Eddie Howe

[samptime29]

If we get centre midfield injuries, we'll have to play 4-2-3-1.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

4 minutes ago, joeyt said:

We've needed a midfielder anyway with or without Shelvey. We needed one in the summer too

 

We've played our 4 centre mids in pretty much every league and cup game. 

 

We do and did, I agree. Its more just specifically the Shelvey argument that I feel doesnt hold much water. We'd be in the same position today if he'd stayed or if he was replaced imo. If he'd stayed he wouldnt be fit, if we'd replaced him they wouldnt be starting. Could argue they likely wouldnt have even came off the bench.

[Yorkie]

7 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

We do and did, I agree. Its more just specifically the Shelvey argument that I feel doesnt hold much water. We'd be in the same position today if he'd stayed or if he was replaced imo. If he'd stayed he wouldnt be fit, if we'd replaced him they wouldnt be starting. Could argue they likely wouldnt have even came off the bench.

 

Yep. The Shelvey sale caught them off guard. 

 

There is Elliot Anderson, as well. He's looked a bit sharper in his last couple of performances, today included imo. Miggy played there at the tail end of last season too. And Ritchie! It's not ideal, obviously, but the point is we don't actually have to run Longstaff etc's legs into stumps in order to put out a team. 

[Mountain]

20 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

If we're well ahead of the plan why not try and stay well ahead of the plan? 

 

I don't think many are saying Shelvey shouldn't be sold, it was that he wasn't replaced. It feels like a complete unnecessary gamble that we've such a good opportunity for a cup and strong league finish 

 

I agree with your point that he needed to be "replaced" as in we should have signed a quality midfielder.

 

He's still injured so wouldn't have had any effect on today's game.

 

And he's that much of a crock he possibly would't have an influence on any of the games.

 

Or Nottingham Forest games.

 

I wish Shelvey was "replaced" with a top midfielder but he wasn't.

 

Simple fact is we got rid of a problem.

[Wolfcastle]

28 minutes ago, 54 said:

I think most people acknowledge we played shit today? Don't think anyone is disputing that, it's just some people realise over the course of season you're going to get poor runs of form and poor games.

I've been thinking about the January/February slogs under Keegan in 92/93 and 93/94

Anybody over-reacting amidst either of those (didn't experience anybody doing so personally) amidst our best seasons in years was rewarded in the end by looking quite the reactionary.

Its fine to criticise drawing at Luton/Southend, losing at Wimbledon and at home to Southampton provided within the context of those games not questioning the manager, players, owners on a wider scale. Were going places now like we were then. You cant win every game.

Think people are forgetting because its been so long since we were good that it was almost a given for even good teams to have a sticky patch at some point. Exceptional title winning sides apart. There's only a dip at all because were good.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Wolfcastle

[The College Dropout]

9 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Yep. The Shelvey sale caught them off guard. 

 

There is Elliot Anderson, as well. He's looked a bit sharper in his last couple of performances, today included imo. Miggy played there at the tail end of last season too. And Ritchie! It's not ideal, obviously, but the point is we don't actually have to run Longstaff etc's legs into stumps in order to put out a team. 

The underlying point is that we needed a Cm before Shelvey was sold.  
 

Shelvey was not sold for footballing reasons. If he stayed, he was highly likely to trigger his contract extension. An extra £4m the club didn’t want to pay. 
 

 

Anderson is arguably the worst part of this. He’s not ready for the PL.  He needs a loan down a division or 2 playing regularly. Instead he’s here and will only get good minutes in an injury crisis. 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

An extra £4m the club didn’t want to pay. 

 

This is not true. 

[The College Dropout]

Just now, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

This is not true. 

 

The fee we received was minimal. 
 

Shelvey earned a reported £70k per week.  So let’s call it £4m per year. That’s a club decision to save that money.  I’m certain Howe would’ve preferred to keep (until the summer at least) him if he wasn’t going to be replaced.  

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

You're without any evidence arguing he was let go because we didnt want to pay for him (4m, as you say. Doesnt matter). But that's clearly not the reason he went, we were more than happy to pay the money, Howe didnt want him to go tells you that. Its not the club didnt want to pay, it's Shelvey wanted to go. I'd wager qujite highly the club were very willing to pay, but we agreed his request to leave. It's that simple. Our desire to pay has no bearing. Forest offered him higher wages and an additional year.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Super Duper Branko Strupar

[The College Dropout]

I disagree. Clubs block moves for players that they want all the time.  
 if you buy it - good for you. 

[Yorkie]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The underlying point is that we needed a Cm before Shelvey was sold.  

 

To guarantee Champions League qualification, probably. But, hamstrung by FFP and the inability to find value in January, they gambled on proceeding with what we had, because what we had stood a good chance of qualifying on its own.

 

Then the Shelvey sale happened unexpectedly and we tried to sign one of our summer targets (I assume) in Gallagher, but it didn't happen. 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

I disagree. Clubs block moves for players that they want all the time.  
 if you buy it - good for you. 

 

 "Buy it". Give awa. It's more than clear what happened, it's been explained, there's no smoke and mirrors. To suggest otherwise is just to give yourself a reason to be angry over something that doesnt exist.

[The College Dropout]

I’m not without evidence. 
 

 

The club got a negligible fee for him. He only had 6 months on his contract. We lacked in his position already and knew we were likely to not replace him. But we let him go anyway. The manager wanted to keep him. What’s the motive to sell? 

[TheHoob]

Pleased to see him get his send off today. Weird to see him getting emotional actually, usually such a cool customer 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

I’m not without evidence. 
 

