Rousseau

I just seen the opening day fixture was attended by 16 fans; that's Sixteen. It'll take a while to develop, for sure, but 16? Sheesh.

Holy crap! How did I forget him!? Ha! We have precedent...

I'm not so sure about that. There are fewer of them, but the ones I know of have done not too badly. There is Nigel Adkins, getting Southampton promoted; Leonid Slutsky, overseeing CSKA Moscow's dominance in Russia; Dino Zoff had a spell at Juventus; Julen Lopetegui had a wonderfull spell at Porto, now the current Spain manager; Nuno Santo was manager of Porto too, doing very well, and also managed Valencia; and even in your Netherlands there was Michel Preud'homme, who was runner-up with Twente? Not too shabby to me. Now that I see it, Porto seem very willing to appoint Goalkeepers and relative unknowns like Andre Villas-Boas and Mourinho alongside those 'keepers above. Surely they have a bit of money to attract a bigger name -- I wonder why they go with younger, unknowns? They certainly have that demand to win, but then they do generally have the best squad alongside Benfica. Interesting...

It was a completely understandable decision, but I just felt Toral's calmness on the ball and his better control could've been effective in seeing out the game, slowing it down, talking the sting out of it. Admittedly it could've been risky too considering he was, as you say, tiring. I agree about the midfield. It worked out in the end!

I thought Toral was excellent last night -- those 2 loose balls aside. He was playing the DM role and his positioning was excellent, always open to receive a pass -- even from Wes a few times, breaking the STJ press, which is non-existant with Halliday -- with clever movements. Again, aside from those 2 loose balls early on, his distribution was excellent too, breaking their lines with crisp, accurate passes. He is casual, but he was a calming influence when we moved the ball forward; which, I think, helped our general attacking play. I was annoyed to see Halliday replace him because at that stage Toral was slowing the game down, like Hyndman; which is what we needed when defending a lead with 10-men -- game management. I've not seen the U20's play but I imagine last nights performance is how they play: 4-3-3, clever movement, ball retention and attacking play. There was a naivety to it, but it showed our technical ability -- perhaps why Halliday was dropped for Holt? Perhaps someone who watches the U20's can enlighten me?

It's not a panacea, but there are advantages that will benefit us in the long-run. Investment will always be needed but spending it all on a new team and Manager just to do so again in 3 years is unsustainable. A DoF will allow us a certain level of sustainability; an infrastructure that will pay dividends in the long-run. I'm excited because it's progress, not because it's a cure-all.

It's not up to the DoF to interfere with the team. If a player is playing poorly then that is the Head Coach's responsibility. The only thing the DoF can influence is the 'type' of player we bring in; he must suit the preferred style -- with the Head Coach ultimately having the final choice. The DoF is responsible for the infrastructure, the framework within which the football department is run. The Coach should be slotting into this framework. I think you are conflating DoF with the old Manager position; a DoF is much higher than that. The Head Coach and DoF are distinct roles -- of course with some overlaps but they shouldn't be interfering with each other. There will be regular meetings, sure, but each should have distinct roles.

We're ahead of the curve then... (No pun intended.)

It's a big 'If' if Caixinha is Ross Wilson's preferred choice -- in the sense that he will be appointed our DoF -- but I suspect Southampton do have a few on their list to slot into their structure like Pochetino, Koeman and Puel. It'd be a big plus in Caixinha's box, but Southampton do have that structure in place; we need to develop it.

There will be overlaps, but the only "input" the DoF should have on tactics and team selection is picking the Head Coach to fit the playing style in the first place.

