Eddie Howe

[wormy]

Hi guys everyone looking forward to the weekend? 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, madras said:

Yes I know he is.

 

Football fitness is also quite simple, get the medical team to see if they can play, if the player agrees, then play. May be a full game, may be part of it.

 

It'll be interesting to see your team for tomorrow with no Isak or possibly Gordon and you won't want Wilson risked from the start.

 

 

 

Again - that is not how it works. The player and manager ultimately decide. Again look at concussions.

 

Let's end here. 

1 hour ago, STM said:

 

 

It does make sense though.

 

Don't take this the wrong way TCD, I agree with plenty of your posts and i like alot of them (I hope you notice) but you seem to have a real issue with the idea of risk and gambling in football.

 

You seem to be under the impression that everything is a black and white, clear cut decision or that everything should be obvious without hindsight.

 

On transfers, you think that it's possible to find transfers with zero risk attached to them and now with injuries you think no manager should ever risk a player coming back early? It's just not the real world man.

 

Here's a hypothetical scenario:

 

A striker is coming back from injury, he's a week away from the scheduled time out.

 

Bam, the teams other striker breaks his leg.

 

The manager goes to his medical team and asks if the other striker is ready to play yet.

 

The medical team would NEVER talk in absolutes, they say that x player is close and there's no signs that a reoccurrence is likely but there's a small chance he might hurt himself again.

 

Your the manager, what do you do? 

 

Option 1: You don't play the striker, you go into the game without your main goal threat, you have to move one of your creative players out of position to cover and you massively decrease the likelihood of winning the game. On the other hand, you might get a slightly fitter version of your currently injured striker next week.

 

Option 2: You take the risk, you try and get 60 minutes out of the striker, try and win the game and you hope that he doesn't pull up injured.

 

 

What I'm saying here is that neither option above are correct or incorrect ones, it's a question of risk, weighing up the pros and cons and making the best decision possible. You are absolutely correct to say that those risks haven't paid off but to say the manager (management team), should get some big criticism is overboard IMO. They zigged when they should have tagged. I'd certainly be questioning the advice of the medical department.

 

It's the same decisions every management team the world over, some times they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong.

I'm not trying to be black & white. I understand risk-based decisions. But you have to own risk and your risk management strategy. You can't take risks, they don't work and blame bad luck.

 

I've played that scenario on this forum plenty and I've said I prefer we take a medium/long-term approach and take a short-term performance loss for medium-term performance gain. Howe continually takes risks to win the next match. Even when that risk didn't pay off in terms of both results and fitness, he kept prioritising the next match over future matches. 

 

I agree with you every management team faces the same decisions. Howe keeps taking a short-term approach and it keeps backfiring more than it succeeds. It's fair to question the continued approach. It's fair to use hindsight and say "I understand why he took that risk... but it didn't work.. and it continues not to work... maybe Howe should learn and adapt".

 

For me, it's got so far now that I don't expect Howe to change his ways. I don't expect a change in setup to mitigate the lack of athleticism in midfield. I wouldn't be surprised to see Burn start on the weekend (although I feel the last game was a turning point). With Gordon & Isak out, I expect Wilson will play a lot of football no matter what his body says unless he says he can't. On his Pod, he said he would be more selfish going forward because he wants to stay fit to get into the Euros squad. So we'll see.

 

I hope you can see I'm not being black & white. I understand there are reasons for the decisions he's made. But I've always been clear and vocal that there are good reasons to take another route. And whatever route the manager takes, he has to take responsibility for it. Going back to my primary point. Some of the injuries have been bad luck. Some of the injuries have been caused or aggravated by decisions the club (medical department, players, manager) has made. That's not bad luck. So again for me, the injuries aren't a get-out-of-jail-free card, Howe is partly responsible for them.

 

I also think my views on Wilson are balanced and not black & white. A lot of people want rid of him because he can't play 3x 90 minutes a week. If he could, he wouldn't have joined Newcastle in the first place and he wouldn't put up with not being the star striker. If management would work with his limitations, we have a fantastic #2 striker. IMO Chris Wood is the level of most genuine backup out-and-out strikers.

 

 

Edited February 9 by The College Dropout

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Again - that is not how it works. The player and manager ultimately decide. Again look at concussions.

 

Let's end here. 

