Eddie Howe

[kingxlnc]

Looking at the Saudi players, some of the bigger names might be interested in moving on, one year into the project with bank balances sufficiently topped up. The likes of Milonkevic-Savic or even Veiga. Bono for GK or Laporte for LCB. Even if on loan. 

[LiquidAK]

4 hours ago, McDog said:

 

Wilson - Torn Pec - how often does that happen?

Lascelles  - Looked like his cleats caught or leg was twisted.

Popey- Shoulder - Dove and came up hurt.

Tino - Came down his ankle and turned it.

 

Just a couple of examples but it's been rather crazy and not someone's fault.

Exactly, throw in TWO broken backs and a long-term gambling ban as well. How do you ever plan for that

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, LiquidAK said:

Exactly, throw in TWO broken backs and a long-term gambling ban as well. How do you ever plan for that

 

Murphy and Barnes freak injuries too.

[The Prophet]

It's obviously not all bad luck, Willock and Isak for example were seemingly returned ahead of schedule, played three times in a week and broke down. Whether that was necessary or not is a different debate. 

 

At the same time we've also two ACL injuries, two fractured backs, two dislocated shoulders, a broken foot, a rolled ankle, a gambling ban and a partridge in a pear tree. You can't account for those and they went a long way to triggering the original injury crisis.

[Thumbheed]

35 minutes ago, LiquidAK said:

Exactly, throw in TWO broken backs and a long-term gambling ban as well. How do you ever plan for that

I ultimately agree but I do still think there's questions to be asked though.

 

Freak injuries aside,we have also had numerous muscular injuries you could attribute to training methods, like Trippier, Wilson (unfair to include him tbf), Longstaff, Isak, Willock, even Almiron - who as far as I'm remember has barely been injured in his entire time. 

 

There's precedent with this happening at Bournemouth, so it does set off alarm bells for me. 

[The Prophet]

They've already said we'll be reviewing our injury procedures at the end of the season. It'd be daft not to.

[LiquidAK]

Just now, Thumbheed said:

I ultimately agree but I do still think there's questions to be asked though.

 

Freak injuries aside,we have also had numerous muscular injuries you could attribute to training methods, like Trippier, Wilson (unfair to include him tbf), Longstaff, Isak, Willock, even Almiron - who as far as I'm remember has barely been injured in his entire time. 

 

There's precedent with this happening at Bournemouth, so it does set off alarm bells for me. 

I think a number of those can be attributed to the sheer number of games those players have had to play as a result of the freak injuries limiting our ability to rotate or even sub players off during a game.

 

I'm sure it will be looked at in the summer, whether the way we play or train has contributed it a meaningful way to the number of players out, but in my (uninformed obviously) opinion it doesn't get anywhere close to as bad as it has been without the pressure applied by the unprecedented freak injuries.

[The Prophet]

I've read the "Eddie need to be ruthless" line a few times, but I'm not sure what that looks like.

 

He's been here for five transfer markets and for each the club have stretched the budget as far as it'll go. I'm pretty sure he never imagined the likes of Dummett would have to play this season, he'll have been there to up the homegrown quota in Europe.

 

By all accounts we put Wilson and Almiron on the market on January, but I wouldn't say he lacked ruthlessness if we don't sell Longstaff for example. Unfortunately, with FFP, it'll take time to fill the squad with quality and we still need the numbers.

 

 

Edited April 3 by The Prophet

[Holmesy]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

I've read the "Eddie need to be ruthless" line a few times, but I'm not sure what that looks like.

 

He's been here for five transfer markets and for each the club have stretched the budget as far as it'll go. I'm pretty sure he never imagined the likes of Dummett would have to play this season, he'll have been there to up the homegrown quota in Europe.

 

By all accounts we put Wilson and Almiron in the market on January, but I wouldn't say he lacked ruthlessness if we don't sell Longstaff for example. Unfortunately, with FFP, it'll take time to fill the squad with quality and we still need the numbers.

The one area he definitely needs to be more ruthless is dropping his favourite players when they play shit, which they have for large parts of this season. 

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, Holmesy said:

The one area he definitely needs to be more ruthless is dropping his favourite players when they play shit, which they have for large parts of this season. 

 

Are you referring to Burn and Longstaff?

[Holmesy]

11 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Are you referring to Burn and Longstaff?

Yes I am. The former cost us a lot of goals in a very poor run, and Longstaff needs no explanation. We haven’t necessarily had the players available to swap out Longstaff until now, but with Burn the performances from Tino and now Hall (and then Burn being a rock at CB last night) raise legitimate questions about some of Eddie’s decision making.

 

 

Edited April 3 by Holmesy

[SUPERTOON]

12 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

I've read the "Eddie need to be ruthless" line a few times, but I'm not sure what that looks like.

 

He's been here for five transfer markets and for each the club have stretched the budget as far as it'll go. I'm pretty sure he never imagined the likes of Dummett would have to play this season, he'll have been there to up the homegrown quota in Europe.

