Theregulars

I'm not sure it's moving the goalposts - I still do worry about his record against top managers and in big pressure games, because now we are in that conversation. That's not like lack of recognition of being in the shit recently, it's just that we are in the position we're in now, so isn't it fair to look at things from that perspective as well? Essentially can one not simultaneously believe that (i) he has some improvement to make before he becomes elite and (ii) he is comparatively handicapped by a weaker squad? To some degree I think the weaker squad argument is being overplayed this season (not last). There's literally a TV series on right now where our owners repeatedly say that their ambition is that we become the best team in Europe. I know it's fluff and bollocks, but if we want to be a top tits team (and I really want us to both be a top tits team and be considered a top tits team), then we have to play like a top tits team when the time requires us to. I accept we can't do that all the time, but I maintain that there are some signs which suggest that he isn't elite. I can see how it would have helped if I said he isn't elite yet, but I'm not sure the situation required me to state that he has a weaker squad in order for the argument to be valid. Is it not enough that it got pointed out and when I got round to reading people's messages the next day I then responded saying yes, that's true? I just don't accept that it invalidates my argument. Anyway, doesn't matter a jot.

It's not remotely absurd - he does not yet have the achievements in the bank to be elite. I'm really confident he'd say the same himself. I don't follow your point about acknowledgment of weakness of team: is it that by not explicitly stating the same when I made my original point that it somehow renders my argument invalid and precludes me from holding both views at the same time? I have tried multiple times to say I agree, the squad isn't as comparatively good - literally I am recognising your argument and I am saying it's completely valid and true. This isn't the behaviour of a wilfully obtuse person, it's the behaviour of someone engaging you in a conversation about a mutual topic of interest. Why does it strike a nerve in you so much that I criticise Eddie Howe? Genuine question.

I completely and fundamentally agree that he has so much credit in the bank. I do not in any way want a change. I love Eddie Howe. I just think he's not as good as some other coaches yet and it showed at the weekend. I don't think you can say he's an elite manager yet, the evidence doesn't back it up. He has the potential to be one. I don't think there is a massive disagreement in what he and I said though - we're both saying that he has done magnificently but fucked up quite badly on Sunday. I then went further and said my view is that he isn't elite. If you can't see that this is not wilfully obtuse, then you don't understand what the words mean.

Drugs are bad, mmmmkay?

OK - I'm going to try once more. As I have acknowledged multiple times - he does not have a squad as good as the other teams yet. That does not automatically exempt him from criticism when it's evident that he has contributed somehow to a negative outcome. Maybe people keep expressing their freedom to disagree because you keep ramming shit arguments down their throat without any space allowed for disagreement with you? A sign that it's not a weak argument is the amount of people in this thread saying that he got it badly wrong on Sunday. And I don't think I'm coming across like ChatGPT - my arguments are set out and explained in a logical, sequential and analytical way. ChatGPT can't do that. It's absolutely OK to have your views challenged - try not to get so upset about it.

So @Vinny Green Ballslikes this point but not mine? Seems inconsistent.

No, and at no point have I advocated for that (i.e. repeat the formula against Aston Villa). Yet again, it's a conclusion you've drawn on my behalf to try and suit a flimsy and over-generalised argument. I'll try and explain again - essentially, I have two questions / criticisms: If we have seen visual evidence that we are able to impose ourselves on and overwhelm bigger teams in some matches, why have we not been able to do the same, or do to so to the same extent, in other matches? Leading on from question 1, might it be a flaw in how the manager approaches those games? The answer to the second question may very well be your answer: the better teams negated us on the day, worked us out etc. I just think, in all the circumstances, it's reasonable to ask whether there is room for improvement when it comes to his strategy / attitude etc against bigger teams and on playing in big occasions? In my view, there is now a big enough sample size (it's still a small sample size) to ask that question. Why does that entitle you to dismiss that opinion as legitimate or entitled? In my view you dismiss it because you are, for whatever reason, unable or reluctant to engage in the topic with any real nuance or detail. It comes across that everything must be A or B, black or white etc, for you (which, again, is childlike). I haven't lost sight of where we are: we overachieved last year and don't have a top 4 squad on paper (and certainly didn't last year). Nonetheless, we have overachieved, and the product of said overachievement is that we are now in our present circumstances with a new context, or at least a developed context. Against that background, I ask again: might the manager have approached those games differently? Might he have been overawed by the occasion? My opinion is that, yes, there is a plausible argument in favour of both ideas.

Genuinely - are you? It would explain so, so much.

This x a million.

