Tonda Eckert

[benjii]

3 minutes ago, StrangelyBrown said:

I'm starting to believe, but I still think we're crap at the back and against a 3 man midfield I think we'll struggle.

The goal we conceded today was a perfect illustration of how shit Stephens is - no where near the danger and simply ball watching.

However, that 20 minute period was the best I've seen us play for a very long time.

Yeah, it's inevitable with Stephens, Manning and Bazunu in the team, and to some extent without a "proper" right wing back, that we will have some matches where we leak goals, even if we're generally playing well.

[Pamplemousse]

Still too early to give him the job permanently but if we win the next two then without a doubt he has to get it.

The QPR and Sheff Wed wins were good but not convincing; today we were outstanding. If today is not a one off and we play like that most weeks, he has to be in charge.

Not just the winning aspect, but how we played in the first half was so good to watch. If we were playing in the Premier League, we'd have won against a few teams for sure. Wolves, Burnley for example.

And we play with more intelligence as well. It's so refreshing.

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

33 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

Still too early to give him the job permanently but if we win the next two then without a doubt he has to get it.

The QPR and Sheff Wed wins were good but not convincing; today we were outstanding. If today is not a one off and we play like that most weeks, he has to be in charge.

Not just the winning aspect, but how we played in the first half was so good to watch. If we were playing in the Premier League, we'd have won against a few teams for sure. Wolves, Burnley for example.

And we play with more intelligence as well. It's so refreshing.

True that we'll concede but we've definitely got the players to go out and attack like we did today.

On paper the front players bar Stewart are more than a match for the rest of the division in my opinion. Why not go out and try and get the goals.

It DOES depend upon a solid midfield though and today we saw that in the first half. 

Be interesting to see how Saints do against Leicester. 

[AlexLaw76]

6 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

True that we'll concede but we've definitely got the players to go out and attack like we did today.

On paper the front players bar Stewart are more than a match for the rest of the division in my opinion. Why not go out and try and get the goals.

It DOES depend upon a solid midfield though and today we saw that in the first half. 

Be interesting to see how Saints do against Leicester. 

what was noticeable today, it was more obvious shifting to 4 at the back in possession and getting Fellows further forward more quickly. When out of possession, Fellows drops back, and the midfield 2 we accompanied by Azaz and Leo, who both dropped and come narrow - not so much giving up the space in the middle of the park.

Wonder how that will go when Leicester have wingers who have destroyed us before.

[Forester]

As many others have said, it’s only three games and there is every sense in leaving a decision until after Millwall.  But I have been surprised how impressive the uplift is.  So far he seems to have two major strengths which aren’t to be under estimated:

- he seems capable of motivating and galvanising the dressing room

- he has figured out a system and pattern of play that suits the players available.  Back three rather than a back five way of playing wing backs, quick transition after breaking the press, and movement and ball on the floor upfront.

[cambsaint]

The players look as if they are right behind him and enjoying playing again.

He had the international break to instill confidence and coach them and on this evidence it has worked.

Who could we get who can improve on this, it didn't look as if it was a flash in the pan.

The Leicester game will be a real test of how far we have come.

If however he does turn out to be really good we wont keep him long -just like Poch who was  unknown and untested  when he came to us

IMO he must now be given a good run of games before we go bungling around looking for experience.

Hopefully we have struck really lucky 

[Saint Fan CaM]

The understanding from the players of where there teammates were seemed so much better and massively contributed to transitioning the ball forwards. What I didn’t like was the 2nd half persistent buggering around at the back and playing deeper, which will be punished by better teams.

Overall though Eckert is making the decision easier for Spors as it could be a bigger risk NOT giving him the permanent role - there may not be a dead cert better option.

[Weston Super Saint]

6 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

The understanding from the players of where there teammates were seemed so much better and massively contributed to transitioning the ball forwards. What I didn’t like was the 2nd half persistent buggering around at the back and playing deeper, which will be punished by better teams.

Overall though Eckert is making the decision easier for Spors as it could be a bigger risk NOT giving him the permanent role - there may not be a dead cert better option.