 

By all accounts we put Wilson and Almiron in the market on January, but I wouldn't say he lacked ruthlessness if we don't sell Longstaff for example. Unfortunately, with FFP, it'll take time to fill the squad with quality and we still need the numbers.

Despite the frustrations this season, it would also have been incredibly harsh getting rid of a lot of the players who got us 4th last year. Imo pretty much all of them deserved a crack at the champions league. I expect quite a few of them to go this summer where possible.

[Zero]

6 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Yes I am. The former cost us a lot of goals in a very poor run, and Longstaff needs no explanation. We haven’t necessarily had the players available to swap out Longstaff until now, but with Burn the performances from Tino and now Hall (and then Burn being a rock at CB last night) raise legitimate questions about Eddie’s decision making.

 

I would say Burn could have occasionally played CB and let Botman rest on the bench, and then free up LB position for Tino/Hall

Yeah I know, hindsight stuff. Still there were posts suggesting this back in December.  

 

[Groundhog63]

6 hours ago, Erikse said:

 

It really feels like these injury problems will continue next season.. And it has nothing to do with a curse or having the stadium built on a graveyard.

 

What's next week's lottery numbers, Mystic? 

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

43 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

It's obviously not all bad luck, Willock and Isak for example were seemingly returned ahead of schedule, played three times in a week and broke down. Whether that was necessary or not is a different debate. 

 

At the same time we've also two ACL injuries, two fractured backs, two dislocated shoulders, a broken foot, a rolled ankle, a gambling ban and a partridge in a pear tree. You can't account for those and they went a long way to triggering the original injury crisis.

Was this planned for? Or the result of the other freak injuries biting 5hough? Would Willock have been rushed back if Tonali wasn’t banned and Joelinton and Anderson didn’t have their own issues. Is it too difficult to realise that there's nuance and that factors outside of the managers control effect things within his sphere of influence?

 

Basically you can tell an awful lot of folks never have to make decisions or deal with ambiguity in their own work lives or there'd be a hell of a lot more empathy for Howe this year.

[Holmesy]

6 minutes ago, Zero said:

 

I would say Burn could have occasionally played CB and let Botman rest on the bench, and then free up LB position for Tino/Hall

Yeah I know, hindsight stuff. Still there were posts suggesting this back in December.  

 

I think there were posts suggesting it even further back than that. At times it has felt like stubbornness was the only thing stopping him from doing it because it blatantly wasn’t working - conceding 3 goals per game is absurd!

Who knows, maybe he just wants to see a couple of top Geordie lads living out their dreams before they’re moved on for better players. I would say there’s no room for sentiment in football but it would at least make sense of the situation and I could get on board with it more if that was the case. 

[The Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Yes I am. The former cost us a lot of goals in a very poor run, and Longstaff needs no explanation. We haven’t necessarily had the players available to swap out Longstaff until now, but with Burn the performances from Tino and now Hall (and then Burn being a rock at CB last night) raise legitimate questions about Eddie’s decision making.

 

Personally, I feel it's more complex than having "favourites", granted all managers have players they trust and will depend on.

 

It was only circa ten months ago Longstaff was seen as an indispensable part of the first eleven, mainly because we had no other players who could play that RCM role. His form has undoubtedly been poor, but we've lost his replacement for the entire season and aren't exactly flush with options beyond that, particularly with injuries to Joelinton and until recently Willock and Anderson. Miley, Bruno and Longstaff is all we had for a long period of the season.

 

Burn is a bit more frustrating. By all accounts he retains his place because of his leadership, height and ability to tuck into a back three. Personally I think the attributes Livramento brings, such as one on one defending and ability going forward mitigated that. He is returning from a serious injury lay off though and has said himself, he's played more football than expected this season. Other than that Targett has been injured and by all accounts, Hall has been a work in progress. 

[The Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

Was this planned for? Or the result of the other freak injuries biting 5hough? Would Willock have been rushed back if Tonali wasn’t banned and Joelinton and Anderson didn’t have their own issues. Is it too difficult to realise that there's nuance and that factors outside of the managers control effect things within his sphere of influence?

 

Basically you can tell an awful lot of folks never have to make decisions or deal with ambiguity in their own work lives or there'd be a hell of a lot more empathy for Howe this year.

 

Like I said, there's a different debate to be had there, which I'm not keen on having as it's been done to death.

 

Personally I don't think Howe has been flawless this season, but the mitigating circumstances are such that it's impossible not to have sympathy for him.

 

I'll go back to my black and white life now.

[Thumbheed]

14 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

I think there were posts suggesting it even further back than that. At times it has felt like stubbornness was the only thing stopping him from doing it because it blatantly wasn’t working - conceding 3 goals per game is absurd!

Who knows, maybe he just wants to see a couple of top Geordie lads living out their dreams before they’re moved on for better players. I would say there’s no room for sentiment in football but it would at least make sense of the situation and I could get on board with it more if that was the case. 

 

Think it's more to do with tactics.

