There are those that say Saints have been overcoached, that they are now playing too much to order rather than to their natural abilities, perhaps Saturday against Stoke City is the time to change all that.
Whatever you call Mauricio Pellegrino, and most reading this will be calling him a lot of names that are unrepeatable on a family website, it cannot be argued that when he arrived his track record as a coach was impressive and probably got him the job more than anything else.
He had coached at Liverpool & Inter Milan and then managed not only Valencia but in Argentina and then Alaves before arriving at St Mary's.
On the face of it he fitted the CV that Saints want in theie manager/head coach, call him what you will and although some hanker after a name manager, the reality is that we look for managers who are hungry for success but have not achieved it just yet, all of our last four managers have fitted that profile, including Mauricio Pellegrino who had spent several years at Espanyol usually fighting relegation before he was eventually sacked and even Ronald Koeman who despite a promising start to his managerial career in his home country winning titles with both Ajax and PSV, but after that success was sparse and when he arrived at Saints he had won nothing in 6 years.
So Pellegrino is not a surprise choice as Saints manager, but even his closest friends would not say he is doing a good job.
The problem seems to be over coaching, like his predecessor Claude Puel he seems to encourage his teams to pass the ball and then pass it some more, rather than go for the jugular a little more often, this has lead to the players being scared to go off piste so to speak and use a little bit of flair every now and then.
As we dropped down the Premier League, Pellegrino seemed unable to halt the slide, yes he had issues at the club, the loss of Charlie Austin being a big blow, but more especially in defence with Van Dijk playing up and his strange rotation of Hoedt and Yoshida, but ultimately he should have been a lot more tactically aware and astute, especially in his use of substitutions.
Those that cry out for two men up front are a little naive in that few Premier League teams play in this way anymore, if you go two up top then you run the risk of being overun in midfield, ironically former Saints boss Alan Pardew was embroiled in this issue in the Baggies defeat to Huddersfield at the weekend, apparently a dressing room bust up saw him accused of playing two up front and Huddersfield swamped them and went two goals up, the fans tell of similar stories and accuse Pardew of being naive etc, they see two up front as outdated.
At Burnley Pellegrino threw caution to the wind in the final minutes, although in fairness since the arrival of Carrillo he has been doing that on a more regular basis, most of the last half dozen games have seen two strikers on the pitch for the last ten minutes or so at least.
So on Saturday against Stoke the cry from the fans will be for two up top from the start, but is that really the best option, truth is it hasn't really produced much so far, at Burnley despite bringing on three attacking players in the final 25 minutes, the pattern of the game changed little, the fans were berating Pellegrino although he had given them what they wanted and a goal did not look like coming, until that is it did.
Few give Pellegrino credit for this, the talk is of Gabbiadini and Sims rescuing the game, the national media described it as good tactics from the Saints manager, the Saints fans did not see it that way.
But did Saints get lucky in that final minute or was it proof that two up front works, to be blunt the evidence is inconclusive, on one hand it did not change the pattern of the game at all, on the other we scored.
So luck played a big part, but Pellegrino has to balance out luck with caution, Stoke will come to park the bus, get a goal and then defend staunchly as they did at Leicester at the weekend , if Pellegrino gambles and they do just that then we will find it very hard to break them down and come back from that.
So I fully expect him to stick to the tactics he has done and not throw caution to the wind, at least not until later in the game.
So if the tactics don't change then other things do and that means the players sticking to the managers brief, but doing so without fear, the goal at Burnley was a well worked goal, perhaps our best of the season from a technical level in that four players were involved and played their part.
Nathan Redmond got the ball and ran at Burnley and created space for Josh Sims to run into and receive the ball, Guido Carrillo made the run into the right area and then Sims put in the perfect cross for him to nod it down for Manolo Gabbiadini to do what he does best, pull off hsi man swivel and fire home, all four players deserve great credit.
So what was the difference between that move and thoseearlier in the game, the answer is fear, earlier in the game the Saints team fear3d losing the ball so played it safe going forward, preferred to pass to a red shirt than try to hit that telling ball or shoot on goal, they stuck to the system so they couldnt be blamed if something went wrong.
But in that final minute they feared defeat more and let their survival instincts take over, that move looked like the Saints of old and that should be noted.
On Saturday Saints have to play like that from the start, they need to be disciplined so that they don't let Stoke get a grip on the game and score on the break, but when we get in the final third we need to be playing without fear, be brave, hit that telling pass, shoot when the moment arrives rather than take one touch too many or pass it on.
The crowd need to encouage the players to do this, they need to cheer every attempt, not give that collective groan that any professional will tell you is almost as worse as abuse in that it saps the confidence.
On Saturday nothing matters other than three points, yes we want our team to entertain, but sometimes that is secondary, we want them to win and win at any cost, to do that they need to play without fear of any kind.