Now the dust is settling we have to consider if Mark Hughes is the right man to take Saints forward or was he just a firefighter. Here we take a look at the facts.

In appointing Mark Hughes for the remainder of the season Saints had to tear up their blueprint for a manager or at least put it to one side for a while.

Now that the celebrations in staying up are over and it is the cold light of day, Ralph Krueger and his board have to look at their options and make what is now a crucial appointment after the issues with the last two incumbents of the St Mary's hot seat.

Certainly the fans are in no doubt that Mark Hughes is the man for the job, but that does not mean that they are right and although the former Saints player is now being lauded for saving Saints from the drop, we have to consider whether we are looking at it through rose tinted spectacles, after all this was not a great escape but more of a Great Survival.

Hughes and Pellegrino's records were not that much different, Hughes gained exactly a point a game from his 8 games in charge, whereas Pellegrino gained 28 from his 30 games, there was little in it.

You could also say that Pellegrino had more issues to deal with, there was the Van Dijk issue as Saints tried to persuade him to stay for a season and played him when they really should have let him rot in the reserves as they say and the attendant morale in the squad issues this caused, also he lost his top scorer Charlie Austin for the final three months of his spell at St Mary's

Hughes took over when Saints were in 17th position and they ended in 17th position, there are those who would point to Swansea's inability to win games as the reason for Saints staying up, Swansea fans would consider they threw it away rather than we stormed past them.

When Hughes took over Swansea were on 31 points, in their final 8 games they took only 2 points, losing all their final 5 games, 4 of them by only a single goal.

So there is a case for saying that Hughes go little more out of the squad than Pellegrino, certainly his first league came saw a appalling defeat at West Ham where he got the tactics completely wrong and we got blitzed, defeats to Arsenal and Chelsea in the League saw the usual error strewn performances from a side that seemed a little more motivated but not much better organised.

At this stage there were mutterings about Hughes tactics and selections and after the defeat at Wembley followed by a draw at Leicester, the jury was very much out.

So those who would be wary of appointing Hughes full time would point to this and claim that until the final three games we were no better than the rest of the season and that even in those three games it was more a case of the players personal pride and slef motivation that carried them through than the managers tactics.

But these people would at the moment be in a minority, but that does not mean they are wrong or does it !

On the Ugly Inside message board there were many who defended Hughes against the above accusations.

TygerUppercut said.

"The points per game ratio may be similar But surely everyone can agree we have been a lot more enjoyable to watch. If hughes had been given more time I believe we Would have been comfortably safe with games to spare. In the short time Hes been here Hes clearly galvanised the squad, helped the team spirit & given the team a nasty edge, some of the professional fouls commited Would never have been made under pelegrino.
Yes pelegrino had an injured austin But for the first part of the season barely played him anyway "

KRAZYB followed that with

"I really don't understand the need for this question. 3 of the 8 games we played under Hughes, were against top 5 sides
7 out of 30 under pellegrino , and in two under Hughes we were robbed by refereeing errors. Chelsea for not sending off Alonso, and yesterday the referee should have made them retake the free kick as a taking the free kick when there is a moving ball is not allowed.
Another case of bigteamitis."

EarsCourtSaint summed it up.

" An absolutely bloody amazing job considering what he inherited in terms of tactics and approach, a team that had been coached into playing sideways with absolutely no motivation or inspiration. Of the 8 games WHU was the only one where we simply didnt turn up, but perhaps in hindsight that was what was needed to deliver the wake up call. Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton and Man City could/should all have been wins if we had better luck/decisions. We have proven in the last 6 games that we can compete with anyone, start next season like we finished this one and we will be back in the top half! "

So the counter argument to the accusation that Hughes changed little and perhaps that it just needed anyone than Pellegrino also holds water, if Pellegrino had some mitigating circumstances then Hughes had them quadruple.

The general consensus seems to be that yes Hughes did take a little bit of time and that was understandable, but given the calibre of teams he had to face, 5 of which were away from home he had done well in the circumstances.

I can also agree that we had a lot of bad luck and poor refereeing decisions, far more than the average team, but that could be said about the team all season as well Watford away being a real case in point.

Overall though I don't think there are many Saints fans that would be unhappy with Hughes being appointed, yes some of that goodwill may stem from the relief of Sunday's survival, but Hughes came and did a job and that can't be denied.

But is feeling gratitude enough to give him a long term deal ?

The answer is no, but there is a feeling of distrust amongst the supporter base that Les Reed is not up to the task of appointing the right man, that he is going for foreign coaches who are unheard of in this country at least, it is too much of an experiment.

The fan base did not like what they saw in both Puel and Pellegrino, that being the case for them Hughes fits the bill in the fact that he like Koeman is someone they know and who is tried and tested at a certain level.

From this point of view Mark Hughes has the track record, Stoke fans may not like him much now, but in his first three seasons he finished 9th each time and in his final full season he finished 13th but only 2 points off Saints in 8th.

Hughes record was almost identical to what was being achieved by Pochettino, Koeman and Puel the three managers we had during that time, but he was doing it with far less resources and a much weaker squad than this.

So overall Mark Hughes will not be the worst appointment that Saints could make, indeed give the need for stability and indeed a bit of a reality check after four great years before this one he could actually be the best fit.

So what is your opinion on the subject and also vote in our online poll using the link below.

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/members/!/polls/2043/mark-hug

Photo: Action Images

underweststand added 14:37 - May 16 (In Mark Hughes) we have someone who has played, and (not unsuccessfully) managed in the Prem. and who seemingly motivated the players to show us some of the better football we've seen this season - even if the 96th minute results weren't what we expected. For any club outside of the top 6, the thought of relegation haunts them every year and those who think themselves above it all (Everton, WHam, Leicester and even Palace) feel peeved when they don't get the success they feel they deserve. Anyone disappointed with the outcome of the season should look at the likes of the (above-named ) and see the trauma they gone through with managers playing musical chairs moving from one club to another, and see everyone makes mistakes and those who survive must learn. Although Swansea have been on a slippery slope for a couple of seasons , I would never have predicted Stoke or WBA to go down -as they did. Mark Hughes is (in modern parlance ) a " street-fighter " and although he failed to finish above Saints 3 years running, our record against Stoke was very poor. If (as I hope) he gets the job, he'll surely bring in a couple of his favourites, and for my money..I'd even bring back Peter Crouch - for a season - because like Giroud, he is a player I'd much prefer to have on our bench - than preparing to come on and play against us. Stoke can continue to blame Hughes for their downfall - right down into L1 - but he seems to be the sort of motivator who can speak the language of English football.

0

Jesus_02 added 23:14 - May 16 So Hughes says ask me Wednesday...Unless its a midnight reveal I say he isn't signing … the club will say he didn't want to. We will all no that he wanted to change things and the conversation didn't sit well with the committee
0

SaintBrock added 17:35 - May 18 Well it's Friday now and no announcement so presumably there is no transfer budget as such and Reed wants to sell players that Hughes wants to keep to raise money? Only a flying idiot would sign on again under such restraints and Hughes clearly isn't a flying idiot! Looks like we'll be scrambling around for another manager soon so it's good that Allardyce & Moyes and no doubt Pulis will be available.

0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Rochdale Polls