Eddie Howe

[Menace]

16 hours ago, Tonalis Bookie said:

last year in the 'injury crisis' we had fit players that meant we could comfortably play stronger teams by adapting formation. We explicitly chose not to do this, instead we put round pegs in square holes. We sent Anthony Gordon out to play on more than one occasion when he was either injured or utterly exhausted. We kept players desperate for a rest on the pitch when we were 3 goals up with 10 mins to play. The manager had options and warnings and he ignored them and the evidence was there for everyone to see. Some didnt want to see it. I will always bang on about it but the fact he put his ego with his tactics before having the players fly to Milan, train on the pitch and have that days rest is unacceptable. Not only was it poor for players but the club wasnt shown in the best light, on our return to Europe we weren't there for any press or any exposure, we were training behind closed doors.

 

Wolves (a) was clear we were desperate for fresh legs as we were getting overrun and hammered all over the park, we didnt and we saw how it ended. Chelsea (a) AG was injured in the first half and couldnt move, was sent out unable to run for another 5 - 7 minuted after half time with the same injury. Liverpool (h) we were tiring after dominating and we didnt switch it up or recognise that Darwins pace would roast us. 

 

I acknowledge when Eddie gets it right, which is about 60% of the time IMO. However to overlook glaring issues and deficiencies because of what he did in the first 18 months isnt the way forward. The demands for Lloyd Kelly and DCL in summer were a huge warning sign of what we may be looking into and the inability to find a midfield that works with 2 elite midfielders remains a concern. Add to the fact his assistant is a meme and his nephew is a buffer in the club it makes us an embarrassment. Imagine getting in Klopp, Conte et al and them wanting a family member in recruitment.

 

Eddie will do what he does, he will get us top 10 comfortably and we will have very impressive performance and wins against teams who are bigger than us, we may even go on a crazy run again into the top 6, but I dont see how the worrying factors can be overlooked. I'd love for him to adapt and grow as the team does but the last 12 months haven't shown that, they showed the opposite. I will always want an NUFC manager to succeed, but I wont ever overlook what is blatant due to credit in the bank. I just dont see us getting where we want under him sadly

 

Gianluca Conte is Antonio Conte's brother and has been his assistant for the last 3-4 clubs he has been at. I wish people would stop spouting shite like.

 

Had we won against West Ham we'd be 1 point behind Arsenal/Chelsea. I don't think any team has been that great this season bar Liverpool in all honesty.

 

Eddie has made some questionable decisions this season but some of the stuff that gets posted on here after a bad result is comical.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Menace

[Myleftboot]

These daft international breaks aren’t helping. Trying to get some continuity then there’s a break.

[Lush Vlad]

3 hours ago, Menace said:

 

Gianluca Conte is Antonio Conte's brother and has been his assistant for the last 3-4 clubs he has been at. I wish people would stop spouting shite like.

 

Had we won against West Ham we'd be 1 point behind Arsenal/Chelsea. I don't think any team has been that great this season bar Liverpool in all honesty.

 

Eddie has made some questionable decisions this season but some of the stuff that gets posted on here after a bad result is comical.

 

 

 

It makes me feel better about my half pissed, rage induced posts after a defeat, mind. As I often think I’ve gone a bit overboard. 
 

Then I read the rest of the forum and realise I come across as a happy clapping Eddie fan boy in comparison  

 

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Lush Vlad

[Menace]

By all means absolutely fine to ask questions and be frustrated and to be fair we have been mostly underwhelming this season - but some of the dross I read on here, honestly. Most managers have a lot of the same backroom staff wherever they go. Never realised Tindall was a meme or a "someone to wind up the opposition" until I visited this place.

[Holmesy]

4 hours ago, Menace said:

 

Gianluca Conte is Antonio Conte's brother and has been his assistant for the last 3-4 clubs he has been at. I wish people would stop spouting shite like.

 

Had we won against West Ham we'd be 1 point behind Arsenal/Chelsea. I don't think any team has been that great this season bar Liverpool in all honesty.

 

Eddie has made some questionable decisions this season but some of the stuff that gets posted on here after a bad result is comical.

 

 

 

Inevitably people get carried away after a defeat, and some of the stuff posted is born out of pure emotion but we are right to be questioning him - the continued picking of Dan Burn at LB, the lack of plan B ever, playing an injured Longstaff over a fit Miley last season, the squad mis-management during our injury crisis, our naivety in not seeing out games in the CL, the lack of set piece threat, our terrible away form, the continued benching of Tonali and the manner of some of our recent defeats etc.

These are all legitimate causes for concern.

 

He has a lot of credit in the bank for keeping us up, getting us into the CL, being a great guy (especially when you consider some of the pricks we've had in the dugout over the past few years) and making us enjoyable to watch again, but that only goes so far. We are not progressing, we are not evolving and seemingly, he is not learning. 