I think we need a bit of context with Caixinha: saying he's managed X, Y and Z doesn't really help much if we don't know the team and how they usually perform. To date he has managed Uniao Leiria, Nacional, Santos Laguna and Al-Gharafa. Uniao Leiria had finished 9th the previous season -- their first back in the top flight -- and Caixinha finished 10th. Since leaving they have been relegated twice -- latterly through financial problems. It's nothing special but he seems to have stabalised the club mid-table; for a newly promoted side that's not bad. Nacional are a bigger side in Portugal, so this seems to be a step up. They finished 6th the year before and Caihinha had them finishing 7th -- also getting them to the Semi-Final of the Cup. After he left, they have generally finished lower; with an 11th place finish their lowest, 5th being their highest. Again, he has done nothing speical; he just seems to have stabalised them at their level. Santos Laguna finished 9th before he arrived and then he seems to have steadily improved them, getting to several Semi-Finals then becoming Champions. Santos Laguna are a big Mexican club who expect to be close to titles. Caixinha seems to have taken them at a low ebb and got them to the title. This has been his most successful spell. I have no data for his Saudi Arabian adventure. He seems to be a solid coach. He's taken sides and stabalised them at their level. He may not be winning titles regularly, but that can't be expected with mid-table sides. Apparently we were after him 2 years ago too as a No. 2 to Pereira, before we appointed MW. He's had quite a decent run as a No.2 at some big-ish clubs, relatively speaking (Rapid Bucharest, Sporting Lisbon, Panathanaikos etc.). And for the oldies: he prefers a 4-4-2! (Although I suspect a more modern 4-4-2).

I think you've got the DoF role slightly wrong. The DoF should have no say whatsoever in tactics and team selection.

I've argued for that formation before; it seems to suit what we have. It's certainly in vogue in Italy at the moment.

I think the point is that they couldn't get a 'keeper in, not because they were not allowed but because they couldn't get a deal done. However, if a team has no 'keeper, surely that game must be postponed? And if it happened for Hearts last year... stupidity from the SFA.

I was coming round to the idea of Alex Neil, but if he is indeed a Celtic fan then in the words of the sacked McGhee: "Get that tae f***!" I'd prefer a more tactically astute manager, and certainly one able to change with the opposition; for me, Monk is a good option in that regard. Rowett is a bit too pragmatic for me, and he doesn't really have a philosophy -- certainly not one that would fit with what, I hope, we are trying to do. I don't know much about the Portuguese guy -- much to my annoyance -- but any foreigner must be more tactically astute than any British manager, but then might not understand the British game. DoF has to be appointed first, though.

The man is a machine; it's not natural.

He was before my time, but that was stunning; the Scottish Iniesta indeed -- my only reference unfortunately! Thanks for posting the video.

That can't be true as those good performances came in the middle of our games. If teams had figured us out, then we should've been doing well at the start of the season then fade away, but we started poorly then had a little good spell then fell away again. It might be true that teams have always had us sussed, but then our good games show that we were able to overcome that. Anyway, those few good games don't excuse the many poor ones.

I agree, and I'm not saying we've hit that level often -- far from it -- but when playing at our absolute best, this team is capable of playing much much better than what they've shown for most of the season. I'm not "profoundly wrong", I'm actually correct in my statement that this team can play a lot better. That was my point. It does not mean that this team is not absolutely woeful for the most part, and will go down as one of our worst squads -- I still think Ally's League 2 and 1 squads were worse, however -- because it will.

I am demonstrably correct. We wiped the floor with Aberdeen and Hearts, so clearly we have a much better/higher level than we've shown. Most of the time, unfortunately, it has been utterly dreadful.

Looking back on the game, I can't believe we lost. As bad as we were for spells -- large spells at that -- I lost count of the number of glorious chances we missed. That's not management or the board; you can argue management is getting them into the position to create those chances, which they did. Ultimately it's down to the players to take them. We (the team) are desperately short of confidence. I truly believe we are much better than what we've shown. The number of mistakes is just incredible. It's desperately disappointing.

That's a good point. Clearly they shouldn't if they understand the role, but I can appreciate it may be difficult for traditional former managers.

Does he really think he is so good that he can pick and choose when he plays and that we'll jump at the chance to add him? I'd chase him. Then again, Chesney is the boss so he'll be able to do what he likes.

While I'm not sure Martin Jol is the right man -- for manager or DoF -- I do think the idea of getting someone in now to then take on the DoF role in the summer is a good move from the board. Of course, it is pure speculation at this point.

What for? I thought we were trying to convince him to join?