The smart, out of the box thinking thing to do is to NOT give him the job.  Think about it, he's won all his games as an 'interim' manager.  Keep him as 'interim' and we keep winning.  Smart people like Rasmus will understand this.

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

6 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

The understanding from the players of where there teammates were seemed so much better and massively contributed to transitioning the ball forwards. What I didn’t like was the 2nd half persistent buggering around at the back and playing deeper, which will be punished by better teams.

Overall though Eckert is making the decision easier for Spors as it could be a bigger risk NOT giving him the permanent role - there may not be a dead cert better option.

This is my major concern. Naturally, we won't normally have a four goal cushion to defend and I also don't want to see us doing this stuff at the back when we're one up because it will be pounced on by better teams. The old motto: Best form of defence is attack.

[Badger]

7 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

What I didn’t like was the 2nd half persistent buggering around at the back and playing deeper, which will be punished by b

Overall though Eckert is making the decision easier for Spors as it could be a bigger risk NOT giving him the permanent role - there may not be a dead cert better option.

Playing around like that just infuriates me. But when we did move it out we played with far more purpose.

Re the last point as long as he keeps winning Spors doesn’t really have a decision to make. 

[Fabrice29]

7 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

The understanding from the players of where there teammates were seemed so much better and massively contributed to transitioning the ball forwards. What I didn’t like was the 2nd half persistent buggering around at the back and playing deeper, which will be punished by better teams.

Overall though Eckert is making the decision easier for Spors as it could be a bigger risk NOT giving him the permanent role - there may not be a dead cert better option.

 

20 minutes ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

This is my major concern. Naturally, we won't normally have a four goal cushion to defend and I also don't want to see us doing this stuff at the back when we're one up because it will be pounced on by better teams. The old motto: Best form of defence is attack.

 

15 minutes ago, Badger said:

Playing around like that just infuriates me. But when we did move it out we played with far more purpose.

Re the last point as long as he keeps winning Spors doesn’t really have a decision to make. 

Bloody playing out the back when we have a lead etc. 

[pimpin4rizeal]

13 hours ago, Dusic said:

IMO now it makes complete sense - on paper and on the pitch.

We have seen that he knows how to setup the team to play in a fluid way that creates lots of good chances from open play by getting the best out of the creative players we spent a lot of money on.

Today he adapted nicely to specifically take down Charlton with a clear gameplan - showing the flexibility people crave.

We have seen that clearly the players like playing under him and thst he isnt afraid to make bold decisions when needed.

He had worked in the Championship for over a year before so knows what is needed at this level and isnt totally naive to it like people initially suggested.

Seemingly the only thing not going for him is that he hasn't managed at first team level until now and isnt famous. Personally having seen how he has done turning round a team that looked on its last legs then I am willing to overlook that because neither of those things guarentee anything anyway.

Usually you can tell a proper manager in a few games and we have had the luxury of testing that without needing to commit - a portion of the risk has been mitigated by seeing him in action.

At this point with most agreeing its a the best we have played for a number of years it would be bizarre not to appoint him - he has earned a crack at IMO, regardless of Leicester result.

 

It’s still a small sample size though .. you need to ask yourself the question how will you feel about it making sense if the good form suddenly turns into bad form. Does three results really earn our trust this fast ?.

At the moment maybe the smartest thing to do would just be to let him continue as interim, it gives us a chance to trial him before we commit and it’s pretty unlikely some big club are gonna come and steal him away.

[Badger]

30 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

 

 

Bloody playing out the back when we have a lead etc. 

Fair point to some degree. The passing from the RB position upfield was exceptional.

But we’ve now scored a goal of that quality once. How many times have we seen possession given away from that position ? I can immediately think of two from McCarthy alone (albeit against better quality opposition). 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The smart, out of the box thinking thing to do is to NOT give him the job.  Think about it, he's won all his games as an 'interim' manager.  Keep him as 'interim' and we keep winning.  Smart people like Rasmus will understand this.