 

Drop Burn and you can't push Trippier further up the pitch (where he's very influential) and have 3 sat at the back, which changes the entire dynamic of the team.  

 

Replace Longstaff with who? Miley? For how long? Is it the best way to manage a 17 year old?

[Holmesy]

11 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Personally, I feel it's more complex than having "favourites", granted all managers have players they trust and will depend on.

 

It was only circa ten months ago Longstaff was seen as an indispensable part of the first eleven, mainly because we had no other players who could play that RCM role. His form has undoubtedly been poor, but we've lost his replacement for the entire season and aren't exactly flush with options beyond that, particularly with injuries to Joelinton and until recently Willock and Anderson. Miley, Bruno and Longstaff is all we had for a long period of the season.

 

Burn is a bit more frustrating. By all accounts he retains his place because of his leadership, height and ability to tuck into a back three. Personally I think the attributes Livramento brings, such as one on one defending and ability going forward mitigated that. He is returning from a serious injury lay off though and has said himself, he's played more football than expected this season. Other than that Targett has been injured and by all accounts, Hall has been a work in progress. 

All fair points.

The Burn one feels a bit like he’s trying to be too clever and not wanting to back down. The concept of having a CB who drops into a back 3 is ok - it works for City and Arsenal but the difference is they’re not doing it with the slowest player in the PL. They’re executing it with mobile CBs who could feasibly play as conventional full backs if they wanted to. We’re shoe-horning a guy who isn’t suited to the position in any way into the position and making ourselves defensively vulnerable in the process. If we weren’t shipping 3 goals a game, it would be harder to argue against. 

The Lewis Hall thing has just been baffling to be honest. I understand he’s a work in progress but when you’re watching your setup ship relegation levels of goals, there’s no risk to trying something different. 
I’ll never understand his mentality through that run of games and I hope it never repeats, but if we end the season in the European places, hopefully we can just put it behind us a bad chapter and a learning experience. 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Holmesy

[Holmesy]

1 minute ago, Thumbheed said:

 

Think it's more to do with tactics.

 

Drop Burn and you can't push Trippier further up the pitch (where he's very influential) and have 3 sat at the back, which changes the entire dynamic of the team.  

 

Replace Longstaff with who? Miley? For how long? Is it the best way to manage a 17 year old?

I don’t think I buy the Trippier argument -each time he’s been forced to play two actual fullbacks we looked more balanced and more effective as a team. 

[Lush Vlad]

This is going to sound like it's reactionary based on last night.  But I think I've mentioned it a few times on here and others have.  But we are really bad at building from the back in possession.  I'd love to see that as the next step in our development and evolution under Howe next season.  

 

Teams have worked out to stop the pass into Bruno.  Meaning we struggle to move the ball up the pitch along the deck.  As he's the only real technician in the midfield capable of retaining  possession under pressure and progressing it upfield.  We then often rely on Schar spotting a diagonal or when Trippier is playing, managing to break the lines with a sharp pass into feet.  But all too often, we just slowly pass the ball along between the CB's, Dubs sometimes getting involved and sometimes we go out to the full backs, who never seem to have a decent option ahead of them.  It never looks like we're close to working an opening or setting something up.  It's all really ponderous and laboured.   

 

Again, injuries, fatigue and then more recently, constant, enforced shuffling of players hasn't helped at all.  There were actually some flashes last night with Murphy coming off the wing, Bruno when he found space, Anderson, Hall and Barnes all linked up well down the left at times, too.  So that is promising.  But I would like to see us go after players in the transfer market who are more technically sound and not just a team full of athletes who keep breaking down for whatever reason.  Whether that is because they're bodies aren't up to playing in the system, the system isn't fit for purpose for a long season, training methods, the medical team, bad luck or all of the above.  

 

I often look at players we are linked with and think 'wouldn't suit our system.  Not a Howe player.'  But I'm now starting to lean the other way.  Howe has spoken about wanting more control over games and more possession this season.  So for example, a player like Smith-Rowe, injuries aside.  Would be a much better use of finances than someone like Onana, who I thought was atrocious last night and is terrible on the ball. 

 

I don't specifically mean those two players BTW.  Just using a couple of examples that sprung to mind as we have been linked with them multiple times. 

[The Prophet]

Ironically, earlier in the season, it felt like building from the back was one of the things we'd improved at most. 

[Magpie]

Interesting 

 

https://twitter.com/bendinnery/status/1775431949621805260?s=46&t=CRVDoC05Fds07k8Kbn-wdg

[PauloGeordio]

1 minute ago, Magpie said:

Interesting 

 

https://twitter.com/bendinnery/status/1775431949621805260?s=46&t=CRVDoC05Fds07k8Kbn-wdg

1.“Intensity is our identity” training methods/medical staff/physios.

2.Big Six Voodoo with chicken bones and pin cushions.

3.Bad luck.

4.Who fucking knows.

5.I’m now numb to this shit! 

Im all in on 5!