Just goes to prove that myth we created about us, only a few seasons ago was just bluster. The black box, just myth, the constant ascendancy planning to ensure we replace those who leave with better, just a load of bollocks. Hughes did ok at Stoke but in his final season was sacked by the club. Of course we thought he had done such a good job that we gave him one.
Never really liked having a manager that was predominantly a forward in their playing career, just a personal preference.
Just to remind a few of you............In our longest run in the premier or div1as was..........27 years we managed to stay in those divisions. True most years we were battling relegation. However we did have the odd good year as well. Even finishing as runner up I seem to recall. Also a little sweetener perhaps to again remind people..........the year Liverpool were promoted to the then 1st Div we actually beat them 3 times in one season!! The point I'm trying to make though is that if we don't invest properly we are always going to struggle. We as the fans have to just bear this burden and accept thats who we are....the also rans. Until that is someone comes along with enough money to get us to the heights of other clubs around our size. Sadly not in my life time I don't suppose..........
I think those of us who took all the black box stuff with a healthy pinch of salt are probably a bit more relaxed about where we are now. I won't be so relaxed if we don't get at least 4 points from our next two games, but I think we will. As for Hughes, I think he earned his contract after keeping us up last season. And he hasn't squandered all the goodwill yet. My feeling is there is just enough in this squad to finish mid table, and Hughes is as capable as anyone else we could realistically attract, of getting that out of them. We could just as easily get sucked into a relegation battle though, if we haven't already. Either way, the bar is set a lot lower for Hughes than it was for Koeman or Puel.
Interesting point, that. Defenders definitely seem to make the best pundits, which I have always assumed was because their position on the pitch means they have a far better view of the whole game unfolding than forwards do. It never occured to me that this might also apply to managers; the best ones have rarely been the best players anyway. A totally unscientific sample reveals that our three most succesful managers in the last decade have been a goalkeeper and two central defenders. Pardew was a midfielder, I believe.
Hughes improved Stoke as a footballing side, but he benefited hugely from inheriting a well drilled and well organised back line, with dominant characters. Hughes has already improved us, IMO, as an attacking force, compared to last season, without the goals and points to support that view. Where he is struggling, and I raised it as a concern before the season started, is that he can’t organise us defensively well enough. His undoing at Stoke was his inability to replace the old stalwarts and maintain the defensive discipline instilled by Pulis. That is exactly the problem we have at SMS.
Prior to Hughes, the only other attacking players who ended up managing Saints were Paul Sturrock and a certain Edric Thornton Bates, of whom there is a bronze likeness outside the main entrance to St. Mary’s Stadium.
So the majority of our existence we've been a bottom half top tier club (at best) bar a few seasons and we've been worse for the majority. So taking that, and the amount of players sold into account, it would be silly to expect us to be a European challenger, would you agree?
We can always live in hope...but it is unrealistic with out the proper spending that is needed to get to that stage. Our present owner does not seem to be looking to go for the dream as he seemed to promise on acquiring us. (More investment Etc)
Mmm,interesting point about investment Beddy not sure if I was owner and saw how we "invested" money over the summer that I'd give em money for a packet of fags let alone enough to buy a player good enough to play In the first team!
Sorry Beddy, but I cannot agree with the suggestion that the club has not invested money on new players. I think we have manifestly invested in this department but the decisions have largely been extremely poor. It would be worthwhile looking back at out historic transfer record - busting signings and to see how many of these have actually delivered. You only have to think of the likes of Ramirez, Boufal, Classie, Osvaldo, Carillo , etc to appreciate the lack of diligence when investing large sums of money in one player. Davis is probably the best signing we have made, pound for pound. In earlier generations there were players like Hirst and Delgardo who were similarly unimpressive. This season we are witnessing games such as last Sunday's where three major pre-season signings did not make it in to the squad for a variety of reasons. All in all, the recent additions to the squad have generally not improved the team as a whole and, in many cases, are retrograde steps when you considered who we had playing for us previously. Whenever Saints state that they have made a record-breaking signing you almost wonder if the money is being squandered yet again. Under Reed, there seems to have been too high a proportion of signings who have not delivered. We seem to waste a lot of money on mercurial talent whereas there is conversely an inability to replace key players like Van Dijk, Mane and Pelle. We would be far better off getting signings who mirrored the impact of players like Stephen Davis - probably the most under-rated Saints player in recent years whose presence was often key to our success. Maybe Armstrong was bought to fulfil this role but , like all the signings in the summer, he has been hit and miss. I would therefore argue that it is not the money we spend that counts but the fact that we make the correct choices with recruitment. It is difficult to argue that whoever is sanctioning new signings is doing his homework. The signing of Carillo is , for me, on a pay with Delgardo - most fans could see he was too slow for the EPL after his initial appearance. I don't doubt the board's commitment to invest in new players when required but the signings have largely been under-whelming since the departure of Koeman with signature recruits often failing to live up to the expectations. Since the departure of Koeman,I would suggest that PEH remains the most impressive signing but I am not sure I would put him in the same calibre of Lambert, Pelle. Mane, Van Dijk, Tadic, Wanyama, Clyne, etc. Whilst the board is not profligate , they are hardly stingy when it comes to recruitment. I would be more concerned with the quality than how much we spend as a good deal of the newer signings have been over-priced.
As before, you have named a player I’ve never heard of. I can only assume you mean Stuart Armstrong, who hasn’t played very much.