Eddie Howe

[Gawalls]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Howe potentially wanted to keep Trippier on for his offensive threat and Burn for his height. Throw in general managers reluctance to swap around a back four mid-game too. Potentially not the correct call, but an understandable one.

 

I'm of the opinion it wouldn't have made a huge deal of difference as the problem was the exposure of the full backs rather than the full backs themselves, but Trippier wasn't at his best.

Tripps was totally to blame for the first goal and he gave us so much running to do as none of his passes were finding the target, putting us on the back foot a lot more. 99% of the time tripps is unstoppable but for me last night was the 1%.

 

Livs the poor bastard must be sitting there watching Tripps blow out of his arse thinking what the he’ll do I have to do to get a game.

[ExiledGeordie]

4 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

Tripps was totally to blame for the first goal and he gave us so much running to do as none of his passes were finding the target, putting us on the back foot a lot more. 99% of the time tripps is unstoppable but for me last night was the 1%.

 

Livs the poor bastard must be sitting there watching Tripps blow out of his arse thinking what the he’ll do I have to do to get a game.

Howe clearly felt, in fact he’s said this postmatch that to close out the game in this situation it wasn’t right for either Liv or Hall. I think our lack of options in midfield and attack was more of an issue than what role Livramento and Hall could do. 

[The Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

Tripps was totally to blame for the first goal and he gave us so much running to do as none of his passes were finding the target, putting us on the back foot a lot more. 99% of the time tripps is unstoppable but for me last night was the 1%.

 

Livs the poor bastard must be sitting there watching Tripps blow out of his arse thinking what the he’ll do I have to do to get a game.

 

I agree, not the first time, but he completely lost his man from the corner.

 

The problem is we're almost too reliant on him to provide an out ball for Lascalles and create from the right. Livramento is a different type of full back and I'm sure we'll see more of him as the season goes on. Personally I'd have brought him on second half, but I understand the reason not to.

[ExiledGeordie]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

I agree, not the first time, but he completely lost his man from the corner.

 

The problem is we're almost too reliant on him to provide an out ball for Lascalles and create from the right. Livramento is a different type of full back and I'm sure we'll see more of him as the season goes on. Personally I'd have brought him on second half, but I understand the reason not to.

This is it. Howe has done pretty well bedding different players in at the right time. He'll do the same with Hall and Livramento 

[PauloGeordio]

4 minutes ago, ExiledGeordie said:

This is it. Howe has done pretty well bedding different players in at the right time. He'll do the same with Hall and Livramento 

He will 

[CallumG6]

I’m fairly certain Livramento and Hall will start midweek, I’d quite like to see Miley given a run out as well allowing Bruno or Longy to get a rest. 

[Doctor Zaius]

Ive thought about it and I still think Howe has to do more to manage minutes. I think Palace was prime example. We're 3-0 up at half time, the game is over, we have another two games this week and theres no sub until the 69th minute. Surely you can hook a few at half time and save some legs. There's no reason Tonali and Livramento couldnt come on at half time. 

 

Against Wolves that equaliser was coming. Had Neto stayed on, we might have ended up with 0 points. Again, to not make a sub until after we've conceded? We were blowing. I know he didnt want to change the back four, but Trippier was having a nightmare. Livramento is more than capable. I can appreciate the arguments for keeping it as it was, but I think id prefer a little more flexibility.

 

Itll be interesting to know what he takes from this week and whether he will manage minutes more.  

[The Prophet]

Saw he'd have made the Trippier to Livramento change. Do people think it would have changed the pattern of the game?

[The Prophet]

I know it's a long way off, but it'll be interesting to see how he manages the week before the international break. We're away to Dortmund in a game we could do without losing followed by a hugely winnable game at Bournemouth.

 

The problem is we'll still be without Murphy, Isak and Barnes and could still be without Botman. Can't rule out Bruno being banned for Bournemouth either. His hands are somewhat tied.

