Petriix

True, I do get fixed on the team selection. I worry when we're playing no attacking midfielders. I worry about the space in behind our wingbacks without a second wide player to support them.

So it's back to the plan that got Farke sacked then. We've played really well under Smith by being more balanced. This is highly regressive and invites Spurs to attack us at will. No attacking threat from our midfield whatsoever means we'll be hitting it long for Pukki to chase. I really thought we'd moved on from this.

I suppose my point was that we needed the two other CMs (who weren't the number 10) to really know that they weren't the number 10 so that they definitely did remain defensively disciplined. It turns out that two out of the three seem to be able to maintain the positional discipline without having such specific roles. The way we got it so wrong in those opening games (particularly Leicester, Arsenal and Watford) made it seem impossible to me. I was wrong, blinded by my love for Farke and his 'topics'. I guess ultimately we weren't concentrated enough.

I hope you're right. There's nothing to stop us, apart from the wonderful stat about us having scored from the lowest proportion of our shots (under 6%) of all Premier League teams.

Ultimately it's about picking up the points. We're simply not scoring the goals required to win the games needed to stay up. So far. Tuesday is massive in terms of our overall position. Win and we're almost back on track. Lose and we're bottom again. But it's more about getting to the magic number of 10 wins. We have 12 games left against current bottom half teams, 6 home and 6 away. If we win half of them, we'll have to pick up at least another 2 wins from top half sides. It's a monumental task. Not impossible but unlikely. Those missed chances really come back to bite. We've got to start taking them soon, otherwise we'll be cut adrift before long.

Wolves had loads of possession, passing it sideways and back. We were really disciplined and didn't give them much of an opening at all.

I'll hold my hands up. I was convinced that the 3 man midfield, without a dedicated number 10, was flawed. I was wrong. Our midfield problems seem to have been solved simply by getting the wide AMs to actually track their men and having the central midfielders mainly stay more central. It seems they're capable of letting one of them get forward without losing positional discipline and still being there to mop up and prevent breaks. I'm struggling to work out if it's just a motivational thing where the players are simply working harder and more cohesively, or whether the subtle tactical switches with a different style of training are more significant. Whatever, it's working so far. Dean Smith has transformed the midfield in 1 and a half games in a way that Farke couldn't in 11.

All seem like great ideas. We'd suffer more than most from the reduction in parachute payments. Also, because we're probably the best club in terms of wage structure around relegation, it would likely level the playing field in that regard as well. At the moment we're able to milk the void between the PL and the Championship precisely because of our astute adaptation to our unique financial position. These ideas would bring many other (less well run) clubs into line with us.

Wes will never be done playing.

Yes, I really like that. And I'm really happy that he started (and will hopefully continue to do so). If he keeps developing the complete game then he'll be an incredible player. I just hope that the positional stuff comes quickly.

Exactly this. Our midfield was as shambolic as ever in the first half and Gilmour produced a couple of perfect moments to demonstrate his limitations - in particular careering into the Southampton half to close down the man with the ball, leaving an unmarked player free to receive the pass and run unchallenged into our box (who Gilmour half-heartedly pursued). He also committed such a weak foul at one point that the player was able to stay on his feet and pass the ball on. It's so important in those situations to use the foul to stop the play so you absolutely have to leave the man on the floor. He seemed to be a lot better in the second half so maybe he's learning quickly.

I'll always complain about aimlessly hitting the ball long the majority of the time. Passing should always be the default option. If teams overcommit to the press then going longer becomes higher percentage and higher reward, but we can gain a significant advantage by passing through congested areas. It's about intelligently reading the situation and making better choices. We've been quite negative for much of this season. We'll only win by trusting our ability and going for it.

I thought Gilmour was vastly better in the second half. He benefited from a generally higher midfield around him but did the defensive duties well after the brake. Rashica was also far better defensively when he switched sides. While Normann and McLean were largely anonymous, they were fairly solid in the centre of the park. Perhaps they could have offered slightly more support to the overloaded flanks at times in the first half, but the double pivot worked well in my opinion. Sargent demonstrated perfectly what that wide midfield role entails. Whoever plays there should embody that desire to work hard in both attack and defence. It bodes well for Smith's tenure that he achieved more with the midfield in that second half than Farke managed in the whole of the season until his departure.

That's not how I saw it. Several times their number 24 (Elyounoussi) ran untracked into the box while Rashica was jogging back without picking up anyone. As I said, I don't really mind which one of the two he tracks, but it's pretty simple football tactics that your right sided fullback and midfielder need to track their left sided counterparts when out of possession. If the fullback is picking up the opposite fullback then the midfielder must stay goal-side of his opposite number. Yes, the DMs also need to provide cover. But, if the overload keeps happening, you have to look at who hasn't tracked their man.

