DJ Barry Hammond

Defintely looking to get the ball forward quicker and then compete for the second balls.

We’ve deserved that - we’ve not done too bad here, just a brain fart inside the first 5. Good to see some mental strength to not just fold like a pack of cards.

If he can’t cut it physically at right back - why would you play him in the middle of the park?

Not available for the next two - so might as well use him here.

A lot of the Chelsea academy clips had him in that position.

This is beyond silly. 1.) There isn’t the coaching time available to do this effectively - playing 3 at the back needs a clearly defined structure, pinpointing how the wide and central midfielders react to threats in wide areas etc - a poorly coached 3 at the back often ends up being a back 5 and you just get pinned back inside your own half (see Sadler’s attempt to do this against Brentford as a case in point). 2.) Assuming you’re suggesting some combination of Fatawu / Mavididi / Monga as the two wide players - you’ve now put extra defensive responsibility on them, which they’re not ideally suited to - and as a result it lessens what they can do going forward. What’s even worse is if the opposition play with a pair of wide players on both flanks, it becomes very easy to double up and negate the wide threats without giving up much in other areas - a basic and easy game plan would be to allow the 3 centre halves the ball and keep a compact and balanced shape that asks the question - are your 3 defenders good enough with the ball to break us down? 3.) In addition - because of the lack of width with this formation, you really have to play your two wide players with their strongest foot on the outside - the transitional shape would be horrible if your only wide threats are driving inside all the time. So that would be Fawatu on the left and whoever you suggest on the right - and that puts them at a disadvantage in terms of situational familiarity. 4.) With injuries and suspensions - we’re rather light at centre back, so playing 3 from the start seems counterintuitive to what is available to us. 5.) Why would you advocate a system that provides more opportunity for Ayew to play than less? 6.) Our fullbacks would look better if we could address the overall structural deficiencies in our play - especially in central midfield and defence. I’m hopeful that the signings made can help address those.

I think the thing with the Charlton game is you can’t really call it a fair audition - skeleton squad thrown into chaos really early on. We’ll know more this weekend. And on the older head alongside… I’m not bothered about that, I reckon Andy will have enough good contacts in the game to build a solid coaching team if he got the job full time or at the very least, to the end of the season. And on Thomas - I’m not as keen to see him replaced in the side as the majority on here. He has aspects of his game that are potentially very good - admittedly that’s going forward more than defensively - but I do wonder if utilised a bit better, with a better defensive framework around him, we might see opinions on him change… a little. Either that, or Kristensen starts and it becomes clear he’s the least bad option in the position.

This has been pointed out before, but it’s worth stating again because so many on here fail to understand that the role of a coach is to support the man in charge - they have very little say in the direction that the manager takes. Personally, the reason I like the idea of Andy being appointed is that I see him as a galvanising figure - someone that can help bring together all the horribly disjointed aspects around the club at the moment, including the fan base; and that is arguably the most important aspect at the moment, rebuilding that important relationship between fans and players.

We haven’t had a Steve Howard type for ages. It’s about time we corrected that!

My hunch is that the board would like to have a longer look at King in the managerial role. He certainly has strong qualities to be a decent manager; and I have no doubt that he’s also gained glowing reports from respected football people from his work as a coach and interim manager to date. So why wouldn’t you give yourself some time to properly evaluate someone under your own nose - you know, give him a meaningful shot. I know many on here doubt whether he has the ability or mentality needed for the job given our current state… but I’d like to see at least one more game under his leadership to get more of a view; especially now the club has now given him a few more properly viable options to select from.

Strikers are not exactly the easiest thing to sign in January, especially if you’re working to a tight budget. Personally, I would have gone for Dykes - we have an abundance of quality in wide positions but lack anything meaningful to hit inside the box - and as a short term option he would have offered something different to the (lack of) strikers we currently have to the extent I think he would have done a job for us before resetting sights for a more permanent solution in the summer. I agree that Mukasa is probably pencilled in as our 10 - and that Richard’s is probably a bench option for wide right/upfront to begin with.

Was that as serious as the 4/5 hour period on here of people (semi) believing Kevin Keegan was about to be announced as manager?

We should have got him when he went to Ipswich - it was a punt worth taking (especially when you consider Ayew was who we ended up with instead). Now… I’m not so sure, he may rekindle his Blackburn form, but I think he’d have found it hard to do it with us right now (and we’re not paying 4 odd millions). It’s Kone we seriously missed out on this time around… but again, maybe QPR were always the better fit for him?

Might as well get in early with this one too 😉

Interesting tweet from Radio Solent’s Sports Editor.

What this - more?

Nice - a striker!

Your opening ‘fact’ is completely false - played 16 last season and ok, just the 2 so far this season - but that is why we even have a shout at signing him. Additionally, no clean sheets at all for us this season suggest some serious adjustments in defence are certainly needed. It was also notable that we ended up having two academy graduates with under 100 appearances between them playing at centre half last Saturday. As a signing, whilst there are obvious risks attached, the potential benefits balance the proposal out to make it a perfectly acceptable opportunity to take up.

Some of this bed wetting on here has really gone over the top. We’ve signed; • A versatile midfielder. • Who has a lot of experience at the level we’re at. • Has won things. • Is a full international. • On a short term, relatively low cost and low risk deal no transfer fee, no long term wage commitment). • A player, who given their contract situation, may view this opportunity as providing him a crucial shop window to securing a better deal from the summer onwards. For our current scenario, this is a worth a punt, see what happens, deal.

Amazed we’re not named in this tweet.

There is an argument that you also need a tight defence to win stuff as well. It’s very rare that free flowing football ends up in glory come the end of the season.

No it was Dilly.

I think we’d look 100% better if we actually tried this - even if the two up front were Daka and Ayew!

Kristiansen is no better.

No you don’t. You can’t have a manager trying to coach something that’s not his way. He should have be straight - I coach what I know and nothing else. Plus, he’s surely the reason we have had to endure Ayew for what will be two whole seasons!