Otherwise known as the Saganowski approach. Brilliant and unplayable while on loan, but fell to absolute shit the moment he signed a permanent contract.

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

Fair point to some degree. The passing from the RB position upfield was exceptional.

But we’ve now scored a goal of that quality once. How many times have we seen possession given away from that position ? I can immediately think of two from McCarthy alone (albeit against better quality opposition). 

As much as everyone loves to hate Bazunu, never in a million years do we win that 5-1 with McCarthy in goal.

[Toussaint]

31 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

As much as everyone loves to hate Bazunu, never in a million years do we win that 5-1 with McCarthy in goal.

True, but the other side of that argument is he didn’t have to make any saves yesterday. 

[The Kraken]

7 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

True, but the other side of that argument is he didn’t have to make any saves yesterday. 

2 shots on target, 1 goal conceded. Sounds about right.

[Lighthouse]

22 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

True, but the other side of that argument is he didn’t have to make any saves yesterday. 

Yes, that does tend to happen when you’re as comfortable playing it around the back as we were yesterday.

[ant]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

 

 

Bloody playing out the back when we have a lead etc. 

The recycling at the back was largely inconsequential to that move. You could just as easily cut it out of the clip.

It was two consecutive bold, between-the-lines passes that made it happen.

Often we overplay that ball out of defence, hitting the boots of every player in-between. The speed of transitioning from defence to the halfway line was key.

Keeping hold of the ball is fine. But at some point you've got to take a chance and make a beeline for the opposition box. 

Not every side will be as naive positionally as Charlton, but even with teams playing low blocks you've more chance with countering with pace than ponderous buildup. 

Is this Eckert's influence, or simply the players let off the leash? Guess we'll see.

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

 

 

Bloody playing out the back when we have a lead etc. 

That is the correct way to play out from the back. We got the ball out wide to THB with little or no no pissing about, AA showed by dropping deeper and THB fizzed a low accurate pass to his feet. Jander was aware and ran past AA to receive the through ball. Magic passage of football leading to a goal.  

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

As much as everyone loves to hate Bazunu, never in a million years do we win that 5-1 with McCarthy in goal.

Nah, would have been 5-0 🙂

[Toussaint]

23 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Yes, that does tend to happen when you’re as comfortable playing it around the back as we were yesterday.

I guess we will see when we play Leicester. Not that I need anymore evidence Baz is not very good at saving shots. 

[Dr Who?]

If there are not any disasters in the next 2 games, it is all lining up in set up to be Tonga. With Adam shifting into the u21s filling the role of Tonga before being put in temporary charge of the first team, and Tonga putting his own coaching staff in place to support him, I think there would be far too much back tracking to not put him in charge. Knowing Sports Republic they will keep in as he is until the end of the season, or maybe Christmas/New Year. They will drag it out, but you can see they really want him in the role. 

Let’s see what the next 2 games have in store, then this time next week there should be an update. 

[Fabrice29]

28 minutes ago, ant said:

The recycling at the back was largely inconsequential to that move. You could just as easily cut it out of the clip.

It was two consecutive bold, between-the-lines passes that made it happen.

Often we overplay that ball out of defence, hitting the boots of every player in-between. The speed of transitioning from defence to the halfway line was key.

Keeping hold of the ball is fine. But at some point you've got to take a chance and make a beeline for the opposition box. 

Not every side will be as naive positionally as Charlton, but even with teams playing low blocks you've more chance with countering with pace than ponderous buildup. 

Is this Eckert's influence, or simply the players let off the leash? Guess we'll see.

You could cut it out of the clip if you wanted to ignore it yes. Which many do when it works how it's intended but they are the quickest to bring it up when it doesn't.

But for "two consecutive bold between the line passes" or as the post above says "the correct way of playing out of the back" to actually happen space needs to be there to play into. That needs to be manipulated by dragging players out of position with movement and also with initial passes that don't do that.