This x 1000. (not literally buy 1000 DMs, just that I agree by 1000 units of agreement). We need a McLean upgrade for ~ £15m.

Leaving their fullback unmarked wasn't the real issue. It was Rashica consistently failing to track the runner from midfield whenever Max went to cover the fullback. While it would normally fall to the wide midfielder to cover the opposite fullback when out of possession, you absolutely have to pick up *someone*. It was poor from Rashica however you look at it.

Out of reactions but +1 to everyone who says give the lad some time to get match fit - which can only be achieved by actually playing matches. And sadface to everyone laying into him.

Apart from getting involved in one decent attack and generally tracking back quite well (which is more than Rashica did - he kept failing to track his man). Yes, Cantwell was off the pace, but not really more so than Gilmour or Rashica. Sargent was a vast improvement.

I was totally wrong. Great second half performance.

Hats off to Dean Smith, because that's exactly what he did. That first half was a shambles aside from scoring with our only effort. We were completely outplayed in midfield with the three advanced midfielders all guilty of failing to track their men repeatedly. How it was 1-1 at half time I still don't understand. There were some fleeting moments when we had the ball but, while we were clearly trying to be more compact and harder to break down out of possession, we gave them so much space and so much time on the ball. Cantwell was perhaps unlucky to be singled out but he obviously lacks match fitness so it was an understandable substitute. It was an inspired move but, it wasn't just the change in personnel, the whole midfield was transformed at half time. Sargent gave Southampton a real problem. He pressed, harried, fought for the ball and held it up well. When we lost the ball he tracked back with pace and determination. Where Rashica had been frequently caught out in the first half (before swapping flanks at half time), Sargent was solid. Gilmour was excellent in the second half really working off the ball and linking up play. But it was the defensive work that stood out to me. He put in blocks, made intelligent fouls and tracked his man consistently in a way I've not seen him do before. We were somehow both more defensively solid and a far greater attacking threat. The midfield went from shambolic in the first half to organised, disciplined and dynamic in the second half. Who knows what Dean Smith said at half time, but it was a real transformation.

Regardless of the entry requirements, I hope that anyone with any Covid-like symptoms stays at home. Unless you have a negative PCR test, if you're coughing or sneezing then it's best to play it safe.

You've lost the continuity of the post. It starts asking 'are we going to see the end of' then lists a couple of things that we might stop doing, but then goes on with a list of things we might do. Maybe change it to 'are we going to see...' then add 'the end of' to the first two items?

Fair enough. I'm probably just setting my expectations low to avoid disappointment. There are definitely some positives and lots of potential. I just think we've departed radically from the things that set us apart from the rest of the Championship clubs. You're probably right. But that means selling Buendia was a worse idea than it appeared. I was prepared to accept it on the grounds that we could improve the squad by reinvesting the money. If that was impossible then we should never have let him go. Skipp was pretty hard to replace, but we had to try harder than PLM.

I'd say the decision to sack Farke very much suggests that Webber believes we can stay up. I think he's being optimistic. Realistically we've already lost too many of the target games that needed winning to make survival possible. I'd be exceptionally happy to be proven wrong and there are som viable (but unlikely) scenarios where I might be. I'm not certain Dean Smith needs to believe we'll stay up. He obviously needs to say it, but he's in a win-win situation. If we go down, no one will blame him. Regarding the summer recruitment: the simple answer is yes, we could have expected to have a better first team than we do. Sargent, Rashica and Tzolis cost close to the Buendia money combined and have contributed zero goals and zero assists in the league. If we'd have signed one single £20m player with appropriate wages then we'd have been way better off. We completely failed to replace Skipp. Another £15m on a dedicated defensive midfielder would have given us a solid core to build on. PLM is no upgrade on Rupp or McLean. Maybe thing will start to click. There's bags of potential in the squad. We just don't have the luxury of being able to wait any longer for it to start working.

I'd say it's extremely wishful thinking to assume that we'll find ourselves anywhere other than a little below the top six in the Championship in a year's time. I hope that we're not, but I wouldn't bet against the possibility. We've seen too much change and too little belief. All continuity is gone and we're starting a fresh. We've been punching so far above our weight for so long by being something much bigger than the sum of our parts - a cohesive unit, all on the same page, working with and for each other - that people have become deluded about our realistic position in the pecking order. It would take something staggeringly special for Dean Smith to get the same (or more) from this disjointed squad. Keeping us up would be a miracle. Getting things back on track after relegation would be a massive achievement. I'd love to be wrong, and I'll be supporting the team as much as ever, but it seems to me that the club is in crisis after blowing our biggest ever transfer budget on some seriously average (or below) players. Not that Farke would have been likely to do any better. He lost his nerve and abandoned his philosophy, which was all he really had. Just don't assume a change of manager will undo the damage.