambert off. Regardless of the fact that he wasn't at his best today, he's the main goal threat and Fulham lost respect for our attack after he left. The change enabled them to push forward in bigger numbers. I'm still trying to understand what Rodriguez's role is in this team - and I think he is too. But let's not forget that we could and should have been three goals up at half time. The PL is cruel on teams that don't take their chances while they're getting them.

No kidding. And two impact injuries by the sound of it FFS. Jeez, we've hurt more of our own than we've hurt opponents this year.

This might be quite a bit more than a "niggle" or a "simple bruise." The danger surrounds bleeding into the muscle mass, and it's not to be treated lightly without the risk of long term consequences. They don't hospitalize players without good reason, so I fear that Ramirez could be gone for 2-4 weeks or more. It's rather troubling that he could pick up what sounds like a significant impact injury during training, although we don't know the circumstances.

No, you're right Steve. But it's his reputation, which (his evident ego would suggest) is very important to him.

I trust Cortese (and Markus's family) to run the club prudently and responsibly. However, and they are big "howevers" IMO: I was really pleased with the acquisition of Ramirez, but that was based on the assumption that we were signing him from Markus's "pot of gold" - not loan funding. If I'd thought we were borrowing money to sign him I would have been far less enthusiastic. This revelation adds question marks to the issue of whether we'll be able to significantly upgrade our defence in January, as we absolutely must. I can't help but wonder whether there's any connection between this and the decision to suspend Stapelwood development. Having said that, it does make sense to step outside this year's business model because next year's (assuming that we survive) has a major income increase. Yes, it's a risk because it has a potentially deep downside but it also has a very high upside. Cortese obviously has big gonads for a little guy.

I couldn't agree more. We can't keep waiting to "sort it out at half time" because we lack the ability to address issue on the pitch during the game. That has been a feature of (probably) four of our games so far, with Nigel being very animated on the sideline trying to convey the adjustments needed because we've fallen off the "game plan." As much as I like Lallana, his all-action style doesn't leave much time for receiving input from the bench and having a word in the appropriate ears. That's why we keep making recurrent tactical mistakes, and it's no coincidence that we've tended to be better after half time. It would make a big difference if we could address this issue because the adjustments have, for the most part, been effective. Late but effective. The captaincy is not an accolade, it's a job - and a really important one.

Still very concerned about our defensive woes but I think we've actually tightened up there with Yoshida alongside Fonte. Today's main problems (as at Arsenal) were in midfield IMO, and we sorted them at half time for the most part. Too bad that we were already effectively out of the game by then. We didn't choose to change a winning team, we were forced to do so, and that hurt us big-time. I'm still quite optimistic about staying up and perhaps doing better than just that. In our first six games we've played Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal and Everton (who have gained more points in 2012 than anyone bar City and United.) And our points total and goal difference are not much worse than teams that haven't played all those juggernauts.

The PL is a bit of a snob's league covered by a very snobbish media, so it's to be expected. We have to earn our respect up here, and that takes time. That's why Liverpool are being cut a load of slack despite an easier start than ours, while we are written-off after four games. Yes, we've earned respect for our attacking style but lost it to our glaring defensive weaknesses. With so many ex-players in the media, we encounter the players' mentality - "Show us yer medals. If you don't have any, STFU."