So yes, you can cut it out of the clip if you like but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

Now guess what, like everything in football it's not going to work every time and other teams will work on stopping that. There will continue to be frustrating times when passes are short, players make bad decisions, or the opposition are going to read it and get there first. That will also happen in other parts of the pitch as well. We'll also do it really well at times but a player in midfield or up front will lose it and it'll never get commented on. We'll also do it and the striker will miss a sitter but again, it will never get commented on. People will continue to shout loudest when it doesn't work and attempt to cut it out of the clip when it does. That's the game. 

But to be clear, it's not just a coincidence that our best performance for a while comes when a manager actively encourages it through selection and coaching and it all starts with a back 4 who are trusted to do it, presumably because the last time they were actively encouraged to do it through selection and coaching in this league it resulted in goals and results.

Edited 5 hours ago by Fabrice29

[RedArmy]

2 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

 

 

Bloody playing out the back when we have a lead etc. 

The ball forward to Armstrong being the difference. 
 

Playing out from the back is fine as long as you actually play it out. Something Russy struggled to get us to do all too often, leading to stupid goals conceded. 

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, RedArmy said:

The ball forward to Armstrong being the difference. 
 

Playing out from the back is fine as long as you actually play it out. Something Russy struggled to get us to do all too often, leading to stupid goals conceded. 

We scored lots of goals under Russy hun xxx

[RedArmy]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

We scored lots of goals under Russy hun xxx

Conceded lots too. 

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, RedArmy said:

Conceded lots too. 

Correct. As we have continued to do.

[Fabrice29]

34 minutes ago, ant said:

The recycling at the back was largely inconsequential to that move. You could just as easily cut it out of the clip.

It was two consecutive bold, between-the-lines passes that made it happen.

Often we overplay that ball out of defence, hitting the boots of every player in-between. The speed of transitioning from defence to the halfway line was key.

 

It's sad that I'm doing this, so I wont deep dive it and a wider camera angle would be lovely to really analyse but I wanted to just check this comment. The pass just been after 17 seconds is in the recycling at the back category rather than a bold between the line pass but it's the one that starts this move (Wood to Bragg). Just inside the shot at 17 seconds a player has been dragged out of position in the midfield to close down an inevitable pass out to THB which then begins the bold passing you're impressed with. But THB cant make that pass if the said player holds his position in CM and in fact Bragg doesn't make that pass if they haven't manipulated the midfielder to break their shape and make it (The exact same pass combination happens at 7 seconds, 10 seconds prior). The whole tactic and reasoning and plus side is all their in those 17 seconds prior to the pass you are impressed by. It's a game of patience. The Charlton player resists the urge to close down THB after 7 seconds but doesn't resist it the 2nd time the exact same passing combination is made and once they've made one player jump the gaps become open enough to try and exploit. 

[ant]

14 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

You could cut it out of the clip if you wanted to ignore it yes. Which many do when it works how it's intended but they are the quickest to bring it up when it doesn't.

But for "two consecutive bold between the line passes" or as the post above says "the correct way of playing out of the back" to actually happen space needs to be there to play into. That needs to be manipulated by dragging players out of position with movement and also with initial passes that don't do that.

So yes, you can cut it out of the clip if you like but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

Now guess what, like everything in football it's not going to work every time and other teams will work on stopping that. There will continue to be frustrating times when passes are short, players make bad decisions, or the opposition are going to read it and get there first. That will also happen in other parts of the pitch as well. We'll also do it really well at times but a player in midfield or up front will lose it and it'll never get commented on. We'll also do it and the striker will miss a sitter but again, it will never get commented on. People will continue to shout loudest when it doesn't work and attempt to cut it out of the clip when it does. That's the game. 

But to be clear, it's not just a consequence that our best performance for a while comes when a manager actively encourages it through selection and coaching and it all starts with a back 4 who are trusted to do it, presumably because the last time they were actively encouraged to do it through selection and coaching in this league it resulted in goals and results.

I'm not arguing against playing it around at the back, but the key (which it isn't clear from your word soup whether you're for or against) is how the ball is subsequently used. 