 

Most of us still want him here but if you're pragmatic about it rather than romantic, we have to be looking at alternatives if we want to kick on to the next level. And yes, we're hampered by PSR but are there managers out there (not necessarily readily available) who could get a better tune out of this squad of players? Probably.

[Lush Vlad]

Quite a lot of that first paragraph is purely subjective or you can counter them fairly easily, can you not?  I mean, I think I would need to be playing devil's advocate for some points, as I agree with some of it.  But if you really believe all of that and like there aren't genuine reasons or excuses behind each issue you've raised.  Then we might as well sack him today. 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Lush Vlad

[Holmesy]

3 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

Quite a lot of that first paragraph is purely subjective or you can counter them fairly easily, can you not?  I mean, I think I would need to be playing devil's advocate for some points, as I agree with some of it.  But if you really believe all of that and like there aren't genuine reasons or excuses behind each issue you've raised.  Then we might as well sack him today. 

 

 

 

I think most things in football have a degree of subjectivity but you can't ignore them all and say nothing would have been different if we went down an alternative route, otherwise you'd blindy stick with the same manager and players forever.

 

Did Dan Burn's continued selection at LB directly contribute to us conceding more goals than we should've done - yes (the subjective bit here is whether we would have conceded more with Livra at LB or Hall there. But, given that we brought on Livra at LB to shore up the defence against Villa and we instantly looked more solid, I think there's a fairly strong argument that we wouldn't have done)

Did it give our opposition an obvious and fairly easy attacking signpost - yes (not subjective - every team we played targeted us down that side for a reason)

Should we have shut up shop when leading in the CL to protect our lead - yes (would it have made a difference? Who knows)

Do we have a complete lack of threat at set pieces that shows no sign of improving - yes

Are we shit away from home - yes

Do we have a plan B if plan A doesn't work? No

 

Some of the other bits are more subjective but we all have eyes and a degree of intelligence - Every time Livra played, either at RB or LB he looked good but he was continually benched in favour of a woefully out of sorts Trippier who again, was directly responsible for us shipping a few goals. Hindsight is a wonderful thing of course, but the only area we had fit options was fullback and yet they were rarely utilised.

 

Every manager makes questionable decisions from time to time and every team goes through ups and downs, so I don't think it's as simplistic as saying he should be sacked because of these things. It's whether he addresses them, learns from them and we evolve and progress as a result that should dictate that. 
 

[Shearergol]

2 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

I think most things in football have a degree of subjectivity but you can't ignore them all and say nothing would have been different if we went down an alternative route, otherwise you'd blindy stick with the same manager and players forever.

 

Did Dan Burn's continued selection at LB directly contribute to us conceding more goals than we should've done - yes (the subjective bit here is whether we would have conceded more with Livra at LB or Hall there. But, given that we brought on Livra at LB to shore up the defence against Villa and we instantly looked more solid, I think there's a fairly strong argument that we wouldn't have done)

Did it give our opposition an obvious and fairly easy attacking signpost - yes (not subjective - every team we played targeted us down that side for a reason)

Should we have shut up shop when leading in the CL to protect our lead - yes (would it have made a difference? Who knows)

Do we have a complete lack of threat at set pieces that shows no sign of improving - yes

Are we shit away from home - yes

Do we have a plan B if plan A doesn't work? No

 

Some of the other bits are more subjective but we all have eyes and a degree of intelligence - Every time Livra played, either at RB or LB he looked good but he was continually benched in favour of a woefully out of sorts Trippier who again, was directly responsible for us shipping a few goals. Hindsight is a wonderful thing of course, but the only area we had fit options was fullback and yet they were rarely utilised.

 

Every manager makes questionable decisions from time to time and every team goes through ups and downs, so I don't think it's as simplistic as saying he should be sacked because of these things. It's whether he addresses them, learns from them and we evolve and progress as a result that should dictate that. 
 

 

I'm not sure this is the case. I think it you worded it "do we have a working plan B if plan A doesn't work" I'd be more likely to agree. Howe tried plans B, C, D and E against West Ham. We would probably have done a lot better sticking with plan A though.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Shearergol

[Holmesy]

Just now, Shearergol said:

 

I'm not sure this is the case. I think it you worded it "do we have a working plan B if plan A doesn't work" I'd be more likely to agree. Howe tried plans B, C, D and E against West Ham. We would probably have done a lot better sticking with plan A though.

 

 

 

It depends what you see as a plan B - Plan A with different players is still plan A. That's what we saw against WH.

Plan B for me is a different formation, a change to the way you approach a match - playing narrow versus playing wide, sitting deeper against teams that have pace to hurt you (see West Ham), playing defensive but breaking on the counter.

