Eddie Howe

[80]

1 hour ago, Lush Vlad said:

 

Which games should we have played our stiffs and effectively chucked the game?  Considering our U23's are not even very good in the league they play in.  We would get absolutely massacred whoever they played against, I would say.  Are you suggesting we might have got a draw or a win against someone like Luton or Forest if we played the likes of Ndiweni, Alex Murphy, Diallo, Parkinson etc.  They have looked slower and less mobile than the lads who were playing through injuries and/or 3 games a week. 

 

I often find myself calling for changes when watching us of late.  Then realise we have a load of defensive options on the bench and it isn't our defenders who constantly look out on their feet.  There actually has been a bit of rotation there and all.  Some enforced through yet more injuries, of course. 

 

Then we have Matt Ritchie who I'm not sure touched the ball for the best part of a half against Chelsea.  He is that far off the pace.  Who is there after that that could have come in and actually done a job?  Even if they were at 100%.

 

The only one that still has me totally confused is Hall.  He really is a pointless signing if he can't get the odd start or 30 minutes here and there.  Especially during the worst injury crisis I can remember at the club and is supposedly on track to go down as the worst in PL history.  It makes me think there might be some truth in the playing time rumour and obligation to buy. 

No no, I'm saying our proper first team would've won against, say, Luton if they hadn't been out on their feet and had fully prepared beforehand. I assume the kids would've lost their game, but it's a game we lost anyway, and it would've given players like Almiron, Isak, Gordon and Joelinton a breather, the chance to do some proper tactical training, and we would've had a stronger chance of coming out of a 2 game run with 3 points rather than none at all and additional injury risk.

 

The same would apply to Eddie who I suspect is trying to cram his entire pre-match scouting and prep methodology into 3 days which, after a while, is going to become lower quality as a result. Maybe if he let Tindall or Jones handle 80% of everything for one match while he focused on the match after it'd work out better. Just an idea, but he says himself he struggles with delegation.

 

In terms of specifically which games we ought to have rested key players, I'd have to have a look at the fixture list, but off the top of my head, Bournemouth, Everton, Tottenham and Luton stand out as possibilities. Games it quickly became obvious we were losing from the first whistle.

 

I realise it's uber shit to halfway concede a game before it starts, but I think Eddie and the players had enough credit in the bank to do it and could've, as the others were saying, made a big stink about our predicament to create even more of a siege mentality. As the saying goes, a stitch in time might've saved nine.

 

You're right about the defence being better rested by the way, so it wouldn't have had to have been an all novice team, which would've increased the chance of a cup win-style result or at least some lessons being learned about what certain kids could offer in a pinch. Basically, assume the worst, support them to the max and maybe get a nice surprise e.g. Hall taking on responsibility because he knows the result is on him as an important part of that eleven.

 

 

Edited January 17 by 80

[Lush Vlad]

Again. Which games before Luton and Forest were we ever going to just rest 4-5 first teamers or more and replace them with players that will probably be League Two level at best in

the coming years? 
 

Fulham - our only league win during this horrendous run. 

Everton - we got hammered 3-0 in the end with our ‘first team’ out

Spurs - as above. But 4-1. 

Milan - obviously not. 
Chelsea - that would have went down well in a Quarter Final. 
 

Earlier than that?
 

So 1-2 games should basically be forfeited so that we may or may not get positive results in some games after that. 
 

I’m sorry, but that sounds ridiculous even when using hindsight. 
 

Edit - just seen Bournemouth and Luton in there. So play the kids/sub them all on and chuck the game as we were obviously going to lose anyway  I can’t believe what I’m reading here. 

 

 

Edited January 17 by Lush Vlad

[The College Dropout]

Great post @80

 

Any fixture at any point of the season (besides the CL fixtures) he could've used injuries, fatigue, overload, thin squad, fixture congestion as a reason to field youngsters that he knows aren't at the level.

 

Yes, that would almost be conceding a match before a ball has been kicked. But as you say - he's earned enough credit to be trusted in his judgement to protect players. He's dug himself a hole. There's never a good time to rotate, you just have to bite the bullet. This started from August btw - it requires management to be proactive.

 

I've just discovered this article and it is so relevant it's crazy. It's about Rafa's rotation policy here and it uses Eddie Howe's Bournemouth as an example of a successful team/manager that doesn't rotate. It's further proof that the lack of rotation is at least partly designed rather than simply caused by injuries.