If it's played along the rearguard as a method of pulling the opposition hither and thither, that's great. 

But if it then goes forward at a glacial pace - and/or includes unnecessary 5-yard passes to every player en route - the opposition resets, we get to the halfway line and there's nothing doing. 

Having watched us do the latter for all too long, I grew bloody weary of it. I don't think I was alone.

Yesterday was a much more dynamic approach than we've become accustomed to.

[saintwbu]

20 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

The ball forward to Armstrong being the difference. 
 

Playing out from the back is fine as long as you actually play it out. Something Russy struggled to get us to do all too often, leading to stupid goals conceded. 

You can only play it out once the gap occurs - sometimes it’ll happen quickly, sometimes it’ll take time. I don’t remember us struggling to play it forward under Russell when we put 4 and 5 past Blackburn, Swansea, Sheffield Wednesday, Huddersfield, Birmingham, Sunderland that season.

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, ant said:

I'm not arguing against playing it around at the back, but the key (which it isn't clear from your word soup whether you're for or against) is how the ball is subsequently used. 

If it's played along the rearguard as a method of pulling the opposition hither and thither, that's great. 

But if it then goes forward at a glacial pace - and/or includes unnecessary 5-yard passes to every player en route - the opposition resets, we get to the halfway line and there's nothing doing. 

Having watched us do the latter for all too long, I grew bloody weary of it. I don't think I was alone.

Yesterday was a much more dynamic approach than we've become accustomed to.

Agreed, its not passing out of the back that is the problem. It's the quality of what we do further up the field. That's why I was disputing with the people who were annoyed with the playing out of the back.

[Fabrice29]

Anyway, back on topic. Can we all agree that experience isn't and has never been a factor in the outcome of a football match? Given Norwich appointed a proper experienced actual football manager and started with a resounding defeat yesterday. So when we inevitably lose this week or next week that there is probably other reasons to be looked at over the managers experience or what formation he's chosen to start us of in.

[Nordic Saint]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

As much as everyone loves to hate Bazunu, never in a million years do we win that 5-1 with McCarthy in goal.

It's a funny thing, but McCarthy does seem to be a real Jonah, who you certainly wouldn't want to see in our goal on Tuesday night, unless you were a Leicester fan, because we've only won 1 regular season game at St Mary's in the last 4 years when he's been in goal (which was v Preston 1½ years ago). Whereas with Bazunu in our goal, in the Championship we win most games. Call it luck or whatever you like, but our results are better with Bazunu, and Tonda Eckert has obviously been at the club long enough to notice this. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Nordic Saint

[Maggie May]

I’m really torn. I was at the game yesterday and the first half was probably the most remarkable 45 minutes of football I’ve seen us play regardless of what league we’re in. Total dominance.  The worst part about yesterday was the queue for crap Peroni at half time. 

You’d think three wins in three, free flowing football and (finally) goals would mean Tonda is a shoo-in for the full time job. But I just can’t move away from all the times we’ve been burned before from internal appointments.  Gray, Wigley, Selles - all disasters. 

Maybe it is a case of “in Spors we trust” on this one. 

[Nordic Saint]

4 minutes ago, Maggie May said:

I’m really torn. I was at the game yesterday and the first half was probably the most remarkable 45 minutes of football I’ve seen us play regardless of what league we’re in. Total dominance.  The worst part about yesterday was the queue for crap Peroni at half time. 

You’d think three wins in three, free flowing football and (finally) goals would mean Tonda is a shoo-in for the full time job. But I just can’t move away from all the times we’ve been burned before from internal appointments.  Gray, Wigley, Selles - all disasters. 

Maybe it is a case of “in Spors we trust” on this one. 

Liverpool made a series of internal appointments - Paisley,  Fagan, Dalglsh, Moran, Evans - during their most successful period. Anyway, wherever a manager comes from, it's all about results, and Eckert has just made the best start of any Saints manager, winning his first 3 games. Of course, if like all of his predecessors since Koeman, he has a losing run, he'll be replaced. A football manager is only a few defeats away from losing his job.