 

We don't have a varied tactical toolkit. We have one way of playing and it doesn't tend to change at all regardless of who we're playing. I'm sure there are nuanced tactical tweaks within that but they're tweaks within plan A rather than changing the gameplan.

[Jimburst]

13 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

It depends what you see as a plan B - Plan A with different players is still plan A. That's what we saw against WH.

Plan B for me is a different formation, a change to the way you approach a match - playing narrow versus playing wide, sitting deeper against teams that have pace to hurt you (see West Ham), playing defensive but breaking on the counter.

 

We don't have a varied tactical toolkit. We have one way of playing and it doesn't tend to change at all regardless of who we're playing. I'm sure there are nuanced tactical tweaks within that but they're tweaks within plan A rather than changing the gameplan.

 

I think we clearly went 4-4-1-1 until Gordon went off and then we went 4-4-2. Definitely a tactical switch. It was shocking, but it was clearly something different.

[Lush Vlad]

1 minute ago, Jimburst said:

 

I think we clearly went 4-4-1-1 until Gordon went off and then we went 4-4-2. Definitely a tactical switch. It was shocking, but it was clearly something different.

Yeah. Not sure how you can watch that game and say it was just different players. We went to a different system a couple of times second half. Towards the end it was basically get it to Murphy and whip it into the box at every opportunity. 
 

Whether you think it was a shit tactic and formation change (I do) or not is a different matter. 
 

We’ve also made in-game tweaks and changes this season that have won us games. So saying we have no plan B is nonsense. 

[The Butcher]

A Plan B that works.

[Kanj]

How often do we see a successful plan B from managers? 
 

[Holmesy]

13 minutes ago, Jimburst said:

 

I think we clearly went 4-4-1-1 until Gordon went off and then we went 4-4-2. Definitely a tactical switch. It was shocking, but it was clearly something different.

Ok, I take your point but it was hardly a radical change to how we approached a game. It was a reactive tweak.

I'm talking more about proactive tactical approaches and different formations - trying 5 at the back, playing on the counter against better teams, man marking dangerous players, intense pressing within our own half to win the ball back and break etc.

 

It's great to have an identity as a team but once teams work you out, what do you have to lean on?

[Lush Vlad]

How many managers have a genuine 'plan B' that they can just pivot to mid-game and often brings about changes?  Repeating myself, but I believe Klopp is on record saying something like 'if Plan A isn't working, we need to work harder.'

 

If you whole philosophy is about a certain style and you drill your players week in week out to implement it successfully.  Then you surely have belief in said system and that is what you stick with?  Obviously there are late changes in games that everyone still goes for.  Big CB up top to win headers, 3 at the back as you're chasing a goal with not long left.  But it would make more sense to me to fine tune your Plan A and try to tweak it that way.

We should have done that against West Ham.  We seemed so desperate to change it quickly and get a goal back.  I feel like we also went a bit gung ho against Milan too early.  Seeing as the CL games were referenced earlier. 

[Lush Vlad]

2 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Ok, I take your point but it was hardly a radical change to how we approached a game. It was a reactive tweak.

I'm talking more about proactive tactical approaches and different formations - trying 5 at the back, playing on the counter against better teams, man marking dangerous players, intense pressing within our own half to win the ball back and break etc.

 

It's great to have an identity as a team but once teams work you out, what do you have to lean on?

 

Hardly a radical change?  In the hunt for goals.  We lost a load of control in the middle, we were a lot weaker off the ball and defensively down the wings with Barnes and Murphy in place of Joelinton and Gordon, we had 2 strikers on the pitch, a rarity for us.  We were chucking in loads of early crosses, again, a rarity for us.  

 

We were shit at all of the above  but you're massively moving the goalposts to fit you clear agenda against Howe, amidst some thinly veiled 'I still really like him' posts. 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Lush Vlad

[54]

5 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Ok, I take your point but it was hardly a radical change to how we approached a game. It was a reactive tweak.

I'm talking more about proactive tactical approaches and different formations - trying 5 at the back, playing on the counter against better teams, man marking dangerous players, intense pressing within our own half to win the ball back and break etc.

 

It's great to have an identity as a team but once teams work you out, what do you have to lean on?

You mean like when we played 5-3-2 against Spurs, with Elliot Anderson, and then Joelinton playing as a left wing back, and Willock as a pressing forward. Or when we clearly played on the counter again Arsenal a few weeks ago, and against Nottingham Forest to in fact.  

[Holmesy]

3 minutes ago, 54 said:

You mean like when we played 5-3-2 against Spurs, with Elliot Anderson, and then Joelinton playing as a left wing back, and Willock as a pressing forward. Or when we clearly played on the counter again Arsenal a few weeks ago, and against Nottingham Forest to in fact.  

yeah, that

[KaKa]

Things fell apart against West Ham with Willock having to go off injured.