 

https://www.themag.co.uk/2016/09/science-thinking-behind-rotation-rafa-benitez-newcastle-united/

 

"So far so good for the “rotationists”, yet when I looked at the stats for Matt Ritchie, (NUFC’s stand out player this season) in his previous Championship campaign with Bournemouth, I was surprised to find that not only did Matt play 46 games in the promotion winning side of 2014/15 but that a large number of his colleagues featured heavily in the high end 30+ games column as well.

In fact no fewer than 10 players started in 38 games or more during Eddie Howe’s promotion winning campaign

Ritchie, Matt     MF Right-midfield    46

Cook, S     DF Centre-back    46

Elphick     DF Centre-back    46

Wilson, C     FW Striker        45

Arter         MF Box2Box MFr    43

Daniels, C     DF Left-back        42

Francis, S     DF Right-back        42

Pugh, M     MF Left-midfield    42

Surman, A     MF Midfield         41

Kermorgant     MF Attacking MF/St    38

That represents almost an entire team except for a keeper and Boruc arrived in September 2014 and still managed 37 games in the whole season."

 

Callum Wilson started 45 league games that season (checked this on whoscored, Ritchie started 44, came off the bench twice) - the idea of that seems crazy atp.

 

 

Edited January 17 by The College Dropout

[The Prophet]

So in conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight and without any of the knowledge and information Howe had at his disposal, we should have fielded a partial amount or a full team of youngsters, to give the first team an extra two to three days rest and hope it was sufficient to recharge the batteries?

 

 

Edited January 17 by The Prophet

[Lush Vlad]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

So in conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight and without any of the knowledge and information Howe had at his disposal, we should have fielded a partial amount or a first team of youngsters, to give the first team an extra two to three days rest and hope it was sufficient to recharge the batteries?

Yes. Lose today. So that we may or may not win the next one. 
 

We will deliberately lose the battle and then we might win the war. Fuck knows. 

[TheBrownBottle]

40 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

So in conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight and without any of the knowledge and information Howe had at his disposal, we should have fielded a partial amount or a full team of youngsters, to give the first team an extra two to three days rest and hope it was sufficient to recharge the batteries?

 

 

 

Some of us were saying this at the time tbf

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Some of us were saying this at the time tbf

 

 

Eddie's rotation policy is up for debate, but whether it would have had any impact on our plight is difficult to gauge.

 

The conversation is often framed very factually, when there's a hell of a lot of nuance involved.

[Lush Vlad]

IWho were we supposed to rotate these players with? 
 

If we want to use hindsight. Then earlier in the season when games were won or at least when we had options. Changing the starting XI around or making subs earlier would have been nice. Plenty mentioned that at the time, TBF. Might have meant we avoided some of these injuries and the burnout. Who knows. 

 

If anyone was genuinely advocating starting the kids and by their own admission. Effectively throwing the game. Then thank fuck they’re not in charge. 
 

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by Lush Vlad

[Isaksbigrightfoot]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

Great post @80

 

Any fixture at any point of the season (besides the CL fixtures) he could've used injuries, fatigue, overload, thin squad, fixture congestion as a reason to field youngsters that he knows aren't at the level.

 

Yes, that would almost be conceding a match before a ball has been kicked. But as you say - he's earned enough credit to be trusted in his judgement to protect players. He's dug himself a hole. There's never a good time to rotate, you just have to bite the bullet. This started from August btw - it requires management to be proactive.

 

I've just discovered this article and it is so relevant it's crazy. It's about Rafa's rotation policy here and it uses Eddie Howe's Bournemouth as an example of a successful team/manager that doesn't rotate. It's further proof that the lack of rotation is at least partly designed rather than simply caused by injuries.

 

https://www.themag.co.uk/2016/09/science-thinking-behind-rotation-rafa-benitez-newcastle-united/

 

"So far so good for the “rotationists”, yet when I looked at the stats for Matt Ritchie, (NUFC’s stand out player this season) in his previous Championship campaign with Bournemouth, I was surprised to find that not only did Matt play 46 games in the promotion winning side of 2014/15 but that a large number of his colleagues featured heavily in the high end 30+ games column as well.

In fact no fewer than 10 players started in 38 games or more during Eddie Howe’s promotion winning campaign

Ritchie, Matt     MF Right-midfield    46

Cook, S     DF Centre-back    46

Elphick     DF Centre-back    46

Wilson, C     FW Striker        45

Arter         MF Box2Box MFr    43

Daniels, C     DF Left-back        42

Francis, S     DF Right-back        42

Pugh, M     MF Left-midfield    42

Surman, A     MF Midfield         41

Kermorgant     MF Attacking MF/St    38

That represents almost an entire team except for a keeper and Boruc arrived in September 2014 and still managed 37 games in the whole season."