I'm not trying to be black & white. I understand risk-based decisions. But you have to own risk and your risk management strategy. You can't take risks, they don't work and blame bad luck.

 

I've played that scenario on this forum plenty and I've said I prefer we take a medium/long-term approach and take a short-term performance loss for medium-term performance gain. Howe continually takes risks to win the next match. Even when that risk didn't pay off in terms of both results and fitness, he kept prioritising the next match over future matches. 

 

I agree with you every management team faces the same decisions. Howe keeps taking a short-term approach and it keeps backfiring more than it succeeds. It's fair to question the continued approach. It's fair to use hindsight and say "I understand why he took that risk... but it didn't work.. and it continues not to work... maybe Howe should learn and adapt".

 

For me, it's got so far now that I don't expect Howe to change his ways. I don't expect a change in setup to mitigate the lack of athleticism in midfield. I wouldn't be surprised to see Burn start on the weekend (although I feel the last game was a turning point). With Gordon & Isak out, I expect Wilson will play a lot of football no matter what his body says unless he says he can't. On his Pod, he said he would be more selfish going forward because he wants to stay fit to get into the Euros squad. So we'll see.

 

I hope you can see I'm not being black & white. I understand there are reasons for the decisions he's made. But I've always been clear and vocal that there are good reasons to take another route. And whatever route the manager takes, he has to take responsibility for it. Going back to my primary point. Some of the injuries have been bad luck. Some of the injuries have been caused or aggravated by decisions the club (medical department, players, manager) has made. That's not bad luck. So again for me, the injuries aren't a get-out-of-jail-free card, Howe is partly responsible for them.

 

Weirdly you refuse to even speculate what that other route could have been.

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

Weirdly you refuse to even speculate what that other route could have been.

The other route is playing a warm body in place of fatigued players. Yeah we probably lose those games (we lost those games anyway btw) but we have players fit and ready to play other games.

 

As I've previously mentioned. Other managers like Rafa would've played boys and started blaming fixture congestion, owners, FFP, the weather, the rules on added minutes etc. I've shared an article on Howe's lack of rotation at Bournemouth during their promotion campaign compared to Rafa's for us. That lack of rotation is a feature of his management, not just a bug caused by injuries. Wilson started all 46 games that season btw. Then his knees exploded for the next 2 years.

[Shearergol]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

The other route is playing a warm body in place of fatigued players. Yeah we probably lose those games (we lost those games anyway btw) but we have players fit and ready to play other games.

 

As I've previously mentioned. Other managers like Rafa would've played boys and started blaming fixture congestion, owners, FFP, the weather, the rules on added minutes etc. I've shared an article on Howe's lack of rotation at Bournemouth during their promotion campaign compared to Rafa's for us. That lack of rotation is a feature of his management, not just a bug caused by injuries. Wilson started all 46 games that season btw. Then his knees exploded for the next 2 years.

 

I'm genuinely interested to hear the fan's views on WHICH kid he should have played for a few games instead of Isak or Wilson. I've not seen a great deal of our U23's so which one was the warm body who is at the right level?

[GEFAFWISP]

I don't think it's out the realms of possibility that giving Parkinson, Ndiweni or some other youthful willing runners 15 minutes would help to alleviate at least a small portion of fatigue in games where the result wasn't in the balance. Yes they're not good enough, yes they're nowhere close to Premiership quality but the hand we've been dealt and Howe used was to add slightly further injury risk to the few fit players we have and accumulating a touch more fatigue heading into the next fixture 3 days after, on repeat. Also, if Lewis Hall wasn't thoroughly verboten we might've seen him in CM for 15-20 at the end of games.

 

 

Edited February 9 by GEFAFWISP

[AyeDubbleYoo]

20 minutes ago, GEFAFWISP said:

I don't think it's out the realms of possibility that giving Parkinson, Ndiweni or some other youthful willing runners 15 minutes would help to alleviate at least a small portion of fatigue in games where the result wasn't in the balance. Yes they're not good enough, yes they're nowhere close to Premiership quality but the hand we've been dealt and Howe used was to add slightly further injury risk to the few fit players we have and accumulating a touch more fatigue heading into the next fixture 3 days after, on repeat. Also, if Lewis Hall wasn't thoroughly verboten we might've seen him in CM for 15-20 at the end of games.

 

 

 

Have we had any games where the result wasn’t in the balance for a significant enough period of time? 