 

Do we perhaps need a more reliable upgrade for that role he plays, then he can just be a rotation option as he does pick up a fair amount of knocks?

 

I'm actually dreading seeing the starting lineup for the Palace game. Can almost tell now from our lineup how the game is going to go. Not sure it will be one that works well, especially if Willock is out.

[Kanj]

Howe’s plan A has worked far more often than not, hence his incredible record here despite PSR constraints that have limited our ability to continue improve the starting 11 and squad depth. No manager is perfect, all of them make mistakes, it’s football. 
 

Not many top end managers chop and change systems and tactics every week unless they are playing for survival. 

[Gallowgate Toon]

At the time, I wasn't too disgruntled about Barnes coming on but, thinking back, our midfield to win the game vs. Forest was Bruno-Tonali-Longstaff. Should've just gone with that and introduced Barnes later.

[Kanj]

2 minutes ago, KaKa said:

Things fell apart against West Ham with Willock having to go off injured.

 

Do we perhaps need a more reliable upgrade for that role he plays, then he can just be a rotation option as he does pick up a fair amount of knocks?

 

I'm actually dreading seeing the starting lineup for the Palace game. Can almost tell now from our lineup how the game is going to go. Not sure it will be one that works well, especially if Willock is out.

Little Joe was in training photos yesterday so I assume he’s good to go 

[Erikse]

40 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

Yeah. Not sure how you can watch that game and say it was just different players. We went to a different system a couple of times second half. Towards the end it was basically get it to Murphy and whip it into the box at every opportunity. 
 

Whether you think it was a shit tactic and formation change (I do) or not is a different matter. 
 

We’ve also made in-game tweaks and changes this season that have won us games. So saying we have no plan B is nonsense. 

 

I think the real problem this season is that we very often concede the first goal. Statistics time.

In 8 league games we've conceded first. We've scored first in 3 of them. One ended 0-0.

We've been down by a goal at half time in 7 out of 12 (2 down vs Fulham). We've been in the lead 3 times (won all 3 by 1 goal).

 

Historically under Howe our gameplan has worked best when we've taken the lead in the first half, and then punish the opponent when they push for an equalizer. We've had none of the bigger wins that we used to have. I think part of it is missing chances in the first half, then conceding simple goals, and the rest of the game gets really affected by that. Whereas if we score early it's a different game.

 

In a way this season is a bit different in that we've keept the lead by not conceding more rather than scoring lots of goals. Also we've actually bounced back from a losing in the second half in 4 out of 7 games (taking 8 points from those).

 

 

Edited November 28, 2024 by Erikse

[Holmesy]

8 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

 

Hardly a radical change?  In the hunt for goals.  We lost a load of control in the middle, we were a lot weaker off the ball and defensively down the wings with Barnes and Murphy in place of Joelinton and Gordon, we had 2 strikers on the pitch, a rarity for us.  We were chucking in loads of early crosses, again, a rarity for us.  

 

We were shit at all of the above  but you're massively moving the goalposts to fit you clear agenda against Howe, amidst some thinly veiled 'I still really like him' posts. 

 

 

 

Chill out big guy, we're all just having a conversation. I don't think i've moved my goalposts at all but fair enough.
I've been open since last season about my Eddie Howe doubts, but last time I checked there weren't any laws against that. We're not clones. We all have our own opinions on these things. And if we can't discuss them here without someone getting their knickers in a twist, what's the fucking point in a forum?!

I want him to succeed here, I really do. I just don't think he's good enough to match the club's ambitions. If i'm proved wrong, I would be delighted to come on here and eat humble pie.

[Kanj]

1 minute ago, Erikse said:

 

I think the real problem this season is that we very often concede the first goal. Statistics time.

In 8 league games we've conceded first. We've scored first in 3 of them. One ended 0-0.

We've been down by a goal at half time in 7 out of 12 (2 down vs Fulham). We've been in the lead 3 times (won all 3 by 1 goal).

 

Historically under Howe our gameplan has worked best when we've taken the lead in the first half, and then punish the opponent when they push for an equalizer. We've had none of the bigger wins that we used to have. I think part of it is missing chances in the first half, then conceding simple goals, and the rest of the game gets really affected by that. Whereas if we score early it's a different game.

 

In a way this season is a bit different in that we've keept the lead by not conceding more rather than scoring lots of goals. Also we've actually bounces back from a losing in the second half in 4 out of 7 games (taking 8 points from those).

 

 

 

second goal killed us off like. Willock going off for Tonali and I’d venture to say we crawl back into the game and get a point at least.