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

Correct. As we have continued to do.

Yeah, why is that do you think? Answer honestly if you can.

[Fabrice29]

2 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Yeah, why is that do you think? Answer honestly if you can.

Defenders who aren't very good at defending their box and keepers who aren't very good at saving shots.

[Badger]

Post match interview in case not seen.

One other thing from yesterday, he didn’t seem to push himself forward to take the glory and response from the fans with a load of wavy hands bollocks and fist pumping.
 

Credit to him for that. I recall Still doing it after Wrexham and I wondered if he’ll be so keen to take centre stage if it goes tits up. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 minute ago, Fabrice29 said:

Defenders who aren't very good at defending their box and keepers who aren't very good at saving shots.

Agreed. As many managers have said, you cannot be on the pitch coaching the players - you have to rely on players having the sense to do the right thing. In Stephens you have a player that is barely capable of operating at this level, let alone marshalling a defence. It makes you question why bother having three CB’s when aerially they are overrun and out muscled by an opposing set piece. 

And then the question of Baz and his positional sense, which in the case of their goal was not the best, but it’s a constant weakness for him.

Would McCarthy have been better? Difficult to say - probably not, but I do believe his positional sense and save potential is better than Baz’s.

Would Rambo have done better? I would say there’s a 10% chance he would have either chosen to come for the ball and clattered the defender or been closer to his near post and made a save. Sometimes those small %’s make a big difference and indeed win games.

I’ll end with a question. If the score at that point was either 1-0 or 1-1, do think we’d have scored 5 to win? I don’t.

[Totton Saint]

3 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

 

 

Bloody playing out the back when we have a lead etc. 

Thanks for that clip. Now I realise what a fantastic move it was. Really embarrassing for Charlton.

[UpweySaint]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

Anyway, back on topic. Can we all agree that experience isn't and has never been a factor in the outcome of a football match? Given Norwich appointed a proper experienced actual football manager and started with a resounding defeat yesterday. So when we inevitably lose this week or next week that there is probably other reasons to be looked at over the managers experience or what formation he's chosen to start us of in.

I don’t agree. I think we can get hung up on experience/names but they do have value. Coaches and players can do well without it but that doesn’t negate it holding value. An example would be say, game management which typically develops over time. 
 

If we do stick with Tonda I would like to see him having some experience added to his coaching staff.

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

9 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Agreed. As many managers have said, you cannot be on the pitch coaching the players - you have to rely on players having the sense to do the right thing. In Stephens you have a player that is barely capable of operating at this level, let alone marshalling a defence. It makes you question why bother having three CB’s when aerially they are overrun and out muscled by an opposing set piece. 

And then the question of Baz and his positional sense, which in the case of their goal was not the best, but it’s a constant weakness for him.

Would McCarthy have been better? Difficult to say - probably not, but I do believe his positional sense and save potential is better than Baz’s.

Would Rambo have done better? I would say there’s a 10% chance he would have either chosen to come for the ball and clattered the defender or been closer to his near post and made a save. Sometimes those small %’s make a big difference and indeed win games.

I’ll end with a question. If the score at that point was either 1-0 or 1-1, do think we’d have scored 5 to win? I don’t.

With Stephens, you have someone who is versatile (if limited). He was picking up space when other CBs moved, such as THB supporting Fellows. In the second half, with the pace dropped, he moved more directly into midfield runs, with Bragg and Jander supporting. He was shouting at least a few times too. You can see him trying to do lots of good things, although the execution is a bit uncertain at times.

We passed through Charlton's press right from the start. By the time the goals went in, they were already unsure of it, and it failed completely. For games like that Baz is excellent, and has been key. Range of passing out from the back? Good distribution? Unflappable? All ticks to his game. Sadly, it's the other games, with different skills needed that's the problem.

Tonda set us up really well to give AA a lot of freedom, giving the others the responsibility to support or feed off him. Like you say, he gave the players the responsibility to show their sense.