[mondonewc]

1 hour ago, wormy said:

Hi guys everyone looking forward to the weekend? 

100% yes!

 

What's to worry about? 4th/5th looking very unlikely right now, and I think there's an argument for preferring 8th over 7th since I could see us having a huge season next season without all the added midweek games in Europe. Europe is fun for sure, and it'd be a good chance for a trophy if we come 7th, but hardly going to be devastated if we missed out on 6th/7th and we finish 8th or 9th.

 

Difficult game tmoro but we are clear favourites, hopefully we perform more like the Villa game and less like the reverse fixture against these. 

 

 

[Shearergol]

14 minutes ago, GEFAFWISP said:

I don't think it's out the realms of possibility that giving Parkinson, Ndiweni or some other youthful willing runners 15 minutes would help to alleviate at least a small portion of fatigue in games where the result wasn't in the balance. Yes they're not good enough, yes they're nowhere close to Premiership quality but the hand we've been dealt and Howe used was to add slightly further injury risk to the few fit players we have and accumulating a touch more fatigue heading into the next fixture 3 days after, on repeat. Also, if Lewis Hall wasn't thoroughly verboten we might've seen him in CM for 15-20 at the end of games.

 

 

 

 

Right, let's pick those games out:

 

Sheff United (win) (we used 5 subs, decent depth back then)

Burnley (win)  (4 subs, again, decent depth)

Palace (win)  (5 subs, still the bench looks decent)

Chelsea (win) (the kids came on for this)

 

Now we start losing:

 

Everton (loss) (3 late goals, game was in the balance until the 86th minute or something)

Spurs (loss)  (We got battered here, but swapped all of the front 3)

Fulham (win) (we used 5 subs, even Ritchie got on)

Forest (loss) (3-1 down, was it still worth chasing? Still used 4 subs)

Liverpool (loss) (2-1 down with 15 to play)

 

Every other game (and I would argue some of those) the result was still in the balance. I think Spurs is the only game we really had the option to rest Wilson, although he came on in the 64th minute)

 

[Shearergol]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Have we had any games where the result wasn’t in the balance for a significant enough period of time? 

 

I was busy typing when you asked this

[AyeDubbleYoo]

28 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

I was busy typing when you asked this

You’re better than me, I just made the vague point without any research. 

[timeEd32]

The problem I have with this whole debate is it kind of glosses over two things:

 

1) Players were forced to play earlier because of freak injuries, so you can still point to bad luck.
 

If Tonali (Ashworth MI5 blame aside), Anderson, or Longstaff had been available at various points then Joelinton gets more time. If Barnes and Murphy are fit then Gordon could a) rest and b) give Wilson and Isak more time.
 

2) The logical conclusion if you say we should have still not brought them back is that would have been effectively conceding games along the way.

 

I would have been ok with us doing that at Spurs given what came before and Milan after. But I also know what this thread would have looked like if we got embarrassed with a glorified U23 side.

 

And one game wouldn’t have been enough. So what else are you giving up? 
 

- 3 points against Man United? “Why are we giving points to a rival?”

- Risking Fulham at home? “Losing every game in a month is inexcusable”

- The LC at Chelsea “Eddie’s throwing away trophies. It’s the Ashley era all over.”

- The derby? “He just doesn’t get it. Eddie out.”

 

The fact is only winning every game prevents moaning about something.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

2 hours ago, James said:

Rafa would have done better this season. Discuss

He "might’ve" been more consistent, but there's no way we have the highs of thrashing PSG at home, beating Sheff Utd 8-0, Villa 5-1 etc etc.  I also think the crowd accepted his pragmatism when it was in opposition to Ashley; but the crowd would have gotten restless if it had continued post takeover.

[The College Dropout]

13 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

The problem I have with this whole debate is it kind of glosses over two things:

 

1) Players were forced to play earlier because of freak injuries, so you can still point to bad luck.
 

If Tonali (Ashworth MI5 blame aside), Anderson, or Longstaff had been available at various points then Joelinton gets more time. If Barnes and Murphy are fit then Gordon could a) rest and b) give Wilson and Isak more time.
 

2) The logical conclusion if you say we should have still not brought them back is that would have been effectively conceding games along the way.

 

I would have been ok with us doing that at Spurs given what came before and Milan after. But I also know what this thread would have looked like if we got embarrassed with a glorified U23 side.

