My biggest concern with Matthias Jaissle isn’t the Newcastle United results.

It is his apparent reluctance to make meaningful changes to a system that, judging by our performances, simply isn’t delivering.

Newcastle United are creating very few chances while allowing opponents large numbers of shots.

Yet Matthias Jaissle continues to favour a Newcastle United midfield set up that is easy to play through.

We all know what happens to Amorim, Postecoglou etc.

That got me wondering whether there’s any historical evidence that this level of tactical rigidity eventually pays off in the Premier League, particularly at clubs without enormous transfer budgets. So I asked AI for some help.

Looking back over the last 25 years, I struggled to find a convincing example of a manager who initially performed poorly, steadfastly persisted with essentially the same formation despite those problems, and eventually achieved at least two successful Premier League seasons without substantial financial backing.

Consider these past and present Premier League managers:

Jurgen Klopp: Stuck to his footballing philosophy but adapted his formations and tactics. Sustained success.
Mikel Arteta: Maintained his principles but changed formation and tactics during difficult periods. Sustained success, albeit with considerable investment.
Mauricio Pochettino: Consistent philosophy, flexible formations. Sustained success without the spending power of Manchester City or Chelsea.
David Moyes: Adapted his tactics and formation to the players available. Sustained success relative to resources.
Sean Dyche: Probably the closest example of sticking to a recognisable system on a limited budget, but even he made tactical adjustments. Sustained success relative to resources.
Marcelo Bielsa: Relatively rigid tactical approach. Initially successful at Leeds but couldn’t sustain it into a second successful Premier League season.
Ange Postecoglou: Remained strongly committed to his attacking philosophy despite deteriorating results. No sustained Premier League success.
Ruben Amorim: Persisted largely with his preferred back-three system despite struggling. No sustained Premier League success.

The pattern among these examples is interesting. Managers who achieved sustained success generally retained their footballing principles but were prepared to change formations or tactics when necessary. Those who remained particularly rigid struggled to achieve comparable long-term results.

As another Newcastle United fan mentioned in their article over the weekend, whilst the Matthias Jaissle achievements are genuine, there is little evidence of him achieving sustained success at a club operating under comparable financial constraints to those Newcastle United face relative to their Premier League competitors. We don’t have the funds to buy the players to suit his system this season.

Surely part of the manager’s responsibility is to adapt his approach to the strengths and weaknesses of the players available?

I’m not suggesting Matthias Jaissle should abandon his footballing philosophy after a few poor results. Nor am I suggesting he’s made no tactical adjustments whatsoever. But there’s a fundamental difference between sticking to your principles and stubbornly sticking to a formation.

My concern is that, among the historical examples I’ve examined, there’s very little evidence of managers persisting with a system that is producing consistently poor performances, making no significant structural changes, and eventually enjoying sustained Premier League success without major financial advantages.

Perhaps Matthias Jaissle will prove to be the exception. But if our midfield continues to be overrun and the shot statistics remain so heavily against us, what evidence is there that simply persevering with the same basic structure will eventually make it work?

I accept that a manager needs time to establish his ideas. But surely that patience should be accompanied by evidence of progress, or at least a willingness to address obvious weaknesses.

For me, tactical flexibility isn’t a sign of weakness. It’s one of the qualities that separates successful managers from those who ultimately get the sack.