Heron

After 20k posts ro whatever I still don't know how the forum works on this app So what percentage of players have been good signings and what percentage does that equate to in terms of expenditure? This is £787.25m according to TranferMarkt to help you calculate (add the values of success signings up and then divide that total by £787.25m)

From things I've seen over recent weeks and months, aye. Not sure that's reflective of the match going support mind.

No, they're all 3. (That's a joke BTW)

I just don't think Howe is the man for widescale change - rightly or wrongly. For me when you look at the whole Longstaff and Tonali scenario as an example, he slightly tinkered with that and slowly fed Tonali in. He's done that with other players too and has had success in doing so. I think he's more likely to make slight adjustments to his generally successful formula than he is to go with something entirely different. That may be his ultimate downfall - we shall see, but I think his previous seasons are sufficient evidence as to why he may opt to continue taking that same approach. Whether his fault or not, last summer has forced him to make a noticeable adjustment in my opinion and that hasn't been taken or taken well enough. So I am somewhat in agreement with you there. I just don't feel he's had ample opportunity to do that until recently. I personally feel we should have stuck with Woltemade up top too. I don't know (as I don't stalk you ) but I kinda feel like Howe is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't at present amongst my own friendship group and online. Kinda feels like the same folk slating Howe for not using Woltemade are the same guys slating Woltemade for being shite. Speculative from my side, admittedly. It's just the feeling I have. I actually included in a reaponse letter to Howe last year that I felt 3 5 2 (in a similar vein to Inter) would really suit Newcastle - so despite my support of Eddie I'm not that blinkered that I don't see some of the flaws to his ways. I just also see the evidence of his tenure prior to this season and choose to bank on the class overall rather than the form we're seeing. Each to their own. The proof will be in the pudding as they say.

Probably sick of our own fans slating him.

Forza nerrazzuri

It doesn't offend I just don't see it as necessary given that what you write isn't necessarily fact and those opposing you aren't necessarily stupid/ignorant to facts. I generally hold the view that it's best to make a decision and a wrong decision than to not make a decision at all, as long as it can be justified why you took it. Which appears to be what you're leaning towards. However, it isn't always for the best. I acknowledge that. Spurs are a cartel club, Man United are a cartel club, Chelsea are a cartel club and their decisions to "in-season-manage" have resulted in both Chelsea and Man United missing out on CL in recent seasons and Spurs likely being relegated now. This could be catastrophic for them. On another note - Alan Pardew got us back from 4-0 down versus Arsenal but wouldn't ever be considered one of the greats. I don't think I've seen anyone defend his in game management to be honest. Only folk suggesting that change isn't always for the good - which is absolutely fair and evidenced. Hence why the "tone" of your posts is off the mark - cause it isn't entirely correct and becomes a bit irritating when not considering other points being made.

For me the CL should consist of champions of the the domestic league and cups and not the top 5 or 6 in the league. Might not fix this particular issue, but might put more focus on winning the cups and being champions of something and not happy go lucky runners ups in the league (at varying levels).

Agreed.

Why do you be so condescending in much of what you write in this thread? Doing something different does not constitute as doing something better necessarily. The whole purpose of doing something different is to influence positive change. Leeds still lost the game. The changes made did not achieve the desired outcome. We could change Howe for Glasner and be relegated next season - would that constitute as good management from the board? Have Spurs managed their club well sacking countless managers and slowly dissipating into the abyss?

Yeah we had. Was because of the Qarabag games.

Just another falsehood that gets spouted tbh. Howe has developed a lot of our players into better players, especially young ones, and they've had game time where possible. This is why I get annoyed about a lot of the Howe out discussion. I can have a lot more respect if folk base it on his tactics and squad selection but there's a lot of inaccurate reasoning now developing which simply are not true or are contradictory to other points being made yet added to the same pile.

People have a predisposition on players like Burn. He has been exposed at LB a lot and it clearly isn't his position but that doesn't mean he's shite there every game. He was absolutely fine there at the weekend and hence why Arsenal used a different strategy to get their goal. That wasn't Burns fault - it was good tactics from Arsenal and good execution versus us not managing it as a team and waking up to the new tactic early enough.

Man United were out of both cups and having weeks or fortnights from one game to the next. We've only been afforded that since going out to Barca and after a hefty fixture schedule for the season to date.

But our style or play wasn't expected to be as impacted as losing our superstar striker then and all across the summer after chasing multiple candidates to replace said individual and for whatever reason...failing. I do agree a plan B should have been being unearthed either way, albeit maybe not ready for Plan A implementation, however.

He seemed to get it right for the most part yesterday mind. Even Burn at LB by and large worked. Osula should score in the first minute, we had more possession and we created more chances than them. The point about the wingers: he changes the wingers quite regularly, as you even allude to - so how can he always change a winger for a shitter one as by proxy you must think certain wingers are better than others and said wingers must occasionally start. I do however agree about the flat 3 in midfield and not playing strikers.

People wouldn't be defending Howe if there wasn't sufficient reason to do so. I'm not sure I've seen anyone being condescending or aggressive to other posters in particular other than a stupid exchange of words about the "chatting up lasses" analogy last night which was six on one and half a dozen on the other. That's been the extent of it (which wasn't much).