 

And one game wouldn’t have been enough. So what else are you giving up? 
 

- 3 points against Man United? “Why are we giving points to a rival?”

- Risking Fulham at home? “Losing every game in a month is inexcusable”

- The LC at Chelsea “Eddie’s throwing away trophies. It’s the Ashley era all over.”

- The derby? “He just doesn’t get it. Eddie out.”

 

The fact is only winning every game prevents moaning about something.

1) This is a choice. 

2) By overplaying players in the short term we effectively conceded games in the medium term due to fatigue and injuries. Howe refused to rotate in late November into December and we won 2 out of 11 games as a result. Losing 7 in 8.

 

1 hour ago, GEFAFWISP said:

I don't think it's out the realms of possibility that giving Parkinson, Ndiweni or some other youthful willing runners 15 minutes would help to alleviate at least a small portion of fatigue in games where the result wasn't in the balance. Yes they're not good enough, yes they're nowhere close to Premiership quality but the hand we've been dealt and Howe used was to add slightly further injury risk to the few fit players we have and accumulating a touch more fatigue heading into the next fixture 3 days after, on repeat. Also, if Lewis Hall wasn't thoroughly verboten we might've seen him in CM for 15-20 at the end of games.

 

 

 

Personally - I think there were several games where any warm body would've been better than Alexander Isak for at least 20 minutes. Maybe 45 minutes. When that lad runs out of steam, he can barely move.

 

1 hour ago, Shearergol said:

 

I'm genuinely interested to hear the fan's views on WHICH kid he should have played for a few games instead of Isak or Wilson. I've not seen a great deal of our U23's so which one was the warm body who is at the right level?

Literally any of them. IMO we didn't have the legs to win all games in any block of 3 games. You could either play the same team and get progressively worse performances and results (the Howe approach) or sacrifice one to attack the other 2. Or halfway sacrifice one. That's not Howe's way of thinking.

 

 

It's pure conjecture but this is a very football league mindset. It relies on momentum, belief and toughing it out for it to work. It can work superbly but it can also backfire and lead to slumps in form. Someone like Rafa - managed in Europe for a decade straight - prioritises fitness and sharpness and rotates throughout the season to keep players sharp and fit in crunch periods. Rafa wouldn't have taken the Howe approach not at all.

 

Not to say I want Rafa. Howe is overall the better coach at this point in time and it's not close. However, Howe's inexperience at this level has led to costly mistakes. I don't think any manager with a lot of experience in elite European football takes the Howe approach on fitness and injury.

 

I'm repeating myself so I'm out. 

[The College Dropout]

One last thing actually - personally I didn't think it was possible to challenge for all 4 competitions with a fully fit squad. Much less an injury-hit one. I think we played too strong a team throughout the league cup campaign. I think to try and win every game in every competition with our best team, with our injury crisis was naive. A huge dip in form was inevitable imo.

 

If we were sitting in the League Cup final, I would be eating my words and holding my hands up that I was wrong or at least - it was worth sacrificing league points. But a major part of why we aren't in the final is because we couldn't stop a barrage of Chelsea attacks and eventually killed ourselves due to fatigue.

[Shearergol]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

1) This is a choice. 

2) By overplaying players in the short term we effectively conceded games in the medium term due to fatigue and injuries. Howe refused to rotate in late November into December and we won 2 out of 11 games as a result. Losing 7 in 8.

 

Personally - I think there were several games where any warm body would've been better than Alexander Isak for at least 20 minutes. Maybe 45 minutes. When that lad runs out of steam, he can barely move.

 

Literally any of them. IMO we didn't have the legs to win all games in any block of 3 games. You could either play the same team and get progressively worse performances and results (the Howe approach) or sacrifice one to attack the other 2. Or halfway sacrifice one. That's not Howe's way of thinking.

 

 

It's pure conjecture but this is a very football league mindset. It relies on momentum, belief and toughing it out for it to work. It can work superbly but it can also backfire and lead to slumps in form. Someone like Rafa - managed in Europe for a decade straight - prioritises fitness and sharpness and rotates throughout the season to keep players sharp and fit in crunch periods. Rafa wouldn't have taken the Howe approach not at all.