[SUPERTOON]

7 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Saw he'd have made the Trippier to Livramento change. Do people think it would have changed the pattern of the game?

To be honest I thought we needed subs simply to add some fresh legs and energy to the game. I do think they may have helped us see out the game. 

[Zero]

35 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Saw he'd have made the Trippier to Livramento change. Do people think it would have changed the pattern of the game?

I fully expect a 40m rated RB to make some difference to the game. I would be genuinely shocked if he couldn’t, as 40m is among the most expensive fees paid for a RB.

 

if Howe did think Livramento couldn’t make a difference, then I will definitely classify the last transfer window as a failure.

[PauloGeordio]

[Ikon]

Even if Tino wouldn’t have made a big difference it might have given Tripps a well needed rest to be fresher for the coming games which might benefit him and us long term. As well as getting Tino som important minutes. 

[The Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Zero said:

I fully expect a 40m rated RB to make some difference to the game. I would be genuinely shocked if he couldn’t, as 40m is among the most expensive fees paid for a RB.

 

if Howe did think Livramento couldn’t make a difference, then I will definitely classify the last transfer window as a failure.

 

Not a fan of the long term then?

[The Prophet]

Sounds like he was trying to manage the fixture list rather than the fixture...

 

[Zero]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

Not a fan of the long term then?

Livramento is not a kid, he is PL proven, one of the best RB in EPL before his injury. Hall I would give you that, but Livra, no.

[dave s]

if he’d stuck tino on and we conceded a goal everyone would be moaning bad choice from eddie. I’ll trust eddies judgement of where these players are at and how much faith he has in them for the situation at the time.

 

I’d like to see the new lads start the cup games though 

[OpenC]

Just now, dave s said:

if he’d stuck tino on and we conceded a goal everyone would be moaning bad choice from eddie. 

 

Exactly this

[Gawalls]

52 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Saw he'd have made the Trippier to Livramento change. Do people think it would have changed the pattern of the game?

No, we maybe wouldn’t have gave it away as much, trippier has zero positive impact on that game.

[Gawalls]

1 minute ago, dave s said:

if he’d stuck tino on and we conceded a goal everyone would be moaning bad choice from eddie. I’ll trust eddies judgement of where these players are at and how much faith he has in them for the situation at the time.

 

I’d like to see the new lads start the cup games though 

We all trust eddies judgement but nobody’s perfect, recognising them is part of improving and growing, not subbing the FB’s yesterday was a mistake for me that’s all.

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, Zero said:

Livramento is not a kid, he is PL proven, one of the best RB in EPL before his injury. Hall I would give you that, but Livra, no.

 

I don't disagree, but the fee we paid was largely an investment for the future and doesn't define our transfer market.

 

Maybe he should have come on and I'm sure we'll see more of him this season, but I doubt he'll be much of a difference maker at the moment.

[dave s]

Just now, Gawalls said:

We all trust eddies judgement but nobody’s perfect, recognising them is part of improving and growing, not subbing the FB’s yesterday was a mistake for me that’s all.

totally get what you’re saying. but it was difficult conditions with weather and pitch yesterday, game was finely balanced.. maybe it was the right decision who knows 

[Gawalls]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

I don't disagree, but the fee we paid was largely an investment for the future and doesn't define our transfer market.

 

Maybe he should have come on and I'm sure we'll see more of him this season, but I doubt he'll be much of a difference maker at the moment.

Might just make a difference to trippiers energy levels in next few games if he was allowed a rest from time to time, as others said 3 - 0 up to palace and yesterday was a good chance to rest him.

[ExiledGeordie]

5 minutes ago, OpenC said:

 

Exactly this

There would’ve been a shit fest ?

[OpenC]

Would have knocked Tino's confidence and fans' faith in him. We were never getting a third with or without that switch. Howe has enough about him to see that knackered or cautioned or not the FBs could see the game out. Literally the only positive to making the switch would be to stop people saying 'he should have made the switch' and I don't think Eddie is too stressed about what we think

 

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by OpenC