On the basis folk wanted Howe out December 2024 and we then went on to win a cup and gain Champions League qualification I'd guess - changing tactics and personnel on the way to said cup win also. Howe supporters such as myself supported him then, and support him now based on that being fairly solid evidence that he can generate momentum where previously there was none. Just as he did when saving us from relegation.

This is the bit that is specific to Howe in terms of valid criticisms, in my opinion. Whether folk agree with that or not is another matter, but results would point to there being at least some fault of Howe's in this area whether folk like it or not. The rest of your post is contrary to the root causing I've seen countless times from other people and despite you and I sitting on opposite sides of the fence on Howe (as I understand) you are questioning the right "root causes" which I appreciate and think is more refreshing than a lot of the things I've been reading. So to reduce the discussion down to Howes tactics, team selection and man management - I think Howe has underperformed this season - if we want to call it that. We are probably around 7 or 8 points behind where I'd have expected us to be, and I think with a different approach in various games, or changed tactics or personnel we could have quite easily achieved this. I think Woltemade doesn't suit our existing wing play (balls in the box) and actually this is an area where the wingers have done quite well, but the system is making both Woltemade and the wingers seem they're the ones at fault when they simply don't marry up. The wingers on a more defensive and basic level though have been collectively woeful in my opinion. Our midfield 3 is too flat also and too easy to bypass as a result of both of the above and any team with a decent 10 or attacking midfielder continue to find it too easy to play between the lines as the hipsters now say . These elements are with Howe, but more often or not that risk has previously been met with reward (in previous seasons, and in terms of first half's - often in this). However, we could also have not lost at Palace if Botman doesn't inexplicably pull their attacker down. Not lost at Sunderland (away) without a freak incident from Woltemade. We could have got a win versus Chelsea of Thiaw isn't turned with relative ease by Joao Pedro(?), Pope's mistakes, etc. Etc. That's looking down at the players (in terms of structure) as well as the points looking up at Howes seniors. That's why it is a collective failing this season and even the players mistakes Howe must shoulder, as their manager. Thus far, under Howe, I have seen more done right by Howe, his team and the players than snyonr else at the club. They have performed above average for approximately 75%+ of his tenure. Whereas, I've seen multiple changes at senior levels and plenty to suggest that we simply aren't clear in our direction or able to retain staff at higher levels. That's why I back Howe and the team to get it right over taking the chance with folk who are presently giving off signs they don't know their arse from their elbow. It is effectively what Chelsea, Spurs and Man United have all been doing at senior levels (albeit Man United have since rectified it). Irrespective of who folk attribute the buying and selling of players too - the club hasn't had much time to rectify the Isak scenario (one, mid-season window) and that's why I think too twist would be a rash decision on Howes future. I understand that folk don't- and for the reason you've stated but I get annoyed (and I think most Hoae supporters do) when folk provide evidence to support their debate that is either disingenuous or simply revisionist based on existing emotions.

Well the point you tried to create an analogy for wasn't strictly right like but, aye - I see the point you were trying to make and whilst it may be relevant it doesn't account for the various contributory factors that this season has had.

So Hall, Tino, Joelinton, Murphy, Burn, Isak, Gordon & Tonali (last season) haven't all improved under Howe? NB: There's probably more...

We talking about 3rd in the PL for assists Elanga here (last season) behind only Jacob Murphy (who many will have us believe is horseshit) and Salah who has been considered one of the best players in world football across his career... Howay. Elanga has been poor this season - to be polite - but us signing him was not some sort of ridiculous decision.

That last comment is such a pointless comment. Howe still won those points and with this team. Up until about a month ago we'd played the most fixtures in Europe. There's keeping fit and there's devising new formation and strategy. You rarely just pick a new formula and it immediately works. We've had very little time to restrategise until recently where admittedly things have gone of a bit of a cliff edge. We don't have lesser players than those you've mentioned - correct. Likewise though - they didn't reach beyond where we did in a single cup let alone three and yet we sit within 2 to 3 wins of all of them. Again - I don't think anyone is saying Howe is faultless at this stage. Only that balance is being lost.

I don't get the perception of technical players too. Someone said the other day Gordon is a good technical footballer. He isn't. They say Murphy isn't, he is. Passing, shooting, crossing & tackling all require technical ability. Dribbling also does. Murphy has more of those attributes than Gordon. But that's not to say he's a more effective player per se. Kieron Dyer wasn't a good technical footballer either but he was effective. I am starting to feel that there's a bit of dumbing down or ignorance of Howes achievements as some sort of justification for folks current views like. There's contradiction across the points I consistently read. He cannot work with a DoF but apparently our good signings were with a DoF whom Howe has developed and got the best out of. Then when Howe and his cousin are let loose on transfers (apparently) they're tragic (apparently) but that's all Howes fault and not the lack of a competent DoF. Of our signings under Howe's tenure I'd say 3 are 'sprinters'; Willock, Gordon and Elanga. As mentioned - all teams need these types. Other than that we have got some extremely good technical players under Howe; Trippier, Bruno, Hall, Tino in particular. Other players have some but not all of those technical abilities. That blend won us a cup. We've had an inconsistent, disappointing (league) and demoralising season, for sure. Of which Howe has felt it as much as all of us, if not more, I suspect, and it saddens me that he's taking the brunt of the criticism - albeit that is the nature of being a football manager.