 

Not to say I want Rafa. Howe is overall the better coach at this point in time and it's not close. However, Howe's inexperience at this level has led to costly mistakes. I don't think any manager with a lot of experience in elite European football takes the Howe approach on fitness and injury.

 

I'm repeating myself so I'm out. 

 

Diallo or Parkinson then. Should we play one of them against Forest then? Which one? 

 

[54]

Howes in a lose/ lose like, as earlier on in the season Howe got criticised by mamy for bring on Matt Ritchie an experienced Premier League player. Now he's getting criticism for not playing players who haven't impressed at Premier League 2 level.

 

Would hate to be a Football manager like

[The College Dropout]

5 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

Diallo or Parkinson then. Should we play one of them against Forest then? Which one? 

 

He’s made his bed now, he’s not going to switch it up. And we have gone past the worst of the fixture congestion. I’ve accepted the personnel thing. Now I’m wondering if he sticks to the flat midfield 3 or goes to 5 at the back.   
 

If I’m taking Wilson at his word, he’ll not start until he is actually ready.  

[wormy]

1 hour ago, mondonewc said:

100% yes!

 

What's to worry about? 4th/5th looking very unlikely right now, and I think there's an argument for preferring 8th over 7th since I could see us having a huge season next season without all the added midweek games in Europe. Europe is fun for sure, and it'd be a good chance for a trophy if we come 7th, but hardly going to be devastated if we missed out on 6th/7th and we finish 8th or 9th.

 

Difficult game tmoro but we are clear favourites, hopefully we perform more like the Villa game and less like the reverse fixture against these. 

 

Oh, we got a game, have we? Might check it out. 

[Holmesy]

32 minutes ago, 54 said:

Howes in a lose/ lose like, as earlier on in the season Howe got criticised by mamy for bring on Matt Ritchie an experienced Premier League player. Now he's getting criticism for not playing players who haven't impressed at Premier League 2 level.

 

Would hate to be a Football manager like

Getting paid £5m per year for managing a team playing the game you love. Yeah, sounds wank!

 

[RobS]

I agree with CD here mind, theirs been many a game where from 60 minutes Isak's been barely able to run, offered no tracking back, no movement for options for balls and just offered very little. In those situations i'd rather have a young lad on who can run about a bit than Isak, and all it does it make Isak worse for the next game as well.

 

Howe needs to learn to use what bench he has, even if its poor, more effectively, to take the strain off key people who are not that strong phyisically. 

 

 

Edited February 9 by RobS

[STM]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

The other route is playing a warm body in place of fatigued players. Yeah we probably lose those games ames (we lost those games anyway btw) but we have players fit and ready to play other games.

 

As I've previously mentioned. Other managers like Rafa would've played boys and started blaming fixture congestion, owners, FFP, the weather, the rules on added minutes etc. I've shared an article on Howe's lack of rotation at Bournemouth during their promotion campaign compared to Rafa's for us. That lack of rotation is a feature of his management, not just a bug caused by injuries. Wilson started all 46 games that season btw. Then his knees exploded for the next 2 years.

 

 

Here lies the problem. Again, I mean this in the most respectful way possible but if Howe takes your reccomended course and loses on the back of it, you are the first person to be critical post match. You won't make any mitigation for having players missing. 

 

You would hammer him for losing and so would plenty of others.

[STM]

43 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Getting paid £5m per year for managing a team playing the game you love. Yeah, sounds wank!

 

 

Putting up with absolute weapons on message boards trying to tell him how to do a job which he knows much more about is a downside though. 

[mofo]

4 hours ago, thomas said:

Howe's addiction to Dan Burn is heartbreaking. exaggerated

 

[STM]

31 minutes ago, RobS said:

I agree with CD here mind, theirs been many a game where from 60 minutes Isak's been barely able to run, offered no tracking back, no movement for options for balls and just offered very little. In those situations i'd rather have a young lad on who can run about a bit than Isak, and all it does it make Isak worse for the next game as well.

 

Howe needs to learn to use what bench he has, even if its poor, more effectively, to take the strain off key people who are not that strong phyisically. 

 

 

 

 

While this a perfectly sensible take... If its a game where we are drawing or winning and the result goes south because we've brought on some young kid... presumably everyone would give Howe loads of leeway?

 

There are quite a few disingenuous fans trying the old "I would have understood if we lost" patter. No they wouldn't, they would have destroyed him post match.