I've been wanting to write a new blog about the ever increasing mess that goes under the name Southampton Football Club for a little while, but every time I sit down to put finger to keyboard, I realise I'm too angry and that anything I write will likely descend into a bubbling pit of swear words. It's important to try and at least have a semblance of balance and sanity when approaching an emotive topic, but it's football, and for some reason that makes it hard. Hence, I give you good warning that this one might sound a bit more 'ranty' than usual.
Why does football do that to us? Why does it matter so very much? Why do I feel like a loved one is being driven wildly toward a cliff edge by a deranged, angry maniac, whilst a flaxen-haired Dane sits on a throne nodding at his self-perceived brilliance, like a Poundland Trump. "If it ain't broke, consider breaking it" - tell you what, Rasmus, you're doing the second part alright.
Rasmus - much cleverer than you. Apparently.
And so the club today refused to take the one remaining chance to regain some semblance of respect from a fanbase that has united in a way that none of us has seen before, by somehow deciding to continue with Nathan Jones, at least for another game. It makes the Branfoot era pale into insignificance, such is the strength of feeling of pretty much everyone (bar Jones's in-laws perhaps, though even that isn't a given).
Except the one guy that really matters.
Enough has been written in the last 24 hours about Jones and his continued descent into a self-aggrandising dreamworld that would make a politician on five grams of purest cocaine think "you might be bigging yourself up a touch too much there, mate". Not enough has been written about the surely incredible ego of the man who appointed him, and continues to seemingly believe that he knows far better than anybody else. Enter our chairman, Rasmus Ankersen.
Like a version of Nicola Cortese, where you have all the ego but lack the sense to change things, self-styled leader, TED talker and author, Ankersen, brought in a manager that nobody was terribly sure about. But that was okay at the time. It may not have been the name we were after, but the fanbase rallied and decided that we needed to give the new bloke a chance. It hadn't worked at Stoke (oh, how their warnings should have been heeded), but we were persuaded to 'trust the data' by Mr Moneyball. Maybe this was genius. After all, there was the World Cup break to implement his ideas, and the last person that came in as a HUGELY unpopular choice (and by that, I mean a far, far more unpopular move than bringing in Jones) was a relatively unknown Argentinian manager by the name of Mauricio Pochettino.
Nicola Cortese. A bit like Ankersen, but far more effective. And scary.
But that's where the comparisons ended. Within a single half of football, and with less than a week training his new team, you could see what Pochettino wanted. And what he wanted made sense. What he wanted was good. Very good. After 4 months of this hell, nobody is sure of what Jones is trying to do - least of all him - although we're being promised the 'real version' coming right up. Surely it must have been those words that have somehow persuaded the board, including the oh-so-clever Ankersen to give him one more go? Let's see what you have Nathan, now it's going to be your style...
Well I think I can take a good guess at what Jones wants to do. Because it's the only thing he knows how to do. Bring Championship style, physical, aggressive football to the Premier League. Wow, Nathan. Brilliant. I'm sure nobody has tried to do that before. Except...oh...they have. And it doesn't work. He seems to think that he can reinvent the Crazy Gang. Backs against the wall, whack it up to the big guy. Something that thankfully got found out pretty quickly in the early 90s, and was wiped as a way of playing top flight football for good reason. It's a technical game now. Wimbledon style football is as dead as Plough Lane.
Okay then, if that's what you identify with, I guess then it makes sense that you've been playing Lyanco, the only player in the squad that might have been able to play in the late 80s Wimbledon team. And who else should we play in this new, aggressive line up. Surely our Croatian centre...oh...hold up...no. Let's play Janny B - the world's most passive player. Right there is a plan that is no plan at all.
"I had a dream..." - Nathan Jones, 13 3/4 yrs old.
It's just so depressing. We had the opportunity to bring someone in - a Gallardo, Tedesco, Jaissle style manager - when we (rightly) decided that Ralph's time was up. It could have been exciting again. Solak is clearly unafraid to spend money, but he's throwing good money after bad for as long as Jones is at the helm. Imagine a progressive manager with that backing. Imagine Ralph, even bad-Ralph, with that backing. It's extraordinary that the man that sells himself on his website as someone who is an expert at "creating success then eliminating complacency" can get the first part of that so critically, critically wrong. Worse than that, having the type of ego that means he'll refuse to correct the error that is obvious from the smallest fan, to the best loved ex-professionals.
Much loved ex-professionals....and Chris Sutton too...
There's a fan's forum tomorrow that the club are refusing to broadcast live (for the first time) - again, if you know what's coming, why are you digging your heels in - where the atmosphere will certainly be challenging. Nathan Jones isn't going to be at the forum, undoubtedly because he can't be trusted to keep a lid on himself. The public face of the club right there. Can't be trusted. But if they think that's challenging, the game on Saturday at St Mary's is going to be a seventh circle of hell. It's no longer a question of if, but when. There's even talk of all sorts of player unrest behind the scenes, from mass brawls to separate training groups.
Ankersen needs to act. He needed to act today. This is a totally unsustainable situation and makes absolutely no sense to drag it on, particularly into a game where with a functioning side we have a chance of points. Thomas Frank lost a large number of his initial games, and Ankersen stood firm in his support of him. That worked out, and surely must be behind his decision to plough on with the current situation. But Frank never had the team and fans turn against him in this way. Frank had an identity and a style. Frank is likeable. This is a totally different situation, and only an uncontrolled ego would decide to persist with it. In some ways, that's more worrying for the long term future of this club we love so much, than having to persist for one more game in the vain hope of picking up a draw.
Sadly, with Jones in charge, it'll be no points, and there's no point.