 

Callum Wilson started 45 league games that season (checked this on whoscored, Ritchie started 44, came off the bench twice) - the idea of that seems crazy atp.

 

 

 

This suggests that Eddie does in fact play his best 11 regardless of fatigue?

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, The Prophet said:

 

 

Eddie's rotation policy is up for debate, but whether it would have had any impact on our plight is difficult to gauge.

 

The conversation is often framed very factually, when there's a hell of a lot of nuance involved.

You’re right, it’s definitely not a black and white thing we’re dealing with - for me, it was the Everton and Spurs games where I thought defeat looked inevitable and playing kids & stiffs might’ve been a help, allowing the players some respite.  But it’s impossible to know if that would have worked or what the consequences would have been.

 

I do though think it likely that a more experienced and cynical manager may have taken that sort of approach. 

[80]

10 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

So in conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight and without any of the knowledge and information Howe had at his disposal, we should have fielded a partial amount or a first team of youngsters, to give the first team an extra two to three days rest and hope it was sufficient to recharge the batteries?

Personally, I'm pretty sure I posted here in early December that the whole month gonna be a write off, and I'm not known for being pessimistic. I thought it was blatantly obvious nothing would change - without a change in approach - given the nature of the injuries and density of the workload.

 

I wasn't in the habit of shouting about it because you're right, I didn't have inside knowledge of Howe's mind and the training data we had. But as it happens, using the info I did have, I was right. I don't especially blame Howe or anyone for how things have turned out either. It was a shit situation, and it's pretty clear he'd have had some fans all over him had he tried anything other than to win every single game.

 

All the same, if your car battery is flat, you don't generally want to turn the radio on and turn the engine over a few times just to make sure it won't start. Lush earlier pointed out we lost lots of games by a big margin with our first team. Well, exactly, so there wasn't much to lose through not fielding them, right?

 

According to Howe, a bigger gap between games would've meant improved performances thanks to rest and proper training. I believe him. Instead we got multiple spankings and extra wear and tear which has possibly set us further back with the likes of Joelinton.

[Isaksbigrightfoot]

1 minute ago, Lush Vlad said:

IWho were we supposed to rotate these players with? 
 

If we want to use hindsight. Then earlier in the season when games were won or at least when we had options. Changing the starting XI around or making subs earlier. Plenty mentioned that at the time. Might have meant we avoided some of these injuries and the burnout. Who knows. 

 

If anyone was genuinely advocating starting the kids and by their own admission. Effectively throwing the game. Then thank fuck they’re not in charge. 
 

 

I agree with this. In a managers remit there is no way he had any way of throwing a game but chucking the kids in.

 

Just was never going to happen. He could have made more substitutes earlier possibly but then would we have won the games we did.

 

We would never know. We just have to accept that this season we have been very unlucky with injuries and we where not equipped to deal with 6 extra champions league games.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

IWho were we supposed to rotate these players with? 
 

If we want to use hindsight. Then earlier in the season when games were won or at least when we had options. Changing the starting XI around or making subs earlier would

have been nice. Plenty mentioned that at the time, TBF. Might have meant we avoided some of these injuries and the burnout. Who knows. 

 

If anyone was genuinely advocating starting the kids and by their own admission. Effectively throwing the game. Then thank fuck they’re not in charge. 
 

 

 

 

 

Again, it’s not hindsight if this is what you suggested at the time.  
 

Reserves and kids is who you’d replace them with, rather than first teamers who could hardly jog.  You cynically take a likely hammering and move on. 
 

edit: we’ve lost six of the last seven league games.  Not sure that ‘throwing the game’ would’ve resulted in fewer points.  

 

 

Edited January 17 by TheBrownBottle

[Lush Vlad]

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Again, it’s not hindsight if this is what you suggested at the time.  
 

Reserves and kids is who you’d replace them with, rather than first teamers who could hardly jog.  You cynically take a likely hammering and move on. 

I was meaning applying hindsight to say we should have rotated and it would have meant we have less of an injury crisis now. That’s impossible to quantify, though. We did have players available to rotate at least and I remember a few saying in games like Burnley (I think). We should have rested key players earlier. 
 

However, I 100% don’t agree with chucking in players nobody has ever heard of, into a game that would see us absolutely destroyed. In the hope that we might get a result in a game a few days later. I don’t get that logic at all. 
 

Have you seen Diallo, Ritchie, Ndiweni and Parkinson when they’ve come on? They’re less effective than our lads that are fucked and they’re fresh off the bench. 
 