He's also aware that Leicester are going to offer different challenges. As others have pointed out, we still have the same weaknesses. Tonda just has to keep working at minimising those, and develop winning ways despite them. And against different set ups. Not the easiest of tasks.

[Fabrice29]

7 minutes ago, UpweySaint said:

I don’t agree. I think we can get hung up on experience/names but they do have value. Coaches and players can do well without it but that doesn’t negate it holding value. An example would be say, game management which typically develops over time. 
 

If we do stick with Tonda I would like to see him having some experience added to his coaching staff.

 

It can certainly add value and I'd be happy to see some on the dugout but it doesn't dictate outcomes and it doesn't deserve the value it's given on this forum by some.

23 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Agreed. As many managers have said, you cannot be on the pitch coaching the players - you have to rely on players having the sense to do the right thing. In Stephens you have a player that is barely capable of operating at this level, let alone marshalling a defence. It makes you question why bother having three CB’s when aerially they are overrun and out muscled by an opposing set piece. 

And then the question of Baz and his positional sense, which in the case of their goal was not the best, but it’s a constant weakness for him.

Would McCarthy have been better? Difficult to say - probably not, but I do believe his positional sense and save potential is better than Baz’s.

Would Rambo have done better? I would say there’s a 10% chance he would have either chosen to come for the ball and clattered the defender or been closer to his near post and made a save. Sometimes those small %’s make a big difference and indeed win games.

I’ll end with a question. If the score at that point was either 1-0 or 1-1, do think we’d have scored 5 to win? I don’t.

This is a whole different arguement but I'd put it out there we have one of the smallest first 11's in the league and therefore 3 CB's becomes more needed rather than a question mark. I shudder at the thought of us defending set pieces for example with an 11 that doesn't include one of those 3 and includes another attacking player who presumably isn't as effective in the air.

[UpweySaint]

10 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

It can certainly add value and I'd be happy to see some on the dugout but it doesn't dictate outcomes and it doesn't deserve the value it's given on this forum by some.

This is a whole different arguement but I'd put it out there we have one of the smallest first 11's in the league and therefore 3 CB's becomes more needed rather than a question mark. I shudder at the thought of us defending set pieces for example with an 11 that doesn't include one of those 3 and includes another attacking player who presumably isn't as effective in the air.

I think we could end up splitting hairs a bit. It holds value - how much value is subjective. I agree some overestimate it.  I have been in the camp of wanting an experienced manager to get the season back on track. Tonda has some division experience and is not a novice coach but he still wouldn’t have been my pick. If saints do well I’m always happy to be wrong!

I found myself looking at the gap to the play offs yesterday. If we get results against Leicester and Millwall I think there will be a few nervous glances over the shoulder from teams above us…

 

[Fabrice29]

58 minutes ago, UpweySaint said:

I think we could end up splitting hairs a bit. It holds value - how much value is subjective. I agree some overestimate it.  I have been in the camp of wanting an experienced manager to get the season back on track. Tonda has some division experience and is not a novice coach but he still wouldn’t have been my pick. If saints do well I’m always happy to be wrong!

I found myself looking at the gap to the play offs yesterday. If we get results against Leicester and Millwall I think there will be a few nervous glances over the shoulder from teams above us…

 

He’s not necessarily my choice either. Nor was he anyone’s choice but the owners the day Still went but just wanting experience for the sake of it just doesn’t stack up. An experienced managed doesn’t get the season back on track. A good manager does and a good manager doesn’t necessarily have experience.

Agree we sEm to be splitting hairs. My issue, as it was last week, is with people who were getting apoplectic because we’d trusted somebody without experience and others who were actively suggesting proven bad managers because they had experience.

[bugenhagen]

7 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

The smart, out of the box thinking thing to do is to NOT give him the job.  Think about it, he's won all his games as an 'interim' manager.  Keep him as 'interim' and we keep winning.  Smart people like Rasmus will understand this.

Yeah, looking back at the SR era, all mangers bar Russ has kinda been interim anyway, in anything but the title. Just a waste of money to make it full time.