Despite the fact that they were only the 14th highest scoring team in the Premier League last season, only the big 6 beat them in chances created ! So what was the reason why !
Last season Saints scored 37 goals in the Premier League a low total by their own standards of a couple of years ago although ironically one more than Burnley who finished in 7th place.
However startling statistics have emerged that reveal that although the goals for column is sparse, the number of chances created is high, only the top six clubs created more chances than Saints in the season.
Manchester City topped the chart as you would imagine with 360 chances created down to Manchester United in the top six with 276, however in 7th place sit Saints who according to the stats created 254, only 23 chances less, but 31 goals deficit against United in the scoring charts.
But it should be noted these figures are chances created rather than just shots, if you look at the shots figure, Saints total is more in line with their standing in the league, but judging a team by just shots is not always accurate, thundering drives from 35 yards that fly high and wide are not exactly chances, just speculative efforts.
That is why Saints had 448 shots but only 360 chances.
A chance would also be that flashed cross across the goalmouth that no one gets on the end of, a player completely mis kicking in front of goal, even a goalmouth scramble, these are chances where a shot on goal is not got away and perhaps tells the story of why we were in trouble.
It wasn't our ability to create chances that was our problem it was our ability to convert them, how many times did we see that at St Mary's, when we completely dominated games but failed to but them to bed, defeats against Watford, Burnley, Palace and draws against Arsenal, Huddersfield, Brighton and Stoke all saw us create good chances but ultimately fail to take them or in some cases at least more than one of them.
This probably pinpoints the issues we had with playing a lone striker or more to the point not having one that could play the role with the attributes needed.
It highlights all those games when we played Manolo Gabbiadini in that role when we got the killer crosses in but a short player of the Italian's stature was never going to outjump central defenders 6 inches taller than him, it highlights the shortcomings of both Shane Long and Charlie Austin, both good strikers but not suited to that lone role.
So why did we persist in this formation, yes it was creating the chances, but we could all see that we weren't converting them and now the stats back that up, we weren't a poor team we were just playing the wrong formation as many fans were screaming.
But it wasn't as simple as that ! our scoring issues started in January of last season when we lost Fonte to West ham and then days later Van Dijk got injured, at that point we were starting to score goals, when Van Dijk sustained his injury we walloped Leicester 3-0, we went to Sunderland and won 4-0 and we scored 2 at Wembley and then beat Watford away 4-3.
WE had suddenly found our feet going forward, but defensively Puel knew he was screwed, the two central defenders could not mark, nor could they handle pace on the break, two things that enabled us to push men forward under Ronald Koeman.
Puel had to make a decision, try to outscore the opposition or try to sit deep not concede goals and nick one or two at the other end, ultimately he coached us into 8th place, but in doing so he signed his own P45, he could either entertain or he could get results, but he couldn't do both.
In the summer Saints signed Wesley Hoedt effectively a replacement for Fonte, but they failed to deal with the Van Dijk situation either back in August or in January when he had gone, that meant that right from the start Manual Pellegrino had the same choices as Puel to make he could not commit to attacking because he knew the centre of his defence was not up to it, for a while with Hoedt and Van Dijk it worked to a degree, but ultimately the manager could not commit to a second striker because it meant that we got overrun in midfield, nor could he push a man forward in the number 10 role behind that lone striker for the same reason..
So Pellegrino like Puel had no option and once Austin was injured as he was a year earlier , that limited his options even more.
That mean't that as the stats show the likes of Tadic and even Redmond often did their job, they created chances, we just didn't have enough men in the box to make those chances count, that doesn't mean having a second striker but being able to get our central midfielders in there enough.
The defeats at both Newcastle and West Ham were good examples, in both games we went to attack, in both games they blitzed us on the break, it was under two different managers, both committed to attack for two different reasons, Hughes never made the same mistake again, if he wanted validation then the two 3-2 defeats firstly at Arsenal and then at home to Chelsea told him he had to get his team in shape fast.
Saints fans talk about how much better it was to watch under Hughes, although there can be no doubt that the Welshman did a lot to keep us up, the reality is that things did not really change much on the pitch in that Hughes 8 goals scored in 8 games was only a fraction better than Pellegrino's 29 in 30., but in the final four games out of necessity we shut up shop.
The solution to Saints problems is therefore simple, get two central defenders of the quality that we have been used to who can defend against the break and set pieces and not keep conceding sloppy goals, then we can commit men forward to back up the striker, this is the system that worked so well for Ronald Koeman, our failure to replace both Fonte and then Van Dijk has lead just as much to our attacking problems as it has our defensive ones.
The old adage is very pertinent here, a roof tile falls off its easy to fix, you pull out the bottom brick and the whole house starts to fall down.
This summer is crucial, but to fix our scoring woes we need to build from the back !