There was something quietly reassuring about Southampton lining up with a back four at Doncaster. No grand announcement, no tactical manifesto, just a sensible adjustment that finally reflected the balance of the squad and the reality of what has been going wrong for months.
It was the right call. It has also taken far too long.
Saints Marching has repeatedly returned to the same theme this season: Southampton are stocked with attacking players who want the ball higher up the pitch, not wing-backs asked to cover entire flanks while a back three creaks behind them.
The persistent use of three centre-backs has often blunted Saints’ strengths rather than protected their weaknesses. Against Doncaster, the switch to four at the back brought clarity. Roles were simpler. Distances were shorter. The team looked more like a side trying to impose itself rather than one nervously managing space.
Another second-half dip highlights a problem
That clarity has been missing. Too often this season, Southampton have started brightly, only to drift once the opposition adjusts. It has been highlighted time and again how second halves have become a problem: leads surrendered, momentum lost, patterns breaking down. The common thread has not just been physical drop-off, but a lack of response from the touchline.
Eckert’s reluctance to move away from his preferred structure has been part of that. So has his tendency to wait, sometimes too patiently, for games to correct themselves.
By the time changes arrive, the damage is already done. It has been especially noticeable after half-time, when opponents tweak their press or shape and Saints continue as before, hoping control will return. The Léo Scienza change should have happened at half-time. Even switching to three at the back might have been the right call at that point, too.
The Doncaster game suggested an acceptance that something had to give. A back four allowed Southampton to get an extra body higher up the pitch, reduced the defensive exposure of wide players, and made the build-up more predictable for those receiving the ball.
It was not revolutionary, but it was effective. It only sharpens the question of why it took so long.
Eckert's philosophy does not need ripping up completely
This is not about ripping up Eckert’s philosophy. It is about applying it with a sharper sense of timing. Stubbornness can masquerade as conviction. The best coaches know when to persist and when to adapt. Until now, Eckert has leaned too heavily on the former.
There is also a wider lesson here about in-game management. Changing the starting shape is one thing; responding decisively within matches is another. Southampton’s second-half record suggests that opponents have been quicker to spot problems and exploit them. That cannot continue if Saints are serious about climbing the table.
The Doncaster decision should be a line in the sand. Proof that flexibility is possible, and that the squad benefits from it. The hope now is that it does not take another run of poor second halves, or another round of dropped points, before the next obvious adjustment is made.