Holmesy

Chill out big guy, we're all just having a conversation. I don't think i've moved my goalposts at all but fair enough. I've been open since last season about my Eddie Howe doubts, but last time I checked there weren't any laws against that. We're not clones. We all have our own opinions on these things. And if we can't discuss them here without someone getting their knickers in a twist, what's the fucking point in a forum?! I want him to succeed here, I really do. I just don't think he's good enough to match the club's ambitions. If i'm proved wrong, I would be delighted to come on here and eat humble pie.

yeah, that

Ok, I take your point but it was hardly a radical change to how we approached a game. It was a reactive tweak. I'm talking more about proactive tactical approaches and different formations - trying 5 at the back, playing on the counter against better teams, man marking dangerous players, intense pressing within our own half to win the ball back and break etc. It's great to have an identity as a team but once teams work you out, what do you have to lean on?

It depends what you see as a plan B - Plan A with different players is still plan A. That's what we saw against WH. Plan B for me is a different formation, a change to the way you approach a match - playing narrow versus playing wide, sitting deeper against teams that have pace to hurt you (see West Ham), playing defensive but breaking on the counter. We don't have a varied tactical toolkit. We have one way of playing and it doesn't tend to change at all regardless of who we're playing. I'm sure there are nuanced tactical tweaks within that but they're tweaks within plan A rather than changing the gameplan.

I think most things in football have a degree of subjectivity but you can't ignore them all and say nothing would have been different if we went down an alternative route, otherwise you'd blindy stick with the same manager and players forever. Did Dan Burn's continued selection at LB directly contribute to us conceding more goals than we should've done - yes (the subjective bit here is whether we would have conceded more with Livra at LB or Hall there. But, given that we brought on Livra at LB to shore up the defence against Villa and we instantly looked more solid, I think there's a fairly strong argument that we wouldn't have done) Did it give our opposition an obvious and fairly easy attacking signpost - yes (not subjective - every team we played targeted us down that side for a reason) Should we have shut up shop when leading in the CL to protect our lead - yes (would it have made a difference? Who knows) Do we have a complete lack of threat at set pieces that shows no sign of improving - yes Are we shit away from home - yes Do we have a plan B if plan A doesn't work? No Some of the other bits are more subjective but we all have eyes and a degree of intelligence - Every time Livra played, either at RB or LB he looked good but he was continually benched in favour of a woefully out of sorts Trippier who again, was directly responsible for us shipping a few goals. Hindsight is a wonderful thing of course, but the only area we had fit options was fullback and yet they were rarely utilised. Every manager makes questionable decisions from time to time and every team goes through ups and downs, so I don't think it's as simplistic as saying he should be sacked because of these things. It's whether he addresses them, learns from them and we evolve and progress as a result that should dictate that.

Inevitably people get carried away after a defeat, and some of the stuff posted is born out of pure emotion but we are right to be questioning him - the continued picking of Dan Burn at LB, the lack of plan B ever, playing an injured Longstaff over a fit Miley last season, the squad mis-management during our injury crisis, our naivety in not seeing out games in the CL, the lack of set piece threat, our terrible away form, the continued benching of Tonali and the manner of some of our recent defeats etc. These are all legitimate causes for concern. He has a lot of credit in the bank for keeping us up, getting us into the CL, being a great guy (especially when you consider some of the pricks we've had in the dugout over the past few years) and making us enjoyable to watch again, but that only goes so far. We are not progressing, we are not evolving and seemingly, he is not learning. Most of us still want him here but if you're pragmatic about it rather than romantic, we have to be looking at alternatives if we want to kick on to the next level. And yes, we're hampered by PSR but are there managers out there (not necessarily readily available) who could get a better tune out of this squad of players? Probably.

But a new manager is more likely to be open to different types of players, and will bring fresh ideas on how to mould the current group into a unit that is stronger than the sum of its parts - if we choose correctly. The financial shackles will still be in place but the strategy can be adjusted around a more flexible manager.

This is the bit that concerns me. The intensity seems to have returned but Gordon looks like a headless chicken, Isak isn't getting the service he needs, Barnes is confined to the bench, Tonali can't get a start. How long will the players be happy with the status quo?

I just think he's run out of ideas unfortunately. He's a fantastic guy and clearly a talented manager but I just don't see how he kicks us on to the next level without a fundamental change to his tactics, game management, mindset and footballing toolkit. That's a lot of change. This isn't kneejerk - check back through my previous posts and you'll see i've had doubts for a good while. Last night was as consummate a display of our tactical limitations and lack of plan B as you're likely to see, and I am starting to think that a change of direction might be the best thing for us. Given the right tools I think he could have a team flirting with Europe most seasons but for how long? Football evolves quickly at this level but he doesn't seem to. Our aim is to be in the CL and challenging for titles every year and I just don't see that ever happening under Eddie. We've got a handful of players who have the talent and ambition to be playing at the top top level, and they're not going to stick around to play mid-table football for long. I sincerely hope he proves me wrong but the signs are ominous.

Special mention for Lewis Hall - the one shining light in an otherwise abject performance.

Fair play to West Ham, they’ve passed the ball to each. Makes such a difference when you do that.

Car crash Kelly! One of the worst individual displays I’ve seen for a long time.

Can’t really moan about that too much. We’ve been shit! Kelly more than most.

This is sloppy as fuck!

Radical!

Perfect!

Kudus as well, although he doesn't seem to be flourishing under Lopetegui

They might have a pedestrian midfield but they've got plenty of attacking pace and guile to exploit the counter

Said it before though, signings are not JUST about improving the squad. Obviously that's the primary objective but they also give existing players a lift, give us a new dimension that teams have to adapt to, and signal intent. I'm not suggesting we should just sign any old shit but signing a player with a high profile who doesn't necessarily 100% fit our blueprint would be a tactical move worth making, over signing no one at all.

Good shout actually. That left hand side is pretty crowded though - where would be play?

Murphy and Longstaff next.

I don’t think Spurs could’ve chosen a more Spursy manager than Ange.

This is one of the worst I’ve seen. How can you miss an elbow, a blantant pen. A red card offense and wrongly award a corner in one half of football?!

Our set pieces are a disaster! I’ve never seen such an ineffective physically imposing team.

This is some refereeing performance! FFS!