Throw in the fact that they’re clearly nowhere near good enough and don’t know the system as well (I’m assuming that part). Then it is easy to see why they weren’t starting games. 

 

 

Edited January 17 by Lush Vlad

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Lush Vlad said:

I was meaning applying hindsight to say we should have rotated and it would have meant we have less of an injury crisis now. That’s impossible to quantify, though. We did have players available to rotate at least and I remember a few saying in games like Burnley (I think). We should have rested key players earlier. 
 

However, I 100% don’t agree with chucking in players nobody has ever heard of, into a game that would see us absolutely destroyed. In the hope that we might get a result in a game a few days later. I don’t get that logic at all. 

Fair enough - it does have a long history at this club tbf.  The 1-9 home defeat to the Mackems in 1908 was off the back of a switch to a reserve XI for a league game …

[Interpolic]

On 07/12/2023 at 21:35, The College Dropout said:

We play away from home like we are conserving our energy for home games.  We need to play with our intensity for as long as we can and try to hang on at the end. 

 

On 07/12/2023 at 22:27, The College Dropout said:

We didn’t even try it today.  I think he’s being cautious because he wants the team to stay injury free and last 90 minutes. But we aren’t going to win away from home unless we do the hard running game.  

 

On 07/12/2023 at 22:29, The College Dropout said:

My only concern today was the general performance. We needed to start with more intensity.  

 

Weird that the rotation ultra was suggesting we needed to play with more intensity after the first game of our dodgy run (Everton). 

 

Presumably these youngsters who nobody thinks are ready would have been capable of coming into the side and meeting his standards.

 

The revisionist nonsense in this thread is insane.

[Cf]

You don't just throw the reserves under the bus with "All right lads you're gonna be up so the real players can have a rest. You're gonna get spanked but don't worry about it. Better to lose this game you're playing in than other games the first teamers will play".

 

 

Edited January 17 by Cf

[GEFAFWISP]

I think there is a case to be made that players on the fringes during the deepest parts of the injury crisis, like Ndiweni, Diallo, Parkinson, Murphy or even De Bolle could've alleviated some tired legs for 15-20 minutes instead of playing multiple matches on the trot without any subs and as a consequence putting the playing squad's fatigue further in the red. I don't think making those changes to a starting XI would've particularly helped however. Also, in saying this, the early season lack of rotation wasn't a particular problem at the time and sans injuries (or Tonali...) I don't think we would've been too hamstrung by the busier schedule although we'd still see and expect a downturn in form (6th as opposed 9th perhaps).

[80]

If we acknowledge that as a club, we've confirmed this season that we don't have a squad that can compete successfully on four fronts, we basically have two choices - try all four badly or prioritise the most important competition/s.

 

The reason I'm talking about playing children is because, thanks to injuries, they are our second XI right now. I don't like it, but it's true. It wouldn't be so controversial if we were talking about Livramento for Trippier and Longstaff for Tonali, but that isn't the choice we've had. All the same, there are going to be matches - given our schedule - where we need to play our second XI to avoid burning out the first team. Brighton did it against us last season in our Champions' League (almost) clincher at SJP, to maximise their own chances of qualifying for Europe a few days later. We just didn't notice because a) we were too happy smashing them and b) they played their reserves rather than their reserve reserves.

 

Another option is to drizzle in reserves a couple at a time e.g. Gordon for Godknows on Saturday, Almiron for Whodat on Wednesday. A problem with that is we weaken ourselves across multiple matches rather than ripping off the plaster. And probably miss out on the squad training that Eddie desperately wanted.

 

Yet another alternative is to send out the first team, like we did, but change their instructions to play a low speed, low energy match. Just keep it respectable, lads. But Eddie won't countenance that and I don't blame him. It's bad for the psyche.

 

Instead, we put out our best possible players and told them to invest their blood, sweat and tears. And they did, until they ran out. And then we kept asking for several more weeks. And we lost almost every game we played, and seemingly pushed some of them past their physical limits, harming the next several months of the season.

 

Considering we could've given the whole first team all of December off and still be pretty much exactly where we are now, position and competition-wise, I can't see why giving the kids a match to disrupt the onslaught of games is such a shocking idea.

[The College Dropout]

48 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

So in conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight and without any of the knowledge and information Howe had at his disposal, we should have fielded a partial amount or a full team of youngsters, to give the first team an extra two to three days rest and hope it was sufficient to recharge the batteries?