 

The club got a negligible fee for him. He only had 6 months on his contract. We lacked in his position already and knew we were likely to not replace him. But we let him go anyway. The manager wanted to keep him. What’s the motive to sell? 

 

 The fact he asked to go. I dont know what's so hard to understand, Im sorry but I really dont. We granted his request to leave. 

[elbee909]

Yeah, unhappy players always do well don't they.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Shelvey: Forest have offered me this contract and I'd like to move.

Howe: I would rather you stayed tbh, we'd like you to stay.

Shelvey: Thanks, but I'd like to move.

Howe: Okay.

 

Not hard  

[The Prophet]

A half fit Shelvey would have single handedly won us the game today. I told you it was a bad move.

 

[gazza ladra]

We really should have had loan targets identified, and have been prepared to bring one of those in based on player sales (an offer too good to refuse) or injury.
 

Manchester United were able to bring in Sabitzer on very short notice when Eriksen went down.  Obviously, we’re not as attractive an option, but there must have been many good players willing to take a stab at a club in the top four of the Premier League, the opportunity to play for a contract. 

 

5he club has done extremely well, but in this instance — selling Shelvey without a replacement, they made a mistake.

[The Prophet]

Said the same after West Ham last week, but I'd be amazed if the player we brought in on loan would have might the slightest bit of difference today.

 

The players we wanted as difference makers weren't available in January, we need to get over it.

[Theregulars]

1 hour ago, 54 said:

I think most people acknowledge we played shit today? Don't think anyone is disputing that, it's just some people realise over the course of season you're going to get poor runs of form and poor games.

I disagree; some people on here have taken on a quasi-religious fervour about Howe, the board and the squad whereby any criticism makes you some kind of ungrateful heathen. We’ve been playing mediocre for about 6 weeks, and the performances are - by and large - getting worse. This boring “appreciate what you’ve got” attitude (a broader problem in Britain, I might add) will hold us back in my view. That’s the approach we took to the transfer window and we look worse for it. We’re so lacklustre at the minute and if we don’t shape up we’ll get comfortably put to the sword by a good side in the cup final. Howe has 2 weeks to figure something out - we shouldn’t be in this position, but we’ve landed ourselves in this position by taking a commercial approach to football in the transfer window. 

[madras]

2 minutes ago, Theregulars said:

I disagree; some people on here have taken on a quasi-religious fervour about Howe, the board and the squad whereby any criticism makes you some kind of ungrateful heathen. We’ve been playing mediocre for about 6 weeks, and the performances are - by and large - getting worse. This boring “appreciate what you’ve got” attitude (a broader problem in Britain, I might add) will hold us back in my view. That’s the approach we took to the transfer window and we look worse for it. We’re so lacklustre at the minute and if we don’t shape up we’ll get comfortably put to the sword by a good side in the cup final. Howe has 2 weeks to figure something out - we shouldn’t be in this position, but we’ve landed ourselves in this position by taking a commercial approach to football in the transfer window. 

My turn to disagree. What's holding us back is the lack of squad depth, little options to change things, but we've really had one window to build on that and I'll stick with the plan of getting the right ones rather than any ones.

[timeEd32]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

I disagree. 
 

You can put together a well thought out post and someone will reply ‘do you think you know better than the board? They know more than you.’ That is the extent of their response.  
 

On 1st January 2023, you thought selling Shelvey and bringing in no other central midfielder would be a good idea because we have the 4 CMs playing every week?

 

Nobody doubts the leadership has done a great job. That doesn’t make them exempt from criticism. FSG have done wonders at Liverpool but they’ve clearly made errors.  It’s ok to say that they’ve made mistakes. Naby Keita was a poor signing. They are also guilty of neglecting short-term squad needs by waiting too long for their ideal targets. 

I’ve still yet to see an answer to the question of who could we have signed that could have guaranteed a top 4 position? 
 

And I assume this is ignored because the answer is no one. The fact is they were going to be taking a risk either way. 
 

There are two reasons I find a lot of the criticism hard to take:

 

1) It has a FM like quality to how acquiring players goes when the reality is very different. I assume we were active in January but the players we wanted at the prices we wanted weren’t available. Want to complain about not getting someone on loan? Fine, but I point back to the first question on who is really going to move the needle. 

 

2) None of us know what the budget is and who the targets are for the summer, so we also don’t know how certain moves in January would have changed those plans. We do know that a big problem is we have half a squad of players who aren’t good enough on not insignificant wages and we shifted a couple of them. 

 

Supporters can live or die by each week’s results and there’s some justified complaining to do at the moment (I’d really like to see Eddie find another system we can play when we’re missing certain players for example), but thankfully the people in charge have longer term and bigger ideas.

[Theregulars]

9 minutes ago, madras said:

My turn to disagree. What's holding us back is the lack of squad depth, little options to change things, but we've really had one window to build on that and I'll stick with the plan of getting the right ones rather than any ones.

Well your point just plays into mine - the lack of squad depth was in plain sight before the transfer window, and we’ve come out with a shallower squad. The board and Howe have taken a brainless gamble and today exposed it. It’s highlighted their inexperience, hopefully they learn from it. They’ve had 3 windows. 2 have been good, 1 looks reckless. It was so predictable that going the rest of the season that light on strikers and central midfielders was a dumbass thing to do. But hey Ho, we got a bit of coin for shelvey, so all’s well. 
 

To make the post gammon-proof, I explicitly emphasise that this was their first mistake. 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Theregulars

[samptime29]

I don't think we should have let Shelvey go. We are a little short. First mistake. Apart from that we have bought well: Bruno, Botman, Isak, Tripper, Burn, Pope. I can't grumble too much.