You have no idea what my expectations are - you've never asked me about them and we've never had a conversation about them! You've literally decided what they are after extrapolating them from one comment or opinion. It's actually - sincerely, genuinely - how children view the world. My expectations for that game in the situation were that we would see a lead out with 15 minutes against 10 men. I don't see anything unreasonable in there.

I am calm and have been reasoned and polite in the whole debate. In my opinion the hubris and lack of self-awareness on your behalf in continually telling people what they think and how they feel is genuinely staggering.

No, it's not bad, but to my mind there have now been enough poor / timid performances in matches of that nature that I think it's fair to ask the question. That is genuinely all.

I agree, those were all tremendous performances. But there have been just as many nervy, unconvincing our outright poor displayers in similar high-pressure matches or matches against better sides: cup final, Brighton away, Leeds away, Leicester home, Manchester City away this and last season, Liverpool home this and last season. Maybe that's just football, but in my view there's enough in there to question whether the manager is yet at a point where he is comfortable and reliable in these situations. I don't think he is, and that's a legitimate view based on the evidence in my opinion. I fully hope he can get there and I'll give him a very long time to do it. I would say - not in response to @NEEJ - that it does feel sometimes on this forum that divergence of opinion isn't allowed or tolerated. It feels somehow like I have blasphemed by criticising him. I love him and the team; I can still criticise them. I love my girlfriend and dog; I still criticise them when they're twats or do stupid shit.

I categorically disagree that it's the most important context needed. The most important contexts, for my money, are the context of how the team plays and the significant investment in the playing squad. Despite you phrasing it as fact, it's an opinion, and we differ. When you watch us regularly and in detail, you see a team with no fear who outrun, outmuscle, outduel etc others. My question is, therefore, why does that disappear (in whole or in part) in some high-pressure matches / matches against the better sides? Clearly, against squads which are more expensive than ours and longer in the tooth as established teams than ours, we can perform this way (Manchester United at home, Spurs home and away, Manchester City home last year) - so what I don't understand is twhy, in certain matches, that identity / culture / ethos etc goes missing. In my opinion, it went missing in the last two matches under instruction from the manager to some extent (we were so reserved and timid in both games). It went missing in the cup final because, in my view, the occasion was too big for the manage and squad. So, politely, calling people "willfully obtuse" and context-ignorant because they disagree with you is cheap and lazy in my view. I don't think Eddie Howe is faultless. I think he has done an excellent job but, when he does something or presides over or has some degree of responsibility for a situation in which the outcome is so obviously undesirable, is it not fair to ask a question or make a criticism? You come across as quite didactic: "if you don't agree with me then you're ignorant", essentially.

And compounded by taking off Tonali and replacing him with an even less effective Longstaff. I think the giveaway is that the players visibly panicked, withdrew into their own half and couldn’t pass to one another. That shows a mentality issue, which is the manager’s domain. Some big questions for him, let’s hope he answers them. Blaspheme, blaspheme!

What context have I missed? My opinion has been fairly consistent: he’s really good, but his record in big pressure matches and matches against the bigger sides is mixed. I therefore concluded that he appears not to be the man for the big occasion. I don’t think it’s as outrageous a view as you think it is, but that’s the beauty of diversity of opinion. I hope you “win” this argument and I’m proved totally wrong; I fear I shan’t be. This does not ignore the magnificent job he has done, this acknowledges the reality of what football now is and where our ambitions are being literally directed by those who own the institution. I understand that you think it’s knee-jerk, that’s fine. But I’m not entitled, ignorant, childish etc; I just have a different opinion to yours and I’m happy to debate it in a peaceful manner.

I’ve not said he’s struggling; just that his record in big matches and against the better teams is mixed.

Doesn’t this just illustrate my point - that’s a mixed record.

He’s also lost to 3 of those 5 though…

Yes, I think his record in those fixtures is meh. I really like him. I hope he can improve, because he’ll need to.

I don’t think it is, really. Your stance appears to permit no criticism of Howe. Yes, we overachieved with a small squad. But also, yes, his record in big games is mixed. Why can’t both be true?

Arguably it’s entitled to walk around calling anyone entitled who disagrees with you. I’ll state it again - he did a great job last year and we overachieved. Nonetheless, his record in big matches is mixed.

But literally they do. His record is a mixed bag of outcomes in them, including some quite meek losses. It’s not blasphemy to criticise Eddie Howe. The last 9 days show that he needs to get better in some areas, especially in matches against the big teams and in big matches.

I don’t think that’s fair. You just challenged me to admit he did well last season, which I’ve done. Can you now concede that his record in big fixtures is mixed?

I don’t think I am - I think it’s a fairly reasonable comment. His record in big games with us is mixed.