 

 

 

 

Me and others have been saying he should do this for months. I said it regarding the Man U league cup game and thought he should've rotated before that as well. This reality - has been months in the making. It didn't start in December or November, it started from day dot.

5 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

 

Eddie's rotation policy is up for debate, but whether it would have had any impact on our plight is difficult to gauge.

 

The conversation is often framed very factually, when there's a hell of a lot of nuance involved.

At the least - we would have a less fatigued first-team. That much is a scientific fact no?

 

4 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

IWho were we supposed to rotate these players with? 
 

If we want to use hindsight. Then earlier in the season when games were won or at least when we had options. Changing the starting XI around or making subs earlier would

have been nice. Plenty mentioned that at the time, TBF. Might have meant we avoided some of these injuries and the burnout. Who knows. 

 

If anyone was genuinely advocating starting the kids and by their own admission. Effectively throwing the game. Then thank fuck they’re not in charge. 
 

 

 

 

 

Literally, any player that is eligible. The purpose is to save legs.

 

Yes I agree, we should've rotated earlier in the season too. I thought it was strange at the time that Tonali didn't start any games when the investigation started. If to only save others' legs later in the season - he was worth starting. People on here said this at the time too - this isn't hindsight.

[80]

23 minutes ago, Cf said:

You don't just throw the reserves under the bus with "All right lads you're gonna be up so the real players can have a rest. You're gonna get spanked but don't worry about it. Better to lose this game you're playing in than other games the first teamers will play".

 

 

 

It doesn't need to be that negative though, does it? As it is, they've been told "alright lads, you see those real players over there? The crippled ones getting smacked by Luton. They're still far far better than you. Please remain seated."

[TRon]

28 minutes ago, Cf said:

You don't just throw the reserves under the bus with "All right lads you're gonna be up so the real players can have a rest. You're gonna get spanked but don't worry about it. Better to lose this game you're playing in than other games the first teamers will play".

 

 

 

 

They're the reserves, they wouldn't be expected to replace the first teamers. Their job would be to come on as subs, probably in the latter stages just to bring the guys who have been run into the ground off. I would have thought most aspiring squad players would be relishing the opportunity to get a run out and show what they can do.

 

Just give them a limited role with nothing too complicated to do and even inexperienced players should be ok with that.

[80]

12 minutes ago, GEFAFWISP said:

I think there is a case to be made that players on the fringes during the deepest parts of the injury crisis, like Ndiweni, Diallo, Parkinson, Murphy or even De Bolle could've alleviated some tired legs for 15-20 minutes instead of playing multiple matches on the trot without any subs and as a consequence putting the playing squad's fatigue further in the red. I don't think making those changes to a starting XI would've particularly helped however. Also, in saying this, the early season lack of rotation wasn't a particular problem at the time and sans injuries (or Tonali...) I don't think we would've been too hamstrung by the busier schedule although we'd still see and expect a downturn in form (6th as opposed 9th perhaps).

Playing the kids more as relatively early subs is a very fair shout. But I'm not convinced it would've made a significant difference once we were already in the bad run. I'm not a sports scientist but I doubt playing 25 minutes less in a game or two would make that much of a difference when you're stuck on a long term treadmill of a game every three days.

 

Again, a big part of Eddie's explanation for how things have gone - which I agree with - is that the players have basically had no opportunity to do anything except rest between games, which I don't think substitutions would've done enough to alleviate.

[The Prophet]

Quote

 

Me and others have been saying he should do this for months. I said it regarding the Man U league cup game and thought he should've rotated before that as well. This reality - has been months in the making. It didn't start in December or November, it started from day dot.

 

The pool of players to rotate has been severely diminished since around November time, due to non-fatigue related absences.

 

The conversation above was about selecting youth players, during our lowest ebb, in an attempt to provide first team players with more rest and recovery time.

 

Quote

At the least - we would have a less fatigued first-team. That much is a scientific fact no?

 

It's a non-scientific opinion.  

[The College Dropout]

28 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

 

 

 

Weird that the rotation ultra was suggesting we needed to play with more intensity after the first game of our dodgy run (Everton). 

 

Presumably these youngsters who nobody thinks are ready would have been capable of coming into the side and meeting his standards.

 

The revisionist nonsense in this thread is insane.

 

 

I've BEEN suggested Howe needs to rotate significantly - play any kid if necessary. The same people who liked my posts then - are making the same argument now. No revisionism.

On 18/12/2023 at 13:46, The College Dropout said:

I would rest Tino and Gordon.  I would even consider benching Bruno.
 

I think Howe starts a close to full strength team with maybe the players most in the red zone going on the bench like Gordon.