Unbelievable Jeff

Right, so Heisenberg/Glasgow/Bournemouth is a wind up merchant, and a pro at that. However, there is many a true word said in jest/winduppery, and this is correct. We haven't learnt our lessons. We have employed the cheap manager and invested in the cheap players. I have just put a large amount on us getting relegated (8/1 on Skybet still - it's not going to last for long so I suggest you load on) because of the incompetent way this club is being managed.

Biggest problem is Mark Hughes...

Why are you not including Mark Hughes in that?

I would have told you all about Hughes inability to train a defence, but I was afraid I'd come under a lot of flack...

But you were so positive about Hughes appointment? Give him a chance FFS.

So, as I said above, you're saying we can no longer compare managers records. Ever.

Does anyone still read the Sun?

It's all over the press mate, everyone knows!

I would be using his previous record under Stoke as well I would have thought. What I don't get is: "...but it isn't feasible to make that comparison anyway without any evidence that the other two would have produced better results in the same fixtures under similar circumstances when both of them had considerably more time to assess their options." This isn't evidence that exists - as you will always have different circumstances between them. IE: we can't compare Pellegrino away at Man City to Hughes at home, because they're different games, different players, different times of year. Hence, you can never actually compare two Manager.

Potentially. It's nice to have someone debate the point by providing statistical analysis rather than just say "No, you hate Southampton Football Club and everything about it". I think however, the goals against will be far more than we're used to, certainly since Adkins, so maybe that is where my main issue is. Either way, with our poor goalscoring along with the potential for more goals conceded, we need to increase our striking options.

In that case, you can never make comparisons between managers, irregardless of the timescale. Is that what you're saying? The sample size is low for Hughes admittedly, and again I have said that in previous posts, but all we have to work with is that, Stoke's record under him last season, or pre-season this year. He doesn't just get a gimme because the sample size doesn't fit in with your requirements.

I was talking about misinterpreting my posts, which you seemed to - but in relation to him thinking the defence was good, in previous posts he had criticised the fact that I said the defence looked poor. If he agreed with me, I have no idea why the conversation started.

A couple of things: - So you're saying our defence wasn't good - so why were you debating with me about it? - I've never said he shouldn't be given the chance - he's deserves the chance. You'll find I have said that consistently. Doesn't mean I have to rate him, or think we won't be in a relegation battle this season.

7 out of 13 were a worse goal difference position than they finished up. Difficult to say 100% that this is true, but you would guess that in that situation he had strikers/attacking players that allowed him to have that worse goal difference and not suffer. This is why I am saying we need new strikers, and not new defenders, as we NEED to score more goals to counter the worse than average defence.

Ah sorry, so we're using an arbitrary date of game 4 that MH had the credit of 'sorting out the defence', even though he had 17 days to work with the team prior to the first of those 4 games. Love it when people try to prove points based on their own made up timelines. We conceded less goals per game under Puel and Pellegrino than we did under Hughes, and I REPEAT FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS DECIDED THAT I HAVE MADE THIS JUDGEMENT AFTER HE TOOK CHARGE...His managerial record is very poor when it comes to having a good, well-drilled defence. It is one of the main 3 criticisms that previous teams fans have had of him, along with poor transfer business and not getting on with players.

This isn't based on a pre-season friendly though, this is based on Hughes managerial career and how many goals we conceded at the end of last season. I believe he wasn't saying 2 of the defence were poor, he was saying Davis and Long were at blame for the goals and that the defence were not to blame at all. I get you want to butt in, but in future you need to read the posts in context rather than just wading in and misinterpreting.

You thought the defence was good? I think this conversation is over.

As you would have seen on the match stream, and as many people have commented on this thread, our defence was poor today. That's all I'm saying. Also, how am I bed wetting? I'm saying he still hasn't proven he can manage and coach a defence. And he hasn't.

Instead of just throwing out insults, how about you substantiate it by telling me why I'm wrong.

So I imagined we conceded two goals today then did I? As I have CONSISTENTLY said since we appointed him in March, I don't think Hughes can coach/manage a defence. He has done NOTHING to prove me incorrect.

Interested with Targett at RWB. When him and Shaw were coming through we were always told that Targett had the better technique and crossing.

I see our Mark Hughes defence and lack of new striker is doing us well today.

:lol:

But we can never find him guilty. The biggest indicator that he is guilty is that nothing he said came true. Do you know who Joseph Smith is? #dumdudumdumdum

That's not how a burden of proof works - you need to prove to me that he was telling the truth. It's like when people talk about the existence of God, you're effectively asking me to prove that he doesn't exist. Everything points towards him being a WUM. If you hear hooves, think horse, not Zebra.